Exactly, in a normal world, recovered ppl already have antibodies, if so many have been already infected, then they will not need any vaccine. Natural immunity is much stronger without side effects. But no, he focused in his next sentence on lockdowns and implementing Vax ID. You have to understand issuing digital ID to everyone in the world had been his goal or a while, he's been active advocating for his ID2020 program long before the public awareness of this pandemic. Secondly, is maximizing recovered ppl contradictory to minimizing the infected? Even if you want to claim so (which is bizarre), then why wouldn't he WANT a lot of recovered people? I thought whether you're asymptomatic or recovered, you could still be a spreader? On death count, as explained, the death rate across the world have largely followed a normal trend compared to years past. Some countries have been increasing at a similar rate, some decreased. There is no such thing as a crisis event as far as death count go, except when old people die now, they are classified as covid instead of natural deaths. Moreover, covid deaths have in general slightly higher avg age than normal life-expectancy. This indicates that no one in 2020 was dying prematurely.
Maybe we're not understanding each other, because to me it's contradictory. Maximizing the number of recovered people necessarily also maximizes the number of people who were infected. You have to first be infected to then recover. Further, a strategy of maximizing the number of recovered people (by trying to get as many people infected as possible) will very likely negatively impact the recovery rate, because it would overload our hospitals' capacity to treat the more vulnerable people who get infected. You do recognize that there's a difference between "wanting a lot of recovered people" and "wanting a large percentage of infected people to recover"? I feel like you're conflating those two things. Nothing he said indicates he doesn't want every single person who gets infected to recover. His point was we should minimize the number of people who get infected in the first place to contain the spread.
Sure, this could be an acceptable interpretation for me, if it's in a vacuum, or if he's consistently showed goodwill. But if you want your version of conflation to be clearly right, Bill would have to say "we don't want a lot of infected people", why would he choose to say "recovered people"? You can conflate "recovered" as meaning infected. Or I can conflate "recovered" as meaning "recovered after infected", which already include having been infected. I disagree that nothing he said indicates "those infected to recover".. because he clearly said "we don't want a lot of recovered", which could mean A or B or C, but it's not impossible for it to NOT mean A. So, if like you say he did not mean to say he doesn't want people recovered after infected, then it's gotta be some other type of "recovered"? what would that be? You have presented another version of "conflation", which you want to believe is closer to the source quote. I totally understand and respect that you'd like to believe how these guys mean well. So we engage in this kind of semantics. But it'd help to consider the ethos of the speaker and the wider context too. That's why I also showed you how Billy appears to be happy giddy when the economic pain of the lockdown crosses his mind. He displayed this kind of reaction many many times, along with other authorities such as Hancock's. Does that not count?
I think you should go back to the clip and listen again to what he said immediately after the sentence you quoted. He literally said that we want the infection rate to be below 1%. I really don't want to get into a debate about people's intentions. You quoted one sentence as evidence of some sinister motive, and I'm simply pointing out how you are misinterpreting what the words in that sentence mean. You can't use something as evidence to prove someone has bad motives, and then assume those bad motives to explain why that thing is evidence of it. That is circular reasoning.
As explained, the full quote attaches a condition, he clearly wants the shutdown to be known as the only viable savior. You cannot just skip the most key part of the conversation. If by "recovered people" he actually means "infected people", then why would he need to say it twice? Because the second sentence is attached with the condition, that "to be clear we're trying through the shutdown" in order to manage the infection below 1%. If you are honest, you have to read the whole passage, you cannot just pick out the stuff you want to see and ignore the entire context and insist on twisting "recovered" to actually mean "infected" based nothing but your good nature. You are changing his text with your own imagination. “now we don't want to have a lot of recovered people, you know. To be clear we're trying, through the shutdown, in the United States, to not get to 1% of the population infected." Like I said, I understand your emotion, I also wish these guys have the best intentions, but result of the digital take-over and the big-tech monopoly is already bare for all to see, that the corporatists have ballooned in wealth after a full year of successful shutdowns and regulatory capture. The social transformation is a done deal. The Great Reset is happening before our eyes. Some people still choose to not look at it heads on, nonetheless, we are all going to live under this fully digitized economy and all the goodies it comes with.
