COVID-19 Coronavirus General Thread

[Levi68]

Vaccines save lives. It's a fact. Enough said. I rest my case now.

A fact in an alternative reality....

 

[hoffmeister_fan]

A fact in an alternative reality....

Yup, last I checked polio was only an illness in the alternative reality.

 

[Matski]

I would love to know how many big pharma board members are also sitting on the boards of major Media companies.

The small business for which I graft, was taken for nearly £200,000 a couple of years ago (which is still a crippling blow) by a massive Pharma company .. trust me, I wouldn't even piss on those boards members' if they were on fire, there is no love here for them... but having said that... the information you want is most likely all publicly available. Appointed member information is typically held with accounts fillings, and Annual Reports often list the other roles of their appointed officers - I believe they have to. It's a bit of a trawl to go through the companies, related holdings, and all the Directors and Officers, and to read through the annual reports, but I think it's safe to say, if there was a story to be found it would already be news.

 

[Levi68]

Yup, last I checked polio was only an illness in the alternative reality.

strawman

 

[hoffmeister_fan]

strawman

projection, the psychological kind.

 

[Levi68]

Sign at Ireland's Pilot Music Festival...

 

[EnI]

Got my 2nd dose today after 10 weeks. I went for a mix-and-match, and picked mRNA Pfizer vaccine for my booster, after 1st doze of vector AstraZeneca vaccine.

 

[Wolfgang]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Wolfgang]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[advantage20]

Seriously though, this meme isn't that far off now that the 1947 Nuremberg Code is being blatantly violated, by what amounts in practice to a forceful administration of medicines that are still partially experimental and whose ingredients sheet has been left completely blank.

 

[hoffmeister_fan]

1947 Nuremberg Code is being blatantly violated

EUAs do not violate the 1947 Nuremberg code. I'd go into it, but the following link sums it up pretty well.

Nuremberg Code Addresses Experimentation, Not Vaccines - FactCheck.org

A bogus claim that "[v]accines are in direct violation of The Nuremberg Code" has been circulating on social media. Actually, the Nuremberg Code addresses the treatment of human subjects in medical experiments and says nothing about the use of tested and approved vaccines on patients.

www.factcheck.org

If for some reason the above link is not available, I have pasted it below.

Nuremberg Code Addresses Experimentation, Not Vaccines
By Saranac Hale Spencer
Posted on June 8, 2020 | Updated on May 17, 2021


