info
Google Grupper har inte längre stöd för nya Usenet-inlägg eller -prenumerationer. Historiskt innehåll förblir synligt.
Dismiss
"Mandate vaccination for everyone, including all children" vs "The vaccines are dangerous, deadly experiments" -- using England's age demographics + Covid-19 mortality data to appeal for nuance + proportionality in the vaccine debate
19 visningar
Hoppa till det första olästa meddelandet
Michael Ejercito
6 aug. 2021 10:31:542021-08-06
till
http://www.reddit.com/r/LockdownSkepticism/comments/oyouji/mandate_vaccination_for_everyone_including_all/
"Mandate vaccination for everyone, including all children" vs "The
vaccines are dangerous, deadly experiments" -- using England's age
demographics + Covid-19 mortality data to appeal for nuance +
proportionality in the vaccine debate
OCAnalysis
I write this post to discuss current national vaccination strategies, in
hope of finding a more balanced approach, which better reflects the
nuance of mortality risk from real world data.
I submit that The United Kingdom (and other countries) has become far
too focused on achieving arbitrary vaccination targets amongst the
young, who can be shown to be at very low innate risk of severe illness
and death from Covid-19. Therefore, the relative benefits of pushing for
vaccinations amongst younger and younger people (using progressively
more draconian and coercive methods), will only produce diminishing
returns. I hope that any future policy proposals are better calibrated
towards acknowledging the extreme risk disparity between the young and
the old. The risk disparity is so large that it also has profound
ethical implications for richer countries' duties to poorer countries,
with respect to vaccine donation.
It is with a sense of extreme frustration that I observe online
discussion regarding Covid-19 vaccines - a wide gulf of opinion has
opened between two opposing, entrenched and aggressively vocal camps.
Either the vaccine is a medical miracle, our ticket out of the pandemic
and should be mandated to every man, woman and child on the planet. Or,
it is a dangerous experiment that is being forced on people against
their will, that shows little benefit of efficacy and has dangerous,
potentially deadly side-effects.
I propose that, by analysing available data, a different picture
emerges. One which suggests a more balanced understanding of where mass
vaccination is, and crucially isn't, appropriate; that an age-targeted
vaccination approach would be most effective at preventing Covid-19
fatalities. This suggestion is certainly nothing new - if we re-wind to
the end of 2020, the UK Government was keen to announce the national
vaccine rollout, targeted specifically to the oldest and most vulnerable
as priority. In a predictable example of "mission creep", this sensible
strategy morphed into an insistence that all individuals must be
vaccinated, irrespective of age, co-morbities and previous infection.
By combining age-stratified mortality data, vaccination data and UK
demographic data, it becomes easier to understand why age is the most
important factor in the cost benefit calculation for vaccines:
r/LockdownSkepticism - "Mandate vaccination for everyone, including all
children" vs "The vaccines are dangerous, deadly experiments" -- using
England's age demographics + Covid-19 mortality data to appeal for
nuance + proportionality in the vaccine debate
Figure 1: Age Demographic data + age based Covid-19 data
Figure 1: Source 1, Source 2 + Source 3
In Figure 1, we can observe that ages 60 and over account for 92% of all
Covid-19 mortality, an overwhelming majority, from just 24.1% of the
total population. By contrast, ages 0-40 account for just 0.8% of total
mortality, despite representing 49.8% of the total population.
Therefore, the skewing of risk towards older age groups is so
overwhelming that we should also expect relative benefits of
vaccinations to be equally asymmetrical.
