The Great VIRAL Debate: Dr Anderson’s Closing Statement
Welcome to Closing Statements of The Great VIRAL Debate. Track this debate’s progress in our Coronavirus Debate Section. Dr Piers Robinson is our chair. Off-Guardian is your host. The proposition under debate is:
SARS-COV-2 merits suppression measures in order to combat the virus rather than the herd/community immunity approach
Dr Anderson, arguing for the proposition, closes his argument:
Returning to the question I repeat: COVID19 was a serious public health threat which required a social response. A Darwinian style ‘herd immunity’ response, where the old and ill (the main victims of this particular virus) were simply left to die, would have been monstrous and deeply unethical.
The prospects for any widespread ‘natural’ immunity to COVID are receding. A British study found that between 20 June and 28 September the numbers of those antibody positive fell from “almost 6% to 4.4%” (Alford). Antibody levels even in the hardest hit cities have rarely exceeded 10%, far too low to contain a highly infectious virus. Britain and Sweden are not far apart. Sweden’s public health authority admitted in September that, by mid-June, less than 12% of Stockholm residents, and only 6% to 8% of the Swedish population, had COVID antibodies (Vogel).
Our understanding of any new virus should be informed by collective medical science, not just cherry picked sources. This is not the same as social or political argument; there are valuable broad agreements in medical science, because it is far more demonstrable than social science. In my opening I gave five sources for estimated IFRs (Infection fatality rate) for COVDI9 (most between 0.5% and 1%). Denis challenged one of these and misquoted his own sources (Ioannidis and the CDC) as I noted earlier. The CDC accepts an IFR of 0.65%, 6 to 7 times that of the seasonal flu. And now we also have the ‘long COVID’ illnesses, especially amongst public health workers.
We also see nearly 1.2 million reported COVID19 deaths, after nine months of pandemic. Paget demonstrated an average global seasonal flu death toll of about 400,000 per year, over the past decade. We already have three times that and, after 12 months, we will likely have four times that, even with preventive measures. Globally, reported deaths remain constant at about 5,000 per day.
The good news is that, in many countries which have faced epidemics for many months, the proportion of those dying has fallen considerably. This seems mainly due to (i) improved treatment of what multiple studies now show to be as much a vascular as a respiratory disease (Kavanagh), and (ii) very high levels of testing, showing many asymptomatic cases in younger people but also lower death rates amongst older people (Dorling; Hendrie; Oke, Howdon and Heneghan).
Those denying the seriousness of this disease have been left behind in social debate. How can deniers credibly engage with these questions, when their starting point (often unchanged since March 2020) was that there was no real public health threat?
- How can we meet the demands of students for a safe return to classes?
- How and when can quarantine measures be safely rolled back?
- How can we support ‘long COVID’ sufferers including the public health workers?
Denis can present his idiosyncratic theories that the problem was (i) a seasonal winter flu in cold countries, or that (ii) the deaths were mostly to do with the poor ventilation in aged care facilities. But in my view he will miss the real challenges.
The same applies to those who have been swept up in the baseless anti-vaccine scare campaigns, endangering the lives of children (e.g.) over the measles vaccine. International travel now requires COVID tests and soon that will include COVID vaccination. They demanded the same of us with smallpox vaccine in the 60s and 70s and they will do it again with COVID, with reason.
I repeat my initial point, we should first address the in-principle matters of public and preventive health, before moving to engage with particular political stupidities. I have harshly criticised the use of police in the second wave quarantine regime imposed in my home town Melbourne, but I accept that some sort of quarantine was needed. ‘Lockdown vs no lockdown’ was always a childish comparator – it led people to obsess over symptoms and not causes and encouraged them to ignore questions of ‘when, how and by whom’. I say the roots of the current crisis should be looked for in the failures of public health systems.
Finally, whatever anyone thinks about our debate, we have left a record of our sources which honest and curious people can use to check the facts for themselves.
Click HERE to read Dr Rancourt’s Final Statement.
Track this debate’s progress in our Coronavirus Debate Section
Alford, Justine (2020) ‘Coronavirus antibody prevalence falling in England, REACT study shows’, Imperial College, 27 October, online.
Anderson, Tim (2020) ‘COVID-19: the Swedish Model’, American Herald Tribune, 4 October, online.
Dorling, Danny (2020) ‘Coronavirus: why aren’t death rates rising with case numbers?’. The Conversation, 10 September, online.
Hendrie, Doug (2020) ‘Are COVID death rates really falling globally?’, NewsGP, 11 September, online.
Kavanagh, Kevin (2020) ‘Is COVID-19 Primarily a Heart and Vascular Disease?’, ICT, 9 September, online.