Quick Take
A bogus claim that “[v]accines are in direct violation of The Nuremberg Code” has been circulating on social media. Actually, the Nuremberg Code addresses the treatment of human subjects in medical experiments and says nothing about the use of tested and authorized vaccines on patients.
Full Story
The code of medical ethics created in response to Nazi experiments during the Holocaust has been misrepresented by those pushing an anti-vaccine message during the COVID-19 pandemic.
This is just the latest example of a falsehood aimed at discrediting vaccines during the outbreak of the novel coronavirus, or SARS-CoV-2. Since April, we’ve debunked at least three other claims aimed at the same thing.
Now, Facebook pages dedicated to conspiracy theories and the anti-vaccine movement are posting claims that say, in part: “Vaccines are in direct violation of The Nuremberg Code.”
That’s not true.
The Nuremberg Code was written in 1947 during the trial in Nuremberg, Germany, of doctors who conducted medical experiments on more than 7,000 concentration camp prisoners during World War II. They tested ways to improve the chances of survival for Nazi soldiers in the field. They tested medical procedures and drugs. They conducted experiments to support their ideological view of racial superiority.
All of these experiments were done without the consent of the subjects.
That’s what the Nuremberg Code addressed — the treatment of human subjects in medical experiments.
“It’s about human experiments,” Jonathan Moreno, a medical ethics professor at the University of Pennsylvania, said of the Nuremberg Code in an email to FactCheck.org, emphasizing that the claim is false.
The code says nothing about the use of tested and authorized vaccines or treatments on patients.
“The purpose of the code was to say that what the Nazi doctors did would never happen again,” George Annas, director of the Center for Health Law, Ethics & Human Rights at Boston University School of Public Health, said in an interview with FactCheck.org.
Both Moreno and Annas said that the code could not be interpreted to bar vaccination.
The basis for this claim goes back much further than the pandemic, though. As is often the case with false claims like this, it appears to have evolved from a more vague suggestion made years ago.
In the 1990s, a prominent vaccine critic, Barbara Loe Fisher, cited one of the core principles stated in the Nuremberg Code — informed consent — to support her argument that parents should have more freedom to choose whether or not to vaccinate their children. All 50 states require children to be vaccinated in order to start school, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. All 50 states also have medical exemptions, while 45 states and the District of Columbia offer religious exemptions.
But Loe Fisher appears to have mixed up two different lineages of informed consent — the one that applies to subjects of medical experimentation (as in the case of the Nuremberg Code) and the one that applies to patients in a regular health care setting (as in the case of vaccines).
In a television appearance in 1997, Loe Fisher said: “Informed consent has been the gold standard in medical practice ever since the Nuremberg Codes were passed after World War II. There should be no exception for vaccination.”
The website for her organization — the National Vaccine Information Center, which we’ve written about before — has a post that acknowledges that the code “speaks most specifically to the use of human beings in medical research.” But it goes on to claim that the code “has been viewed by bioethicists and U.S. courts as the basis for the right to informed consent to medical procedures carrying a risk of injury or death.”
That’s not true.
The Nuremberg Code has “only been used by courts in the human experimentation context,” Annas told us. And the principle of informed consent in the regular doctor-patient relationship, outside of medical experimentation, doesn’t come from the Nuremberg Code, he said. That developed separately.
The concept of informed consent in medical research grew largely out of unethical research projects conducted in the early 20th century, including the experiments during the Holocaust and the syphilis study done on black men without their consent in Tuskegee, Alabama, according to a paper from the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues, which distinguishes between the idea of informed consent for medical research and regular treatment.
The concept of informed consent in the health care setting, however, “developed from the intentional tort of battery, which protects individuals from an unwanted physical touching of the body by others having neither express nor implied consent of the person touched,” according to a paper published in the Mayo Clinic’s peer-reviewed journal.
In support of the bogus claim that the Nuremberg Code would apply to the use of vaccines, the National Vaccine Information Center’s post includes out-of-context quotes from two bioethicists.
One of them, Arthur Caplan, a professor of bioethics at New York University, told us in an email that the use of a quote from his 1992 article is “[c]ompletely erroneous” and is a “[f]lat out Reflection of both ignorance of history and ethics.”
It is “a gross disservice to the victims of brutal Nazi experiments to distort my words for lame anti-science that will kill people if this bilge is taken seriously,” Caplan said.
Jay Katz, the other professor whose work was cited by the National Vaccine Information Center, died in 2008. But his article was about the informed consent of human subjects in medical research. It had nothing to do with vaccines or informed consent among ordinary patients.
We asked the National Vaccine Information Center about the claims in its post, but it responded with the same information given on its website.
Despite the dubious claims it makes, the National Vaccine Information Center’s post is still being shared on social media and has been used to support other, related falsehoods about vaccines over the years.
As we’ve explained, the Nuremberg Code says nothing about the use of already tested and authorized medicine or prevention, like vaccines. The full text is below:
1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.
This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonable to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.
The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.
2. The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.
3. The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment.
4. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.
5. No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.
6. The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.
7. Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death.
8. The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.
9. During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.
10. During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgment required of him that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.
Update, May 17: After this story was written, the Food and Drug Administration gave emergency use authorization to three COVID-19 vaccines – a review process that is typically less stringent than full licensure. We changed the wording in this story to refer to vaccines as authorized, not approved, to avoid confusion. We thank the reader who brought this to our attention.
Editor’s note: FactCheck.org is one of several organizations working with Facebook to debunk misinformation shared on social media. Our previous stories can be found here.
Sources
Fichera, Angelo. “No Evidence That Flu Shot Increases Risk of COVID-19.” FactCheck.org. 27 Apr 2020.
Hale Spencer, Saranac. “Conspiracy Theory Misinterprets Goals of Gates Foundation.” FactCheck.org. 14 Apr 2020.
Fichera, Angelo. “False Claim of Deadly Coronavirus Vaccine Trial in Africa.” FactCheck.org. 10 Apr 2020.
Nuremberg Code. Lillian Goldman Law Library, Yale Law School. Accessed 4 Jun 2020.
United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. “The Doctors Trial: The Medical Case of the Subsequent Nuremberg Proceedings.” Accessed 4 Jun 2020.
Moreno, Jonathan. Medical ethics professor, University of Pennsylvania. Email exchange with FactCheck.org. 3 Jun 2020.
Annas, George. Director, Center for Health Law, Ethics & Human Rights at Boston University School of Public Health. Telephone interview and email exchange with FactCheck.org. 4 Jun 2020.
Skinner, Erik. “State Vaccination Policies: Requirements and Exemptions for Entering School.” National Conference of State Legislatures. Dec 2017.
NVICstandup. “Barbara Loe Fisher and Neil Halsey M D debate.” YouTube. Posted 28 Jan 2009.
Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues. Informed Consent Background. 30 Sep 2016.
Paterick, Timothy, et al. ” Medical Informed Consent: General Considerations for Physicians.” Mayo Clinic Proceedings. Mar 2008.
Caplan, Arthur. Bioethics professor, New York University. Email exchange with FactCheck.org. 4 Jun 2020.