This can be demonstrated through a thought experiment. Imagine that, in
March 2020, we had the ability to click our fingers and 100% double
vaccinate everyone in the UK. From recent Israeli data, we know that
vaccines do not bestow sterilising immunity; double vaccinated people
are still capable of showing symptoms, spreading the virus to others,
being hospitalized and dying, but at reduced rates. Let us assume that
the virus spreads in a similar epidemic wave through the whole
population (although in reality this would be a flattened curve due to a
vaccine-slowed rate of spread; yet the total number of exposed
individuals would be the same). Looking specifically at reduction of
mortality, if we assume a vaccine efficacy of 90%, we can compare the
following two examples:
Ages 80+*: Population demo size: 2,855,599, Number of recorded deaths
overall: 47,052 (approx 54% of total recorded deaths) So, if we assume
the vaccine reduces death by 90%, and we could have achieved 100%
vaccination on day 1 of the pandemic, 0.90 * 47052 = 42,347 deaths could
have been prevented.*
This translates to 1 life saved for every 67.4 doses given, amongst this
age group.
Ages 0-19: Population demo size: 13,330,355, Number of recorded deaths
overall: 45 (approx 0.1% of total recorded deaths) So, if we assume the
vaccine reduces death by 90%, and we could have achieved 100%
vaccination on day 1 of the pandemic, 0.90 * 45 = 41 deaths could have
been prevented.
This translates to 1 life saved for every 329,144 doses given, amongst
this age group.
The above example shows the staggering disparity in the relative benefit
of vaccinating the very old versus the very young. In this particular
case, vaccinating the old is nearly 5,000 times more effective at
reducing mortality per vaccine administered.
The same argument applies if you use a range of assumed values for
vaccine efficacy: (highlighting 70 to 90% in green because it is likely
to fall into this range)
r/LockdownSkepticism - "Mandate vaccination for everyone, including all
children" vs "The vaccines are dangerous, deadly experiments" -- using
England's age demographics + Covid-19 mortality data to appeal for
nuance + proportionality in the vaccine debate
Figure 2: Range of assumed values (0 to 100%) of Vaccine Efficacy
(Reduction of Mortality) + Number of Vaccine Doses required to prevent 1
death
In Figure 2, we observe that, irrespective of reduction in mortality
provided by the vaccine, there will always be a wide disparity in the
number of doses required to prevent 1 death.
This metric is useful because, with simple multiplication of "number of
doses required to prevent 1 death" by the cost of a common vaccine, you
can derive "cost of vaccination to prevent 1 death". In the following, I
use a cost of $23.15 USD for Pfizer (source) x 2 for the required double
dose:
r/LockdownSkepticism - "Mandate vaccination for everyone, including all
children" vs "The vaccines are dangerous, deadly experiments" -- using
England's age demographics + Covid-19 mortality data to appeal for
nuance + proportionality in the vaccine debate
Figure 3: Cost of vaccination to prevent 1 death, for a range of assumed
values (0 to 100%) of Vaccine Efficacy (Reduction of Mortality)
Figure 3 demonstrates the diminishing returns which vaccination of
increasingly younger groups incurs. For the 20 - 39 age group, at 90%
vaccine efficacy, we should expect an average cost of $1,214,883 USD to
save one life. Compared to the extremely modest cost of $3,122 to save
an 80+ individual.
How should the age-related risk disparity affect vaccine policy?
Having recognised that such diminishing returns exist, I offer my own
opinions on what a proportionate mass vaccination strategy would look
like below:
80+ In this age group, everyone should be fully vaccinated. For every 60
to 80 jabs administered, another life is saved. Education campaigns and
every reasonable form of social pressure should be applied to the
unvaccinated (although there aren't very many of them in the UK, less
than 5% left non double vaxxed). The financial cost per life saved is
modest and well within medical norms.
60-79 As above, but 300 - 450 jabs administered per life saved.
40-59 More marginal but definitely worth mass vaccinating, England has
more than 80% in this category already double-vaxxed, but focussing on
the remaining 20% would be beneficial.
20-39 Once you get into 20-39, 1.2 million to 1.6 million dollars per
life saved is a staggeringly high cost; Higher than your average
individual would contribute in an entire lifetime to tax revenue. But if
people choose it for themselves, and the medical cost benefit ratio is
low (this will vary depending on individual circumstances) then they
should have access to voluntary vaccinations. Pushing for arbritrary
targets in this demographic should not be done (currently around 35% are
double vaccinated in the UK).
