Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - sandokhan

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 224
61
Your sudden outburst of anger is understandable.

Your vaccine has a NNTV of 142 (refined data).

1 individual gets prevention, 141 get nothing.

62
With a NNTV of 256 (raw data)/142 (refined data), can this criteria be applied to a "vaccine"? Of course not. A NNTV of 142 means 141 people will not be immune to covid-19 (new variants included).


63
You're deluded by your own inability to understand a semi-complex set of data points.

The data is very clear: ARR 0.7% and 1.1%, respectively. NNTV 256.

1 person gets prevention (for a couple of months only), 255 derive no benefit.

This is the data you have to deal with.

In view of these facts, your call for a 70% mass vaccination is completely unwarranted.

64
Sando thinks the universe is 36km across, the sun is 500m above the ground and human history started 250 years ago.  So this seems unlikely.

No.

The radius of curvature is 31 km, the figure was derived by none other than Wolfgang Pauli.

The radius of the known surface of the FE is 6,363.63 km.

Sun: 10-12 km above ground, looking straight up.

History: 381 years old.

65
Do you understand how despicable you appear to your readers?

You are advocating a 70% mass vaccination.

Here is the raw data from the mRNA trial vaccines:

"Pfizer’s vaccine “may be more than 90% effective.” (Mahase, BMJ 2020;371:m4347, November 9) Specific data are not given but it is easy enough to approximate the numbers involved, based on the 94 cases in a trial that has enrolled about 40,000 subjects: 8 cases in a vaccine group of 20,000 and 86 cases in a placebo group of 20,000. This yields a Covid-19 attack rate of 0.0004 in the vaccine group and 0.0043 in the placebo group. Relative risk (RR) for vaccination = 0.093, which translates into a “vaccine effectiveness” of 90.7% [100(1-0.093)]. This sounds impressive, but the absolute risk reduction for an individual is only about 0.4% (0.0043-0.0004=0.0039). The Number Needed To Vaccinate (NNTV) = 256 (1/0.0039), which means that to prevent just 1 Covid-19 case 256 individuals must get the vaccine; the other 255 individuals derive no benefit, but are subject to vaccine adverse effects, whatever they may be and whenever we learn about them."

These are the numbers obtained from the published studies.

NNTV: 256.

1 individual gets prevention, 255 derive no benefit.

Population of 256,000,000 million.

1,000,000 individuals get prevention, 255,000,000 derive no benefit.

You do not seem to understand what is going on here.

Let us now use the polished data.

NNTV: 142.

1 individual gets prevention, 141 derive no benefit.

Population of 142,000,000 million.

1,000,000 get prevention, 141,000,000 derive no benefit.


Have you then lost your mind to call for a 70% mass vaccination? The clinical studies are very clear: no benefit at all.


2004 study and has little to do with Covid-19 or it's variants.

The vaccine for SARS-COV-1 was given to ferrets. They developed antibodies. Everything seemed to go well. Then, once they were exposed to the real pathogenic agent, disaster struck.

People have been developing antibodies from their natural immune system.


 RRR isn't irrelevant.

It is irrelevant to REAL LIFE SITUATIONS.

Only the ARR counts in real situations.

The figures are very clear: 0.7% for the Pfizer, 1.1% for Moderna.

These are the scientific figures. What you are doing is to display your cognitive dissonance.

Are you denying the figures? You cannot.

Your call for a 70% mass vaccination, when the NNTV is 256, is ludicrous.

66
Both of you are trying to bamboozle your readers.

1. Rising antibody numbers are due to more people infected and developing immunity to covid, it has nothing to do with the vaccines.

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2004/12/sars-vaccine-linked-liver-damage-ferret-study

2. I included the NNV figure from the very start.

"Pfizer’s vaccine “may be more than 90% effective.” (Mahase, BMJ 2020;371:m4347, November 9) Specific data are not given but it is easy enough to approximate the numbers involved, based on the 94 cases in a trial that has enrolled about 40,000 subjects: 8 cases in a vaccine group of 20,000 and 86 cases in a placebo group of 20,000. This yields a Covid-19 attack rate of 0.0004 in the vaccine group and 0.0043 in the placebo group. Relative risk (RR) for vaccination = 0.093, which translates into a “vaccine effectiveness” of 90.7% [100(1-0.093)]. This sounds impressive, but the absolute risk reduction for an individual is only about 0.4% (0.0043-0.0004=0.0039). The Number Needed To Vaccinate (NNTV) = 256 (1/0.0039), which means that to prevent just 1 Covid-19 case 256 individuals must get the vaccine; the other 255 individuals derive no benefit, but are subject to vaccine adverse effects, whatever they may be and whenever we learn about them."