ingredients sheet has been left completely blank.

Here you go:

Interim Clinical Considerations for Use of COVID-19 Vaccines | CDC

Find interim clinical considerations for the use of COVID-19 vaccines for the prevention of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the United States.

www.cdc.gov

I am sure the EMA has this information available as well.

Also, there also exists couple threads on this forum regarding COVID, so post there instead of the Random Thoughts thread.

MODS: Apologies for the extra work, can you kindly move these posts to the appropriate COVID thread. Thanks.

 

[hoffmeister_fan]

Whoops. Just realized the above posts were in the "Macron slapped" thread and not the Random Thoughts thread.

 

[advantage20]

EUAs do not violate the 1947 Nuremberg code. I'd go into it, but the following link sums it up pretty well.

Nuremberg Code Addresses Experimentation, Not Vaccines - FactCheck.org

A bogus claim that "[v]accines are in direct violation of The Nuremberg Code" has been circulating on social media. Actually, the Nuremberg Code addresses the treatment of human subjects in medical experiments and says nothing about the use of tested and approved vaccines on patients.

www.factcheck.org

If for some reason the above link is not available, I have pasted it below.






Here you go:

Interim Clinical Considerations for Use of COVID-19 Vaccines | CDC

Find interim clinical considerations for the use of COVID-19 vaccines for the prevention of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the United States.

www.cdc.gov

I am sure the EMA has this information available as well.

Also, there also exists couple threads on this forum regarding COVID, so post there instead of the Random Thoughts thread.

MODS: Apologies for the extra work, can you kindly move these posts to the appropriate COVID thread. Thanks.

That article is by no means a debunking of a "false claim". As you're correctly suggesting, the (at least American) vaccines haven't undergone the full extent of the usually provided trials and testing, both in terms of research depth and time setback; hence why the FDA hasn't yet fully "approved" them, only granted them "emergency use authorization" so that people who really want to take them asap are able to (and they should be able to). Well, this is a different situation than the usual patient to doctor trust relationship, and the doctor's right to forcefully administer a medicine when the patient's life is in imminent peril and the patient is actually unable to express his consent.

Incidentally, the argument that nazi experimentation was so unique in history that decency prevents us from ever daring invoke these principles again doesn't make any sense: these principles have been established precisely in order to prevent anything remotely similar from ever occurring again; if an event with at least some similar characteristics is about to happen in the present, of course we can invoke them, not everything has to be 100% identical.

As for the ingredients, I was specifically referring to the sheet that for once is left blank in the actual package and therefore at the moment of actual administration -- patients with some... patience and time will of course get more educated with some research indeed.

The fact that these products haven't yet been fully approved -- with a massive implication: discharge of legal liability -- de facto classifies them as still experimental at this point, and the Nuremberg Code should be applicable. QED.

 

[advantage20]

PS: naturally this is just my current opinion, based on the current situation and available information; it may well evolve when further scientific research is carried out, further results are published, and more empirical evidence on a massive scale piles up over time.