Oke, Jason; Daniel Howdon and Carl Heneghan (2020) ‘Declining COVID-19 Case Fatality Rates across all ages: analysis of German data’, CEBM, 9 September, online.
Paget, James et al (2019) ‘Global mortality associated with seasonal influenza epidemics: New burden estimates and predictors from the GLaMOR Project’, J Glob Health. 2019 Dec; 9(2): 020421., online.
Vogel, Gretchen (2020) ‘‘It’s been so, so surreal.’ Critics of Sweden’s lax pandemic policies face fierce backlash’, Science, 6 October, online.
SUPPORT OFFGUARDIAN
If you enjoy OffG's content, please help us make our monthly fund-raising goal and keep the site alive.
For other ways to donate, including direct-transfer bank details click HERE.
Listen to Sweet Wittie Souls by Talltaleheart on #SoundCloud
https://soundcloud.app.goo.gl/Xpax
My understanding is the immunity is not all about antibodies. Dr Anderson does not mention T cell immunity, which is the fundamental component of immunity (not just for resisting COVID-19 infection but, also, respiratory diseases in general and other morbidities).
Neither does he mention Vitamin D. An adequate blood level of Vitamin-D (in the form of 25(OH)D, which it becomes after processing by the liver) is vital for effective T cell immunity. (This knowledge has emerged only since the 1980s.)
We produce Vit D naturally by the effect of the sun on our skin (NB at UK latitudes, Vit D is not produced naturally between October and mid March because the angle of the sun’s rays is too low).
It is a fact, however, that most people (in the world) are deficient in Vit D because we spend most of our time in-doors and, when we go out, most of our skin is covered.
Studies of 2 African tribes that live very close to nature and have done for thousands of years, the Maasai and the Hadzabe, have found average blood Vitamin D levels of, respectively, 47.6ng/ml and 43.6ng/ml. So it is reasonable to conclude that a target blood level of above 40ng/ml is what evolution and nature intended. This level can be achieved/maintained by daily supplementing with 100micrograms (4000 IU) Vit D3. (Cost approx £12 per year.)
Whilst relying on vaccines to protect against disease – 1 per potential illness – is a viable fall-back, it would seem that the general immunity provided by T cells, in turn maintained by adequate levels of Vitamin D, should be humanity’s top priority.
(With thanks to the book Vitamin D Deficiency and COVID-19 by Dr David Grimes and Prof. Dr. David Anderson – and to the plethora of research papers on Vitamin D and its role in human immune response that are available on the internet if you care to look.)
FYI, the Prague Municipal Court has struck down an imbecilic government order extending a previous, equally as imbecilic, order forcing people to wear masks outdoors in all areas “where more than two people come into contact at a distance of less than two meters”. The court has cited insufficient substantiation of the new order.
Yay!
Let’s force the covidian shitheads to produce scientific substantiation for these idiotic restrictions.
We are all in it together is the battle cry. That is empirically false. We used to be – a disease arrives and it took the weakest – always does. Now a new plan – take the young put them at higher risk by vaccines and societal woes – drugs, suicide – In order to save the weak. A child of 10 is not equal to a life of an 80 year old – they are 8x’s the value. The pandemic is a fraud and is obviously cover for a much larger crime – but now our greatest obstacle is our credulous fellow citizens. And it is hard to sympathize with their fear/cowardice. All I hear is ‘I don’t want to catch a cold, can someone else suffer/die instead’. And sadly the young who believe have compromised their own safety.
Anderson shows great restraint in waiting until his second sentence to invoke “Darwinism” to let his readers know that he’s not on the side of the cold, heartless animals who think his isn’t the best way to protect people.
He then goes on to cite falling antibody samples, which of course how antibodies work. We’ve known this for decades. They fall when the disease is dispatched with. In fact over active anti-bodies are a problem — MS, Guillain-Baret and other diseases result from over-activty.
No mention of T-cells, of course, also known for decades, the mechanism that gives long-term protection.
He then wrongly cites the range of IFR as between .5 and 1%. WHO actually estimated the number of people who may have C-19 at 750 billion which leaves us with an IFR of .13%. And nobody goes as high as 1%. So the real range is between .13% and .6%
He correctly notes that a .6% rate would be far deadlier than the average seasonal influenza. But he’s citing the upper limit and we have no idea if that’s correct. And even if true, it’s still a far cry from the 1918 Spanish flu and the now ridiculous Imperial College modelling that led to this disproportionate response. A lot more people may have died from Covid-19 than die on average from flu (I say may because of the sometime suspect way these deaths are recorded), but seasonal flu deaths can vary wildly from year to year. Often a couple of “light” seasons are followed by heavy ones. How they compare to the ’57-’58 or ’68-’69 flu seasons would be instructive especially considering that we now know this certainly ISN’T a repeat of 1918.
