COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events - Page 1731

starting strength gym
Page 1731 of 2315 FirstFirst ... 7311231163116811721172917301731173217331741178118312231 ... LastLast
Results 17,301 to 17,310 of 23148

Thread: COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events

  1. #17301
    Join Date
    Dec 2013


    • starting strength seminar october 2022
    • starting strength seminar december 2022
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Grantham View Post
    Here's a place to start: AAAS
    Still reading it. There is clear propaganda, which is also evident to the one commenter. The paper ends with:

    "It is essential to implement public health interventions, such as strategic testing for control of outbreaks, vaccine passports, employment-based vaccine mandates, vaccination campaigns for eligible children as well as adults, and consistent messaging from public health leadership in the face of increased risk of infection due to the Delta and other emerging variants."

    This is disconnected from the paper.

    These are public-health types, who included policy in their paper. They pretend to think broadly at the social level, but no mention of vaccine side-effects, natural immunity, or therapeutics.

    Comments for Figure 3:

    * The lack of any common scaling of the vertical axis is amateur. If A & B were on the same scale, striated risk would be obvious, and the reader might be draw to conclusions different than intended by the author. Similar for C&D.
    * Can plots A & B be reconciled with the table of survival rates posted in this thread (most recently by Rip)?

    No mention that the vaccinations can be the forcing function in evolution of the variants. In that case, they'd be chasing their tail in proposing "infection prevention in all persons". Either way, it's a form of zero-covid thinking, like Australia.


    * there is an argument for individuals to consider the vaccine, highly context dependent (old and/or morbid, fear will also induce through these stats)

    * these vaccines should be irrelevant to public policy (my conclusion, not theirs)

    * the editor approves of strong advocacy

  2. #17302
    Join Date
    Jan 2011


    Thanks for the link. Rumble is not what I call a reliable source of credible information. That video has disguised wittiness's in the dark something like you get from "Current Affair" or "60 Minutes". The links below go to a Queensland senator. Other links end up at AMPS a doctors union that is a member of "Red Union" which appears to be a left wing organization that is trying to set up associations to fight conservative governments.

  3. #17303
    Join Date
    Sep 2019


    Quote Originally Posted by gilead View Post

    500% increase in sudden cardiac and unexplained deaths among FIFA athletes in 2021 – America's Frontline Doctors
    These guys are the fittest and healthiest people in the world and the majority are under 30 years old.
    I wonder what changed this year different from other years with regards to a specific health treatment that might have caused this. Does anyone have an idea?
    I have found the soccer athletes response so odd. No American football players, either college or pro, have had any issues on field that I know of. Wonder if these soccer players are using PEDs that are negatively interacting with the vaccine. But that makes no sense... NFL and college athletes take PEDs too.

    Also, 40yo male client, recovered from covid, just got an elite rating for his life insurance from a mutual insurance company. I know bc I took the app and received the approval email.

  4. #17304
    Join Date
    May 2020


    They did that kid dirty. It was a huge win for normal people. I’m not sure what the right move is next though.

  5. #17305
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    North Texas


    Quote Originally Posted by mpalios View Post
    Also, 40yo male client, recovered from covid, just got an elite rating for his life insurance from a mutual insurance company. I know bc I took the app and received the approval email.
    Let's not let this one get too stale: COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events

    There’s a persistent rumor going around that COVID-19 is both highly infectious and also extremely deadly.

    As the rumor goes, computer models originally predicted 2.2 millions deaths from COVID-19 in the United States alone. This prediction was based on the idea that 268 million Americans would become infected, and approximately 0.9% of those people would die as a result of infection. To achieve those mind-boggling numbers, computer models assumed each infected person spreads the illness to 2.4 other people. And those people spread the illness to 2.4 others, and so on. At this rate, the number of people infected doubles every 4 days.

    If true, this sort of infection fatality rate would be more successful that any multi-level marketing scheme in history.

    Also, with so many infected with COVID-19, certain industries would take notice—one of those industries being the sleepy life insurance industry.

    The life insurance business lives and dies based on its ability to accurately predict death rates. If a life insurance company can accurately predict population-level death rates, it can make a lot of money selling life insurance to the general public. And, this is exactly what life insurers do—predict population-level deaths and use that information to make lots of money.

    One thing to know about life insurance companies is they don’t like being wrong because being wrong means going out of business and going out of business means they can’t make money. And, having been in this business since 2004, one thing I have learned about life insurers is… they are very fond of making money and likewise… they despise losing money.