He is saying the goal is to keep the infection rate below 1%, and he considers the shutdown a means to that goal. You saying that "he clearly wants the shutdown to be known as the only viable savior" is again adding meaning/intent to words that simply aren't there. Do you think trying to minimize the infection rate was the wrong approach, given the economic tradeoffs? If so, just say that. I don't have an issue with someone having that position -- it's a complicated problem. But your argument that he was saying we shouldn't want people to recover from COVID infections is totally unconvincing to me. He never said anything close to that. Steering this to basketball, I'm reminded of an old Daryl Morey quote -- good teams don't win close games, they avoid them. The point there isn't that its unimportant for teams to try to win close games, if they find themselves in one. Rather, if you find yourself in a close game than winning or losing is to some extent out of your control. Similarly, a large volume of apparently health people getting infected and then recovering runs the risk of the virus spreading to vulnerable populations who won't be able to recover. So you do what you can to avoid the close games, and you do what you can to avoid large number of people getting infected with an easily spreadable virus.
Threads like this make me a pessimist about the future. Too many faux-experts who can parrot the argot but have no clue what the words mean, especially when they are strung together in a complex thought. Or maybe they are just trolls. Either way, there are enough of them to screw the rest of us over repeatedly. In sum, Stockton sucks and it is clear he and Karl “statutory rape” Malone deserve each other.
How does John Stockton and his research feel about females with pointy elbows or wearing jorts during fashion week?
Hi Dursava, I really appreciate your attention on this matter. I think you are over-thinking by adding all these qualifiers to the one word that you couldn’t believe was said by Bill. Here, let’s first refresh you with the larger context regarding my statement: The government rather shutdown to be the only savior instead of natural immunity or any other kinds of solution. While you may not find it conclusive from Bill’s sentence alone, which is true, we have a real-world that has already happened. The government have from the very beginning taken the position against the idea of “natural immunity” and wants you to believe lockdown is the only solution. For context, let’s look at the authority’s tunnel vision about the world wide lockdown before and after March 2020: BEFORE In 2010, the logic of the lockdown was described as a Lock Step authoritarian scenario by a Rockefeller report. Note that this report is about future technology adoption, it is NOT a medical journal speculating on the risk of disease. 2019 October, Event 201 (jointly hosted by WEF, Bill Gates, and Johns Hopkins that’s founded by Rockefeller) rehearsed about the lockdown scenario as well as narrative control - basically practicing how to brainwash the public and silence honest doctors such as Dr. Mullis. MARCH 2020 Mar 24, when it all barely started, the number was still low, Bill makes sure to portray this as a crisis by blowing it up to an imaginary figure of 3 million exponentiation. AFTER Since March 2020, tens of thousands of doctors and scientists protested against lockdown measures because they were deemed to be unnecessary, unscientific, and much more harmful than the supposed crisis. Thousands of scientists came out to advocate for alternative measures and started protests, but their plea have been largely ignored and sometimes demonized. No dialogue is allowed if it does not support government policy, they often get deleted right-a-way, sometimes even just mentions of basic science. -The Great Barrington Declaration, a petition started by Harvard, Stanford, Oxford epidemiologists to stop the lockdown. Ignored. -World Doctors Alliance in Europe. Ignored and smeared (bcos they were a big influence). -Canadian Health Alliance. Ignored. Many have come out to state publicly that lockdown is scientifically irrelevant and unnecessary. Many, including former Pfizer VP Dr. Yeadon, don’t even mind to point out that there has been no pandemic, or if there was one it’s only due to redefinition, so we’d have one every flu season, but it’d be over by May every year. Now back to our old dialogue What you are trying to do is to redefine “recovered” as “infected”because you want to replace Bill’s positive word with a negative one. You wilfully try to conflate “recover”with “maximizing infection", this is a huge stretch because you are removing the positive stage of “recovery” which has a very specific meaning. I understand you want to believe