Immunology is complex and indeterminate. We know, for example, that the first flu virus you're exposed to as a kid confers partial immunity to that subtype of flu for the rest of your life, even across huge mutations. So if your first flu strain was an H3N1, you'll get a milder case of any H3N1 strain for the rest of your life [www.nhs.uk] than someone whose first flu as a kid was an H1N1 strain.
This is likely similar. Folks whose first coronavirus strain was in some way outwardly similar to this one might have a st
It's a swedish study. they have political pressure to have something to show that their herd immunity plan wasn't stupid as f.
Meanwhile in thailand there's 0 locally transmitted cases for basically weeks at this point. returnees from middle east in quarantine have been found to have been infected though. from kuwait, qatar etc. from kuwait 20% tested positive.
but what swedish head epidemilogist is looking for is some proof that he had attained at least _something_ by his tactic and that his tactic wouldn't
COVID-19 is just a test run to see how the world can cope with a serious contagious airborne disease.
Answer: Not at all.
After all - we shouldn't rule out the possibility that there could be those that are genetically protected against the virus.
After all COVID-19 isn't as bad as the black plague. Imagine something with an incubation time of 30 days, being infectious during at least half that time and then have a mortality of 90%.
From a scientific point of view the data from Sweden compared to other countrie
annoyed that I spent so long defending them because "they're the experts"
They're a bunch of celebrity doctors and grifting lawyers. That is the approximate demographic of essentially every "expert" institution to which you've been trained to defer. They don't have or want any actual practicing experts in their midst. Such people would insist on evidence and rigor to the great inconvenience of the many establishment narratives that must be affirmed.
They deal in narratives. Not data and not facts. That's why their conclusions are so often out of phase with reality.
Immunology is complex and indeterminate. We know, for example, that the first flu virus you're exposed to as a kid confers partial immunity to that subtype of flu for the rest of your life, even across huge mutations. So if your first flu strain was an H3N1, you'll get a milder case of any H3N1 strain for the rest of your life [www.nhs.uk] than someone whose first flu as a kid was an H1N1 strain.
This is likely similar. Folks whose first coronavirus strain was in some way outwardly similar to this one might have a st
It's a swedish study. they have political pressure to have something to show that their herd immunity plan wasn't stupid as f.
Meanwhile in thailand there's 0 locally transmitted cases for basically weeks at this point. returnees from middle east in quarantine have been found to have been infected though. from kuwait, qatar etc. from kuwait 20% tested positive.
but what swedish head epidemilogist is looking for is some proof that he had attained at least _something_ by his tactic and that his tactic wouldn't
COVID-19 is just a test run to see how the world can cope with a serious contagious airborne disease.
Answer: Not at all.
After all - we shouldn't rule out the possibility that there could be those that are genetically protected against the virus.
After all COVID-19 isn't as bad as the black plague. Imagine something with an incubation time of 30 days, being infectious during at least half that time and then have a mortality of 90%.
From a scientific point of view the data from Sweden compared to other countrie
annoyed that I spent so long defending them because "they're the experts"
They're a bunch of celebrity doctors and grifting lawyers. That is the approximate demographic of essentially every "expert" institution to which you've been trained to defer. They don't have or want any actual practicing experts in their midst. Such people would insist on evidence and rigor to the great inconvenience of the many establishment narratives that must be affirmed.
They deal in narratives. Not data and not facts. That's why their conclusions are so often out of phase with reality.