Jump to content

Covid Injection Tyranny - Share and Discuss


dogfish78

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, pawnman said:

How do you people keep arguing the "doesn't prevent transmission" angle?  It's not 100%, but it certainly lowers the odds of getting Covid.

 If you were talking about a disease that had low transmission rate, *maybe* you could justify a minor reduction as successful. But you would also have to have a massively high infection fatality rate. Covid-19 is exactly the opposite.

"Unfortunately, the vaccine’s beneficial effect on Delta transmission waned to almost negligible levels over time. In people infected 2 weeks after receiving the vaccine developed by the University of Oxford and AstraZeneca, both in the UK, the chance that an unvaccinated close contact would test positive was 57%, but 3 months later, that chance rose to 67%. The latter figure is on par with the likelihood that an unvaccinated person will spread the virus.

A reduction was also observed in people vaccinated with the jab made by US company Pfizer and German firm BioNTech. The risk of spreading the Delta infection soon after vaccination with that jab was 42%, but increased to 58% with time."

So no, it does not meaningfully prevent transmission. Should we mandate things for "almost negligible" effects?

 

You do have Google, right?

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Table 19 of the latest report shows that in the week beginning November 6, 773 C-19 hospitalizations were confirmed in Scotland. One hundred thirty-seven cases were among the unvaccinated, and 363 were vaccinated

image-239.png.19be44cec2563067bb26a11cf86df1f2.png

Quote

Table 20 of the latest report shows that the week from October 30 has 136 C-19 deaths were confirmed in Scotland. Twenty-one of the cases were among the unvaccinated population, and 115 were among the vaccinated population.

image-241.png.56e54fb3e7f947dbfeb17693abb7aa9d.png

 

 It's pandemic of anti-vaxers! - Said USG.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Sim said:

image-239.png.19be44cec2563067bb26a11cf86df1f2.png

image-241.png.56e54fb3e7f947dbfeb17693abb7aa9d.png

 

 It's pandemic of anti-vaxers! - Said USG.  

To be clear, vaccination does reduce the risk of hospitalization and death by on the order of 90%. I mean, check out the percentage of people who are vaccinated in Scotland - virtually everyone at risk/over 60. But you end up with 30% of hospitalizations and 15% of the deaths in the unvaxxed groups - which are extremely small portions of the at risk population. It’s not like 30% of the population is unvaccinated.

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-58548727.amp

50561F51-5305-42B9-85BF-2C31969AD2DD.thumb.png.b58a20c64109044f7ea72a39f4173e76.png
 

A better argument is that we have reached the point of diminishing returns with vaccines and should stop. We have protected the at risk population - CDC reports that 99% of those 65+ are vaccinated. And as has been pointed out, transmission isn’t effectively curtailed, so getting a relatively healthy 25-50 year old to take the shot doesn’t help the population almost at all.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

https://www.foxnews.com/health/fauci-changing-definition-fully-vaccinated
 

hey buddy, you ok?  Or still a sheep bitch?

So you cited something that says scientists use emerging data to refine hypotheses? As in, scientists follow the scientific method? Cool, we're in agreement.

 

Calling someone a sheep - tell me you're a Southwest first officer, without telling me you're a Southwest first officer. Question: do you wait for the CA to go on break before you "Let's go Brandon" on guard, or just do it at the gate? 😂

 

  • Haha 3
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Waingro said:

So you cited something that says scientists use emerging data to refine hypotheses? As in, scientists follow the scientific method? Cool, we're in agreement.

 

Calling someone a sheep - tell me you're a Southwest first officer, without telling me you're a Southwest first officer. Question: do you wait for the CA to go on break before you "Let's go Brandon" on guard, or just do it at the gate? 😂

 

ThE fearless leader of ScIENceeee…. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shooting people for not wanting a mildly effective, yet no long term studies on side-effects or potential problems down the road for an injection that has to be repeated, apparently, ad infinitum.

Not to mention these are the exact same tactics used by the BLM protestors, including during Dutch protests, and the authorities let 'em sweep on by with the arson and destruction.

Yet being hesitant or resistant to said shot (note, it's not a "vaccine" by the scientific definition until Fauci said otherwise) gets you shot.

Either way, the state ensures you get some sort of shot.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/police-netherlands-open-fire-covid-lockdown-protesters-european-nation-rcna6231

Seems legit...

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Waingro said:

So you cited something that says scientists use emerging data to refine hypotheses? As in, scientists follow the scientific method? Cool, we're in agreement.

