Regardless of how you feel at the vaccines, it's sad that a Mexican actor and comedian is the one who actually asks Fauci some real questions, when the media which is supposed to actually ask all these questions has been silent for months.
And Fauci clearly wasn't expecting any pushback here.
What really, really has me worried about these vaccines is that they openly admit that they do not stop infection but are instead targeted at the major symptoms.
We know that the natural progression of viral life, under normal circumstances, tends towards higher infection rate and lower lethality over time as an expression of evolution. It simply follows the path of least resistance. Those who are healthier but still infected are more likely to interact with others and so infect them.
Where my issue comes in is that they're inverting this process. Both high and low infections are spread through a society without any checks on potential lethality. There is free and rampant mutation that will trend towards heavier symptoms as a matter of course as the strains that mutate to overcome the vaccine suppression of symptoms will so spread.
They're creating a system whereby it is almost assured that the virus becomes worse, there is no potential for herd immunity, and as a worst case scenario certain populations may well become dependent on these never-ending "booster shots."
Shits fucked yo and nobody has the balls to ask in a major public way.
It’ll reduce the spread. This is the same pearl-clutching nonsense we saw about whether we should wear one mask or a thousand. Fauci et al are just being obnoxiously cautious without regard for how much their recommendations make people panic and hate each other.
This is what happens when policy makers only listen to one expert in one field rather than take into account the broader implications of one expert’s recommendations.
If they lied about virtually else, why should I make the assumption that they're being honest about the effectiveness of the vaccine about symptom reduction or spread reduction?
The common refrain is "it's not proven to reduce transmission" not "it does nothing to reduce transmission." Most vaccines reduce transmission, including the flu vaccine, so a reduction in transmission would be completely in line with expectations.
Preliminary studies are already coming in showing the extant COVID vaccines (at least the Pfizer one) reduce secondary transmission.
They're gonna do what they did with masks. Wait until about nine years of studies roll in showing masks don't fucking do anything before finally saying "Oh ok you didn't need to wear a mask that whole time."
That's all well and good except the vaccine companies have been made immune to all legal challenges in at least the US.
"It's not proven to reduce transmission" under that context might as well mean it does nothing. They're under no pressure not to exaggerate or flat out lie about the outcome.
Jesus Christ, this bozo doesn't even understand what "95% effective" means in the context of these vaccine trials.
The trial showed that the incidence of infections was 95% lower in vaccinated vs. unvaccinated patients...which is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from Lord Fauci's interpretation that it means there's a "95% chance that you will not get symptomatic infection".
And yet this retard is holding our lives hostage and having bobblehead dolls made of him. He should be swinging from a tree.
Regardless of how you feel at the vaccines, it's sad that a Mexican actor and comedian is the one who actually asks Fauci some real questions, when the media which is supposed to actually ask all these questions has been silent for months.
And Fauci clearly wasn't expecting any pushback here.
It's why in old plays the court jester was the only one who could speak the truth to the king.
What really, really has me worried about these vaccines is that they openly admit that they do not stop infection but are instead targeted at the major symptoms.
We know that the natural progression of viral life, under normal circumstances, tends towards higher infection rate and lower lethality over time as an expression of evolution. It simply follows the path of least resistance. Those who are healthier but still infected are more likely to interact with others and so infect them.
Where my issue comes in is that they're inverting this process. Both high and low infections are spread through a society without any checks on potential lethality. There is free and rampant mutation that will trend towards heavier symptoms as a matter of course as the strains that mutate to overcome the vaccine suppression of symptoms will so spread.
They're creating a system whereby it is almost assured that the virus becomes worse, there is no potential for herd immunity, and as a worst case scenario certain populations may well become dependent on these never-ending "booster shots."
Shits fucked yo and nobody has the balls to ask in a major public way.
It’ll reduce the spread. This is the same pearl-clutching nonsense we saw about whether we should wear one mask or a thousand. Fauci et al are just being obnoxiously cautious without regard for how much their recommendations make people panic and hate each other.
This is what happens when policy makers only listen to one expert in one field rather than take into account the broader implications of one expert’s recommendations.
How does it reduce the spread if it does little to nothing to combat infections or infectious transmission?
"The vax won't stop you from getting infected. It won't stop you from infecting others." is your starting line, right?
To get to the endpoint of "still reduces spread", you need to add two of three more (likely but not guaranteed) facts into the mix:
"Coughing is among the best ways to spread a lung illness."
"If you recover quicker, you cough on less people overall."
"If your symptoms are lessened, you cough less often, and/or with less range"
They then combine these elements with "The vax makes you recover quicker/experience less severe forms" to get the conclusion "the vax reduces spread".
If they lied about virtually else, why should I make the assumption that they're being honest about the effectiveness of the vaccine about symptom reduction or spread reduction?
The common refrain is "it's not proven to reduce transmission" not "it does nothing to reduce transmission." Most vaccines reduce transmission, including the flu vaccine, so a reduction in transmission would be completely in line with expectations.
Preliminary studies are already coming in showing the extant COVID vaccines (at least the Pfizer one) reduce secondary transmission.
They're gonna do what they did with masks. Wait until about nine years of studies roll in showing masks don't fucking do anything before finally saying "Oh ok you didn't need to wear a mask that whole time."
That's all well and good except the vaccine companies have been made immune to all legal challenges in at least the US.
"It's not proven to reduce transmission" under that context might as well mean it does nothing. They're under no pressure not to exaggerate or flat out lie about the outcome.
Oh I agree. If they truly believe in the safety and efficacy of their vaccines they wouldn't need legal protections.
Is it me, or are American actors are far greater trainwrecks than actors from other countries?
America imports trash from everywhere, like Pedro Pascal?
Large amounts of money, pedophilia, and drugs?
Jesus Christ, this bozo doesn't even understand what "95% effective" means in the context of these vaccine trials.
The trial showed that the incidence of infections was 95% lower in vaccinated vs. unvaccinated patients...which is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from Lord Fauci's interpretation that it means there's a "95% chance that you will not get symptomatic infection".
And yet this retard is holding our lives hostage and having bobblehead dolls made of him. He should be swinging from a tree.