Lastly, he engages repeatedly in one of the most pernicious and disingenuous lines of attack from the Lockdown vigilantes — dismissing criticism as “political”. Whether you agree with it or not: lockdowns, curfews, mask mandates, track-and-trace are state interventions and therefore political actions. To claim that politics only inserts itself when one raises their hand in dissent to these actions is like claiming someone has inserted religion when questioning mandatory church service.
There is only one currency: trust. We are bankrupt and going into debt. When we have trust then and only then can we move forward intelligently and compassionately. Until then it’s Mad Max and The Purge.
The covid terrorists are darwinists and could care less about old and sick people other than to use them as hostages in their terrorist attacks. They have no intention of saving them only creating more to murder in future attacks. The only way to save them is to get them out of the terrorists hands by learning to appreciate getting the flu.
As far as “Darwinian style response”, let’s dispose of the BS and get a dose of reality.
As I said below, were an act of God to strike the world, causing wholesale wreckage, famine, death, you name it, choices would have to be made. Stupid fucking bickering of the Biden vs. Trump kind would have to be put on the back burner (and hopefully burn for good, even though it’s naive to expect that, the first axiom of human existence being that that man willultimately fuck up whatever he lays his hands on), and people would have to dig in deep to survive. The tough would have to get going. Surely, an effort would be made to save the weak and vulnerable, but to what extent it would be successful and possible is a question. The survival of the species would be more important, including educating children so that they wouldn’t grow up to be uneducated smartphone zombies with zero skills, including social skills and the ability to forge relationships and reproduce. Ditto the preservation of knowledge, useful technologies, etc. Whatever would have to be done would be the exact opposite of the current idiotic strategy of sticking head in the sand.
Now, we’re absolutely not in a situation of that kind – a minor disease has been blown out of proportion by unscrupulous globalist pricks and piggybacked by all sorts of local losers.
The response, however, suggest that a disaster of biblical proportions has come down upon us. After all, that’s what this nincompoop Anderson is suggesting. So, the above applies. If what we’re going through is a matter of survival, then there is nothing wrong with a “Darwinian style response”. On the contrary.
In other words, humankind has constructed a social system where the notion of the “survival of the fittest” is considered unethical, but if ever the shit hits the fan (an asteroid hits the Earth, nuclear disaster, true change of climate) that will be, like it or not, how the human species will survive, if it does, that is.
That being said, none of the above actually applies; it’s a false argument. We’re dealing with a revolution, not an emergency. This is just to demonstrate that even if the way the various andersons of the world are portraying the situation is accepted, their arguments make no sense.
In Germany the seasonal mortality is normal. So, who was left to die?
· [German] Bundesamt für Statistik, „Sonderauswertung zu Sterbefallzahlen des Jahres 2020“, https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Gesellschaft-Umwelt/Bevoelkerung/Sterbefaelle-Lebenserwartung/sterbefallzahlen.html
[Graphic in middle of the page]
On the other hand, it is rather astonishing how the measures of the German government have reproduced the annual mortality curve, including the heat wave in summer.
Czech Republic (blue line)
https://www.czso.cz/documents/10180/138290014/obypzcr111020_g2.xlsx/34119292-fab4-47a3-9238-ecdfb7fd39f5?version=1.1
Then there’s this, which many in this forum have been railing on about for months. Many of the comments to the article are strident, uninformed, and inane, but the article itself is quite good.
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/stacey-lennox/2020/11/09/dr-fauci-told-the-truth-about-covid-19-tests-in-july-and-has-been-misleading-the-public-ever-since-n1131938
Another regurgitation of the fear propaganda: Lancet (which “accidentally” claimed HCQ was useless) reported that “1 in 5” of 65,000 “covid” patients had mental health problems thereafter, and that this was likely to be an under-estimate.
And what exactly were these ominous problems? They were anxiety, depression and insomnia. Is a person not likely to suffer these due to loss of income, no access to essentials, isolation or inability to be with dependents, etc.? Some of the legal narcotics (“opiates”, etc.) the subjects got in hospital could also induce these problems.
Note: If you decide to take allopathic medicine, you will be put off by the “contra-indications”; so don’t read the leaflet that comes with it.
After following and carefully reading both arguments I feel that Dr. Rancourt has won the debate.
“A Darwinian style ‘herd immunity’ response, where the old and ill (the main victims of this particular virus) were simply left to die, would have been monstrous and deeply unethical.”
