Crisis - Norway Funeral Homes Overwhelmed With The Dead

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

If natural immunity is 'leaky' as you said then what about vaccine immunity. In a few words if one is 'leaky' then the other must be 'super-leaky'.

Lol Jesus... Define leaky and super leaky... geez

How about this... Not being vacced or with no natural immunity is super leaky, being vacced or natural immunity is leaky. This biggest point in all this is if you can reduce the condition then you will not end up in the hospital or die, right? If you can reduce the conditions it also reducing the transmission period too.

In simple terms, if you are only sick for a couple of days you will not need to go to the hospital and your transmission period is just a couple of days. If you are sick for weeks you might need to go to the hospital and or die and your transmission period is weeks compared to days.

Whether that reduction is caused by natural immunity or the vaccine I don't care. If you are young and healthy you have very low risk, so the vaccine maybe not really help you. If you are very old or high risk the vaccine will as in you don't get much natural immunity developed if the virus kills you in the process...

I am not the one who has spoken about 'leaky immunity'. This term doesn't exist. I was merely responding to another member.

Not only that, but people are getting COVID more than once, which shows that natural immunity itself is 'leaky'. The pandemic of the disease would not exist at all if 'natural' immune response was perfectly sterilizing.

It is the other member chr0naut who has come up with this term.

He has also claimed that 90% of the people must be vaccinated to get herd immunity. But herd immunity cannot be achieved as we all know by now.

You don't reduce your chances necessarily with getting vaccinated. Depends on the benefit to risk ratio and the age group you belong to.

There are several examples where the risks outweigh the benefits of vaccination.

Boys aged 12-17 more at risk from myocarditis after Pfizer jab than Covid

From my other thread here

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: chr0naut

And, in regard to transmission, the vaccines promote an immune response to the pathogen. They can only stop transmission by reducing the number of viable hosts and the duration of infection. Which takes time and high numbers of those with immune response.

This is the part that people do not understand in either people are not as acceptable to the virus, as in their immune system can get rid of it before it takes hold and if not then a few days sick compared to maybe weeks means a lot less transmission time per person. As example, I was sick about two days and by day 4 zero symptoms. My wife in the same house with me didn't get it from me, but what if I was hard sick for weeks?

What you and the other vaccine supporters don't understand is that you have been fed a bunch of nonsense for two years and you continue to make excuses for liars. You're also using the same anecdotal evidence you have criticized for the duration of this scam. Isn't it the cool thing to do when you talk about coworkers and observations for me to say "cool story, bro"?

The vaccinated do not clear the virus faster than the unvaccinated and pass it on asymptomatically while thinking that they're fine. You are living in a fantasy world. I have posted all the information you need to stop being ignorant in this thread already, yet you continue on like it never happened.


Your fellow vaccine aficionado in this thread keeps banging on about herd immunity like it hasn't been entirely abandoned by The Science. Its now gone from being misinformed to pushing deliberate lies.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: M5xaz
a reply to: v1rtu0s0

This is so grave and huge that it is a 100% certainty that populations will eventually realize they have been lied to.
Can't hide mass genocide for long

Blowback will be massive

Globalists will hang from every lampost...

No, those who, in the light of all the deaths from this disease, continue to suggest that the disease itself is benign, advise people to avoid the vaccines (several different ones), advise others to not wear masks (and to ridicule the mere concept of doing so), to advise against social distancing, or any move that has been tried to reduce the spread of the pandemic. Those people probably should be held liable for the outcomes we are seeing.

But hanging people from lamp posts is purely evil and criminal, and is an indicator of the immorality and innate evil of these types of people.

From what I’ve seen on this site, people are not saying the “disease is benign”, they are saying the vaxx is more dangerous and doesn’t stop transmission.

None of the vaccines are more dangerous than the disease. The disease is orders of magnitude more deadly.

There are serious adverse reactions to the vaccines but they are very rare and are specifically different to different vaccine formulations. The J&J and AstraZaneca vaccines have a possible association with blood clots, but the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines don't. The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines have a possible association with heart inflammation, but the J&J and AstraZaneca don't.

And, in regard to transmission, the vaccines promote an immune response to the pathogen. They can only stop transmission by reducing the number of viable hosts and the duration of infection. Which takes time and high numbers of those with immune response.