    And, in the life insurance business, the best way to lose money is to be wrong a whole bunch of times about insured policyholder death rates. Dying costs money, and the more policyholder deaths there are, the more money a life insurance company loses. Now, to a certain extent, life insurance companies are prepared to lose money when people die. And, they’re even prepared to be a little bit wrong about the number of people who die—this is why they hold massive amounts of reserve capital and surplus funds. And, obviously, everyone dies at some point so making those insurance payouts is inevitable. But a life insurance company would prefer you live as long as possible so they can keep collecting premiums from you, keep making money, and avoid losing money for as long as possible.

    On net, a life insurance company has to make a profit, just like any other business. They cannot lose money, on net, and remain in business.

    If any of this sounds like common sense, it’s because it is.

    What you might not know is just how good life insurers are at predicting death rates and minimizing losses from unexpected deaths. Their business model and longevity is proof that their statistical models work and have worked for a very long time. A statistical model that did not work would mean there would not be any life insurance companies and no life insurance policies. And, since there are life insurance companies that sell life insurance policies (and have sold them for a very long time), we can reasonably assume that the statistical model does indeed work.

    This fact cannot be understated. Life insurers aren’t “just guessing” about population-level death rates. Nor are they gambling. They are predicting death rates in the U.S. (and all over the world where such data exists) with uncanny accuracy—enough accuracy to run a profitable business for centuries at a time, with no “help” from taxpayers.

    The proof that life insurers know exactly what they’re doing, and are exceptional at it, is in the longevity of life insurance businesses. Many of the life insurers in existence today have survived the Civil War, the 1918 Spanish flu epidemic, both world wars, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Persian Gulf War, and 9/11.

    In spite of the tremendous death counts experienced during multiple wars and a deadly pandemic, these companies continued to pay death claims and remained profitable. Most people do not appreciate the level of skill that this sort of thing takes. And, while many life insurers have decided to exit the business in recent years, it wasn't because their models failed. Life insurance is a capital-intensive business that requires a long-term perspective to succeed. In today's low interest rate environment, a growing number of the publicly-traded insurance companies are chasing higher-profit lines of business. The companies that remain, however, are still operating as they've always done.

    Which brings us to the current state of affairs.

    What everyone has been debating since the beginning of the pandemic is… just how deadly is COVID-19?

    If COVID-19 is a uniquely deadly virus, then surely the life insurance companies would know it, wouldn’t they? Or, if they didn’t know it, they would certainly be studying it and repricing their products appropriately to account for the uncertainty in those death rates, right?

    Life insurance companies are nothing if not conservative. They do not like uncertainty in mortality rates. And anything new, that poses a novel risk to their business, is something they will scrutinize if for no other reason than self-preservation.

    So… what have life insurers done in response to COVID-19?

    Would you believe… nothing?

    Whatever lip service you may have heard from life insurance company executives, or industry commentators, the reality is, life insurance companies have taken little to no action to reprice their policies in response to the Covid-19 pandemic. Life insurance has not gotten more expensive in the last few years in the U.S.. In fact, it’s gotten cheaper. This follows the decade-long trend of falling premium rates.

    We can see this show up in the simplest of life insurance products—the one-year annual renewable term life insurance product.

    Life insurers have a multitude ways to design a life insurance product, most of which involve using a policyholder’s invested premium dollars to offset, subsidize, or otherwise “hold down” the pure cost of insurance, but all policies are essentially based on the one-year term insurance chassis. The annual (one year) term life product is—as the name suggests—a life insurance product with a contract term of just one year.

    It’s the simplest form of life insurance and the one that most accurately reflects the pure cost of providing life insurance coverage without the benefit of using investment gains to create affordable premium rates.

    Most life insurance products are priced such that more premium is collected than is actually needed to pay for the pure cost of insurance. The excess premium is then invested for future years where it will be used to offset the rising cost of insurance. For policies that are in force for decades, this makes a lot of sense. Anyone who has ever been around humans before knows that all humans eventually get old. And, furthermore, these old humans die at a much higher rate than young humans. And, because of this, it’s much more expensive to offer life insurance coverage to an old human than to a young human. Most old humans can’t afford life insurance, and most life insurance companies don’t want to take the risk of selling life insurance to an old human.