 

[Bucketslash11]

That article is by no means a debunking of a "false claim". The (at least American) vaccines haven't undergone the full extent of the usually provided trials and testing, both and in terms of research depth and time setback; hence why the FDA hasn't yet fully "approved" them, only granted them "emergency use authorization" for those people who really want to take them asap (and they should have the right to).

Incidentally, the argument that nazi experimentation was so unique in history that decency prevents us from ever daring invoke them for current events doesn't make any sense: these principles have been established precisely in order to prevent anything remotely similar from ever occurring again; if an event with at least some similar characteristics is about to happen again, of course we can invoke them legally, not everything has to be 100% identical.

As for the ingredients, I was specifically referring to the sheet that for once is left blank in the actual package and therefore at the moment of actual administration as they should be - patients with some... patience and time can of course get more educated with some research.

while all the vaccines have gone through all the testing phases a lot quicker than usual i still think the Chinese did a good decision by going with an inactivated vaccine first as that method is proven and has weaker side effects and doesn't need special storage

the mRNA works and you should get it if you can, BUT Pfizer/Moderna mRNA have been linked with Myocarditis in a study by Israel (BioNTech is also mRNA)
J&J and AstraZeneca was also in the media for blood clots

Fosun is the mRNA that will be produced in China and is basically a rebranded BioNTech

 

[hoffmeister_fan]

Well, this is a different situation than the usual patient to doctor trust relationship, and the doctor's right to forcefully administer a medicine when the patient's life is in imminent peril and the patient is actually unable to express his consent.

I can only speak for the US (and perhaps Canada), but I have yet to hear of a doctor or anybody else forcefully administer someone this vaccine, whether competent or incompetent.

Incidentally, the argument that nazi experimentation was so unique in history that decency prevents us from ever daring invoke these principles again doesn't make any sense: these principles have been established precisely in order to prevent anything remotely similar from ever occurring again; if an event with at least some similar characteristics is about to happen in the present, of course we can invoke them, not everything has to be 100% identical.

As mentioned, each patient receiving the vaccine is fully informed of the status of this vaccine.

In April, I was provided a multi-page pamphlet of the Pfizer-Biontech vaccine explicitly describing the vaccine, where it was in the approval process, how the safety and efficacy numbers led to its EUA status, the active/inactive ingredients, both common and rare side-effects, etc. I was given opportunities to ask questions about the vaccine and, if at all I felt uncomfortable, I was able to walk away. Are you saying that in France (I am assuming you are French based on the Macron meme as well as I think you obliquely may have mentioned it. If incorrect, I'll await the correction ), that those administered are not provided that information?

Also, you've acknowledge these principles were established due to the atrocious and disgusting experiments done on non-consenting subjects that were placed under considerable duress (imprisonment, torture, starvation, threats, etc.). So how is this even remotely similar to those that are given informed consent in France (again, assuming you are from or talking about France specifically)?

with a massive implication: discharge of legal liability -- de facto classifies them as still experimental at this point

In the US, if any data was hidden during its approval, especially in a duplicitous manner, they'd likely be subject to liability. Outside of that, I'd have to look into it. But the inability to be able to discharge legal liability is not what defines whether a therapeutic is experimental or not. (Yes, I understand that's how you interpret it, but that's not what it is and thus not defined as that.)

Also it should be mentioned that even when a therapeutic or device is fully approved, it still is monitored for many years post-approval.

 

[Bucketslash11]

while all the vaccines have gone through all the testing phases a lot quicker than usual i still think the Chinese did a good decision by going with an inactivated vaccine first as that method is proven and has weaker side effects and doesn't need special storage

the mRNA works and you should get it if you can, BUT Pfizer/Moderna mRNA have been linked with Myocarditis in a study by Israel (BioNTech is also mRNA)
J&J and AstraZeneca was also in the media for blood clots

Fosun is the mRNA that will be produced in China and is basically a rebranded BioNTech

it should be noted that the worst side effects are rare, found a video on youtube that mentioned myocarditis rates

 

[EnI]

Vaccines ... Sure some can react badly to vaccines. Just like some react badly to aspirin (internal bleeding) or paracetamol (liver damage). $hit can happen. You can even develop an allergy (even a severe one) literally over night - to something you've never been allergic to before. Yes, one's body can react badly, unexpectedly to chemicals (even in food), pharmaceuticals, drugs etc. That's life. Nothing is 100% safe.