Are you sue that the mRNA vaccines are not associated with blood clots?

It seems you haven't paid attention to the numerous threads around.

I'm fairly sure that many have lumped all possible adverse reactions, with all vaccines, together.

I remember in the media when the issues were first identified with the Moderna vaccine statistics, how most articles focused on the Pfizer vaccine, specifically (of course, since then there has also been similar potential issues identified with Comirnaty, too).

And most ATS threads are a mix of nonsense, misinformation, exaggeration, outright falsehoods, as well as facts. It is a public board for people to express their beliefs and opinions. It would be sad if people gave credence to some of the stuff on here and other social media.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: M5xaz
a reply to: v1rtu0s0

This is so grave and huge that it is a 100% certainty that populations will eventually realize they have been lied to.
Can't hide mass genocide for long

Blowback will be massive

Globalists will hang from every lampost...

No, those who, in the light of all the deaths from this disease, continue to suggest that the disease itself is benign, advise people to avoid the vaccines (several different ones), advise others to not wear masks (and to ridicule the mere concept of doing so), to advise against social distancing, or any move that has been tried to reduce the spread of the pandemic. Those people probably should be held liable for the outcomes we are seeing.

But hanging people from lamp posts is purely evil and criminal, and is an indicator of the immorality and innate evil of these types of people.

From what I’ve seen on this site, people are not saying the “disease is benign”, they are saying the vaxx is more dangerous and doesn’t stop transmission.

None of the vaccines are more dangerous than the disease. The disease is orders of magnitude more deadly.

There are serious adverse reactions to the vaccines but they are very rare and are specifically different to different vaccine formulations. The J&J and AstraZaneca vaccines have a possible association with blood clots, but the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines don't. The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines have a possible association with heart inflammation, but the J&J and AstraZaneca don't.

And, in regard to transmission, the vaccines promote an immune response to the pathogen. They can only stop transmission by reducing the number of viable hosts and the duration of infection. Which takes time and high numbers of those with immune response.

Are you sue that the mRNA vaccines are not associated with blood clots?

It seems you haven't paid attention to the numerous threads around.

I'm fairly sure that many have lumped all possible adverse reactions, with all vaccines, together.

I remember in the media when the issues were first identified with the Moderna vaccine statistics, how most articles all focused on the Pfizer vaccine, specifically (of course, since then there has also been similar issues identified with Comirnaty, too.

I am sure if you take a look at the threads and the current literature on the subject you will see that the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are associated with numerous issues including blood clots.

Also front the other post, herd immunity to SARS-CoV-2 is impossible.

originally posted by: Kenzo

Well it was allready 2021 seen trend that after they started the jabs in many countrys deaths go up , and recent data from UK actually mention allmost 50k exess deaths more in 8 Months time 2022 .

the recent Cleveland clinic study that have found that the risk of contracting COVID-19 increases with vaccination:

Death trends had massively dropped after the vaccine came out, so no clue to what data you are looking at as if we look back in the last 6 months death rates are 1/2 or less than back in July and even then they were on the high side of 200 per week. As to the resent study, how can they even do it? If you think about it...how do you run a study to see which group actually gets infected more...lol I would love to see the study. BTW only like 64% of people age 50+ in the UK are boosted, there are still a lot not vaccinated.

problem is offcial data like VAERS is most likely supressed to hide true numbers.

Actually VAERS is over hyped and over used, so the other way around. It is easy to see why and I have wrote on that issue a number of times.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

I am not the one who has spoken about 'leaky immunity'. This term doesn't exist. I was merely responding to another member.

Leaky is an actual term and most vaccines are leaky. Some like Small Pox are True vaccines because of the nature of the virus and that it is also DNA based, so in 30,000 years there has been 1 Small Pox variant that the vaccine has both Small Pox variants in it.

He has also claimed that 90% of the people must be vaccinated to get herd immunity. But herd immunity cannot be achieved as we all know by now.

