The jab is not a vaccine. There is zero evidence it slowed transmission. Zero evidence it lessened symptoms. These claims were made when it became clear that the claim it stopped tranmission was 100% false. In fact, anecdotal evidence is that those taking the jab got Covid a lot more than those who did not,
You asked for evidence, got a clear science and math explanation, then countered with "anecdotal evidence".
If you want to see Unkle’s quantitative chops start asking him questions about the holocaust.
There is this thing called the Susceptible-Infected-Recovered Model (SIR), which can be expressed as a system of partial differential equations, or carried out in discrete form. This can be parameterized using the reproduction number of a virus, and also the infectious period. Both of these inputs affect the rate of spread, and they are not independent variables. i.e., if we shorten an infectious period for a given virus, we will decrease the reproduction number. So, for instance, if you are infectious for 5 days instead of 10, you will infect less people, on average.
The whole point of a vaccine is to give your immune system practice in fighting off a virus. Kind of like a running workout. A virus can still invade your body, but it will be better prepared to fight it off, which means you will be less likely to die, and your infectious period will be shorter. This is not rocket science, and it is a known fact.
The whole point with COVID was to slow it down so we did not have 200 million infections in a short time period, because the reproduction number was high. There is a big difference between 2.9 (COVID) and 1.5 (common flu). SIR forecasts can be done on a simple spreadsheet. Measles has a reproduction number of 15! If a virus is unleashed on us with that high of a reproduction number, surely the hospital system would see massive failures.
That's all folks.
Thanks for posting this. I had to look it up and found several scholarly articles in the SIR model.
SIR is accepted science, right? As you yourself wrote: This is not rocket science, and it is a known fact.
So, given that, this is a known fact, you would agree that Fauci, Walensky, other health experts, and Biden who told us that the vaccine would prevent infection and transmission back in 2021 were lying to us, right?
They were hijacking the actual science and lying to us. As you yourself wrote: This is not rocket science, and it is a known fact.
You may not have comprehended the post of Lavoisier. He stated that the vaccine was intended to slow transmission rates by giving the body practice in fighting off the disease. The Trump vaccine was a new vaccine of a fairly new type so even the experts were not sure of efficacy rates at a large scale.
All this discussion of Fauci is yet another Trump fuelled boogyman witch hunt to distract from Trumps own pandenic mismanagement. Maybe Trump should have been prosecuted for telling Americans to swallow UV lights or inject bleach or use horse drugs or ignore it, etc.
Or maybe we could just move on and deal with today's real issues rather than trying to blame one guy for a worldwide pandemic that started on the other side of the world.
As of now there is nothing to pardon. The only reason that Biden is contemplating preemptive pardons is because Trump has said he’s going to go after Fauci & Schiff.
For damn good reasons
What were the reasons. You have never shown that the vaccine is bad let alone worse than COVID itself. Send a link by a credible source. Not some 30 year old man with a tinfoil hat in his basement who also thinks the world is flat.
Fauci has served both the republicans and democrats and most importantly the American people well...he just hurt tubby donnie feelings so donnie wants him gone.
Dr Fauci is the epitome of a hero and what it means to sacrifice so others can thrive. I applaud his years of public service. From one genius to another, thank you Fauci. - fastboy
Thanks for posting this. I had to look it up and found several scholarly articles in the SIR model.
SIR is accepted science, right? As you yourself wrote: This is not rocket science, and it is a known fact.
So, given that, this is a known fact, you would agree that Fauci, Walensky, other health experts, and Biden who told us that the vaccine would prevent infection and transmission back in 2021 were lying to us, right?
They were hijacking the actual science and lying to us. As you yourself wrote: This is not rocket science, and it is a known fact.
You may not have comprehended the post of Lavoisier. He stated that the vaccine was intended to slow transmission rates by giving the body practice in fighting off the disease. The Trump vaccine was a new vaccine of a fairly new type so even the experts were not sure of efficacy rates at a large scale.
All this discussion of Fauci is yet another Trump fuelled boogyman witch hunt to distract from Trumps own pandenic mismanagement. Maybe Trump should have been prosecuted for telling Americans to swallow UV lights or inject bleach or use horse drugs or ignore it, etc.