    So, life insurers collect excess premiums from a young human buying life insurance. And then, when that young human turns into an old human, the excess premiums, plus any investment gains on those excess premiums, are used to pay for the increased cost of providing life insurance coverage in his old age. There’s also some profit generated from having invested this money for so long, which the insurance company keeps (or, in the case of mutual life insurers, pays to its policyholders), and which makes it worthwhile to continue collecting premiums from an old human who has been paying premiums for decades.

    But, if you strip out all the fancy investments, what you have left is the pure cost of providing insurance coverage. And, this pure cost of insurance will most accurately reflect the real cost of providing insurance coverage. Looking at this from a different perspective, it reflects the real cost (to the insurance company) of taking on the risk that a policyholder dies. It is a true reflection of the amount of money needed to justify selling a life insurance policy to an individual.

    This is important because… if more policyholders die than expected, or if expected death rates increase, insurance companies must reprice their life insurance products to reflect the higher mortality rates. They cannot infinitely justify low premiums just because the market wants a lower premium. This is not like selling a television set or a car. Mass production does not lower the cost of insurance. Demand, or lack thereof, does not change premium rates.

    If a manufacturer of television sets experiences sluggish sales, it can discount the price of its T.V.s in an attempt to sell more of them. Life insurers cannot discount the cost of insurance.

    Instead, life insurance companies create the demand for their product, set its price, and the marketplace pays what the insurer demands. The pure cost of life insurance reflects nothing more and nothing less the objective risk of a policyholder dying. And, until or unless someone figures out a way to negotiate with The Grim Reaper, it will always be this way.

    To design the one-year pure term insurance product, life insurers calculate the cost of providing life insurance coverage to an individual for just one year.

    So, what does it cost to provide pure term life insurance for one year?

    In 2017, MetLife—one of the largest insurance companies in the U.S.—published its term insurance rates for its one-year term life product, which you can access here: Page Not Found - Monegenix(R)

    According to MetLife's table, in 2017, a 45-year-old male, with a standard non-smoker’s rating, would have paid $0.85 per $1,000 of life insurance coverage. This is much lower than the 2001 table rate of $1.53 per $1,000.

    That means a 45-year-old man who doesn’t smoke would have paid $425 for $500,000 of life insurance coverage, for one year (2017). In 2018, the policy would have terminated and insurance coverage would have ended.

    Fast forward to 2021. MetLife no longer sells term life insurance because it spun off its life insurance division and formed Brighthouse Life Insurance Company. Brighthouse is, thus, a proxy for MetLife’s old term life product going forward.

    A recent quote from Brighthouse Life Insurance Company, dated November 4th 2021, shows a 45-year-old male, standard non-smoker, can buy $500,000 of life insurance coverage, for one year, for $270. That is $155 cheaper than in 2017, before the pandemic started:

    COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events-oyt-45-jpg

    Something is amiss, or… excess deaths, to the extent they did occur, has not affected the cost of life insurance.

    But, maybe this is a fluke. Let’s look at other ages and the associated costs for $500,000 of term life coverage in 2017:

    Age 55: $835
    Age 65: $2,395
    Age 75: $5,685

    Compare that to the one-year term rates for the same $500,000 of term life coverage in 2021 (2021 table available here:Page Not Found - Monegenix(R)

    Age 55: $500

    COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events-oyt-55-jpg

    Age 65: $1,105

    COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events-oyt-65-jpg

    Age 75: $4,515

    COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events-oyt-75-jpg

    Across all observed ages, premiums for pure term insurance have fallen since 2017.

    Of special interest is the age-75 costs for term life insurance. Few people would buy one-year term insurance at that age, but even if they did… the cost for coverage has declined significantly from $5,685 to $4,515—in spite of the high mortality rates of 75-year-olds during the pandemic.

    At this point, it should be obvious to the casual reader that death rates from COVID did not cause a dramatic increase—or any increase—in life insurance costs during this time.

    The logic behind the numbers hasn’t changed since the pandemic began, either.

    Early on in the pandemic, a friendly acquaintance of mine, Pete Neuwirth, organized the available data from the CDC (before the government stopped reporting “deaths from Covid” and started reporting “deaths with Covid”) and published it to his blog, here: “Life Contingencies” - An Actuarial Look at COVID-19 Mortality - Peter Neuwirth FSA

    Pete is a retired insurance actuary with 40 years of experience in risk management. I’ve found him to be unusually insightful during this time, especially when fear-mongering and hysteria has become the norm.