And he is 100% correct. For something like measles it would be 94% vaccinated to reach herd immunity and we achieved herd immunity with smallpox, polio, diphtheria, rubella and many others. The problem with COVID is the nasty RNA based aspect of it. It is like suggesting we can get herd immunity from the common cold. It would be extremely hard thing to do, so in this case we need to have people with the anti bodies to prevent serious illnesses. Catch it and get over it without needing hospital or weeks of illness. That is where we need to get to.

To say "we all know" is a rather BS statement as it suggests long known common knowledge. As I have said before there are too many arm chair experts with their Bit Chute diploma these days.

You don't reduce your chances necessarily with getting vaccinated. Depends on the benefit to risk ratio and the age group you belong to.

There are several examples where the risks outweigh the benefits of vaccination.

Boys aged 12-17 more at risk from myocarditis after Pfizer jab than Covid

Chances of what, getting it? Or, getting sicker than needed to get over it? Two totally different events.

No one is really debating against this. I know of no one here suggesting the lockdowns and mandates were good, do you? You all conflate two different discussions all the time.

The problem with all drugs is there is risk associated, even aspirin. What this means is you need to weigh the risk and if the virus is extremely low risk for your group like healthy 12 -18 year-olds then there is a good augment they should not get it.

Trust the science.

Just about everyone calling for "depopulation" of the planet.
Are the same folks promoting the jabbing of people with "vaccines", ... to save the population from death.

Same folks that are all bent about you, your children and cattle, making carbon and BBQing the planet.
Back in the 1970's we were heading into a "new ice age" according to "Science" back then.


There's a lot of "science" involved, you wouldn't understand.

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

What you and the other vaccine supporters don't understand is that you have been fed a bunch of nonsense for two years and you continue to make excuses for liars. You're also using the same anecdotal evidence you have criticized for the duration of this scam. Isn't it the cool thing to do when you talk about coworkers and observations for me to say "cool story, bro"?

I'm not so much a vaccine supporter as I agree there are healthy groups that should not get it. I'm more of a anti-vaccine denier of those who spin their nonsense and push doom porn. .

The vaccinated do not clear the virus faster than the unvaccinated and pass it on asymptomatically[/url] while thinking that they're fine. You are living in a fantasy world. I have posted all the information you need to stop being ignorant in this thread already, yet you continue on like it never happened.

You can read what you want to, but long before COVID it has been well known that increased disease severity increases viral load and the longer one is sick the longer one is in a very high viral load situation which is basically saying at the most transmissible period. No one is arguing that asymptomatic doesn't also transmit, but hack up your lungs and throw snot around for weeks compared to someone who barely gets anything is something you suggest are the same?

Your fellow vaccine aficionado in this thread keeps banging on about herd immunity like it hasn't been entirely abandoned by The Science. Its now gone from being misinformed to pushing deliberate lies.

Herd immunity is a real thing with many examples of it, so no clue to your point here. With RNA based viruses it would be an extremely hard thing to accomplished. What I see more as herd immunity is to take a RNA based virus that no one has any anti bodies against and turn it around to where everyone has it's anti bodies so that when they catch a new variant their bodies have some protection to prevent worst case scenarios as we saw at the beginning of COVID. I would much rather see people catch a flu for a few days then end up in hospitals. Isn't that the situation where we all want to be?

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Kenzo

Well it was allready 2021 seen trend that after they started the jabs in many countrys deaths go up , and recent data from UK actually mention allmost 50k exess deaths more in 8 Months time 2022 .

the recent Cleveland clinic study that have found that the risk of contracting COVID-19 increases with vaccination:

Actually VAERS is over hyped and over used, so the other way around. It is easy to see why and I have wrote on that issue a number of times.

Except that it's not and was never considered over hyped by the medical community prior to COVID vaccines. Convenient that they threatened medical professionals that challenge the narrative, have suppressed those that spoke out on social media, and have a complicit media to push completely unsupported narratives as facts.

I'll go way out on a limb and guess you've never looked for evidence of this belief in over hyped voluntary reporting existing prior to COVID vaccines or you'd not continue to parrot it. It defies logic and even after review the numbers remain at a dramatic increase over all other approved vaccines.

The widely accepted underreporting was never really challenged until after the COVID vaccines were deployed and showed unreasonably high numbers of adverse reactions. I've not found a single credible source that claimed VAERS was overreported since its inception prior to this. Your television regurgitating what pharma shills promote is not reality. How many lies and convenient 180s to fit narratives will it take for you to wake up?