Quick summary of this conversation: I speculate boosters may become mandatory, you come off the top rope mocking me, but now acknowledge boosters may be mandatory and you’ve forgotten that only 3 weeks ago it was a conspiracy theory.  You think I’m a “southwest first officer” (which I assume is bad?), I think you're incapable of critical thought; conversation and compromise is impossible.  
 

 That’s this whole COVID event in a microcosm.  Wish I had an idea of how to move forward productively, but I don’t.  From my viewpoint we have to:

1. cease mandates.  “Emerging data to refine hypothesis” is fine, except this experiment involves human beings.  How about we cease mandates until certain we aren’t making it worse?

2. hold responsible those who lied and abused their power, starting with Fauci and Cuomo and big tech oligarchs who crushed the free speech of doctors trying to help during a pandemic.

3. conduct an origin investigation on par with the 9/11 commission.

That’s how we START healing.  From his perspective I don’t know, but I’m guessing we get boosters every 6 months, ask no questions, and mock those who do.  Our nation has irreconcilable differences and I fear for the future.

 

Edited by tac airlifter
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, bennynova said:

The AF has denied several thousand religious accomodations but not one has been denied on religious grounds. Every single denial has recognized the Airmen's religious concerns as being genuine, but the MAJCOM commander denies the request anyway due to "operational considerations." A few of the letters are floating on the amn/nco/snco FB. The appeal process goes through the AF/SG, but it must be evaluated in context of the reason of the denial, not in the religious context.

So based on the above article and narrative it would sound that the plaintiffs in that case are correct, the DoD never had any intention of allowing religious accomodations which would potentially be in violation of federal laws.

Curious if anyone knows, if all the above is true, and you held a letter from your MAJCOM commander that recognized your religious views as genuine, what do you think declaring consciousness objector status would lead to? Seems like a pretty big knot to untangle, especially if you gave 10,000 or so people do it at once. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, pawnman said:

So...out of 4 million vaccinated patients, a couple hundred ended up in the hospital? Compared to, if I'm reading this right, about 100 out of ~400,000 unvaccinated? 

According to my rough math:

Total Population 12+: 4.78M
Vaccinated 12+: 3.94M (82.4%)
Unvaccinated 12+: 0.84M (17.6%)

Vaccinated Hospitalizations/Deaths (14 Aug - 5 Nov): 5493/1102
Unvaccinated Hospitalizations/Deaths (14 Aug - 5 Nov): 2293/195

So the 82.4% of the population which is vaccinated experienced 70% of the hospitalizations and 84.9% of the deaths between August and November.  So yes, some protective benefits but at these levels, I'd argue that the basis for any widespread vaccine mandate is suspect at best.  This is not a pandemic of the unvaccinated.

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, FLEA said:

The AF has denied several thousand religious accomodations but not one has been denied on religious grounds. Every single denial has recognized the Airmen's religious concerns as being genuine, but the MAJCOM commander denies the request anyway due to "operational considerations." A few of the letters are floating on the amn/nco/snco FB. The appeal process goes through the AF/SG, but it must be evaluated in context of the reason of the denial, not in the religious context.

So based on the above article and narrative it would sound that the plaintiffs in that case are correct, the DoD never had any intention of allowing religious accomodations which would potentially be in violation of federal laws.

Curious if anyone knows, if all the above is true, and you held a letter from your MAJCOM commander that recognized your religious views as genuine, what do you think declaring consciousness objector status would lead to? Seems like a pretty big knot to untangle, especially if you gave 10,000 or so people do it at once. 

 

I’m gonna do it if mine is denied.

 

I can retire in mid 2023, have passed my last AEF bucket, as not PCSing anymore and have zero TDYs on schedule.   There is absolutely zero reason to deny mine based on operational needs....and my religious portion is genuine.  
 

if denied, I’ll keep appealing and then go the contentious objector route. 
 

Eglin just went to 100% no masks for the vaccinated.   We have turned into a Marxist organization.  

  • Haha 2
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@pawnman, focusing on mandates specifically, how much do you feel they need to reduce the spread to justify a mandate (outside of the military)? A few posts back I posted the research showing minimal effect on spread. 

 

To be clear, I'm not arguing about hospitalizations or death. Clearly the vaccine works to reduce that. But it's that justification for a mandate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, TheNewGazmo said:

So the real question is; is the FDA looking into any of this research or did they just buy Pfizer's bullshit trial and not think to look any further?

At this point, covering up the pandemic of the vaccinated will be paramount for every person and company and politician who pushed or supported the jab on the population.

 

meet the new self licking ice cream cone.    
 

evenrually though, the data will be too hard to ignore.  Some posters on here may even wake up.   Everyone at my work who has been diagnosed with covid in the past month have all been vaccinated.   

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • M2 locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...