It's super easy to market a super high RRR, it gets a lot harder to convey the ARR/NNV relationship/necessity.

What? That's exactly what they did, market the RRR figure, which is irrelevant.

But, it has been stated over and over again quite clearly here in the States by Fauci and others, that we need 70% vaxxed to get toward "herd immunity" (aka, high ARR/NNV).

Please come to your senses.

The ARR for both vaccines is 0.7%, respectively 1.1%. Useless.

Vaccines for what? For the original Wuhan strain? That's long been gone. As early as March 2020, the Wuhan variant was replaced by the D614G strain. Now, everyone is dealing with the N.9, B.1.525, B.1.429, B.1.351 strains, against which the vaccines are useless.

Do you understand what you are doing here? You are telling people to get vaccinated with a vaccine which has an absolute risk reduction of 0.7%. You are telling them to get vaccinated for absolutely nothing at all.

67
All of you here are trying to downplay the most significant aspect discussed here so far: the ARR of the mRNA vaccines is 0.7%, respectively 1.1%. It is the ARR factor which counts, NOT the RRR percentage.

Here is the peer reviewed paper which establishes these facts of science:


https://www.mdpi.com/1648-9144/57/3/199/htm

Abstract

Relative risk reduction and absolute risk reduction measures in the evaluation of clinical trial data are poorly understood by health professionals and the public. The absence of reported absolute risk reduction in COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials can lead to outcome reporting bias that affects the interpretation of vaccine efficacy. The present article uses clinical epidemiologic tools to critically appraise reports of efficacy in Pfzier/BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 mRNA vaccine clinical trials. Based on data reported by the manufacturer for Pfzier/BioNTech vaccine BNT162b2, this critical appraisal shows: relative risk reduction, 95.1%; 95% CI, 90.0% to 97.6%; p = 0.016; absolute risk reduction, 0.7%; 95% CI, 0.59% to 0.83%; p < 0.000. For the Moderna vaccine mRNA-1273, the appraisal shows: relative risk reduction, 94.1%; 95% CI, 89.1% to 96.8%; p = 0.004; absolute risk reduction, 1.1%; 95% CI, 0.97% to 1.32%; p < 0.000. Unreported absolute risk reduction measures of 0.7% and 1.1% for the Pfzier/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines, respectively, are very much lower than the reported relative risk reduction measures. Reporting absolute risk reduction measures is essential to prevent outcome reporting bias in evaluation of COVID-19 vaccine efficacy.

As was also noted in the BMJ Opinion, Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna reported the relative risk reduction of their vaccines, but the manufacturers did not report a corresponding absolute risk reduction, which “appears to be less than 1%”. Absolute risk reduction (ARR) and relative risk reduction (RRR) are measures of treatment efficacy reported in randomized clinical trials. Because the ARR and RRR can be dramatically different in the same trial, it is necessary to include both measures when reporting efficacy outcomes to avoid outcome reporting bias.

Ironically, the omission of absolute risk reduction measures in data reviewed by the VRBPAC overlooks FDA guidelines for communicating evidence-based risks and benefits to the public. The FDA’s advice for information providers includes:

“Provide absolute risks, not just relative risks. Patients are unduly influenced when risk information is presented using a relative risk approach; this can result in suboptimal decisions. Thus, an absolute risk format should be used.”

The New England Journal of Medicine also published clinical trial data on safety and efficacy for the BNT162b2 vaccine and the mRNA-1273 vaccine, but with no mention of absolute risk reduction measures.


Relative Versus Absolute Risk Reduction

So exactly how much risk reduction are the manufacturers crediting their vaccine with?