    Anyway, of special interest is his summary of the probability of dying from a COVID infection:

    Age — < 50 Probability of dying = .0003 (approximately 1/3000)

    50-64 Probability of dying = .0013 (approximately 1/750)

    65 + Probability of dying = .0085 (approximately 1/120)

    Overall probability of dying if infected = .0024 (approximately 1/400)

    His estimates back then are consistent with the current data published by the non-profit organization, Physicians For Informed Consent:


    So, you see, the data do not support the idea of COVID-19 being a highly deadly illness. Life insurance companies have yet to adjust their mortality pricing to reflect The Narrative™. And, regardless of what any particular insurance company’s vaccination policy is for its employees, or whatever public statements they make about COVID or public health policy, the boys in the back room who are responsible for pricing these life insurance policies are running the calculations based on what the data actually says… not what The Narrative™ says, and not what politicians, the medical establishment, and the news media is telling you. In short, the life insurance industry is functioning just as it always has—as the (mostly) quiet industry that hums along, largely ignoring what everyone else is doing and making money in the process... narratives be damned.

  6. #17306
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    North Texas


    Quote Originally Posted by wal View Post
    Thanks for the link. Rumble is not what I call a reliable source of credible information. That video has disguised wittiness's in the dark something like you get from "Current Affair" or "60 Minutes". The links below go to a Queensland senator. Other links end up at AMPS a doctors union that is a member of "Red Union" which appears to be a left wing organization that is trying to set up associations to fight conservative governments.
    Rumble is not the "source" of the information, it's just hosting the video since YouTube will not. The witness's voice is obviously disguised to keep her from getting fired. I don't understand your other objections.

  7. #17307
    Join Date
    Jun 2013


    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Grantham View Post
    I get it that the situation is not nearly as clear-cut as most people (on all sides) would like it to be. The vaccines don’t protect against infection or transmission nearly as well as some folks would like, and that should have complicated the issue for more people on the ‘people should get vaccinated’ side than it seems to have done. I also understand the survival rates that keep getting trotted out like the NYC Health Department graph did in the summer of ’20. However, I’m not as willing to say that the number of COVID-19 deaths that do occur is a non-issue.
    We were told the vaccines would protect against both infection and transmission. Policy is still based on that lie.

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Grantham View Post

    I also don't see why treatments and vaccination have to be mutually exclusive.
    The answer is simple. If treatments (therapies) exist, there would be no emergency use authorization of the vaccines, and the vaccines would have to go through real trials...which would fail.

    Thus, therapies cannot and will not exist...and so people die unnecessarily.

    It's infuriating, and that right there is why you are getting pushback here. We expect you to see this and use your influence to help affect change. Of course, I suspect that might create some issues professionally for you. And THAT is even more infuriating because it means science is dead.

  8. #17308
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    North Texas


    Kits is right on the money, Dr. Grantham. It's rather simple, and perhaps that's why you seem unable to understand it.

    And please read the post I linked above. More real-world shit: COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events

  9. #17309
    Join Date
    Jan 2011


    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    Rumble is not the "source" of the information, it's just hosting the video since YouTube will not. The witness's voice is obviously disguised to keep her from getting fired. I don't understand your other objections.
    Mark what has happened to you? Come on Mark, you are a competent and reliable trainer, I have always looked at you as straight shooter, you who have at many times told to me I don't put up with bullshit.

    It is a fizzer Mark, nothing there. I am not objecting. It is all a just load of nonsense. Rumble is the source.

    Source Rumble
    Whistleblowers Speak on COVID-19 Vaccine Injuries (Teaser)

    BTW this link (https://physiciansforinformedconsent...ugust-2021.pdf/) will not open.

  10. #17310
    Join Date
    Aug 2015


    starting strength coach development program
    Anthony Colpo’s latest:

    Back in July, Pfizer researchers released death data from the hastily unblinded clinical trial of its its COVID 'vaccine.' Despite the death rate being marginally higher in the 'vaccine' group, sleazy media outlets and dishonest bureaucrats continue to claim the drug is safe, effective and saves lives. New information contained in a recently posted FDA document reveals the death rate among Pfizer's 'vaccine' group was even worse than what they originally let on.

    More People Died in Pfizer’s COVID-19 ‘Vaccine’ Trial than What the Company Originally Claimed – Anthony Colpo


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts