Shroedingers Vaccine... it's all becoming laughable beyond belief.

originally posted by: fliceTell me... why is scenario 4 not good enough? Why the strong effort to push the vaccine so hard on us.
It does not make sense, because with all they are saying and what statistics show, what we hear from people who ACTUALLY had it and didn't die from it, it's not that bad.

Because they're trying to make money on it.

a reply to: Phage

It would be logical if we were talking about a disease that was actually dangerous to the majority of the population...in this case...no not so much.

a reply to: Tempter

Lol trying....they've already made a # ton of liability free money off it. They just want more. They made money even before our governments purchased millions of doses of the shot from them.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
The vaccination programs....ill reserve judgement on, as believe that COVID is a hoax is just insane.

The testing...this is why i keep pointing out that our data is utter BS. I get told, with links to some official website, that im wrong. So i've stopped even talking about it.

But the false positive/negative rate makes me wonder if there wasn't a reagent preloaded on testing swabs to would give "positive" results once used.

COVID is not a hoax, the severity of COVID is the hoax. The govt control of your mind, body and freedom are a travesty.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Tulpa

That's not the point I was making.

I know. You were comparing only the risk of death. I presented a more practical comparison.

I suppose I'm "undecided".
Hospitalisations in the UK have been going down and treatments have been improving. So we are told.
I'm in a low risk category and a fairly solitary person so my exposure will be minimal.
Long covid doesn't seem to be too prevalent either so I'll remain as I am and wait and see.

In some people, aspirin works wonders. In others, aspirin causes liver damage, stomach ulcers.

It's this little thing called potential side-effects.

a reply to: Tulpa

Hospitalisations in the UK have been going down and treatments have been improving.

That's good.

But I think that reducing my chances of being hospitalized far outweighs any risk presented by the vaccine. I don't like hospitals.

I had my first Moderna shot two weeks ago. Zero side effects.

originally posted by: dug88
a reply to: flice

Picture if you will for a moment...

A new HIV/AIDS 'vaccine' is developed.

This vaccine may possibly protect you from contracting HIV. This vaccine may only lesson the severity of your HIV, also, you are now capable of spreading HIV to others.

Would you take a vaccine like that if it was for something like HIV/aids?

Oh and in case anyone thinks I'm being hyperbolic here...

Scientists are already working on adapting the mRNA technology used in the covid shot to create HIV, cancer, and other vaccines.

I promise I'm not mad at you for suggesting this

BUT... you cannot make these comparisons simply because we are talking about different kinds of vira. Corona strain has been here for long, come and gone, but it doesn't stay in the body, unlike the cancer virus and HIV.

And here's the thing, those two don't spread like corona does. So they couldn't even use those vaccines for mass control.

I had my first flu vax 2 years ago in the fall. Reason being I had landed a very nice job with high responsibilty and since I have a tendency to land the flu for a week or so, I wanted to be sure I didn't get any bed time because of that. BUT that vaccine wasn't pushed. Heck... during the 2017 / 2018 flu plague (which interestingly enough killed more people in Denmark than Covid did), no vaccine was pushed, just suggested and it wasn't a huge succes.

But here they have the perfect weapon. NONE of us knows what's in those needles.

I keep seeing for me those almost comic scenes in movies where someone is supposed to drink a poison and the killer anxiously wants the victim to drink up, but the victim keeps getting distracted.

When someone wants you to have something so badly, then you has to ask why that is.


I love behavioural science and funnily enough started looking into it more the past months.
Think about the 2 systems, system 1 and system 2.
System 1 is the lizard brain, fast reacting, choosing the "easy way".
System 2 is the conscious choice brain, where you acutally make sound decisions based on analysing the situation.

This takes place in both small and large scale.

Short scale:
During a hot summer day, you are parched. You head into the store to get a drink. Coca Cola has landed the spot 10 feet into the store, really close to the counter. Pepsi landed the spot 20 feet away, and maybe there's a fruit stand in the way towards them also. Maybe you prefer Pepsi, but today is particularly hot, so you choose coca cola... why?
Because it required less choice. Your thirst had drained all your system energy, and this lead you to make the easy decision.

This is true for most people... and this takes place all the time.

Heck, in our local store they have these shelves with mounds of assorted products that have reduced price, but interesting enough, it takes a while to disappear regardless of the lower price. This is because there are too many things to choose from, you get information overload, and the easy choice here is not to choose. So you either come back another day where you have more energy or wait till most of it is gone and there are less products to choose from.

Large scale: (corona)
You have been a year in lock-down. During that year, authorities, WHO, CDC, experts, Karen's, anti-vaxxers etc etc. have been bombarding you with information. And most of them go back and forth on themselves, even I do...
So you are starting to eye a summer without restrictions, you can almost feel the sun, your feet in the water, the sweet sound of people having fun (in you are an extrovert or extro-introvert ;D).
Now comes the government and says you need to get vaccines to get a vaccine pass port to be able to have fun.