The reduced risk of COVID-19 infection reported by the manufacturers is approximately 95%, which is an accurate relative risk reduction measure. However, missing from the vaccine reports are absolute risk reduction measures which are much more clinically relevant to the reduced risk of COVID-19 infection. The absolute risk reduction of the vaccines in the present critical appraisal is approximately 1%, indicating practically no clinical efficacy or usefulness of the vaccines to reduce COVID-19 infection.

Essentially, the vaccine is useless and ineffective?

For applied clinical and public health interventions, yes, they appear to be almost completely ineffective. The members of the FDA advisory committee overlooked FDA guidelines to include absolute reduction measures when reporting clinical trial outcomes to the public, leading to outcome reporting bias in the FDA’s authorization of the mRNA vaccines.

Reporting relative risk outcomes, without absolute risk outcomes, has been a huge problem in research for decades. Notice that the ARR numbers are close to zero. The vaccines have almost no effect at all!



68
You are not very bright at all to inject yourself with a vaccine which has an ARR of 0.7%.

Here is another paper which takes a look at the difference between the RRR and the ARR for covid-19 vaccines:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348691034_Title_What_is_the_efficacy_of_a_Covid-19_vaccine_A_viewpoint

Let us now analyze the raw data from the clinical studies.

"Pfizer’s vaccine “may be more than 90% effective.” (Mahase, BMJ 2020;371:m4347, November 9) Specific data are not given but it is easy enough to approximate the numbers involved, based on the 94 cases in a trial that has enrolled about 40,000 subjects: 8 cases in a vaccine group of 20,000 and 86 cases in a placebo group of 20,000. This yields a Covid-19 attack rate of 0.0004 in the vaccine group and 0.0043 in the placebo group. Relative risk (RR) for vaccination = 0.093, which translates into a “vaccine effectiveness” of 90.7% [100(1-0.093)]. This sounds impressive, but the absolute risk reduction for an individual is only about 0.4% (0.0043-0.0004=0.0039). The Number Needed To Vaccinate (NNTV) = 256 (1/0.0039), which means that to prevent just 1 Covid-19 case 256 individuals must get the vaccine; the other 255 individuals derive no benefit, but are subject to vaccine adverse effects, whatever they may be and whenever we learn about them."


69
Not if the idea is to prevent spread

Another vaxtard does not understand the difference between ARR and RRR.

You cannot prevent spread with an efficacy of 1%.

That's the real figure for the two mRNA vaccines.

Here is the peer reviewed paper to prove it:

https://www.mdpi.com/1648-9144/57/3/199/htm

Abstract

Relative risk reduction and absolute risk reduction measures in the evaluation of clinical trial data are poorly understood by health professionals and the public. The absence of reported absolute risk reduction in COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials can lead to outcome reporting bias that affects the interpretation of vaccine efficacy. The present article uses clinical epidemiologic tools to critically appraise reports of efficacy in Pfzier/BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 mRNA vaccine clinical trials. Based on data reported by the manufacturer for Pfzier/BioNTech vaccine BNT162b2, this critical appraisal shows: relative risk reduction, 95.1%; 95% CI, 90.0% to 97.6%; p = 0.016; absolute risk reduction, 0.7%; 95% CI, 0.59% to 0.83%; p < 0.000. For the Moderna vaccine mRNA-1273, the appraisal shows: relative risk reduction, 94.1%; 95% CI, 89.1% to 96.8%; p = 0.004; absolute risk reduction, 1.1%; 95% CI, 0.97% to 1.32%; p < 0.000. Unreported absolute risk reduction measures of 0.7% and 1.1% for the Pfzier/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines, respectively, are very much lower than the reported relative risk reduction measures. Reporting absolute risk reduction measures is essential to prevent outcome reporting bias in evaluation of COVID-19 vaccine efficacy.

As was also noted in the BMJ Opinion, Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna reported the relative risk reduction of their vaccines, but the manufacturers did not report a corresponding absolute risk reduction, which “appears to be less than 1%”. Absolute risk reduction (ARR) and relative risk reduction (RRR) are measures of treatment efficacy reported in randomized clinical trials. Because the ARR and RRR can be dramatically different in the same trial, it is necessary to include both measures when reporting efficacy outcomes to avoid outcome reporting bias.