There is no justification for policies which coerce or bribe people in
younger age categories to take up this vaccine, if they don't choose it
for themselves. Allowing them to acquire natural immunity via exposure
will achieve similar results with respect to mortality, because deaths
are so rare in this demographic anyway (current total mortality rate of
0.0042%)
0-19 - No mass vaccinations should be considered in this group. At
estimated costs of 13 to 20 million dollars per life saved and a total
mortality rate of just 45 out of 13,000,000, this group is already
innately close to zero risk of mortality prior to vaccination.
Donation of vaccines to poorer countries
As the above numbers show, there is an estimated 5,000 times greater
benefit for each vaccine administered to a person aged 80+ compared to
ages 0-19. This makes the ethical argument opposing vaccinating
teenagers in Western countries (versus donating those same vaccines to
poorer nations for their old people), overwhelming - in a vaccine supply
limited world, how can we accept giving vital vaccines to individuals
who will experience nearly zero benefit?
If we do not change course on these policies, I fear people of the
future will view our decision making as profoundly selfish and immoral.
Conclusion
I wish to make it clear that I am not opposed to vaccination. I think
the benefits of vaccines for the vulnerable are undeniable, clearly
outweigh the risks and I would strongly recommend anyone who falls into
older age groups or has co-morbidities to get vaccinated as soon as
possible. However, the benefits of vaccination should not be
exaggerated. If Covid-19 affected all age demographics equally, there
would be no debate here, but we know this is not the case.
A key part of good public health leadership is being clear and honest
about the data that is available, to ensure that the trust of the public
is maintained. It is not unreasonable to expect public health policies
to be proportionate to the real world risks, and I think the current
policies do not adequately meet this standard.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
"Mandate vaccination for everyone, including all children" vs "The
vaccines are dangerous, deadly experiments" -- using England's age
demographics + Covid-19 mortality data to appeal for nuance +
proportionality in the vaccine debate
OCAnalysis
I write this post to discuss current national vaccination strategies, in
hope of finding a more balanced approach, which better reflects the
nuance of mortality risk from real world data.
I submit that The United Kingdom (and other countries) has become far
too focused on achieving arbitrary vaccination targets amongst the
young, who can be shown to be at very low innate risk of severe illness
and death from Covid-19. Therefore, the relative benefits of pushing for
vaccinations amongst younger and younger people (using progressively
more draconian and coercive methods), will only produce diminishing
returns. I hope that any future policy proposals are better calibrated
towards acknowledging the extreme risk disparity between the young and
the old. The risk disparity is so large that it also has profound
ethical implications for richer countries' duties to poorer countries,
with respect to vaccine donation.
It is with a sense of extreme frustration that I observe online
discussion regarding Covid-19 vaccines - a wide gulf of opinion has
opened between two opposing, entrenched and aggressively vocal camps.
Either the vaccine is a medical miracle, our ticket out of the pandemic
and should be mandated to every man, woman and child on the planet. Or,
it is a dangerous experiment that is being forced on people against
their will, that shows little benefit of efficacy and has dangerous,
potentially deadly side-effects.
I propose that, by analysing available data, a different picture
emerges. One which suggests a more balanced understanding of where mass
vaccination is, and crucially isn't, appropriate; that an age-targeted
vaccination approach would be most effective at preventing Covid-19
fatalities. This suggestion is certainly nothing new - if we re-wind to
the end of 2020, the UK Government was keen to announce the national
vaccine rollout, targeted specifically to the oldest and most vulnerable
as priority. In a predictable example of "mission creep", this sensible
strategy morphed into an insistence that all individuals must be
vaccinated, irrespective of age, co-morbities and previous infection.