A year in lock-down has drained your system 2. System 1 takes over and says "get the vaccine because... summer... fun".

THEY KNOW that we are burned out. Considering what you Americans have been through the last year, you HAVE TO be burned out on all levels. So they are relying on you making the bad easy choice.

This is why this had to drag out so long. They needed to tire us, so we can't make a rational decision.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

But the false positive/negative rate makes me wonder if there wasn't a reagent preloaded on testing swabs to would give "positive" results once used.

Rapid testing (antigen) is prone to false positives.
PCR testing not nearly as much so.

The vast majority of testing uses PCR.

Rapid anti-gen is prone to both... apparently. They just didn't like to adress both sides at the same time. But it served nicely to confused people and tire them out.

originally posted by: SaneThinking
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I’ve seen a video posted to Y T then taken down and reposted of a doctor with a PCR Test

Tests
Full swab, with swabbed sample = positive
Full swab, no sample = positive
Cotton only no stick, with sample = negative
Cotton only no stick, no sample = negative
Blue plastic stick, no cotton dipped in sample = positive
Blue plastic stick, no sample = positive
Changed sample stick to Q-tip brand repeated process and was 75% negative

His theory was the expanded 40 cycle limit and the blue stick swab issued with CoNViD 19 kits was registering a false positive. He repeated test with large sample size, I've seen vid reposted if I can find I will post.

SaneThinking

I would love to see that video, hope you find it!

a reply to: Phage

But that's where the vaccines should go then. Because as we are told over here, long term is based on age, underlying and well... that's it basicly.

So if those people had the vaccine, that should statisticly take care of long term and most deaths at the same time.
And if those people had the vaccine, why should the rest need to? Statistics and experience shows most have mild cases that doesn't require hospitalization.

I have heard of very very few who were healthy and had long term or died.

But reports are showing now, that otherwise healthy, got ill from the vaccine.

And what's more, we tend to generate anti-bodies ourselves when we get ill. www.medrxiv.org had a few pre-prints that showed that people who had been infected showed longterm immunity.

a reply to: flice

Everything in your post is the reason why scientific literacy should be taught starting in elementary school. As it is, even high schools don't really get into the scientific method, sampling design or one of the most important, how to read scientific articles.

A study with a sample size of N=50-100 has different implications than a study with a sample size of N > 1000 etc.

How the sampling is done is important, the methods used in the overall study is crucial.

These things tend not to be reported in news articles that report on science. Typically, you'll get a blurb about the results, then the articles will typically focus on the discussion section, which, in actuality, is probably the least important part of a scientific article. That's the part where the scientists give their own opinions based on their results. They won't talk about limitations at all, and they'll report two articles of vastly different qualities in study design as equally valid.

A lot of this just never would have happened if people understood how to read those articles for themselves and interpret them properly, without a media spin.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: flice

There is no logical reason behind the vaccine passport. NONE.

There is growing evidence that vaccination reduces transmission. That seems like a logical reason.
www.reuters.com...
www.news-medical.net...

yes, they tend to like to stick to saying "reduced", because they can't stay "prevent" because that's not entirely true and "reduced" almost sound like "prevents" if worded the right way.
But they still said that you could still carry it.

In the present case with the bad quick tests, they waddled around the questions of false negatives and false positives about there being less vira in case of the false negatives, and said that this could also mean lower transmission.

The spun this so hard, and I was hoping they would, because they have created such a mess that they can't figure out what to say or mean themselves.

a reply to: flice

But that's where the vaccines should go then. Because as we are told over here, long term is based on age, underlying and well... that's it basicly.

That's why vaccines are being offered to those most at risk first.

And if those people had the vaccine, why should the rest need to? Statistics and experience shows most have mild cases that doesn't require hospitalization.

Yes. But there are a significant number which do. But you have a choice, you don't "need" to have the vaccine.

But reports are showing now, that otherwise healthy, got ill from the vaccine.

There are very few cases of serious problems which are directly attributable to the vaccine out of hundreds of millions of doses which have been administered. Your risk if hospitalization is greater without vaccination than with.

And what's more, we tend to generate anti-bodies ourselves when we get ill. www.medrxiv.org had a few pre-prints that showed that people who had been infected showed longterm immunity.

Yes. And yet, a large number of people require hospitalization because it takes time to produce antibodies naturally, the vaccine provides a head start.

a reply to: flice

yes, they tend to like to stick to saying "reduced", because they can't stay "prevent" because that's not entirely true and "reduced" almost sound like "prevents" if

Most vaccines do not prevent infection. But they do reduce the impact of infection.
Most vaccines do not prevent transmission. But they do reduce transmission. Evidence is gathering that the COVID vaccines do as well. Preventing transmission is not necessary to keep a disease from spreading uncontrollably.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Tulpa

How about risk of "long COVID." How does that stack up?