Ironically, the omission of absolute risk reduction measures in data reviewed by the VRBPAC overlooks FDA guidelines for communicating evidence-based risks and benefits to the public. The FDA’s advice for information providers includes:

“Provide absolute risks, not just relative risks. Patients are unduly influenced when risk information is presented using a relative risk approach; this can result in suboptimal decisions. Thus, an absolute risk format should be used.”

The New England Journal of Medicine also published clinical trial data on safety and efficacy for the BNT162b2 vaccine and the mRNA-1273 vaccine, but with no mention of absolute risk reduction measures.


Relative Versus Absolute Risk Reduction

So exactly how much risk reduction are the manufacturers crediting their vaccine with?

The reduced risk of COVID-19 infection reported by the manufacturers is approximately 95%, which is an accurate relative risk reduction measure. However, missing from the vaccine reports are absolute risk reduction measures which are much more clinically relevant to the reduced risk of COVID-19 infection. The absolute risk reduction of the vaccines in the present critical appraisal is approximately 1%, indicating practically no clinical efficacy or usefulness of the vaccines to reduce COVID-19 infection.

Essentially, the vaccine is useless and ineffective?

For applied clinical and public health interventions, yes, they appear to be almost completely ineffective. The members of the FDA advisory committee overlooked FDA guidelines to include absolute reduction measures when reporting clinical trial outcomes to the public, leading to outcome reporting bias in the FDA’s authorization of the mRNA vaccines.

Reporting relative risk outcomes, without absolute risk outcomes, has been a huge problem in research for decades. Notice that the ARR numbers are close to zero. The vaccines have almost no effect at all!


Not if the idea is to prevent spread

Not even a joke.


70
The vaccines are 95% effective in preventing the spread

That's the relative risk reduction percentage, you vaxhole.

It counts for nothing at all.

The only percentage that matters is the absolute risk reduction.

Here are the figures:

Absolute risk reduction for BioNTech 0.7%, absolute risk reduction for Moderna 1.1%.

https://www.mdpi.com/1648-9144/57/3/199/htm

The paper proves these figures to be true.

The real efficacy of the vaccines is 1% (a generous figure).

71
Not inhaling water is 100% effective in preventing drowning in a bathtub.  But the absolute risk reduction of breathing while taking a bath is only a tiny fraction.

Chatbot detected.

Absolute risk reduction for BioNTech 0.7%, absolute risk reduction for Moderna 1.1%.

https://www.mdpi.com/1648-9144/57/3/199/htm

72
Answer: absolute risk reduction for BioNTech 0.7%, absolute risk reduction for Moderna 1.1%.

Here is the peer reviewed paper which explains what is going on:

https://www.mdpi.com/1648-9144/57/3/199/htm

73
Question: what is the absolute risk reduction percentage for the two mRNA vaccines?

"Absolute risk reduction (ARR) and relative risk reduction (RRR) are measures of treatment efficacy reported in randomized clinical trials. Because the ARR and RRR can be dramatically different in the same trial, it is necessary to include both measures when reporting efficacy outcomes to avoid outcome reporting bias."

Reporting absolute risk reduction measures is essential to prevent outcome reporting bias in evaluation of COVID-19 vaccine efficacy.

74
A new variant has been detected in Brazil, and is considered to be even more dangerous than the P.1 strain: the N.9.

https://www.time24.news/time/2021/03/brazilian-scientists-identify-new-strain-of-coronavirus-with-potential-for-greater-transmission.html

76
In the movie, Soylent Red and Soylent Yellow products are also available.

77
Flat Earth General / Re: Can you help me find sereval threads please?
« on: March 15, 2021, 02:24:55 AM »
The historical record is not necessarily proof of axial precession.

No.

The observations made by Hipparchus and Ptomely are accurate enough to claim that axial precession exists. On this point, everyone agrees. There are also medieval astronomical observers, according to the official chronology, which confirm those observations.

If all of history was faked, it wouldn't magically mean Earth is flat.

That is the easy part.

If history was faked, prior to 1800 AD, that means that there no astronomical observations which could be used by the RE to claim that the Earth undergoes axial precession.

Then, it becomes much easier to prove that the Earth is indeed stationary: a stationary Earth must have a flat surface.