By combining age-stratified mortality data, vaccination data and UK
demographic data, it becomes easier to understand why age is the most
important factor in the cost benefit calculation for vaccines:
r/LockdownSkepticism - "Mandate vaccination for everyone, including all
children" vs "The vaccines are dangerous, deadly experiments" -- using
England's age demographics + Covid-19 mortality data to appeal for
nuance + proportionality in the vaccine debate
Figure 1: Age Demographic data + age based Covid-19 data
Figure 1: Source 1, Source 2 + Source 3
In Figure 1, we can observe that ages 60 and over account for 92% of all
Covid-19 mortality, an overwhelming majority, from just 24.1% of the
total population. By contrast, ages 0-40 account for just 0.8% of total
mortality, despite representing 49.8% of the total population.
Therefore, the skewing of risk towards older age groups is so
overwhelming that we should also expect relative benefits of
vaccinations to be equally asymmetrical.
This can be demonstrated through a thought experiment. Imagine that, in
March 2020, we had the ability to click our fingers and 100% double
vaccinate everyone in the UK. From recent Israeli data, we know that
vaccines do not bestow sterilising immunity; double vaccinated people
are still capable of showing symptoms, spreading the virus to others,
being hospitalized and dying, but at reduced rates. Let us assume that
the virus spreads in a similar epidemic wave through the whole
population (although in reality this would be a flattened curve due to a
vaccine-slowed rate of spread; yet the total number of exposed
individuals would be the same). Looking specifically at reduction of
mortality, if we assume a vaccine efficacy of 90%, we can compare the
following two examples:
Ages 80+*: Population demo size: 2,855,599, Number of recorded deaths
overall: 47,052 (approx 54% of total recorded deaths) So, if we assume
the vaccine reduces death by 90%, and we could have achieved 100%
vaccination on day 1 of the pandemic, 0.90 * 47052 = 42,347 deaths could
have been prevented.*
This translates to 1 life saved for every 67.4 doses given, amongst this
age group.
Ages 0-19: Population demo size: 13,330,355, Number of recorded deaths
overall: 45 (approx 0.1% of total recorded deaths) So, if we assume the
vaccine reduces death by 90%, and we could have achieved 100%
vaccination on day 1 of the pandemic, 0.90 * 45 = 41 deaths could have
been prevented.
This translates to 1 life saved for every 329,144 doses given, amongst
this age group.
The above example shows the staggering disparity in the relative benefit
of vaccinating the very old versus the very young. In this particular
case, vaccinating the old is nearly 5,000 times more effective at
reducing mortality per vaccine administered.
The same argument applies if you use a range of assumed values for
vaccine efficacy: (highlighting 70 to 90% in green because it is likely
to fall into this range)
r/LockdownSkepticism - "Mandate vaccination for everyone, including all
children" vs "The vaccines are dangerous, deadly experiments" -- using
England's age demographics + Covid-19 mortality data to appeal for
nuance + proportionality in the vaccine debate
Figure 2: Range of assumed values (0 to 100%) of Vaccine Efficacy
(Reduction of Mortality) + Number of Vaccine Doses required to prevent 1
death
In Figure 2, we observe that, irrespective of reduction in mortality
provided by the vaccine, there will always be a wide disparity in the
number of doses required to prevent 1 death.
This metric is useful because, with simple multiplication of "number of
doses required to prevent 1 death" by the cost of a common vaccine, you
can derive "cost of vaccination to prevent 1 death". In the following, I
use a cost of $23.15 USD for Pfizer (source) x 2 for the required double
dose:
r/LockdownSkepticism - "Mandate vaccination for everyone, including all
children" vs "The vaccines are dangerous, deadly experiments" -- using
England's age demographics + Covid-19 mortality data to appeal for
nuance + proportionality in the vaccine debate
Figure 3: Cost of vaccination to prevent 1 death, for a range of assumed
values (0 to 100%) of Vaccine Efficacy (Reduction of Mortality)
Figure 3 demonstrates the diminishing returns which vaccination of
increasingly younger groups incurs. For the 20 - 39 age group, at 90%
vaccine efficacy, we should expect an average cost of $1,214,883 USD to
save one life. Compared to the extremely modest cost of $3,122 to save
an 80+ individual.
How should the age-related risk disparity affect vaccine policy?