How about risk of hospitalization? How does that stack up?

Long covid
All vax are safe no worries.
Covid-19: Seven UK blood clot deaths after AstraZeneca vaccine
www.bbc.com...

a reply to: dug88

Well... I can't remember a single forecast during all this that was accurate. In Denmark, the choices made in the beginning was based on models of extrapolated data.
They have been alarming "if we dont then...!!" and none of it happened here.

Just look at Texas right now. I mean, I was in that thread and believed they were silly and things would go wrong, but we are two weeks past the point where there should have been visible increased infection from that re-opening.

Science and models said that. But if we assume science is correct (and I like to think that) that must mean that science has been corrupted by government and media.

People do die yes.

Being human... is about dying.
Heh, I would steal your long-covid Phage and call it "Long-human - Likely outcome: death"

We didn't even come close to the Spanish flu this time. Imagine the horror back then. This... yes, people died and we were made sure we all knew that.

And this is again down to behavioural science.

- Over representation.

How many died in 2019? How many will die in 2021? And how far from those two numbers will the 2020 number be?
Not far is my guess.

Noone give a s*** about the millions of people who died in 2019. Media didn't cry out about it.
How much did we hear about people dying from famine in 2020? Or wars...

Covid sounds terrible, because it took so much space, because it was "new", different, unpresidented.

This is exactly how you sell an idea to people and make it stick, make it important and visible.

They tried in 2014ish... wasn't it? I recall a huge purchase of vaccines for the incoming flu plague at the time. People didnt care. Nothing happened. But back then SoMe hadn't reached the heights of information we have now.

But they succeed this time it would seem. But, I'm going to let go of the "fun stuff" this year by not getting vaccinated. Most likely I won't get very sick, and if all you others get it, well... what's the problem?

But promise me this, if the vaccine passport is still around in 2022, you have to wake yourselves up and ask wtf is going on.....

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Mandroid7

When you say the word "Morgellons" it make my eyes roll and my ears shut off.

Funny how Morgellons was the epidemic of the early 2000's that just vanished suddenly. Now its been revived again? LMAO

When I reported my lyme to my Dr many years ago he "laughed" YES he did! So today I am in the late stages and have a friend in the same boat dying witheverything having been tried including filtering his blood.

nearly every sufferer of lyme was told the symptoms being so weird and so many were in our heads! I think People should talk to someone who has the desease before they write them off!

it could well be related to the lab created weapnized Borrelia spirochetes that causes Lyme.

Morgellons disease is an uncommon, poorly understood condition characterized by small fibers or other particles emerging from skin sores. People with this condition often report feeling as if something were crawling on or stinging their skin.

The research on Morgellons by multiple groups over decades has yielded conflicting results. Multiple studies report a possible link between Morgellons and infection with Borrelia spirochetes.

www.mayoclinic.org...

a reply to: SeaWorthy

Yes. It seems that some people are at risk of clotting from the AstraZeneca vaccine, a very small percentage of people. Researchers are trying to determine why that is. In the meantime, I would be hesitant to accept that vaccine. But it's not available in the US anyway.

www.npr.org...

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: flice

yes, they tend to like to stick to saying "reduced", because they can't stay "prevent" because that's not entirely true and "reduced" almost sound like "prevents" if

Most vaccines do not prevent infection. But they do reduce the impact of infection.
Most vaccines do not prevent transmission. But they do reduce transmission. Evidence is gathering that the COVID vaccines do as well. Preventing transmission is not necessary to keep a disease from spreading uncontrollably.

Again... I agree.

But the reasoning behind isolation has the whole time been about alleviating the impact on the healthcare systems.

So.. if we simply just vaccinate those who are at risk, then all is good. Because if it isn't, then what is the point?
If the vaccine doesn't prevent a person from getting seriously ill, then there's no reason getting it.

And if I don't get it, and I get sick, even if I managed to infect a person at risk, then we have already established that this person will not become seriously ill.
So.... again, what's the problem?

Just vaccinate those at risk, let the rest choose. Scrap the passport, avoid social apartheid.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: flice

There is no logical reason behind the vaccine passport. NONE.

There is growing evidence that vaccination reduces transmission. That seems like a logical reason.
www.reuters.com...
www.news-medical.net...

I think by now only blind and deaf have not seen that there is an agenda in play and plenty of top Drs in the field are saying the whole thing is hyped to the point of criminality.
The People making monsy from the vaccines are the same ones telling you that you need them...go figure!!