.2% and Natural Immunity

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/

"WHAT IS PEER REVIEW?
My point is that peer review is impossible to define in operational terms (an operational definition is one whereby if 50 of us looked at the same process we could all agree most of the time whether or not it was peer review). Peer review is thus like poetry, love, or justice. But it is something to do with a grant application or a paper being scrutinized by a third party—who is neither the author nor the person making a judgement on whether a grant should be given or a paper published. But who is a peer? Somebody doing exactly the same kind of research (in which case he or she is probably a direct competitor)? Somebody in the same discipline? Somebody who is an expert on methodology? And what is review? Somebody saying `The paper looks all right to me', which is sadly what peer review sometimes seems to be. Or somebody pouring all over the paper, asking for raw data, repeating analyses, checking all the references, and making detailed suggestions for improvement? Such a review is vanishingly rare."

Another reason that articles are not yet peer reviewed is the time length that the process takes.(same source).

"Many journals, even in the age of the internet, take more than a year to review and publish a paper. It is hard to get good data on the cost of peer review, particularly because reviewers are often not paid (the same, come to that, is true of many editors)."

With the new information that can have an impact on the course of an event, that time frame is too long.

I can't find the article I read years ago having to do with peer reviews but I just found this one and thought it was interesting.

The idea behind peer review is simple: It's supposed to weed out bad science....


The two researchers, Douglas Peters and Stephen Ceci, wanted to test how reliable and unbiased this process actually is. To do this, they selected 12 papers that had been published about two to three years earlier in extremely selective American psychology journals. The researchers then altered the names and university affiliations on the journal manuscripts and resubmitted the papers to the same journal. In theory, these papers should have been high quality — they'd already made it into these prestigious publications. If the process worked well, the studies that were published the first time would be approved for publication again the second time around.

What Peters and Ceci found was surprising. Nearly 90 percent of the peer reviewers who looked at the resubmitted articles recommended against publication this time. In many cases, they said the articles had "serious methodological flaws."

www.vox.com/2015/12/7/9865086/peer-review-science-problems

ramage wrote: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/

"WHAT IS PEER REVIEW?
My point is that peer review is impossible to define in operational terms (an operational definition is one whereby if 50 of us looked at the same process we could all agree most of the time whether or not it was peer review). Peer review is thus like poetry, love, or justice. But it is something to do with a grant application or a paper being scrutinized by a third party—who is neither the author nor the person making a judgement on whether a grant should be given or a paper published. But who is a peer? Somebody doing exactly the same kind of research (in which case he or she is probably a direct competitor)? Somebody in the same discipline? Somebody who is an expert on methodology? And what is review? Somebody saying `The paper looks all right to me', which is sadly what peer review sometimes seems to be. Or somebody pouring all over the paper, asking for raw data, repeating analyses, checking all the references, and making detailed suggestions for improvement? Such a review is vanishingly rare."

Another reason that articles are not yet peer reviewed is the time length that the process takes.(same source).

"Many journals, even in the age of the internet, take more than a year to review and publish a paper. It is hard to get good data on the cost of peer review, particularly because reviewers are often not paid (the same, come to that, is true of many editors)."

With the new information that can have an impact on the course of an event, that time frame is too long.

healthfeedback.org/claimreview/claims-jo...fox-news-daily-mail/

THE INSTITUTION was not backing this article, Hopkins was named, but the writer did NOT submit this for approval/accuracy...he used HIS association with Hopkins as a headliner for attention.....epidemiologists
were NOT included,but rather economists. An example of FALSE reporting.....this is a fine piece of work.

What's your gut telling you HA? Do you think the mandates and lockdowns were good for us or do you think they did a whole lot more damage than was necessary? Children suffered the most IMO along with al the people who had to die alone because the government banned family members from seeing them in person.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_CO...United_States_(2020)

Let's review WHEN the stay at home "stuff" started....... the "wasted economy" began
about mid 2020,and it continued to spiral down. SHIT HAPPENS and when it does preparation was woefully
lacking.

homeagain wrote: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_CO...United_States_(2020)

Let's review WHEN the stay at home "stuff" started....... the "wasted economy" began
about mid 2020,and it continued to spiral down. SHIT HAPPENS and when it does preparation was woefully
lacking.

I never said there were no lockdowns under Trump, but if you recall, it was Trump that wanted to open the economy back up after he started seeing the damage being done. The pushback was from Democrats who think Fauci is some sort of all knowing God.

You talk about a lack of preparation yet you forget who fast tracked the shots that supposedly saved millions of lives. You forget about him banning travel from Chine when people like Pelosi and Biden criticized that move.

What you have to remember is that the old man you voted for had a years worth of data and three "vaccines", yet far more people died under his watch.

You can't rewrite history and expect people who have all the facts to believe you.

what lesson WAS LEARNED???? Let me take a "stab" at that question. Laurie Garrett predicted "a world out of balance" and explained what was coming...A PANDEMIC, (late 1990's)....to the turn of the century)
the information was there,the government COULD HAVE been proactive. This debacle was foreseen,but as always, REACTIVE is the m.o. BOTH sides screwed up,BOTH sides were blind sided and made choices, some very good, some very bad. Trump wanted to ignore it and made it a Chinese problem....we will stop the virus, America will "circle the wagons" and defend from the disease.....we "will open by EASTER",IT WILL BE GONE JUST LIKE THAT......then he discovered his error and rushed a vaccine.....Emer use only....FULL
trials were shortened,buckets of money (out of your pocket) were thrown out it,some companies failed,some
(PHIZER) hit the money jack pot....pharmco boosted that boosters were required,MANY OF THEM...oh,but
the boosters need "re upping" every 4 months or so....efficacy was NOT lasting as long as advertised. GUESS who made shitloads of money with THAT declaration....pharmco,and how many of our gov. leaders had STOCK IN PHARMCO?????

When Covid-19 was really deadly and we didn't know the best ways to treat it, it was probably a good precaution to lock down the economy for a few months and isolate vulnerable senior citizens. But now we are in the Omnicrom stage of the disease. Much more contagious, but much less deadly, vaccines are doing a good job preventing deaths, and other treatments are also working. Covid-19 is the 3rd leading cause of death after cancer and heart disease. Now it is time to let the least vulnerable, our children, take off their masks. Give them the vaccine if they want it, but it is also time for vaccine mandates to end.

There is a chicken little born every day.


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb
The Population Bomb is a 1968 book written by Stanford University Professor Paul R. Ehrlich and his wife, Anne Ehrlich.[1][2] It predicted worldwide famine in the 1970s and 1980s due to overpopulation, as well as other major societal upheavals, and advocated immediate action to limit population growth. Fears of a "population explosion" existed in the 1950s and 1960s, but the book and its author brought the idea to an even wider audience.[3][4][5]

The book has been criticized since its publication for its alarmist tone, and in recent decades for its inaccurate predictions. The Ehrlichs stand by the book despite its flaws stating in 2009 that "perhaps the most serious flaw in The Bomb was that it was much too optimistic about the future" and believe that it achieved their goals because "it alerted people to the importance of environmental issues and brought human numbers into the debate on the human future."[2]

"When Covid-19 was really deadly and we didn't know the best ways to treat it, it was probably a good precaution to lock down the economy for a few months and isolate vulnerable senior citizens."

I disagree. FL led the way in protecting the most vulnerable, NY. PENN, NJ and others sent Covid people diagnosed with Covid into nursing homes, where the most vulnerable where located.
What is a few months, 2,3,4, or more? How long does it take hit the economy with a haymaker? I would argue that one month and seriously set back the economy. Th blue state governors did unmitigated damage to the economy and to the children in those states.