Having recognised that such diminishing returns exist, I offer my own
opinions on what a proportionate mass vaccination strategy would look
like below:
80+ In this age group, everyone should be fully vaccinated. For every 60
to 80 jabs administered, another life is saved. Education campaigns and
every reasonable form of social pressure should be applied to the
unvaccinated (although there aren't very many of them in the UK, less
than 5% left non double vaxxed). The financial cost per life saved is
modest and well within medical norms.
60-79 As above, but 300 - 450 jabs administered per life saved.
40-59 More marginal but definitely worth mass vaccinating, England has
more than 80% in this category already double-vaxxed, but focussing on
the remaining 20% would be beneficial.
20-39 Once you get into 20-39, 1.2 million to 1.6 million dollars per
life saved is a staggeringly high cost; Higher than your average
individual would contribute in an entire lifetime to tax revenue. But if
people choose it for themselves, and the medical cost benefit ratio is
low (this will vary depending on individual circumstances) then they
should have access to voluntary vaccinations. Pushing for arbritrary
targets in this demographic should not be done (currently around 35% are
double vaccinated in the UK).
There is no justification for policies which coerce or bribe people in
younger age categories to take up this vaccine, if they don't choose it
for themselves. Allowing them to acquire natural immunity via exposure
will achieve similar results with respect to mortality, because deaths
are so rare in this demographic anyway (current total mortality rate of
0.0042%)
0-19 - No mass vaccinations should be considered in this group. At
estimated costs of 13 to 20 million dollars per life saved and a total
mortality rate of just 45 out of 13,000,000, this group is already
innately close to zero risk of mortality prior to vaccination.
Donation of vaccines to poorer countries
As the above numbers show, there is an estimated 5,000 times greater
benefit for each vaccine administered to a person aged 80+ compared to
ages 0-19. This makes the ethical argument opposing vaccinating
teenagers in Western countries (versus donating those same vaccines to
poorer nations for their old people), overwhelming - in a vaccine supply
limited world, how can we accept giving vital vaccines to individuals
who will experience nearly zero benefit?
If we do not change course on these policies, I fear people of the
future will view our decision making as profoundly selfish and immoral.
Conclusion
I wish to make it clear that I am not opposed to vaccination. I think
the benefits of vaccines for the vulnerable are undeniable, clearly
outweigh the risks and I would strongly recommend anyone who falls into
older age groups or has co-morbidities to get vaccinated as soon as
possible. However, the benefits of vaccination should not be
exaggerated. If Covid-19 affected all age demographics equally, there
would be no debate here, but we know this is not the case.
A key part of good public health leadership is being clear and honest
about the data that is available, to ensure that the trust of the public
is maintained. It is not unreasonable to expect public health policies
to be proportionate to the real world risks, and I think the current
policies do not adequately meet this standard.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
HeartDoc Andrew
6 aug. 2021 11:46:202021-08-06
till
unvaccinated each with different side-effect profiles.
>I propose that, by analysing available data, a different picture
>emerges. One which suggests a more balanced understanding of where mass
>vaccination is, and crucially isn't, appropriate; that an age-targeted
>vaccination approach would be most effective at preventing Covid-19
>fatalities. This suggestion is certainly nothing new - if we re-wind to
>the end of 2020, the UK Government was keen to announce the national
>vaccine rollout, targeted specifically to the oldest and most vulnerable
>as priority. In a predictable example of "mission creep", this sensible
>strategy morphed into an insistence that all individuals must be
>vaccinated, irrespective of age, co-morbities and previous infection.
variant during the end of 2020 showed that unchecked spread of
infection among the unvaccinated would increase the likelihood of new
variants b/c of more mutations happening when there are more
infections.
COVID-19 when infected with the more contagious/pathogenic variants.