But ... drugs, vaccines, pharmaceuticals are here to help us, to save us, to heal us, to cure us.

When it comes to vaccine side effects vs COVID side effects & long-term consequences, the odds are on the vaccine's side. Don't forget quite some people, even those with no or just mild COVID symptoms have developed some serious side effects (eg. blood cloths causing myocardic infarction, brain strokes, lung embolism, deep vein thrombosis etc), myocarditis, children developing MIS-C.


Not to mention so called "long COVID" or similar post-COVID syndrome, with some COVID syndromes lasting months after catching a bug - severely affecting one's quality of life. It's not all about hospitalisations & death. It's also about long-COVID & post-COVID consequences people are forgetting about & are ignoring such things. COVID is not a cold, it's not a flu, it's much more nasty & potentially dangerous disease.

One acquaintance of mine has developed long covid after very mild symptoms at initial infection. She's fighting it now since January! She's in constant pain (headaches, muscle & joint pains, stomachache etc), she still has no normal sense of smell & taste, she's feverish, she developed a tinnitus & a chronic conjunctivitis, her hair is falling off, she's has trouble sleeping, she's chronically exhausted, she has no energy whatsoever - she barely climb stairs at her home. Sometimes she test's positive, sometimes negative to COVID. She's often hospitalised due to severe pain. Not to mention she have become depressed. Her life has turn into a nightmare. She's 38. She was healthy, fit & athletic. Now she's an invalid. She wishes the vaccines could come sooner. It was too late for here. Where she got the bug? She doesn't know. She was extremely careful (wearing protective masks, disinfecting her hands, avoiding crowded places, working from home etc).

Point being? Long-COVID can happen. Still unknown to whom exactly. Could be anyone. Even young(er) people. It's not that rare (definitely more frequent than severe vaccine side effects). And, it's an extremely debilitating condition. Are you really ready to take that risk? Or are you rather "risking" to take a jab, and prevent such complications?

Long-term consequences of vaccination? Really? Do you even know what "long-term means when it comes to vaccination & its side effects? It's 60 days. Not 6 months, not 1 year, not 5 years. It's 2 months! And with hundreds of millions having been already vaccinated months ago, with no long-term side effects. And while many people are overestimating the "long-term" side effects of the vaccines, they are completely underestimating long-term effects of COVID which are also remaining unknown. What we know for certain is that many viruses (SARS-CoV-2 could be one of them; we still don't know) are mutagenic & even cancerogenic. Are you really ready to take that risk? I'm certainly not. It could be HPV case all over again: "Oh, it's just a benign virus. Mostly giving you just some benign warts." But over the years it has been proven & measured that HPV causes many cancer cases (vaginal, uteral, anal, pharyngal etc) in both sexes.

So, even if you're a gambler & calculating risks & odds constantly in your life when making decisions: tak a jab. Even odds are on the jab's side. At least when it comes to mRNA vaccines.

 

[Deleted member 1071]

Vaccines ... Sure some can react badly to vaccines. Just like some react badly to aspirin (internal bleeding) or paracetamol (liver damage). $hit can happen. You can even develop an allergy (even a severe one) literally over night - to something you've never been allergic to before. Yes, one's body can react badly, unexpectedly to chemicals (even in food), pharmaceuticals, drugs etc. That's life. Nothing is 100% safe.

But ... drugs, vaccines, pharmaceuticals are here to help us, to save us, to heal us, to cure us.

When it comes to vaccine side effects vs COVID side effects & long-term consequences, the odds are on the vaccine's side. Don't forget quite some people, even those with no or just mild COVID symptoms have developed some serious side effects (eg. blood cloths causing myocardic infarction, brain strokes, lung embolism, deep vein thrombosis etc), myocarditis, children developing MIS-C.