Or maybe we could just move on and deal with today's real issues rather than trying to blame one guy for a worldwide pandemic that started on the other side of the world.
Yes, I understood Lavoiser's post. To be sure, I read it again. Let me quote part of it for you...
if we shorten an infectious period for a given virus, we will decrease the reproduction number. So, for instance, if you are infectious for 5 days instead of 10, you will infect less people, on average.
That makes sense. That was NOT what we were told. We were told that the vaccine would stop transmission. Not slow. Not lessen. We were told that if we didn't get vaccinated, we would be spreading covid to parents and elderly relatives over the holidays.
Your Trump argument is a deflection. Look up "deflection in a debate" to see the definition.
Fauci was the head of the White House Coronovirus Task Force. He was the spokesperson on COVID. He was the person on TV every day.
Congressional hearings are not enough. We want a criminal investigation of Fauci, Birx, Walensky, Daszak, Collins, and everyone else who was involved in the management of the COVID response. If we don't hold these people accountable, then history will likely repeat itself.
a goat upon whose head are symbolically placed the sins of the people after which he is sent into the wilderness in the biblical ceremony for Yom Kippur; one that bears the blame for others; one that is the object of irration...
Whatever improvement in the NIH response to the next pandemic might be achieved, burning Fauci at the stake isn't going to get there. It's going to scare competent people away from public health.
If Trump wasn't happy with Fauci's performance, why didn't he fire him?
I don’t get why people don’t see this. If trump won last time he either would have kept Fauci or replaced him with his own corrupt stooge, and then pardoned that person for lying about something else
If Trump wasn't happy with Fauci's performance, why didn't he fire him?
I don’t get why people don’t see this. If trump won last time he either would have kept Fauci or replaced him with his own corrupt stooge, and then pardoned that person for lying about something else
I have to say, I’m with Newname and DanM on this, but I don’t think they’re making good arguments here.
Here are the crimes Fauci committed:
- lying about the origin of COVID (gain of function research)
- lying about the transmissibility and seriousness of COVID
- fearmongering the public into locking down and engaging in months of quarantine, social distancing, and mask on wearing which were not only ineffective but completely wreaked havoc on the country’s economy and mental health
- lying about the effectiveness and safety of the vaccines
- shaming people into getting these unsafe vaccines as a public epidemiologist and abusing that good faith
Could you please list some specific quotes he made to congress that would qualify as perjury?
An incorrect statement that is only incorrect in light of evidence uncovered in the future is not a lie.
Being wrong is not a crime or ~1/2 of letsrun would be in jail.
Is this kind of like a correct statement (natural immunity to COVID is effective) that is only correct in light of evidence *uncovered* in the future (by recalcitrant, hesitant, dogmatic scientists no less) is not truth?
An incorrect statement that is only incorrect in light of evidence uncovered in the future is not a lie.
Being wrong is not a crime or ~1/2 of letsrun would be in jail.
Is this kind of like a correct statement (natural immunity to COVID is effective) that is only correct in light of evidence *uncovered* in the future (by recalcitrant, hesitant, dogmatic scientists no less) is not truth?
1) "Effective" is not a binary measurement, that is, the better question is "how effective is 'natural immunity'" against a second infection.
2) Clearly one has no objective metric for how effective previous infection is against mitigating the effects of a second infection until such data has been collected and analyzed. It's a reasonable hypothesis, based on our collective understanding of viral infection, that acquired immunity is a thing, but in the case of a novel virus an effectiveness that is initially unquantifiable, and poorly bounded.
3) The effectiveness of the vaccines, given that they had gone through controlled trials at the time the EUA was issued, was reasonably well known and well bounded.
On this, recommending broad vaccination to include those with 'natural immunity' is not an unreasonable course of action.
In retrospect, we have evidence that vaccination even following acquiring 'natural immunity' that vaccination improves outcomes, and that immunity from both 'natural immunity' and vaccination wane with time and the emergence of new variants of the virus which lends support to the previous and current vaccine recommendations.