Former Australian Medical Association president Dr Phelps is probably a better source than the people that tried to justify forcing people to take a dangerous experimental product. She just happens to be one of the few high profile experts that dare to challenge the lies publiclyy, but that number is increasing.

“Considering that the majority of Australian adults have now had at least one booster, this suggests that the incidence of serious adverse reactions per vaccinated person could be more than 1-in-1000. PEI admits that under-reporting is a problem, and observers suggest that an order of magnitude of under-reporting is not unreasonable to consider (most estimates put underreporting at much worse than this).”

originally posted by: murphy22
Trust the science.

Just about everyone calling for "depopulation" of the planet.
Are the same folks promoting the jabbing of people with "vaccines", ... to save the population from death.

Same folks that are all bent about you, your children and cattle, making carbon and BBQing the planet.
Back in the 1970's we were heading into a "new ice age" according to "Science" back then.


There's a lot of "science" involved, you wouldn't understand.

Exactly, those who want to depopulate also want you to get the "vaxx." Seems "legit."

originally posted by: murphy22
Trust the science.

Just about everyone calling for "depopulation" of the planet.
Are the same folks promoting the jabbing of people with "vaccines", ... to save the population from death.

Same folks that are all bent about you, your children and cattle, making carbon and BBQing the planet.
Back in the 1970's we were heading into a "new ice age" according to "Science" back then.


There's a lot of "science" involved, you wouldn't understand.

So maybe just turn off everything and once a year look at a year in review...lol Go back to lets say 1950s and there was no information about anything. No one cared about science trusting it or not. I think the biggest issue is people want 24/7 information when there isn't any and so people put together sloppy information to provide something and say trust it when it was total crap to begin with.

a reply to: Xtrozero

The discussion isn't about other diseases and herd immunity.

Herd immunity from COVID vaccination is not a thing, but it keeps being referenced here like it hasn't been abandoned. It has been adandoned because the vaccines will not provide it.

Your claims about vaccines providing a qualitative difference in severity are not supported by any serious study and I already provided the information that shows the vaccinated are at increased risk of future infection while also taking just as long to clear to virus. Symptomatic people should always be self-segrating to stop the spread as has been the guidance for decades. If vaccines reduce symptoms then they only increase the likelihood of transmission by asymptomatic infected individuals.

You can play data buffet and take what fits your opinion, but the rest of the data still exists and increasingly shows the vaccines to be a disaster. They have been slowly walking back their claims since shortly after the vaccines were deployed. It doesn't take remarkable pattern recognition to realize that as more data comes out more false and fraudulently optimistic claims will be walked back.

originally posted by: Ksihkehe
Except that it's not and was never considered over hyped by the medical community prior to COVID vaccines.

I think it was back in 2018 in a Harvard study that found less that 2% of medical staff actually used VAERS. When the pandemic started the CDC mandated ALL medical cases will be put into VAERS and this massively increased its use. Also, prior to the Pandemic no one even knew VAERS existed and very quickly some people saw the huge uptick to its use and incorrectly pushed as either COVID deaths and then later vaccine deaths in their own doom porn events. Everyone knows what VAERS is now and everyone can use it too. If you wanted you could make your own inputs all day, and being a passive reporting system it just takes in data and the CDC needs to investigate each one. The results have been extremely low causations, so you can have 10,000s of reports and end up with 10s of actual real causations.

Believe it or not, don't really care... Deleted your last two paragraphs since this speaks to them too.

Convenient that they threatened medical professionals that challenge the narrative, have suppressed those that spoke out on social media, and have a complicit media to push completely unsupported narratives as facts.

They mandated its use and then they want to threatened its use... Makes total sense...

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

I am not the one who has spoken about 'leaky immunity'. This term doesn't exist. I was merely responding to another member.

Leaky is an actual term and most vaccines are leaky. Some like Small Pox are True vaccines because of the nature of the virus and that it is also DNA based, so in 30,000 years there has been 1 Small Pox variant that the vaccine has both Small Pox variants in it.

