One comment on the vaccine efficacy is that as a result of encouraging the population of fully recovered individuals to get vaccinated, it distorts the numbers in how effective the vaccine may (or may not) be. Combine this with an essentially destroyed long term control group in the trials (no longer blind and the majority are now vaccinated), we have very little knowledge of efficacy or risks both short and long term.
And of course, Jerome Adams provides no context about the 24-year-old Blake. Who knows what kinds of other illnesses he might have had, for example. I just got done reading an article by Julius Ruechel of Canada in which he talked about how a Canadian health officer used the death of a infant to remind everyone of the "vicious nature of this virus." Missing, of course, was all sorts of context, including the fact that the child was so sick before getting infected that he was already hospitalized in an institution where children go when they have serious illnesses. (Very interesting article. You can find it here: https://www.juliusruechel.com/2021/05/the-lies-exposed-by-numbers-fear.html) It's disgusting to take advantage of someone's pain and suffering to fearmonger.
Does the estimated fatality rate and R0 of delta take into consideration that many people have either been vaccinated or had alpha COVID the first time around?
Did you know that the double lung transplant guy? This is what his mother said..."She said he vaped regularly but otherwise had no diabetes and no hypertension when he caught Covid travelling to Florida in April for an indoor concert."
So I guess that regular vaping had NO effect WHATSOEVER on his lungs right?
Oh, and don't forget how in the so-called studies the so-called scientists broke blind and then administered the vax to the control group, thus making it entirely impossible to ever evaluate the data.
The graphs around the middle of this piece are all anyone needs to really know to get the short version of it. Now, I know you could say that an "index" of severity for COVID restrictions may be flawed, but I'd love to know what metric could be better. Social interaction score is even based on actual behavior patterns (unless people collectively started forgetting their phones at home) and dispenses neatly with the notion that "restrictions didn't work because people ignored them."
And if the restrictions didn't work at a time when public trust hadn't completely 100% tanked yet and the Experts™ still had some capital, well... there's absolutely no chance of their slowing the spread with a more transmissible variant and public trust achieving new lows every day.
Did you see the note on the NATURE article, about how the editors are considering the challenges to the conclusion? Thank you again for a wonderful article.
These PH grifters seem shocked that a large and growing percentage of folks no longer trust them. Some of them are for sure outright unintelligent drones (hello Jerome) who shouldn't be allowed to operate a lemonade stand. Others appear to have some level of intelligence but are either too marinated in political dogma or too lacking in real world perspective to produce any type of realistic meaningful recommendations. Just as many of us have been hearing ourselves saying repeatedly, "now I understand how Hitler/etc happened", we also hear ourselves saying, "now I know how all the crap recommendations from the CDC and FDA over so many decades happened." These PH pushers are so far beyond the looking glass now that a large and growing portion of folks will do exactly the opposite of what they say. Some of them must be aware of this. They must. So then who do they think they are talking to? Do they really believe this messaging will nudge anyone in the direction they seek? Or perhaps they see it as a strategy to activate their cipher minions into bullying non-compliers.
One comment on the vaccine efficacy is that as a result of encouraging the population of fully recovered individuals to get vaccinated, it distorts the numbers in how effective the vaccine may (or may not) be. Combine this with an essentially destroyed long term control group in the trials (no longer blind and the majority are now vaccinated), we have very little knowledge of efficacy or risks both short and long term.
And of course, Jerome Adams provides no context about the 24-year-old Blake. Who knows what kinds of other illnesses he might have had, for example. I just got done reading an article by Julius Ruechel of Canada in which he talked about how a Canadian health officer used the death of a infant to remind everyone of the "vicious nature of this virus." Missing, of course, was all sorts of context, including the fact that the child was so sick before getting infected that he was already hospitalized in an institution where children go when they have serious illnesses. (Very interesting article. You can find it here: https://www.juliusruechel.com/2021/05/the-lies-exposed-by-numbers-fear.html) It's disgusting to take advantage of someone's pain and suffering to fearmonger.
Does the estimated fatality rate and R0 of delta take into consideration that many people have either been vaccinated or had alpha COVID the first time around?
I used to follow you on Twitter. I’m so glad I found your substack!
Did you know that the double lung transplant guy? This is what his mother said..."She said he vaped regularly but otherwise had no diabetes and no hypertension when he caught Covid travelling to Florida in April for an indoor concert."
So I guess that regular vaping had NO effect WHATSOEVER on his lungs right?
Oh, and don't forget how in the so-called studies the so-called scientists broke blind and then administered the vax to the control group, thus making it entirely impossible to ever evaluate the data.
The graphs around the middle of this piece are all anyone needs to really know to get the short version of it. Now, I know you could say that an "index" of severity for COVID restrictions may be flawed, but I'd love to know what metric could be better. Social interaction score is even based on actual behavior patterns (unless people collectively started forgetting their phones at home) and dispenses neatly with the notion that "restrictions didn't work because people ignored them."
And if the restrictions didn't work at a time when public trust hadn't completely 100% tanked yet and the Experts™ still had some capital, well... there's absolutely no chance of their slowing the spread with a more transmissible variant and public trust achieving new lows every day.
Did you see the note on the NATURE article, about how the editors are considering the challenges to the conclusion? Thank you again for a wonderful article.
These PH grifters seem shocked that a large and growing percentage of folks no longer trust them. Some of them are for sure outright unintelligent drones (hello Jerome) who shouldn't be allowed to operate a lemonade stand. Others appear to have some level of intelligence but are either too marinated in political dogma or too lacking in real world perspective to produce any type of realistic meaningful recommendations. Just as many of us have been hearing ourselves saying repeatedly, "now I understand how Hitler/etc happened", we also hear ourselves saying, "now I know how all the crap recommendations from the CDC and FDA over so many decades happened." These PH pushers are so far beyond the looking glass now that a large and growing portion of folks will do exactly the opposite of what they say. Some of them must be aware of this. They must. So then who do they think they are talking to? Do they really believe this messaging will nudge anyone in the direction they seek? Or perhaps they see it as a strategy to activate their cipher minions into bullying non-compliers.
Here inLA county they are going back with masks... even for vaccinated people
I remember when he told us we didn't need masks last year.