trump had pulled the u.s. out of, so biden how do the opposite, seems childish. it seemed weird because there are not many international bodies more discredited than the world health organization, particularly after covid. it is a laughingstock. if there s one thing is not good at it is public health. since the very first cases of coronavirus in wuhan, the w.h.o. slavishly ran for the chinese government. first the w.h.o. claimed there was no evidence of human to human transmission of the virus. remember this? they cited chinese officials who were obviously lying and we are no they were lying. when it became clear it up virus probably came out of a chinese government lab, w.h.o. sabotaged the investigation into the origin of the virus by appointing a gain-of-function researcher to lead the team. shocking. wh has not acknowledged it did any of that, though it obviously dead. they have continued to praise china s response to covid as transparent, which is the one thing it is n
would be a collapse and therefore you had to act? was there a detailed debate about the reality of the nhs, and whether or not in fact an alternative position could be taken, which wouldn t inevitably lead to the collapse of the nhs? i which wouldn t inevitably lead to the collapse of the nhs?- the collapse of the nhs? i can t specifically the collapse of the nhs? i can t specifically recall. the collapse of the nhs? i can t specifically recall. you - the collapse of the nhs? i can t specifically recall. you are - specifically recall. you are absolutely right, there was a lot of talk about icu and monitoring of icus, what was happening, and then you had the forecast from the scientific advisers with degrees of infection and hospitalisation and as far as i can remember, or i might confuse it with the later period, you could put the curves, here is the line of nhs capacity, here is the line of nhs capacity, here is the admissions. the line of nhs capacity, here is the admi
wrong by orders of magnitude about the basic data on infection fatality rates. they politicized and were completely doing the one thing they should have done which is getting transparent information from china at the beginning when it counted. asymptomatic spread being not that s that important. about masks, et cetera, they attempted to redefine basic biology by changing website definition of herd immunity to get rid of the immunity from recovery from infection and somehow make it seem like it was only from a vaccine that was purely agenda driven pseudoscience, what they would call misinformation. they totally squandered their trust. they do not at all deserve any further empowerment, and what you said is also true about what they have done during the pandemic. the centralized power organizations, including our own government, were reckless. they were unethical in doing the
public health officials sort of dangled it as an open question that omicron could be more deadly that it could be as deadly, and there s a small chance it could be less deadly. the reason this is important is because less than 1.7 percent o cases today are delta, the vast majority 98.3 are omicron. the policies are based on delta a different virus that behaves differently that has a differen infection fatality rates, so al of our mandates, the excessive testing, the obsessive quarantined periods, they are based on delta, the supreme court ruling used delta data even exaggerated it, and made a ruling during a time when we no have a different virus of virus with a lower severity rate than influenza. we have 50-70,000 people a year with influenza and in the hospital at any one time during the middle of that influenza season and that s what we have right now with covid.
Challenges in Inferring Intrinsic Severity of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Variant nejm.org - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from nejm.org Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.