He has also claimed that 90% of the people must be vaccinated to get herd immunity. But herd immunity cannot be achieved as we all know by now.

And he is 100% correct. For something like measles it would be 94% vaccinated to reach herd immunity and we achieved herd immunity with smallpox, polio, diphtheria, rubella and many others. The problem with COVID is the nasty RNA based aspect of it. It is like suggesting we can get herd immunity from the common cold. It would be extremely hard thing to do, so in this case we need to have people with the anti bodies to prevent serious illnesses. Catch it and get over it without needing hospital or weeks of illness. That is where we need to get to.

To say "we all know" is a rather BS statement as it suggests long known common knowledge. As I have said before there are too many arm chair experts with their Bit Chute diploma these days.

You don't reduce your chances necessarily with getting vaccinated. Depends on the benefit to risk ratio and the age group you belong to.

There are several examples where the risks outweigh the benefits of vaccination.

Boys aged 12-17 more at risk from myocarditis after Pfizer jab than Covid

Chances of what, getting it? Or, getting sicker than needed to get over it? Two totally different events.

No one is really debating against this. I know of no one here suggesting the lockdowns and mandates were good, do you? You all conflate two different discussions all the time.

The problem with all drugs is there is risk associated, even aspirin. What this means is you need to weigh the risk and if the virus is extremely low risk for your group like healthy 12 -18 year-olds then there is a good augment they should not get it.

No he is not correct. And we don't need 'lessons' in immunology. It's getting embarrassing from members here to claim vaccines can give herd immunity against the different emerging variants.

He claimed we can have herd immunity against SARS-CoV-2 and that's demonstrably false as I have already posted several times in the past with several links. But if you don't want to rely on any links just use common sense. A rapidly mutating virus and crippled vaccines cannot give you herd immunity



www.infectioncontroltoday.com...

Those Who Believe in Herd Immunity Cannot Do the Math.

COVID-19 mutations are evading our immunity and at the same time our immunity is waning. Herd immunity to disease and the eradication of SARS-CoV-2 is no longer possible.

www.businessinsider.com...

The developer of the AstraZeneca shot says the Delta variant has made herd immunity impossible because vaccinated people can still transmit the virus

www.theguardian.com...

Herd immunity now seems impossible. Welcome to the age of Covid reinfection

You have also confused your arguments again in regards to the benefit to risk ratio. There are groups of people where the is a higher risk from the vaccine to get for example, myocarditis, than hospitalised due to Covid. If you have read the article I have linked with the 12-17 age group (boys) who are at miniscule risk from dying due to Covid.

Not everyone is a chair expert as you have suggested. Some people are but not everyone.
The one who has suggested herd immunity can be achieved is getting his arguments refuted everywhere.

originally posted by: Ksihkehe
Your claims about vaccines providing a qualitative difference in severity are not supported by any serious study...

Really? do you ever look? This was about 30 seconds of looking, I could spend another 30 seconds if you need. Seems asymptomatic are most contagious from 2 days before positive tests up to 3 days after, but can still be less contagious up to 14 total days. Now think about the person who is sick with active virus for weeks. Most likely in that case it is 2 days before, the whole time actively sick and 3 to 14 days after like asymptomatic. You all seem to discount the time a person is sick to the equation, like when they are actually in a hyper viral load state...

In comparison to mild and moderate symptomatic individuals, asymptomatic primary individuals were much less likely to transmit COVID to close contacts -- but if they did, the contacts were also less likely to experience noticeable symptoms.

JAMA Journal

and I already provided the information that shows the vaccinated are at increased risk of future infection while also taking just as long to clear to virus.

And I can post many other places like Mayo clinic that shows unvaccinated are 2x more likely to get a repeat infection with the virus.

So what do you want to believe? You and other seem to grab one off non-peer review studies or just people suggesting what fits your narrative.

You can't even link something to support you point. This is from your link..
Duration of Shedding of Culturable Virus in SARS-CoV-2 Omicron (BA.1) Infection

In this longitudinal cohort of participants, most of whom had symptomatic, nonsevere Covid-19 infection, the viral decay kinetics were similar with omicron infection and delta infection. Although vaccination has been shown to reduce the incidence of infection and the severity of disease, we did not find large differences in the median duration of viral shedding among participants who were unvaccinated, those who were vaccinated but not boosted, and those who were vaccinated and boosted.

