Maggie's Farm

jack walter: But if you want to win the game , then buy up all the cheap properties at any cost.

The best return on investment is with the Orange (St. James Place, Tennessee Avenue, New York Avenue) and Red (Kentucky Avenue, Indiana Avenue, Illinois Avenue) sets. Then, the Light Blue (Oriental Avenue, Vermont Avenue, Connecticut Avenue) and Brown (Mediterranean Avenue, Baltic Avenue) sets. There are three reasons for this: Location. Location! Location!!

Strawman. Multiple studies had confirmed that COVID infection produced an immune response, which is supported by previous science on the nature of disease and immunity. See, for instance, Abu-Raddad et al., SARS-CoV-2 antibody-positivity protects against reinfection for at least seven months with 95% efficacy , The Lancet 2021: "These findings suggest that induced SARS-CoV-2 immunity, whether induced through natural infection or vaccination, is very efficacious against infection (>90%) and may persist for at least 7 months."

However, acquiring acquired immunity is dangerous, and can lead to severe illness, hospitalization, enfeeblement, and death. Vaccination is far safer than natural infection. Measles COVID parties are not an effective public health strategy.


The three authors: Martin Kulldorff falsely claimed that influenza was more dangerous to children than COVID. Sunetra Gupta falsely claimed in May 2020 that the epidemic was nearly over. Jay Bhattacharya claimed that projections of COVID deaths of 2 million in the United States, without social measures, were probably orders of magnitude too high, also granting that if the death estimates were correct, then strong social measures were justified. (The actual number of COVID deaths in the United States, with a floundering social policy, has been about 1.1 million.) Bhattacharya also released to the media a flawed study on antibodies without disclosing the source of his funding.

To more directly address the Declaration; before most people had been vaccinated, there was no practical way to protect only the vulnerable. The result of their recommendations would have been hundreds of thousands more deaths. However, once the population had been largely vaccinated, social measures could have been relaxed.


In the United States, the seasonal flu typically kills about 20-30,000 per year. COVID killed over 1.1 million.

eeyore: It is important to evaluate and verify the accuracy of any claims before accepting them as true.]

Absolutely. Notably, you didn't contest a single point raised.

1. That The Lancet hadn't "admitted" to natural immunity is preposterous on its face, but a citation was provided nonetheless.

2. "acquiring acquired immunity is dangerous": Over 1.1. million dead from COVID infection with many more hospitalizations: See CDC, COVID Data Tracker.

3. "Vaccination is far safer than natural infection." Johns Hopkins: "The two mRNA vaccines, Pfizer and Moderna, authorized by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), are very safe and very good at preventing serious or fatal cases of COVID-19. The risk of serious side effects associated with these vaccines is very small."

4. Martin Kulldorff: "Their Covid mortality risk is miniscule and less than the already low risk from the annual influenza." Child deaths from influenza 2020-2021, 1. More typically, influenza kills fewer than 200 children per year. See COVID-19 is a leading cause of death in children and young people in the US.

And so on. If you have a question about a particular point, feel free to ask.

eeyore: I was not attempting to contest any points.

You did raise one important point: Claims should be evaluated and verified before being accepted as true—whether the text was generated by AI or not. We provided support for the first four claims, but there is support for all the points in our original comment. (One method of evaluation is to look for claims that are contrary to a breadth of knowledge; for instance, the suggestion that The Lancet hadn't "admitted" to natural immunity, which appears very unlikely to anyone with relevant knowledge. Then, it's just a matter of checking back issues of the journal. A single counterexample would generally suffice to contradict the claim. However, if a counterexample can't be found, then perhaps the claim is true.)

But, please, let us know if you decide to engage the topic.

eeyore: I cannot find any evidence to support the claim that Martin Kulldorff falsely claimed that influenza was more dangerous to children than COVID.


The data on COVID and influenza deaths were provided above.

eeyore: Well, since I now know I not engaging you, but AI responses, there's no value in it.

Our comments are our own and freely given. You're welcome.

Zachriel long predates ChatGPT.

Hmm.
 

SK: Notably, you didn't raise a single point contradicting the Declaration--you simply attacked its authors.

Great Barrington Declaration: "As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists we have grave concerns . . . "

The Declaration isn't a scientific paper providing evidence of their claims, but an opinion based on the authority of the authors. There's nothing wrong with that. But it means their authority on the subject at issue is a legitimate question. That they were fundamentally wrong on the course of the disease significantly undermines the appeal to their authority.

However, we did address the particular reasons why their position was wrong:

Z: To more directly address the Declaration; before most people had been vaccinated, there was no practical way to protect only the vulnerable. The result of their recommendations would have been hundreds of thousands more deaths. However, once the population had been largely vaccinated, social measures could have been relaxed.

Also, their fundamental errors pointed out above undermine their argument as their position was based on the erroneous opinion that COVID would be much less lethal than it was.

SK: By the way, when Kulldorf made that statement, CDC was saying the same thing...

Kulldorf's claim that influenza was more dangerous to children than COVID was made in December 2021. According to the CDC, the number of childhood influenza deaths in the 2020-21 season was one, while COVID was a leading cause of death.

SK: As you well know CDC was looking back at the numbers AFTER THE STATEMENT was made.

October 6, 2021: "US child Covid-19 deaths are an ‘embarrassment,’ FDA vaccines head says . . . According to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 645 children have died from Covid-19 in the US." (And, in case you insist CNN must have doctored the record, here's an archived record.) Keep in mind that for each child that dies, there were even more who were hospitalized, often with severe disease or long-lasting deleterious effects.

December 17, 2021: {Children's} "Covid mortality risk is miniscule and less than the already low risk from the annual influenza, so the vaccine benefit for healthy children is very small."

The number of child influenza deaths in the 2020-2021 flu season was one (1). However, to be fair, about 100 children typically die annually from influenza. The low number for the 2020-2021 flu season was almost certainly because the social measures that some people claim were ineffective resulted in the near disappearance of influenza during that period.

That's the heart of the problem. When you start with false premises, conclusions will be unfounded. Gupta claimed the COVID pandemic was nearly over in May 2020. Kulldorff falsely claimed that influenza was more dangerous to children than COVID. Bhattacharya falsely claimed the COVID death toll would be on the order of 20-30,000 in the U.S.

SK: More from Kulldorf re unintended consequences: "We think government lockdowns cause substantial collateral health damage."

That is almost certainly true. However, as his colleague and cosignatory, Bhattacharya, noted, if COVID was as dangerous as other researchers feared, then "extraordinary measures being carried out in cities and states around the country are surely justified." In other words, Bhattacharya and his cosignatories were wrong on the danger, so their conclusion is unfounded.

Z: In other words, Bhattacharya and his cosignatories were wrong on the danger, so their conclusion is unfounded.

And per Bhattacharya's own standard, the conclusion was wrong.