And tough shit to the enormous number of deaths caused by the lockdown. Dr. Anderson isn’t going to waste his time mentioning them.
Nothing unethical about that cohort dying … fuck ’em … they obviously deserved it.
Coz to creatures like Anderson, we’re just dumb riff raff who obviously don’t have the capability to understand ‘science’. We’re probably all Alt right Trumptards in his book, the same as the equally disgusting Caitlin Johnstone who labelled a young pregnant mother arrested in her home for making a Facebook post as a ‘rightist wingnut’ while some of Johnstone’s luvvies scornfully dismissed the woman as a ‘Trump supporter’.
Yet they bleat about ‘freedom of speech’.
Despicable. One good thing about this psyop is to see the fakists self-identify.
Yep, completely agree Cyd. A lot have revealed themselves this year as controlled opposition.
The ‘Darwinian’ quote is revealing of a certain type of fallacious either/or argument often employed in debate, especially by those incapable of nuance. It is a debating tactic, but is simply pure sophistry with no intent to inform an audience of a viable alternative but simply employed to arouse emotion to win an argument.
As a side note, Herbert Spencer coined the term ‘survival of the fittest’, not Darwin. Anyway, even the use of the term is inappropriate: it is a course of nature, not something employed with callous intent by humans, though one must wonder about the reasoning behind intentionally seeding institutions housing the vulnerable with infected individuals.
Herd immunity is a reality, scientifically and historically, and is not a theory. Any advocates of herd immunity never proposed to have the ‘old and ill simply left to die’ – in the very early stages of this particular event it was recognised that the old and ill were particularly vulnerable and should be protected. To claim otherwise is specious.
Those at little or no risk either already have immunity, or quickly develop it upon exposure to infection. Interestingly, any proponents of this undeniable reality were censored and blacklisted, with some even losing their positions.
When (and where) to we get to vote on the debate? Or have the readers already spoken with a 5 star rating for Dr Rancourt but only a 2 star rating for this corrupt mouthpiece for authoritarianism?
Is the antibody producing percentage given representing percentage of population? Or percentage of covid sufferers? Because the WHO estimated 1/10 of global population had caught sars cov2. Therefore antibody positive percentage of 5% would represent 50% of overall population. A high point of 6.6% becomes 66%,high enough for group immunity. But i can’t find the data relevant to this.
I have noted a pattern here that always seems the same.
First the simple brute statements like “COVID19 was a serious public health threat which required a social response.” And then the moral condemnation of “herd immunity”.
This followed by the percentage rigmarole which supposedly justifies what has already been claimed – and then nothing whatsoever on what must be the most visceral matter of the last 7 months i.e. the lockdown itself!
This lockdown has frozen time, suspended all normal activities, threatened livelihoods indefinitely – indeed under the claim that this is “a new normal” i.e. that this will never end.
All this followed by the utmost frothing condemnation of all who engage in regular activities which involve close proximity of bodies i.e. pretty much all regular activities. The young in particular who do what young people always want to do i.e. engage in said close proximity activities. And the only stipulation against this is the gobbledegook figures followed by frothing pronouncements about what would have happened and will still happen if there is no lockdown.
And if the call still goes up about the deadly disease then consider the aforementioned blatantly stated announcement that this covid situation is going to go on forever!
Such rhetoric – switching between facts/logic and emotions – is an old one used in religion, law, politics, etc.
It is nothing more than the conceited ramblings of terrorists conniving to exact their terror on society.
Fraudian headline: “England GP clinics to administer at least 975 Covid vaccines a week”.
If this was real, who wouldn’t say “nearly a thousand” instead of 975 – or indeed just set the target at a thousand?
7 + 5 = 12; 1 + 2 = 3. 93 just happened to be Aleister Crowley’s favourite number – and the final flight number on 9/11.
Still, I suppose we should be grateful the figure wasn’t 999….
7 + 5 = 12; 1 + 2 = 3. 93 just happened to be Aleister Crowley’s favourite number – and the final flight number on 9/11.
Well that explains it all then. I’ll go back to work tomorrow and get pissed down the pub on the way home.
JOIN THE COMMON LAW COURT TO MAKE A CHANGE IN ORDER TO APPOINT COMMON LAW CONSTABLES TO UPHOLD THE LAW OF WE THE
PEOPLE SO JUSTICE CAN PREVAIL AGAINST THOSE WHO ARE FRAUDULENTLY DECEIVING US – NUMBERS OF PEOPLE ARE NEEDED TO DO THAT – IT’S YOUR CHOICE FOR A MEANINGFUL FUTURE OR MORE OF THE SAME CRAP BUT MUCH WORSE.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=david+icke+common+law&t=ipad&ia=web
Thanks Bill for posting that video reference I hope everyone takes the time to view it. There is another that’s just been posted on David Icke’s website that is well worth a watch.