Their sampling was very small and they suggest further study. The samples were symptomatic, nonsevere and so they did not "find large differences in the median duration of viral shedding" since they are mostly all the same level of illness. What they are saying is the viral shedding lasted about the same in these cases that were around the same level of illness no matter the vaccine situation, and that makes 100% total sense.

We also need to understand what they were trying to show. The Goverment wanted to lower "masking" from 10 to 5 days after positive testing with little or no illness. Their sampling showed that viral shedding could be longer than 5 days no matter the situation once a person tested positive.

Our data suggest that some persons who are infected with the omicron and delta SARS-CoV-2 variants shed culturable virus more than 5 days after symptom onset or an initial positive test.

All this doesn't take into account longer durations of sicknesses and it really says nothing to how you wanted to use it here below. Its good to actually read and understand your own links before you use them.

The vaccinated do not clear the virus faster than the unvaccinated and pass it on asymptomatically while thinking that they're fine. You are living in a fantasy world. I have posted all the information you need to stop being ignorant in this thread already, yet you continue on like it never happened.

There is a difference between not clearing faster with all thing equal, but that wasn't my point at all that was more that you have a higher chance of longer illness duration and that increases how long you are contagious.

2x post

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
And we don't need 'lessons' in immunology. It's getting embarrassing from members here to claim vaccines can give herd immunity against the different emerging variants.

I sometimes think you and other do not really read what I write. You read like 3 words and then replay while not reading any more which answers your point that you seem the need to reply with. This happens more and more.

In this case you even quoted it and still did not read it...lol geez

The problem with COVID is the nasty RNA based aspect of it. It is like suggesting we can get herd immunity from the common cold. It would be extremely hard thing to do, so in this case we need to have people with the anti bodies to prevent serious illnesses. Catch it and get over it without needing hospital or weeks of illness. That is where we need to get to.

You have also confused your arguments again in regards to the benefit to risk ratio. There are groups of people where the is a higher risk from the vaccine to get for example, myocarditis, than hospitalised due to Covid. If you have read the article I have linked with the 12-17 age group (boys) who are at miniscule risk from dying due to Covid.

Once again about not reading... WTF are you talking about here?

I have posted maybe two dozen times my position on the vaccine, and in EVERY case I said we need to weigh the risks, and in groups with very low risk to the virus they do not need the vaccine such as 12 - 17, but I suggest 1 to 50 healthy people really do not need the vaccine. Let them get the virus and move on too without the vaccine.

a reply to: Xtrozero

What source do you have for this claim that they mandated use of VAERS at the start of the pandemic? The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 is where the requirement to report is found. This is confirmed by the CDC. The US General Accounting Office testified that even legally required reporting is vastly underreported, this has been known for a very long time. As I've told you parrots repeatedly this was never challenged until crappy vaccines were approved without proper investigation of trial data. It applies to all reporting systems and especially where there is no kind of compliance monitoring from regulatory agencies. This has only been refuted by people with vested interests in it being false or their parrots that are either too ignorant or lazy to know better.

For example, all systems that rely on health care providers to take the initiative to make a report—known as passive or spontaneous reporting systems—have serious limitations. This is true whether or not providers are legally required to report adverse events; that
is, both mandatory and voluntary spontaneous reporting systems share this limitation.

You go on about false claims, but it seems wherever you get your information is a primary source of them. You can keep believing lies, but you're just blindly parroting easily disproven information. Reporting in VAERS is between 1% and 10% of real numbers.

Believe it or not, don't really care.

And there it is, the last gasp you have made in virtually every thread I've challenged your parroting of media in. You don't care, yet only post in response to those that challenge the pharma shills in media and government.

You don't care that people are being killed, maimed, and denied informed consent by pharmaceutical companies and authoritarian officials. Bravo.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
And we don't need 'lessons' in immunology. It's getting embarrassing from members here to claim vaccines can give herd immunity against the different emerging variants.

I sometimes think you and other do not really read what I write. You read like 3 words and then replay while not reading any more which answers your point that you seem the need to reply with. This happens more and more.