78
Flat Earth General / Re: Can you help me find sereval threads please?
« on: March 14, 2021, 10:32:06 PM »
Can you show how if history is real it means Earth must be round, and if history is fake it means Earth must be flat?

A most resounding yes.

Here are the facts:

We are told that the motivation for the Gregorian reform was that the Julian calendar assumes that the time between vernal equinoxes is 365.25 days, when in fact it is about 11 minutes less. The accumulated error between these values was about 10 days (starting from the Council of Nicaea) when the reform was made, resulting in the equinox occurring on March 11 and moving steadily earlier in the calendar, also by the 16th century AD the winter solstice fell around December 11.

So we have three options:

1. History is real, the Council of Nicaea did occur in the year 325 AD; this in turn validates Ptolemy and Hipparchus as real historical figures, i.e., axial precession is proven.

2. History is fake (at least before 1800 AD), the Gregorian calendar never took place in 1582 AD, no historical proof for the axial precession of the Earth, much easier to prove that now the Earth does not orbit the Sun.

3. History is real, but the Gregorian calendar reform was faked anyway.

However, there is a most definite test for these assertions, the total solar eclipse which occurred right on the vernal equinox (1643 AD, March 20 and 1662 AD, March 20):

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1851060#msg1851060

Option three is no longer available. Neither is option #1. We are left with option #2.

More proofs: the Council of Nicaea could only have taken place at least after the year 876-877 AD.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg758652#msg758652

This is how we know that options one and three are not valid.

79
Flat Earth General / Re: Can you help me find sereval threads please?
« on: March 14, 2021, 03:35:16 PM »
Perfect proof you are a chatbot.

Nothing you have said addresses my points.

The RE are not very bright.

Gregorian calendar reform = council of Nicaea as a real historical event

Council of Nicaea as a real historical event = Ptolemy and Hipparchus as real historical figures

Ptolemy and Hipparchus as real historical figures = axial precession of the Earth = heliocentricity

Does the ether exist? If yes, the "earth is round" hypothesis is flowing down the sewer pipe. All I have to do is to prove the existence of the ether.


You have just showed to everyone here that you are not very bright at all. On the contrary.

80
Why arent they focused on therpaies?

Exactly.

Not only that, but this:

"We now know COVID was being transmitted in the USA in the fall of 2019. By January of 2020 there had probably been millions of cases of COVID in PA. In mid January 2020, 7% of the population of Michigan, over 700,000 people, were suffering “flu like symptoms”. Though I was never tested, since there were no tests available, I came to realize, based on my peculiar symptoms, that I endured a case of COVID in late January 2020. Antibody testing in March and April in CA and NY indicated millions of people had already had COVID. If people only realized they made it thru the winter of 2019-2020 without being locked-d0wn, or even fearful of COVID, there would be a lot more resistance to the draconian “response”

81
Flat Earth General / Re: Can you help me find sereval threads please?
« on: March 14, 2021, 02:57:38 PM »
Likewise, if history has been faked, the FE can immediately claim that the Earth has never orbited the Sun before 1780 AD (no proof of axial precession of the Earth). All they'd have to do is show that NOW the Earth does not orbit the Sun too.

82
Flat Earth General / Re: Can you help me find sereval threads please?
« on: March 14, 2021, 02:52:13 PM »
The RE are not very bright.

Gregorian calendar reform = council of Nicaea as a real historical event

Council of Nicaea as a real historical event = Ptolemy and Hipparchus as real historical figures

Ptolemy and Hipparchus as real historical figures = axial precession of the Earth = heliocentricity

Does the ether exist? If yes, the "earth is round" hypothesis is flowing down the sewer pipe. All I have to do is to prove the existence of the ether.

83
Flat Earth General / Re: Can you help me find sereval threads please?
« on: March 14, 2021, 02:26:04 PM »
"But in reality, we see same face of sun form all over the world."

You are always forgetting about the ether.

This is how the northern star trails looks like from Alaska:






While seen from the equator they look like this:




Refraction can't explain this, but the field of ether can.