Dr Anderson appears to have missed the decanting of the old into care homes in order to create space in the NHS in case other people required treatment for COVID 19; he also seems to have missed the fact that the NHS was virtually shut down for anything other than COVID 19, causing many unnecessary deaths. He also seems to have overlooked the fact that the government made no attempt to assess how many people would die as a result of its lockdown measures. Yet he is apparently expert when it comes to the ethics of public policy decision-making.
And denying them visitors causing many to die alone of heartbreak.
As Pam Popper would say, who are these people?
The global plutocrats have definitely shifted policy. The health industry must now serve other industries and participate more in depopulation, not just profit by also benefitting the old or other permanently disadvantged people. Every one of the riff-raff left alive must be “productive” in an “essential job”.
The author states his locale as Melbourne, population 4.2 million, located in Victoria, population 6.5 million. All Australia population is about 25 million. The worst state, Victoria has .000126 risk of fatal outcome, or 1/80th of one percent, or ~99.99% not at risk of fatality. All Australia cases indicates one person in ICU, and 20 patients in hospital.
Please study these numbers, and think about them. Similar charts and data are available for most large jurisdictions in the world on actual government websites.
The consistent result after contemplating such data is that those least at risk, who would normally be out and about, (i.e. under the age of 70) engaging in productive activity, or, in the case of ‘children’, (i.e. under the age of 20), attending school or playing outside, are the ones being locked up for no particular reason.
https://www.health.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/2020/11/coronavirus-covid-19-at-a-glance-9-november-2020_0.pdf
Even if COVID-19 weren’t total BS as far as the various aspects, which it is, and were as lethal as claimed, which it ain’t, if not more, the suicidal shutdown of the whole world would not be justifiable.
On the contrary, suppose that some force majeure struck the world, in whatever form, it would be absolutely imbecilic to force everybody to stay put at home, to shut everything down, to fuck up everything left and right, including the education of future generations, to bring the world to a standstill.
Instead, as many people as possible would have to be allowed to function normally, to keep the world going, to provide what we all need. Would more people die? Possibly. But it would be the only course of action for the species to survive. Sticking one’s head in the sand, which is the purported current strategy, wouldn’t cut it.
What is happening now is so stupid even within the realm of its own logic that it cannot but be rejected without any further consideration. Politicians and PTBs might be stupid, but they can’t that stupid so as to believe for a second that what they’re doing makes any sense.
This ain’t no frigging pandemic; it’s a revolution, period. This guy Anderson is totally out to lunch.
You beat me to it, so I’ll say something else instead
Dr Anderson is like most boomers I know: incapable of comprehending that there really are powerful forces of evil in the world that have utter contempt for humanity
WW2 is still barely within living memory and we have evidence that it was started by a small group of men with an aggenda, a “conspiracy theory” if you will
All unsolved crimes are by definition, a “conspiracy theory”
Dr Anderson is similar to Dr Townsend: they are wont to dismiss any dot connecting as either “silliness” or “coincidence” despite the literal mountains of evidence to back up our claims and grievances
These such people also live in a bubble
Dr Townsend and Dr Anderson may both be expert specialists in allopathic medicine and physics (they are worms compared to Dr Atlas or Ionidis), but they are woefully ignorant of even the basics of other disciplines
They refuse to engage us in anything outside their preferred field of study
They know (almost) nothing of history, law, philosophy, ethics, religion, metaphysics, politics, psychology, psychiatry, art, criminology, critical thinking, civics, game theory, etc
Basically all the things that make life interesting
So in conclusion
Dr Anderson is a besotted twit, a donkey, and an all round fucking moron
I’d add ‘involving two or more people’. But that’s nit picky I know. 🙂 A2
“Dr Anderson is a besotted twit, a donkey, and an all round fucking moron”
That may be. However, would one use that sentence before a jury to convince them of the soundness of ones argument or ones intelligence?
Dr Anderson is a besotted twit, a donkey, and an all round fucking moron
and a “boomer”?
The use of stereotyping epithets is childish and detracts from the real points a writer/commenter is making.
To be clear, I’m not a Boomer myself (and in fact, fit nearly zero of the attributes ascribed to my birth-year-assigned ‘generation’). I just don’t like pejorative terminology gratuitously thrown into otherwise useful rants.
It’s fun for me. Obviously in a court setting I would hold my tongue
Okay. 😀 It can be lovely to be able to express oneself (in whatever settings available).
Well said!