Covid Vaccines... Designed To Prevent Death — Not Infection

[TrappedinCalifornia]

...this is why it is a personal choice. The 'one size fits all' tactic is...

Myself and others have said that for some time now.

I've repeated this, but the idea is that "Government" is not good a nuance and, therefore, they don't deal with with individuals. As a result, they tend to deal with 'groups' which they can 'categorize.'

The problem is that COVID has proven to be very 'individual specific' in terms of its impacts. We've talked about it from the beginning; i.e., some are asymptomatic, others get a little stuffy, others think they have a cold/flu, others go to the hospital, some need ventilation, etc. Thus, by default, Government is actually ill-equipped to deal with the problem beyond providing general support in terms of resources.

That is, in many respects, what Trump was actually attempting to achieve, provision of general support.

Now that Biden and the Democrats are in, with their view of "Government is the solution," you see them attempting to do what Government is actually not good at, dictating behaviors and actions for individuals.

[Cali-Glock]

I don't know if this is 'confirmation bias,' but I believe it would be appropriate to say that you've heard it here already in relation to 'eradication' and 'prophylaxis treatment.'

From the Miami Herald yesterday...



As I said in the first link above...



As I said in the second link above...



Confirmation bias or not, it's nice to see a certain 'vindication' of the perception I've come 'round to. It's nice, no matter how briefly, to feel one's education was worth something.

It's also nice to know that the 'common sense' and 'intuition' a close relative of mine accused me of lacking in my teenage years through my early 20's ("You're well educated, but...") may have developed in my later years.

Either way...

While the media and Fauchi's dumbed down marketing of this crap may have glossed over the details, from the beginning the actual underlying information and goal they laid out was for these EUA 'vaccines' to reduce the severity of the impact when a person contracted COVID; not to keep a person from getting COVID.

[SPUTTER]

Ok, now I'm confused🤔

[LBDamned]

Ok, now I'm confused🤔

Trust your instinct.

[707electrician]

More vaccine apologist gaslighting.

If the vax is only designed to prevent death, and is 95% effective at doing so, why should I choose (or better yet, be forced) to get it when I have a 98% chance of surviving the china virus in the first place?

This nonsense about the vax not being designed to prevent infection is bs gaslighting to cover up for increasing "breakthrough" cases. Why are they called "breakthrough" cases? Because when someone who is vax'd gets infected, the vax didn't work as intended.

[the_tunaman]

A friend sent me a link to a video this morning, and it is very clear and concise and perfectly explains my feelings at this time based on the information available.

I see that it is available on a lot of sites, as it was apparently circulated back in May, but I haven’t seen it previously posted. Apologies if it was and I missed it, but I thought I’d post it here in case others also haven’t seen it.

This site seems to be a good hosting page, since there isn’t anything more than a simple description and a link to the video:

https://www.disclose.tv/t/covid-tests-and-vax-explained-for-dummies-in-cartoon-format/39004

[TrappedinCalifornia]

Ok, now I'm confused🤔

In more ways than one.

As I indicated, there's no reason to be confused about what I'm saying. Stop 'reading into it' and 'interpreting' and simply read what I'm saying, not just pieces of what I said, but the context of it.

In pursuit of something they've been after for over 4 decades, an accident happened, and they are now 'field testing' those methods they have come to feel most advantageous to achieving that 'something.'

That's the theory. The context is...

The pandemic was seen as either an opportunity to field test vaccines/treatments they currently have or, for some in the medical industry, the politicians, and the media, the vaccines/treatments were seen as (either through their own knowledge or via persuasion or both), potentially, the 'best' available countermeasures at the moment.

Further extrapolation is provided and highlighted...

In a nutshell, I don't believe the current pandemic is sourced in "evil intent;" just 'bad decisions' made in the interest of something which has proven to be more akin to a McGuffin than an actual "Holy Grail." But, as we often note, the 'cover up' is usually worse than the 'crime' and I certainly feel that there are things for which, ahem, 'certain parties' need to be held accountable...

You can read 'bad decisions' as including 'ill-advised' in the sense of being a bit too optimistic in their risk/benefit analyses. The fact that they are now practicing CYA and such is costing lives, crippling economies, etc., not to mention delaying actual treatments specifically focused on the current virus rather than an 'hoped for,' all-purpose, anti-viral as it currently exists (and has probably demonstrated a certain level of effectiveness in a lab), is where the actual 'nefariousness' comes into play. I suspect this is a major part of the frustration for the legitimate doctors who have tried to push alternative treatments which, in their first-hand experience, were proving themselves to be 'successful' or more so than what was being 'approved' for use.

Reader's Digest version: They didn't intend the virus to escape; but, since it did, they are going with what they had developed in the research for which the virus was developed. Their hope was that it would prove efficacious and they likely had 'lab results' which suggested possibilities. What they hoped to do was 'buy time,' not only in case what they developed didn't work or didn't work as effectively as hoped, but to further 'refine' what they'd developed so as to specifically combat COVID if what they had wasn't sufficiently efficacious. Unfortunately, what they are discovering/realizing (and so are we) is that other methods, some of them older and more traditional, seem to be 'better' alternatives than their 'new approach;' said 'new approach' being the result of their quest for an "universal vaccine" or "universal anti-viral." That's where the "bad/ill-advised decisions" come into play and where they need to be held accountable.

[LBDamned]

More vaccine apologist gaslighting.

If the vax is only designed to prevent death, and is 95% effective at doing so, why should I choose (or better yet, be forced) to get it when I have a 98% chance of surviving the china virus in the first place?

This nonsense about the vax not being designed to prevent infection is bs gaslighting to cover up for increasing "breakthrough" cases. Why are they called "breakthrough" cases? Because when someone who is vax'd gets infected, the vax didn't work as intended.

More than 18 months since the boogieman appeared... and they still want us to believe he's chasing us.

Quick, shove this magic wand up ur azz so you don't die!

[Libertarian777]

More vaccine apologist gaslighting.

If the vax is only designed to prevent death, and is 95% effective at doing so, why should I choose (or better yet, be forced) to get it when I have a 98% chance of surviving the china virus in the first place?

This nonsense about the vax not being designed to prevent infection is bs gaslighting to cover up for increasing "breakthrough" cases. Why are they called "breakthrough" cases? Because when someone who is vax'd gets infected, the vax didn't work as intended.

This is the problem with both sides not being able to have rational nuanced discussion.

Which is why the vaccine might be a logical choice for many, because those numbers above are a population average I presume.

For instance if you look at ages you'll get a greater impact.

For 50 to 54 year olds its 0.36% chance of fatality
Up to 74.5 its 2.17% etc., up to 84 it starts hitting 5%

Poster above is correct, you can't look at population aggregates, covid risk doubles by age every 5 years.
It's most acute for over 65 and especially over 85. Also for those with co morbidity.

So both answers can be right.
Vaccine is effective at reducing deaths for those AT RISK.
Most people under 50 are NOT at risk (50-65 risk varies highly with co morbidity).

Vaccinate all over 65.
Optional for those under (healthcare workers we can debate, eg. pediatric nurses probably don't need it, geriatric hospice care would)
Leave the kids alone.