Yet, instead of putting the shovel down to stop themselves from digging a deeper hole, a number of governments are simply getting more and more shrill.
Help. I’m confused. CDC says vaccines don’t prevent transmission but help to mitigate serious illness and death. CDC data show without vaccination only a very tiny fraction of people become seriously ill or die from Covid - especially so for healthy people under 50. CDC and others say there exist ever improving treatments for those becoming ill from Covid.
I’m not good at math. Can someone explain the calculus justifying spending $ gazillions having EVERYONE take a vaccine which doesn’t prevent infection but rather TREATS an illness for which the vast majority of people - say, 99+%- is at not ill or at risk of serious illness? Why is that preferable to providing treatment for only the small fraction who become seriously ill? Do we require EVERYONE to be treated for STDs or other diseases whether they’ve contracted them or not and which pose little risk to the vast majority who may contract them?
What is the logic of forcing treatments on 99+% of the population for something that poses no risk to them? How does that in any way benefit the fraction of 1% who may become seriously ill?
It may seem heretical, but why don’t we just treat those who may become ill? Take the money saved by NOT treating the hundreds of millions who don’t require treatment and use it to develop even better treatment options? How about that?
As a special bonus, all those who are not needlessly treated also don’t suffer any unnecessary side effects - known or unknown - from a treatment they don’t require. Please explain in simple language what I’m missing. Thanks.
If gene-based vaccines don't stop transmission, due to late recognition of the spike, but natural infection does stop transmission, because of early recognition of the virus particle itself, does that not mean that herd immunity is only possible through natural infection (or traditional vaccines)? Time for WHO to do another flip-flop on definition of herd immunity?
This is as cogent an analysis of the total fail of the vaccine putsch as I've seen in one place. Thank you so much Gato. I really like how you incorporated the work of Ran Israeli (who has been stellar) and the comments of Dr. Haviv. While recognizing the vaccine may do some good for some people--even temporarily--the population of this country needs a 5:00 am wake up call about how absolutely outrageous and ill advised it is to have a public health policy FORCING vaccination on its entire citizenry. This is a level of depravity and stupidity that is completely unprecedented unless you were to watch the Cartoon Network.
As a hapless NYC worker, I'm starting to realize the weekly test may just be the annoyance I have to live through until this insanity ends. Was going to get the j&j by Aug 30th, but I can't set myself up for a "sorry, not sorry" at some point in the near future. Getting any of the big 3 inevitably sets up a cycle of getting boosters conceivably forever. #thesepeoplearesick
And as we pumped money into fast tracking an ineffective vaccine, we turned a blind eye to potential life saving treatments. The money should have been into real RCTs and investigative treatment options. Vaccines were never going to be the unicorn we needed— the trials not long enough, big enough, or variant enough to tell us what we needed to know. Public health is stuck on the same nonsensical solutions—- It’s like trying to fix everything with only a hammer and screwdriver.
The pharmaceutical companies want those $weet, $weet boosters and the hard left is pining for another hard lockdown so they can complete their societal transformation into a totalitarian nanny state. They're hoping the mass psychosis holds and that the public won't notice this ear-splitting record scratch.
Bad Cat, the conclusion of one of the studies you linked says....
"mRNA vaccines against COVID-19 are protective against symptomatic infection and severe disease by the B.1.617.2 variant. Vaccinated individuals had a more rapid decline in viral load, which has implications on secondary transmission and public health policy. Rapid and widespread implementation of vaccination programs remains a key strategy for control of COVID-19 pandemic. Further studies should elucidate immunologic features driving vaccine-breakthrough infection to improve vaccine-induced protection."
This seems to imply that vaccinating IS the appropriate step to take. I disagree, for many of the reasons you note, but the authors of the study do not. Am I missing something?
Clare Craig pointed out the number of Ct 50 data points in that graph you showed. Since those are nonsense data, they should be removed, and the conclusion is even more damning.
It defies logic to think that the 'effectiveness' is wearing off when many people just got the shots recently. What's actually happening is the expected rise in cases during the summer exposing the fact that the vaccine doesn't stop the spread. If the vaccine doesn't stop the spread, the virus is going through the population one way or another and vaccines should be a personal choice.
We've known the virus is going through the population for over a year at this point. That's how we know it's not about a virus.
But this was never about public health.
Yet, instead of putting the shovel down to stop themselves from digging a deeper hole, a number of governments are simply getting more and more shrill.
Help. I’m confused. CDC says vaccines don’t prevent transmission but help to mitigate serious illness and death. CDC data show without vaccination only a very tiny fraction of people become seriously ill or die from Covid - especially so for healthy people under 50. CDC and others say there exist ever improving treatments for those becoming ill from Covid.