>A key part of good public health leadership is being clear and honest
>about the data that is available, to ensure that the trust of the public
>is maintained. It is not unreasonable to expect public health policies
>to be proportionate to the real world risks, and I think the current
>policies do not adequately meet this standard.
the U.K. & elsewhere is by rapidly ( http://bit.ly/RapidTestCOVID-19 )
finding out at any given moment, including even while on-line, who
among us are unwittingly contagious (i.e pre-symptomatic or
asymptomatic) in order to http://bit.ly/convince_it_forward (John
15:12) for them to call their doctor and self-quarantine per their
doctor in hopes of stopping this pandemic. Thus, we're hoping for the
best while preparing for the worse-case scenario of the Alpha lineage
mutations and others like the Gamma, Beta, Epsilon, Iota, Lambda &
Delta lineage mutations combining to form hybrids that render current
COVID vaccines no longer effective.
Indeed, I am wonderfully hungry ( http://bit.ly/RapidTestCOVID-19 )
and hope you, Michael, also have a healthy appetite too.
So how are you ?
...because we mindfully choose to openly care with our heart,
HeartDoc Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Cardiologist with an http://HeartMDPhD.com/EternalMedicalLicense
2024 & upwards non-partisan candidate for U.S. President:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/WonderfullyHungryPresident
and author of the 2PD-OMER Approach:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/HeartDocAndrewCare
which is the only **healthy** cure for the U.S. healthcare crisis
Michael Ejercito
8 aug. 2021 22:37:282021-08-08
till
>
>> A key part of good public health leadership is being clear and honest
>> about the data that is available, to ensure that the trust of the public
>> is maintained. It is not unreasonable to expect public health policies
>> to be proportionate to the real world risks, and I think the current
>> policies do not adequately meet this standard.
>
> The only *healthy* way to stop the pandemic, thereby saving lives, in
> the U.K. & elsewhere is by rapidly ( http://bit.ly/RapidTestCOVID-19 )
> finding out at any given moment, including even while on-line, who
> among us are unwittingly contagious (i.e pre-symptomatic or
> asymptomatic) in order to http://bit.ly/convince_it_forward (John
> 15:12) for them to call their doctor and self-quarantine per their
> doctor in hopes of stopping this pandemic. Thus, we're hoping for the
> best while preparing for the worse-case scenario of the Alpha lineage
> mutations and others like the Gamma, Beta, Epsilon, Iota, Lambda &
> Delta lineage mutations combining to form hybrids that render current
> COVID vaccines no longer effective.
>
> Indeed, I am wonderfully hungry ( http://bit.ly/RapidTestCOVID-19 )
> and hope you, Michael, also have a healthy appetite too.
>
> So how are you ?
Michael
HeartDoc Andrew
8 aug. 2021 22:52:512021-08-08
till
MichaelE wrote:
Pediatric ICU's now have more COVID patients than during prior
Pandemic surges/waves that did not have the variants.
>>> A key part of good public health leadership is being clear and honest
>>> about the data that is available, to ensure that the trust of the public
>>> is maintained. It is not unreasonable to expect public health policies
>>> to be proportionate to the real world risks, and I think the current
>>> policies do not adequately meet this standard.
>>
>> The only *healthy* way to stop the pandemic, thereby saving lives, in
>> the U.K. & elsewhere is by rapidly ( http://bit.ly/RapidTestCOVID-19 )
>> finding out at any given moment, including even while on-line, who
>> among us are unwittingly contagious (i.e pre-symptomatic or
>> asymptomatic) in order to http://bit.ly/convince_it_forward (John
>> 15:12) for them to call their doctor and self-quarantine per their
>> doctor in hopes of stopping this pandemic. Thus, we're hoping for the
>> best while preparing for the worse-case scenario of the Alpha lineage
>> mutations and others like the Gamma, Beta, Epsilon, Iota, Lambda &
>> Delta lineage mutations combining to form hybrids that render current
>> COVID vaccines no longer effective.
>>
>> Indeed, I am wonderfully hungry ( http://bit.ly/RapidTestCOVID-19 )
>> and hope you, Michael, also have a healthy appetite too.
>>
>> So how are you ?
>
> I am wonderfully hungry!