84
Flat Earth General / Re: Can you help me find sereval threads please?
« on: March 14, 2021, 11:53:25 AM »
I was the first to bring to the attention of the FES this most important fact: if the Gregorian calendar reform is true, then the Earth is orbiting the Sun. If the Gregorian calendar reform never took place in 1582 AD, then the Earth is flat.

Most FE do not understand these facts. On a flat earth, the sun is much smaller in diameter: 0.5 - 50 km (500 meters lower bound, 50 km upper bound). There is an upper limit to deal with: the distance between the tropics (on a FE, some 6.100 km).

So, you have 6.100 km and a sun whose diameter measures between 0.5 km and 50 km. It doesn't take a genius to see that the diameter of the Sun must be much smaller than 50 km: the annual westward solar precession measures 1.5 km.

That is why FET needs the new radical chronology of history as its most natural setting.

Any FE who mentions Hipparchus and Ptolemy and Copernicus as real historical figures, already has lost the debate: all the RE have to do is to then remind them that the axial precession of the Earth is true after all (i.e., the Earth has been orbiting the Sun at least since the time of Hipparchus).

85
Flat Earth General / Re: Can you help me find sereval threads please?
« on: March 13, 2021, 01:30:23 PM »
There is hardly any debate on the new chronology since the proofs are too obvious and cannot be debunked by the RE.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=79366.0

https://stolenhistory.net/threads/new-radical-chronology-of-history.3767/

86
Yes, but there was no world wide pandemic in either 2010 or 2013, which means Soylent Green's 2022 setting is predictive programming.

So far, the red line where some of those who got vaccinated get sick has not been crossed. If it would be crossed, you can expect a total social/economic collapse.

87
"As of October 29, there had been a total of 72 deaths reported in South Korea, many of them occurring within 48 hours or a week after inoculation with the flu vaccine. These reports have struck fear into the hearts of many, bringing public participation in the drive to a grinding halt."

By November 7, 2020, the death toll was 100.

Also study the subject Pamdemrix.

You were thrown out from tfes.org for being a nuissance: you are in no position to judge anybody.

Wanna see how dumb you are?

Go ahead call the FDA and ask them about the mRNA vaccines' integrity and stability studies. Surprisingly, they will direct you to Pfizer. Call Pfizer, they will say you need to talk to BioNTech. BioNTech will redirect you to the Paul Ehrlich Institute. The administrators at the Paul Ehrlich Institute will declare that the data is confidential.

You injected yourself with a mRNA vaccine which is worse than useless: no one can guarantee its stability and integrity.

“The complete, intact mRNA molecule is essential to its potency as a vaccine,” professor of biopharmaceutics Daan J.A. Crommelin and colleagues wrote in a review article in The Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences late last year. “Even a minor degradation reaction, anywhere along a mRNA strand, can severely slow or stop proper translation performance of that strand and thus result in the incomplete expression of the target antigen.”

88
It is true that S. Korea has a higher population density than America, but it is also true that they had no trial vaccines administered (other than Genexine, their own DNA vaccine).

They also had a large flu vaccine implementation: the flu vaccine weakens the immune system.







Masks stopped the flu season in its tracks. Not covid-19.

Primary mode of transmission: mycobacterium pouring down from the atmosphere.
Secondary mode of transmission: person to person.

The next six months are crucial, we'll see what happens (Australia, SK, Europe, US).

90
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/australia/

Same kind of graphic as for other countries.

Only some 80,000 Australians have received the vaccines so far. The vaccination program only started in late February 2021.

If the M. avium really do come from the atmosphere, Australia will see a dramatic increase in the number of cases as more and more people get vaccinated. The M. avium from the atmosphere is attracted by the HeLa cells in the persons who received the mRNA/adenovirus vaccinations.

Moreover, Australia had a huge bushfire season in 2020, and is happening again in 2021:

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/here-we-go-again-australia-on-high-alert-as-fire-season-kicks-off-early/OJBVJ7RRLE5EM2LI6O27QBRANA/

I believe that these fires were a factor in repelling the M. avium from reaching the surface; we will see what happens with the vaccination program which just got underway.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/south-korea/ (same problems as everyone else)

"It seems the countries worst affected are ones that have allowed freedom of movement and lax about wearing masks."

Not true. The Czechs obeyed the masks mandates, so did the French. It did not help them at all.



Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 224