Civilized said:packgrad said:Civilized said:packgrad said:Civilized said:Werewolf said:
I think a lot of people have wised up and at the least seem distrustful/suspicious.....thus the 3%. What I think is most important for people to come away with from this and all the other examples is that we are continuously fed a narrative of lies and half-truths. MSM herds the cattle/sheep. We can stop this BS but it requires more than a handful of people thus #devolution to work towards the #greatawakening. Watch Trump's courtroom battle.........and the #boomerang.
Why does it have to be distrust or suspicion? Why can't it just be a practical analysis?
Over 90% of Americans have been vaccinated, had COVID, or both so there is a ton of immunity against serious illness already out there.
Most Americans don't feel they need a booster because they've already got immunity through vaccination or infection and the virus itself makes people less sick than it did two or three years ago.
Immunity from vaccination? Lol. You just have given up on science, huh?
There literally NEVER was immunity from vaccination. But Democrats don't care about science anymore. "Immunity" probably has been redefined.
What is "natural immunity" in this context then? Because there's natural immunity against COVID and other circulating viruses out there. That doesn't mean the portion of the population with natural immunity has zero chance of catching the virus.
So yes, you're using "immunity" wrong. In contagious disease medicine "creating immunity" is a synonym for "creating protection." It doesn't literally mean "created a situation where there is zero possibility to catch the virus."
This isn't a new definition of the word immunity. It's been defined this way for as long as contagious disease medicine has been a thing.
Oh. Covid vaccination which did not stop you from getting covid, did not reduce symptoms, did not stop you from spreading it provided "immunity".
Lol. Mmkay civ.
You're still angry that the MSM/CDC botched early messaging and/or were just wrong with some specifics as they tried to understand a novel and evolving disease.
That's fine, but it doesn't mean COVID vaccines didn't save millions of lives and prevent countless other hospitalizations, especially early when the disease was much more severe.
I'd consider "death" a pretty important symptom to reduce, no? (And this study was published by a 200 year old British peer-reviewed medical journal so you don't have to worry about it being a product of Dems or the MSM!)
Lancet: COVID vaxxing prevented 15 to 20 million deaths in first year of vaccinations
Yes. I am still mad. But it doesn't change that there was a circle jerk of misinformation, not from who you said the misinformation was coming from back then, but from your trusted sources.
I don't care how old the journal is. That does nothing to prove the theory presented.
Here is a breakdown of the study. I'm sure it doesn't get the attention the study did because it was contrary to the message desired.
"A recent study published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases applied mathematical modeling to estimate that mass COVID-19 vaccinations saved between 14-20 million lives worldwide during the first year of the COVID-19 vaccination program. This commentary provides a brief overview of the study, and then identifies potential sources of model misspecification including inaccurate assumptions about vaccine-derived immunity and ignoring additional contributors of pandemic-related excess deaths. We describe how these factors could lead to grossly inflated estimates of deaths averted due to mass vaccinations, which may explain the study's lack of face validity and internal consistency."
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361631679_Commentary_on_Global_impact_of_the_first_year_of_COVID-19_vaccination_a_mathematical_modelling_study_The_Lancet_Infectious_Diseases_2022_Jun_23