the authorities have your best interest, this can make you feel better. Don’t get me wrong, I am completely on your side, I wish very much that everyone are conscientious and help each other, I rather you are my friend than the liars at the top. But I am willing to observe corruption, I won’t need to change their words to feel better, and I won’t ignore the wider context despite their efforts to steer you clear from thousands and thousands of experts like Dr. Mullis, and the doctors mentioned above. I still believe people are good by nature, especially your everyday regular joes. However, you cannot underestimate the corruption that people are capable of when power and trillions of dollars are involved. Lockdown measure is a simple case of abuse of power, even if there is a health crisis. In this scenario, authority would skip any democratic diaologue and forcibly take over, they set rules to limit the public, but rules don’t apply to the elites themselves (Pelosi salon, Newsom French Laundry, Lightfoot, Trump Mar-a-lago 500 guests NYE party, Dr. Birx travelling for xmas). Moreover, the rules are set to give them direct benefit, such as mandatory closures of traditional businesses giving way to the centralized big-tech economy. In this crisis, we are not supposed to have freedom to manage our own problems. We must all give up our rights for the authority to dictate the solution, even if it's unjust. Have we ever elected these medical authority to run the world?
No, I'm not redefining anything. There's no "redefinition" involved in pointing out what is obvious to anyone and what you're already recognized -- that a "recovered" patient is someone who was formerly infected. Full context of the clip (32:48) you pointed to: Interviewer: So it's almost like when you talk about the need to accelerate testing, the immediate need is for testing for the virus. But is it possible that in a few months time, there's going to be this growing need to test for these antibodies in people, i.e. to see if someone had the disease and recovered, maybe they didn't even know they had it. Because you could picture this growing worldwide force of heroes - lets call them heroes -- who've been through this experience and have a lot to offer the world. Maybe they can offer blood donation, serum donation. But also, other tasks, like, if you've got overwhelmed health care systems, presumably there are other kinds of community health worker type tasks that people could be trained to do to relieve the pressure there, if we knew that they were effectively immune? Gates: Yes, until we came up with the self-swab and showed FDA that that's equivalent, we were thinking that people who might be able to man those kiosks would be the recovered patients ... Now, we don't want to have a lot of recovered people, you know. To be clear, we're trying through the shutdown in the United States to not get to one percent of the population infected. We're well below that today, but with exponentiation you could get past that three million. I believe we will be able to avoid that with having this economic pain. The interviewer was describing a scenario in which within a few months time there would be a large force of recovered "heroes" who could help combat the virus, and Gates's response was to caution against reliance on such a force because the goal should be to keep the infection rate as low as possible. You took one sentence out of context -- "Now, we don't want to have a lot of recovered people, you know." -- and attempted to give it a meaning that wasn't there. In context, he said "we don't want to have a lot of recovered people" because we were trying to keep less than 1% of the population infected. There's nothing there to suggest opposition to someone recovering from the virus once they're infected. That's just a bizarre inference to make, if that's indeed what you were trying to argue (I can't really tell anymore). The words are there for anyone to read or listen to. I don't see much point in arguing about it any further.
“You have a lot of supporters Kyrie,” Stockton said. “Not all them of can get to you, and you can’t get to all of them, but there’s every bit a majority out there that’s sitting there pulling for you. They’re just not quite as bold as he is. I’m proud of him as an individual to take that kind of individual risk and be that bold for what you feel is right.” Stockton added that there’s “not a chance” that he would “risk any of that to play” in reference to taking the vaccine. “There’s not a chance I would risk any of that to play,” Stockton said. “My hope would be other guys would join in. And all of us lock arms. And none of us play.”
Forgot this thread existed. Saw "Jazz great John Sto-" and thought it was some bad news for a second.