In this case you even quoted it and still did not read it...lol geez

The problem with COVID is the nasty RNA based aspect of it. It is like suggesting we can get herd immunity from the common cold. It would be extremely hard thing to do, so in this case we need to have people with the anti bodies to prevent serious illnesses. Catch it and get over it without needing hospital or weeks of illness. That is where we need to get to.

I did see what you have written that's why I haven't commented on it. I do strongly agree that herd immunity is not just very difficult to achieve but in this case impossible just as everyone has accepted after 3 years of rapidly mutating and very infectious variants.

I was merely responding to your comment that the other member is correct when he talks about herd immunity. Obviously he isn't as he was specifically talking about herd immunity to SARS-CoV-2 which is impossible.

For the last part I only agree for those who are at a higher risk i.e over 65 and with comorbidities. When you have cases where the there is more risk from vaccine-induced myocarditis rather than hospitalised with Covid then there is no point trying to vaccinate children or young adults. (As an example. There are many more conditions a vaccine could cause).

I will say again it was very wrong to release these vaccines to the general population. Just as one of the Italian members of the European Parliament said: The greatest medical scandal in history.

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

What source do you have for this claim that they mandated use of VAERS at the start of the pandemic?

You do know that you too can access everything as I can, or am I now your personal assistant. Maybe in the future I'll just tell you to look it up, and not waste my time as it really doesn't matter to you what I post.

The reporting requirements for COVID-19 vaccines are the same for those authorized under emergency use (EUA) or approved under Biologics License Application (BLA). Healthcare providers who administer COVID-19 vaccines are required by FDA, and under the provider agreements for the CDC COVID-19 Vaccination Program to report to VAERS the following after vaccination:

Vaccine administration errors, whether or not associated with an adverse event (AE):
If the incorrect mRNA COVID-19 vaccine product was inadvertently administered for a second dose in a 2-dose series, VAERS reporting is required.
If a different product from the primary series is inadvertently administered for the additional or booster (third dose), VAERS reporting is required.
VAERS reporting is not required for the following situations:
If a mixed series is given intentionally (e.g., due to hypersensitivity to a vaccine ingredient)
Mixing and matching of booster doses (as of October 21, 2021, mixing and matching of booster doses is allowed)
Serious AEs regardless of causality. Serious AEs per FDA are defined as:
Death
A life-threatening AE
Inpatient hospitalization or prolongation of existing hospitalization
A persistent or significant incapacity or substantial disruption of the ability to conduct normal life functions
A congenital anomaly/birth defect
An important medical event that based on appropriate medical judgement may jeopardize the individual and may require medical or surgical intervention to prevent one of the outcomes listed above
Cases of myocarditis after a Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, or Novavax vaccine
Cases of pericarditis after a Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, or Novavax vaccine
Cases of Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in children and adults
Cases of COVID-19 that result in hospitalization or death
Healthcare providers are encouraged to report to VAERS any additional clinically significant AEs following vaccination, even if they are not sure whether vaccination caused the event.

Also, healthcare providers must report any additional selected AEs and/or any revised safety reporting requirements per FDA's conditions of authorized use of vaccine(s) throughout the duration of any COVID-19 vaccine's Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) or any approved COVID-19 vaccine as outlined in the Fact Sheet for Healthcare Providers.

You go on about false claims, but it seems wherever you get your information is a primary source of them. You can keep believing lies, but you're just blindly parroting easily disproven information. Reporting in VAERS is between 1% and 10% of real numbers.

Yes... yes... yes... I keep hearing millions are dying, the data doesn't show it because it is all a big cover up, so on and so forth. But we have the whole world with 13 billion shots given that kind of says you are incorrect.

And there it is, the last gasp you have made in virtually every thread I've challenged your parroting of media in. You don't care, yet only post in response to those that challenge the pharma shills in media and government.

You don't care that people are being killed, maimed, and denied informed consent by pharmaceutical companies and authoritarian officials. Bravo.

I don't care about what alter reality you and others live in...

You only end up challenging me with crappy links that can even support me more than you and of course say everything else is a big lie or coverup. When it gets to that level after a few back to backs I get to the point I really do not care that we are now at the big lie or coverup stage of your argument. That is where they always seem to end up, and not just with you.