So you say. Over and over again. Without basis.
You're simply not dealing in reality if you don't think the vaccines were oversold. Fauci claimed that once we reached high vaccination numbers (whatever his "
gut" told him that day) that there would be no more surges.
Of course, we now know that was boohockey.
None of this contradicts the benefits of vaccination. If you look at the data from before vaccines were available, you will see that people Jill's age had a very poor chance of getting through it with only mild symptoms.
Yes, vaccination likely benefited Jill Biden. College athletes? Not so much.
You would like that, wouldn't you? But it is not nonsense. It is what public health authorities are all recommending.
This insistence that vaccines reduce spread is really quite something to behold. Each day presents us with yet another quad-vaccinated person who gets infected. Most of them take Paxlovid, despite there being no RCTs supporting its use in vaccinated persons. The gaslighting from the science community is crazy. "Look at my studies! Ignore your reality!"
A lot of people lost their jobs due to the disruptions caused by the virus. You can't lay all of that at the feet of the vaccine.
A lot more people lost their jobs due to foolish "mitigation" that did nothing to slow the spread of the virus. You can lay that at the feet of public health authorities that should have known better.
Ah, now we get to the heart of your ideology. "Authorities cannot be trusted!" But do trust some internet YouTuber doctor in the UK who spreads his own particular non-standard take on the virus and vaccines.
Or, and I know this might be crazy to you, how about we trust people that employ sound methodologies and have a modicum of humility? The dogma of the approved narrative is why I don't trust certain authorities and do trust others.
Like the Director of the Danish Health Authority, who said this just a few weeks ago;
I want to look every parent who has vaccinated their child in the eyes and say: "You did the right thing and thank you for listening". But at the same time – and this is the important thing to maintain trust – I will admit and say that we have become wiser, and we would not do the same today. And we won't get to that in the future either, said Brostrøm.
In retrospect, we didn't get much out of vaccinating the children, admits Brostrøm
So now you have a public health authority in Denmark advising
against vaccinating anyone under the age of 18 while the US is more than happy to let you jab your 6-month old baby thrice. Who should I believe?
This opinion piece does not quote numbers on turnover. It just calls it "large." Bari Weiss, who runs this website, is not exactly an unbiased source with high journalistic standards. I would not turn to her for objective data. But you have done so at least twice. I'm sure she would agree with you that authorities are not to be trusted. (But trust her!)
This article was written by Dr. Marty Makaray and Dr. Tracy Beth Hoeg. You'd know that had you taken 2 seconds to click the link and read the title.
They do - to those who can follow the science. But to laymen who are not versed in the details of the science, any argument can be made to sound reasonable. But do continue to show how we must demolish authorities.
You realize that almost the entire content of your refutation of what I'm saying is an appeal to authority. I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but that's a logical fallacy.
OK, the span of organizations that must be dismissed has just expanded to include reputable universities. The more authorities you insist on dismissing, the less credible your cry to disregard authorities becomes.
Do you think there is sound data to REQUIRE healthy, college students that have already had COVID and likely 2 vaccination doses to get a booster? Let's stop this nonsense about dismissing "credible" and "reputable" sources and examine their policies. Do you support mandated boosters for college students, and if so, what data informs your opinion?
Do you understand vaccine testing at a professional level? Or are you just echoing what you have read on right-wing extremist sites?
I don't need to understand vaccine testing at a professional level to understand that recommending that all children "should" get vaccinated on the basis of THREE children is foolish.
The Pfizer trials for children under 5 were a disaster. It's probably why so few parents have vaccinated their children.
"Begins waning" is not quantified. If it begins waning at 27 days, but remains above, say, 70% for three months, that is not such a disaster as you make it out to be.
Read the study. It's linked in the article I provided.
Do you understand the mechanism of immune imprinting at a professional level? No? Then it would be wise to listen to what public health official say who do understand it. Like Dr. Fauci. He still recommends vaccines and boosters.
And now we get to the crux of
your ideology. Dr. Fauci's word is final. Whatever he says must be trusted. All dissent is "fringe". He IS the science!
I know you'd like to just pretend this isn't a thing, but it is, and it is of real concern, whether Dr. Fauci now admits it or not.
Frequent Boosters Spur Warning on Immune Response
Science unclear around fourth COVID-19 shot
COVID: Do multiple boosters 'exhaust' our immune response? | DW | 18.01.2022
Lessons from earlier pandemics: Vaccine panel must discuss imprinting among infants and toddlers
False. It was expected all along that prior infection confers some protection against reinfection.
And yet, the CDC never acknowledged it. Much of the rest of the world nuanced their mandates by taking into account prior infection, but not the US. Of course, these are the same people that thought masking 2-year olds (in opposition to WHO guidelines) was beneficial while ignoring that there was clear reason to believe it would impede their language learning.
But the degree of that immunity depends largely on the severity of the infection. A very mild infection does not confer the same immunity as a more severe infection. But the immunity from the vaccine is much more uniform - and safer - than getting covid.
You should read up on the protection conferred by prior infection. In most cases, people are better protected and for a longer period of time after an infection than they are from the vaccines, which makes all of the discrimination that was encouraged by public health on vaccination status all the more foolish.
I'm curious... is there ANYTHING about the COVID vaccines that concerns you?
The "discoverer" of the vaccine, Dr. Edward Jenner, applied the coxpox puss and injected it into the arm of James Phipps, the 9-year old son of Jenner's gardener. A few months later he deliberately exposed the child to the actual smallpox live virus many times. The child never got sick. I bring this out not to tout the benefits of vaccines, for covid is very different from smallpox, but to illustrate a very unethical, but highly efficient method of verifying the efficacy of a vaccine. It is called the "challenge" method and of course no one with any ethical sense would propose doing that as a matter of course today. In place of that we use a large scale randomized trial, counting on the fact that some of those people will encounter the virus that causes covid in the normal lives. But if you think about what it would take to conduct an RCT of mask wearing, you would have to pick a random set of trial participants and force them to wear masks, and a corresponding set and forbid them to wear masks, and then the hardest part of all to make it a double blind test, somehow, perhaps through hypnosis, convince each group to be unaware of whether or not they are wearing a mask. Clearly an impossibility. And even if you remove the need for double-blinding, you then are faced with the possibility that given the knowledge that they are wearing or not wearing a mask, the participants might alter their behavior in a way that affects their chances of exposure, thus invalidating the study. So you see common sense, first principles, and observational studies are the best we can do to evaluate that intervention.
