Can the Covid19 be airborne? Via airborne particles? Pollution, pollens, fog

[Macro]

On the other hand SI indeed over several successive generations living in the same places, having the same practices, the same genetic heritage of all ancestors, Unfortunately, except in communities closed in on themselves like certain religious or philosophical groups, these circumstances are exceptional.

Houlà ... Dangerous ca ... several successive generations living in the same place with the same genetic heritage of all the ancestors ....

There are some that we tried this kind of thing in the last century .....

[Janic]

Obamot wrote:

I keep repeating that this syndemic does not concern the 99,81% of the population, and that I use for that the real hospital case fatality figures.

Of course, of course.
Nobody doubts that someone who gets by after 1 or 2 months of sheave followed by a long covid is not "concerned".

as stupid as a reflection that your double ABC. You haven't even read what is written above!

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

Blah, group, blah, immunity, blah transmission ...

The more we reproduce "among ourselves" the more we degenerate.

[pedrodelavega]

Obamot wrote:

I keep repeating that this syndemic does not concern the 99,81% of the population, and that I use for that the real hospital case fatality figures.

Of course, of course.
Nobody doubts that someone who gets by after 1 or 2 months of sheave followed by a long covid is not "concerned".

as stupid as a reflection that your double ABC. You haven't even read what is written above!

"does not concern the 99,81% of the population and that I use for that the real numbers of lethality hospitable. "

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

Are you going to be looping Végaz for a long time? Do you have anything interesting to say about what has been happening to us for over a year?

[Janic]

GuyGadeboisLeRetour »02/05/21, 21:03

Janic wrote:
Blah, group, blah, immunity, blah transmission ...

The more we reproduce "among ourselves" the more we degenerate.

as a macro, it is only a reductive point of view. A country is an entry, so is a city, a village as well. The real problem is that of voluntary consanguinity due to inheritance most often, which is not the case when these groups are hundreds, thousands of individuals and more.

[Obamot]

No Janic, I correct, the author of these ironic remarks is Macro the indecrottable, and not me.

I keep repeating that this syndemic does not concern the 99,81% of the population, and that I use the real hospital lethality figures for that.

Of course, of course.
Nobody doubts that someone who gets by after 1 or 2 months of sheave followed by a long covid is not "concerned".

as stupid as a reflection that your double ABC. You haven't even read what is written above!

I answer him thus:

The paradox
And admitting the 95% efficacy of vaccines - but the same people who said that are now eating their hat, since on the one hand they are preparing the spirits for a third dose, and the side effects have exploded by 6'000% and that on the other hand, the 95% are insufficient since it would be necessary to reach a score higher than 99,81% for the benefit to outweigh the risks (which is just impossible, even the “funny ones” recognize it implicitly in their denial) - the paradox is that indeed, you would (according to the health authorities) theoretically need to be vaccinated, being one of the people at high risk (as a die-hard ex smoker and drinker) but at the same time, your immune system will become five times more receptive to viruses. And that, moreover, it turns all the vaccinated into a factory for mutants and potentially into super-infectors.
And to think that you were already warned about this last year ...
And it is not me who says it but a college of scientific luminaries (which one does not name any more, of Oxford to Stanford, of the ETH / Z in Toronto, of which Nobel prizes, a former developer of Head vaccine from Pfizer, infectious disease specialists and geneticists, and even Axel Khan).

PS: The “funny people” clogged with emery, hard-headed like Turks (it's an image, nothing xenophobic) at bedtime ... => [_]

[pedrodelavega]

And admitting the 95% efficacy of vaccines - but the same people who said that are now eating their hat, since on the one hand they are preparing the spirits for a third dose, and the side effects have exploded by 6'000% and that on the other hand, the 95% are insufficient since it would be necessary to reach a score higher than 99,81% for the benefit to outweigh the risks

Mix the efficiency ratio with the (so-called) person-at-risk ratio

being one of the people at high risk (as a die-hard ex smoker and drinker)

1.3 billion smokers in the world ...
And on the other hand, you still manage to argue that only 0.19% of the population is at risk!

[Macro]

: arrowd: No Janic, I correct, the author of these ironic remarks is Macro the indecrottable, and not me.

Of course, of course.
Nobody doubts that someone who gets by after 1 or 2 months of sheave followed by a long covid is not "concerned".

as stupid as a reflection that your double ABC. You haven't even read what is written above!

I answer him thus:

The paradox
And admitting the 95% efficacy of vaccines - but the same people who said that are now eating their hat, since on the one hand they are preparing the spirits for a third dose, and the side effects have exploded by 6'000% and that on the other hand, the 95% are insufficient since it would be necessary to reach a score higher than 99,81% for the benefit to outweigh the risks (which is just impossible, even the “funny ones” recognize it implicitly in their denial) - the paradox is that indeed, you would (according to the health authorities) theoretically need to be vaccinated, being one of the people at high risk (as a die-hard ex smoker and drinker) but at the same time, your immune system will become five times more receptive to viruses. And that, moreover, it turns all the vaccinated into a factory for mutants and potentially into super-infectors.
And to think that you were already warned about this last year ...
And it is not me who says it but a college of scientific luminaries (which one does not name any more, of Oxford to Stanford, of the ETH / Z in Toronto, of which Nobel prizes, a former developer of Head vaccine from Pfizer, infectious disease specialists and geneticists, and even Axel Khan).

PS: The “funny people” clogged with emery, hard-headed like Turks (it's an image, nothing xenophobic) at bedtime ... => [_]

You yoyottes obamot ... The words that you highlight by attributing them to me are not mine ... but pedrodelavega ... Your obsessional troubles are playing tricks on you ...

[Obamot]

PÉDRO: You always confuse the “risks of mortality” (projections) with here the precise and particular case of a REAL “subject at risk”.

Unless you've been trained by you to this flawed reasoning, you won't see me doing this kind of projection / s that caused you to crash for a year. Besides, as long as you continue to defend the indefensible - the compromise with the pharmas - we will never come to an agreement and you will never understand anything.

I do not need:
- to prove that my 99,81% of those not concerned are not ('ã risk'), they stand out all by themselves!
- to establish a priori WHO would be these “people at risk”At 0,19% - possibly concerned to be eligible to be“vaccinate”Since these pseudo-vaccines increase the risk of actually getting infected by a factor of five - and for the same reasons they stand out on their own when they get sick. And that anyway, this pseudo-vaccine “do not vaccinate”(3rd dose, 4th, 5th etc until death follows ...) I clearly prefer MY immune system (or those of people) and if this hypothetical day comes, take a few tablets of Ivermectin. Because in the meantime I would have avoided the development of comorbidities with the appropriate hygiene of life.

So I am NOT going to FALL IN THE SAME TRAP OF FALLACIOUS REASONING AS YOU, the “funny ones”, who focus on the effects without treating the causes, and which is to assume an almost nonexistent risk to scare. I am not afraid (and in principle no one) of a risk of 1 / 99,8x with the possibility of getting out of it by an early non-intrusive treatment and / or supplementation "which is going well", and which makes you come back. the organism in the nails.
___________
PS: Macro, who can be interested in the fate of a reluctant and isolated person, having committed excesses, and of whom we do not know the real general state, and who does not go “create a standard applicable to the whole world”By itself, either. Or study allopathy ... But even then you're all wrong. It's you who yoyote, because between you and the zeteti-zozos, it makes no difference. Sorry for the mistake, go to Janic, it wasn't me who made it, I only saw it.