Not to mention so called "long COVID" or similar post-COVID syndrome, with some COVID syndromes lasting months after catching a bug - severely affecting one's quality of life. It's not all about hospitalisations & death. It's also about long-COVID & post-COVID consequences people are forgetting about & are ignoring such things. COVID is not a cold, it's not a flu, it's much more nasty & potentially dangerous disease.

One acquaintance of mine has developed long covid after very mild symptoms at initial infection. She's fighting it now since January! She's in constant pain (headaches, muscle & joint pains, stomachache etc), she still has no normal sense of smell & taste, she's feverish, she developed a tinnitus & a chronic conjunctivitis, her hair is falling off, she's has trouble sleeping, she's chronically exhausted, she has no energy whatsoever - she barely climb stairs at her home. Sometimes she test's positive, sometimes negative to COVID. She's often hospitalised due to severe pain. Not to mention she have become depressed. Her life has turn into a nightmare. She's 38. She was healthy, fit & athletic. Now she's an invalid. She wishes the vaccines could come sooner. It was too late for here. Where she got the bug? She doesn't know. She was extremely careful (wearing protective masks, disinfecting her hands, avoiding crowded places, working from home etc).

Point being? Long-COVID can happen. Still unknown to whom exactly. Could be anyone. Even young(er) people. It's not that rare (definitely more frequent than severe vaccine side effects). And, it's an extremely debilitating condition. Are you really ready to take that risk? Or are you rather "risking" to take a jab, and prevent such complications?

Long-term consequences of vaccination? Really? Do you even know what "long-term means when it comes to vaccination & its side effects? It's 60 days. Not 6 months, not 1 year, not 5 years. It's 2 months! And with hundreds of millions having been already vaccinated months ago, with no long-term side effects. And while many people are overestimating the "long-term" side effects of the vaccines, they are completely underestimating long-term effects of COVID which are also remaining unknown. What we know for certain is that many viruses (SARS-CoV-2 could be one of them; we still don't know) are mutagenic & even cancerogenic. Are you really ready to take that risk? I'm certainly not. It could be HPV case all over again: "Oh, it's just a benign virus. Mostly giving you just some benign warts." But over the years it has been proven & measured that HPV causes many cancer cases (vaginal, uteral, anal, pharyngal etc) in both sexes.

So, even if you're a gambler & calculating risks & odds constantly in your life when making decisions: tak a jab. Even odds are on the jab's side. At least when it comes to mRNA vaccines.

Good points, Eni. Also regarding HPV infections. They require monitoring and dysplasia should be addressed in a timely manner.

 

[EnI]

Good points, Eni. Also regarding HPV infections. They require monitoring and dysplasia should be addressed in a timely manner.

What bothers / worries me is the MIT researchers' discovery that SARS-CoV-2 is able to insert / transcribe its genetic material into human genome. That's an ability some much more sinister & harmful known viruses have (eg. HIV). Much is still unknown here. Is that really happening in human body when infected with SC2? Who is affected? Everybody or just some? What will the (long-term) consequences of such parasitism could be? Or could be benign but it also could be much more serious & harmful. Even malign, cancerous. Or autogenic reinfections could occur at some point? We (still) don't know! It's a new virus, so much is still unknown. What we know about it it's not just a typical benign corona virus. And it's certainly not as benign as influenza viruses. A virus - I'm talking about SARS-CoV-2 here - that's able to bind to the receptors on the endothelium of your blood vessels & infect it is not a trivial virus! No other common respiratory virus is able to do that. I would be still extremely cautious when it comes to SC2 & COVID. Since much is still unknown. We will know more in few years. But then it will be too late for some. It's better be safe than sorry.

And even what it's already know is not good news: COVID leaves quite a lot people crippled when compared to other "benign" viruses, especially respiratory ones. There's no frequent & serious post-flu complications. There's no such thing as long-flu. Children don't develop MIS-C after flu. Healthy , relatively young people don't end up in the ICU on a ventilator because of flu. Please, take SARS-CoV-2 & COVD-19 much more seriously. Not to mention that the virus has a incredible ability to mutate to become more infections. Delta strain is already the second strain that has become predominant globally - in just 6 months!!! And more is yet to come. Even more infectious strains & such that will be able to avoid immune responses even in the vaccinated people. It's going to happen. It's not if, it's when.