While wonderfully hungry in the Holy Spirit, Who causes (Deuteronomy
8:3) us to hunger, I note that you, Michael, not only don't have
COVID-19 but are rapture (Luke 17:37) ready and pray (2 Chronicles
7:14) that our Everlasting (Isaiah 9:6) Father in Heaven continues to
give us "much more" (Luke 11:13) Holy Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23) so
that we'd have much more of His Help to always say/write that we're
"wonderfully hungry" in **all** ways including especially caring to
http://bit.ly/convince_it_forward (John 15:12 as shown by
http://bit.ly/RapidTestCOVID-19 ) with all glory (
http://bit.ly/Psalm117_ ) to GOD (aka HaShem, Elohim, Abba, DEO), in
the name (John 16:23) of LORD Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Amen.
Laus DEO !
Suggested further reading:
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.med.cardiology/c/5EWtT4CwCOg/m/QjNF57xRBAAJ
Shorter link:
http://bit.ly/StatCOVID-19Test
Be hungrier, which really is wonderfully healthier especially for
diabetics and other heart disease patients:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/HeartDocAndrewToutsHunger (Luke 6:21a) with all
glory ( http://HeartMDPhD.com/Psalm117_ ) to GOD, Who causes us to
hunger (Deuteronomy 8:3) when He blesses us right now (Luke 6:21a)
thereby removing the http://HeartMDPhD.com/VAT from around the heart
Pandemic surges/waves that did not have the variants.
>>> A key part of good public health leadership is being clear and honest
>>> about the data that is available, to ensure that the trust of the public
>>> is maintained. It is not unreasonable to expect public health policies
>>> to be proportionate to the real world risks, and I think the current
>>> policies do not adequately meet this standard.
>>
>> The only *healthy* way to stop the pandemic, thereby saving lives, in
>> the U.K. & elsewhere is by rapidly ( http://bit.ly/RapidTestCOVID-19 )
>> finding out at any given moment, including even while on-line, who
>> among us are unwittingly contagious (i.e pre-symptomatic or
>> asymptomatic) in order to http://bit.ly/convince_it_forward (John
>> 15:12) for them to call their doctor and self-quarantine per their
>> doctor in hopes of stopping this pandemic. Thus, we're hoping for the
>> best while preparing for the worse-case scenario of the Alpha lineage
>> mutations and others like the Gamma, Beta, Epsilon, Iota, Lambda &
>> Delta lineage mutations combining to form hybrids that render current
>> COVID vaccines no longer effective.
>>
>> Indeed, I am wonderfully hungry ( http://bit.ly/RapidTestCOVID-19 )
>> and hope you, Michael, also have a healthy appetite too.
>>
>> So how are you ?
>
> I am wonderfully hungry!
8:3) us to hunger, I note that you, Michael, not only don't have
COVID-19 but are rapture (Luke 17:37) ready and pray (2 Chronicles
7:14) that our Everlasting (Isaiah 9:6) Father in Heaven continues to
give us "much more" (Luke 11:13) Holy Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23) so
that we'd have much more of His Help to always say/write that we're
"wonderfully hungry" in **all** ways including especially caring to
http://bit.ly/convince_it_forward (John 15:12 as shown by
http://bit.ly/RapidTestCOVID-19 ) with all glory (
http://bit.ly/Psalm117_ ) to GOD (aka HaShem, Elohim, Abba, DEO), in
the name (John 16:23) of LORD Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Amen.
Laus DEO !
Suggested further reading:
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.med.cardiology/c/5EWtT4CwCOg/m/QjNF57xRBAAJ
Shorter link:
http://bit.ly/StatCOVID-19Test
Be hungrier, which really is wonderfully healthier especially for
diabetics and other heart disease patients:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/HeartDocAndrewToutsHunger (Luke 6:21a) with all
glory ( http://HeartMDPhD.com/Psalm117_ ) to GOD, Who causes us to
hunger (Deuteronomy 8:3) when He blesses us right now (Luke 6:21a)
thereby removing the http://HeartMDPhD.com/VAT from around the heart
0 nya meddelanden