I’m not good at math. Can someone explain the calculus justifying spending $ gazillions having EVERYONE take a vaccine which doesn’t prevent infection but rather TREATS an illness for which the vast majority of people - say, 99+%- is at not ill or at risk of serious illness? Why is that preferable to providing treatment for only the small fraction who become seriously ill? Do we require EVERYONE to be treated for STDs or other diseases whether they’ve contracted them or not and which pose little risk to the vast majority who may contract them?
What is the logic of forcing treatments on 99+% of the population for something that poses no risk to them? How does that in any way benefit the fraction of 1% who may become seriously ill?
It may seem heretical, but why don’t we just treat those who may become ill? Take the money saved by NOT treating the hundreds of millions who don’t require treatment and use it to develop even better treatment options? How about that?
As a special bonus, all those who are not needlessly treated also don’t suffer any unnecessary side effects - known or unknown - from a treatment they don’t require. Please explain in simple language what I’m missing. Thanks.
The CNN interview of Wolensky was removed from Google. Now up at rumble:
https://rumble.com/vkscco-cdcs-dr.-rochelle-walensky-admits.html
related stories;
Vaccinated hospital employees putting patients at risk?
https://abc7news.com/coronavirus-outbreak-san-francisco-general-hospital-sf-covid-ucsf/10920805/
The 1st paragraph throws you off but the second is like a sledge hammer:
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/israel-s-hospitalized-covid-patients-have-milder-illnesses-doctors-say-1.10031662
Farrakhan enlightened:
https://twitter.com/american_ka/status/1423648060111007752
If gene-based vaccines don't stop transmission, due to late recognition of the spike, but natural infection does stop transmission, because of early recognition of the virus particle itself, does that not mean that herd immunity is only possible through natural infection (or traditional vaccines)? Time for WHO to do another flip-flop on definition of herd immunity?
This is as cogent an analysis of the total fail of the vaccine putsch as I've seen in one place. Thank you so much Gato. I really like how you incorporated the work of Ran Israeli (who has been stellar) and the comments of Dr. Haviv. While recognizing the vaccine may do some good for some people--even temporarily--the population of this country needs a 5:00 am wake up call about how absolutely outrageous and ill advised it is to have a public health policy FORCING vaccination on its entire citizenry. This is a level of depravity and stupidity that is completely unprecedented unless you were to watch the Cartoon Network.
Papers Pleeze! May I zee your vitamin d and zinc pazzports?!
As a hapless NYC worker, I'm starting to realize the weekly test may just be the annoyance I have to live through until this insanity ends. Was going to get the j&j by Aug 30th, but I can't set myself up for a "sorry, not sorry" at some point in the near future. Getting any of the big 3 inevitably sets up a cycle of getting boosters conceivably forever. #thesepeoplearesick
And as we pumped money into fast tracking an ineffective vaccine, we turned a blind eye to potential life saving treatments. The money should have been into real RCTs and investigative treatment options. Vaccines were never going to be the unicorn we needed— the trials not long enough, big enough, or variant enough to tell us what we needed to know. Public health is stuck on the same nonsensical solutions—- It’s like trying to fix everything with only a hammer and screwdriver.
The pharmaceutical companies want those $weet, $weet boosters and the hard left is pining for another hard lockdown so they can complete their societal transformation into a totalitarian nanny state. They're hoping the mass psychosis holds and that the public won't notice this ear-splitting record scratch.
God bless you, you brilliant feline.
Bad Cat, the conclusion of one of the studies you linked says....
"mRNA vaccines against COVID-19 are protective against symptomatic infection and severe disease by the B.1.617.2 variant. Vaccinated individuals had a more rapid decline in viral load, which has implications on secondary transmission and public health policy. Rapid and widespread implementation of vaccination programs remains a key strategy for control of COVID-19 pandemic. Further studies should elucidate immunologic features driving vaccine-breakthrough infection to improve vaccine-induced protection."
This seems to imply that vaccinating IS the appropriate step to take. I disagree, for many of the reasons you note, but the authors of the study do not. Am I missing something?
Clare Craig pointed out the number of Ct 50 data points in that graph you showed. Since those are nonsense data, they should be removed, and the conclusion is even more damning.
It defies logic to think that the 'effectiveness' is wearing off when many people just got the shots recently. What's actually happening is the expected rise in cases during the summer exposing the fact that the vaccine doesn't stop the spread. If the vaccine doesn't stop the spread, the virus is going through the population one way or another and vaccines should be a personal choice.
We've known the virus is going through the population for over a year at this point. That's how we know it's not about a virus.
Dr zelenko: vit d zinc & hcq. if no hcq then quercetin which I did last North surge with the vac will do this winter as well.