La 4ª ronda del serológico ha pasado por los medios con dos titulares infantiles.
En España hay un 10% de anticuerpos QUE NO ES SUFICIENTE PARA LA INMUNIDAD DE GRUPO.
El análisis de los datos cuenta muchas historias interesantes. Vamos a ver algunas.
Aquellos que reconocían usar SIEMPRE la mascarilla se han infectado un 25% de los que confesaban no usarla NUNCA. 3,8% de usuarios fieles de mascarilla contra sólo un 3% de los Irresponsables Negacionistas culpables de la expansión del virus.
Llevar mascarilla AUMENTA el riesgo
Cómo sabíamos por el análisis de los datos laterales, las hospitalizaciones eran un artefacto humano.
El 87% de los ingresos POR covid de menos de una semana NUNCA lo tuvieron.
El 56% de los de más de 1 semana, tampoco, ni el 53% de los que contamos como UCI.
Las PCR no sólo arrojan muchas infecciones antiguas, por su alto Ct, también un número enorme de falsos positivos. No menos de un tercio y hasta el 50% de lo que estamos computando, NO es CV, por lo que nunca desarrolla IgG específico.
Eso sitúa la incidencia acumulada real más cerca de 100 que de los 214 que nos venden.
La presión sobre las UCIs, una vez corregida con esos falsos positivos baja del 20% a menos del 10%.
Y todo ello procede del informe oficial.
Nada de ello saldrá en la prensa o lo anunciará un político, la obsesión sigue siendo aterrorizar a la población con la ÚNICA esperanza de la vacunación masiva y el control completo de las vidas.
La ciencia real cuenta una historia MUY DISTINTA.
Es normal la ocultación en la infantil simplificación de todo el informe en "inmunidad de grupo=caca", puesto que como los trabajos de @SunetraGupta o @mgmgomes1 demuestran, los umbrales de inmunidad de grupo necesarios son mucho más bajos, debido a la heterogeneidad.
La mentira triunfa hoy, cabalgando el miedo. De ninguna manera podemos admitir que permanezca como hecho científico.
Una futura amenaza real no puede encontrar a la humanidad creyendo en los peligrosos mitos anticiéntificos del Covid.
Necesitamos recuperar la ciencia. Ahora.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
There's NOT such a thing as a consensus ,but a very complex net of fractional insights. We only see aired the few undisputable supporting the fear narrative, even its quality is null, as Imperial College stuff.
They always come at appropriate political moment, and are models.
In the other hand there's a cloud of side studies, never as spectacular as the previous, but strongly scientifical; usually analysis rather than modelling; that points consistently AGAINST the exceptionality of this virus and the horrible mistake and disproportion of restrictions
As this round has been made under masks mandatory, we can check how many of the participants were infected, under declared different masks usage: never, sometimes, always
The group with LESS infections was those NEVER using a mask, 3% Vs 3.8% ALWAYS users.
Masks are NOT working
You have 25% MORE chance of getting infected always using a mask than never using it.
Those partially accomplishing show similar, slightly higher, to mask wearers, 3,9% infections.
As the absurd number (~65%) in the HI myth is way over those willing to vax (only 25% enthusiasts), they will need to force people to. Doing it directly is unconstitutional, thus ugly blackmail and threaten appears plausible, in the shape of restrictions for the 'negationists'.
There's the mood for bannings on those refusing Vax, like no access to public transport, lose of economic public aids, maintaining masks as a terrible mark of the infectious...
We've seen a lot of rights destroyed, but this would be a dangerous rule change.
The restrictions we're applying are WEAKENING those vulnerable Isolation is proven a weaker for the oldies, it causes suffer, stress and life expectancy loss in the older, as all the good pre covid science knows
Living stressing situations alone, is worsening old people's health
Restrictions are ALSO worsening the rest of population health thru brutal health care access, intolerable levels of fear and stress and general poverty.
Education loss, preventive medicine and misery have a huge cost on lifes expectancy for them all.
Being numbers of infected so small and similar (42vs53) the confidence margin lead to a cloud of possibilities in which the most probable is NO DIFFERENCE at all.
Statistical extremes are masks being ~40% effective OR even ~20% perjuditial.
Masks aren't saving humanity.
We all have seen this crappy pure fictional graphs as science. They never were
Now we've the truth
The BEST, even so unlikely, mask benefit is only ~40%.
But the most likely, as science knew, is that NO DIFFERENCE shows. They're useless.