Topic: When will the vaccination end? - page 4. (Read 1360 times)

See?
Great! So you can CHOOSE to go live happily among your genius friends, and leave us simpletons alone. A win-win, if I've ever seen one.

What I don't understand though, is why you're still moaning about it. You should be happy to have an opportunity to leave this society you despise so much...

It should never have been allowed to start because because cure and "vaccine" was always available, but intentionally not used.
Fauci and his gang responsible for millions of deaths. Two years in, people still advocate for mass murder.
https://virologyj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1743-422X-2-69
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1232869/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16115318/
https://granitegrok.com/blog/2020/05/2005-nih-journal-chloroquine-is-a-potent-inhibitor-of-sars-coronavirus-infection-and-spread
Emergency use authorization can not be granted with a known, cheap, ready available alternative, every single health minister how granted it, guilty.

Yup, sounds right.  Just as the psychology professor who's lecture I linked said, these 'mass formation psychosis' events always degrade into atrocities.  It happened in the Bolshevik Revolution, Mao's thing in China, Hitler's thing in Germany, and it will happen with Schwab's (bosses) Great Reset thing here if the designers can pull it off (which is likely).

Here's the deal.  You are either a simpleton if who's fallen for the scamdemic, or in a tiny fraction who are on-board with mass democide and are 'lying for your truth' or whatever.

If the former is the case (likely), just note that each one of 'us' could take out about 1000 of 'you' if push came to shove.  That's simply illustrative of the power of knowledge, understanding, planning, etc.  We just don't want push to come to shove because it's not the kind of people we tend to be.  Push us at your own risk however, and note that while you outnumber us by a significant margin, it is not near where it needs to be to overcome our advantages.

We tend to not be on-board with the mass democide in part because the whole 'climate change' bullshit is about as idiotic and transparent as the plandemic.  We don't need to do people like that, and we are competitive in an environment of today where there are, arguably, 'too many people.'

If you are in a category where you do understand that this is a democide and are active at the planning level, you are on-par with us at the intellectual/ability scales, but you specifically are very very unlikely to be just based on your input here on this board (both existence and quality.)  Much more likely you would be in the category of a mindless drone of the Fausti's, Gates's, Schwab's', etc of this operation.  In that case we need do nothing.  Your leaders will take care of your type for us when your usefulness to them has expired.  And they'll enjoy every minute of doing so.

Let me put it this way: if my options are to live in this society or to die in tvconf's, this is DEFINITELY the one I choose.
Our ancestors had plenty of REAL issues to rebel against. I'm getting mighty sick of youtube "revolutionaries" and instagram "heroes". Our ancestors were willing to die for their ideals (and many did), but they were not willing to get other people killed.

Can you just reread what you just said hear and think about this for a minute. Is this the society that you really want to live in? Or do you want to risk rebellion for a better society like your ancestors did?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mqCx2eYJpQ

History repeats itself.

Ok, cnut237 was way too nice in his post. I'm not.
So let me rephrase it for you: the choice is, either you get vaccinated and you live with the rest of us, you get counterfeit paperwork and take your chances to spend some time in prison, or don't get vaccinated and move to a ghetto with other anti vaxxers, so you can all die in peace. Sounds good enough?
After all, you're all pro-choice, and so am I. That way, you have the choice to decide whether to smarten up or keep up the bullshit, and society has the choice to decide whether to allow you to infect others.

That sounds about right?

The most pro vaccination scientist explains why covid jabs are death shots.
https://rumble.com/vlvhy5-best-explanation-ive-seen-about-why-the-covid-jabs-are-killer-shots.html

For bullshit 'diseases' like mumps, chickenpox, cold/sars-cov-2, etc I am certainly 'pro-getting-infected', and I practice what I preach.  All I ask is for freedom of choice.  The 'risk' to Tony Fausti of MY kid getting sick/damaged/dead/life-long-pharma-customer is zero because if they did, it's more of a feature than a bug.  The same risk is very high to me.  Ergo, I make better risk/reward calculations for myself and my family than does corp/gov.

My choices are simply not as beneficial the eugenicists who own and run corp/gov.  'corp/gov' is known to the 'woke' crowd of 'socialists' as 'society' due to state-run educational institutions and other forms of programming.

The above attitude about most so-called 'vaccines' said, even I am 'pro-vaccine' in the case of smallpox and tuberculosis which are high-mortality and high-morbidity respectively.  e.g., a 'high risk'.

The catch is that I only trust the very old technology where one actually gets an infection rather than the newer (1940's-ish plus) technology where they try to cheat with adjuvants and cause all kinds of autoimmunity and generally fuck up the entire immune system for way to many people.  For life.  The brand new gene therapy techniques seem to have the worst of both worlds.  They don't even work in sub-toxic levels and don't create immunity making the whole 'herd immunity' argument moot (for anyone who can understand even the most basic of science.)

I got my kid BCG vaccine for TB.  It puts a giant bruise on one's ass for a year, but when one is a baby, who cares?

I'd get my kid smallpox because this disease is one of the options that Bill Gates has for "the next one" and he seems pretty excited about it, but only if I could get Dryvax vintage administered via scarification.  This is probably what I got back in the 1960's.  I KNOW it works because I didn't get smallpox.  [_{BTW, for you scientifically illiterate people, this is a joke.}]

Alas, these 'old' technologies which probably actually did/do contribute the the eradication of disease (to extinction in the case of smallpox), and quite possibly the empowerment of the pleb classes in a variety of ways, are simply not available any more.  Gee, I wonder why...

This is not a liberty issue. Individuals live within a society. The primary purpose of vaccination is to protect the society. Protecting the individual is secondary. A healthy 18yo chooses not to take the vaccine, contracts the virus, spreads it around the care home where he works with vulnerable people who for medical reasons can't take the vaccine, and he kills them.

When you drive a car, do you always drive on the same side of the road? Why? Why not vary it a bit, drive on the right one day and on the left the next day? It's your individual freedom to do so, isn't it? Your car, your rules. Does it matter that you share the roads with other drivers? And why stick to a speed limit, when your car can do 150 easily? And why not drive when you're drunk? Should people who live within a society consider only the risk to themselves, or also consider the risk to others within the society?




Being pro-medical science means being pro-vaccine. The vaccines have been proven to be both safe and effective. Yes, some antiviral Covid products are now becoming available, but this is about treating symptoms. If you want to stop people catching it in the first place, and reduce the possibility of new mutations arising, then the only option is vaccination.

I am pro vaccine, in fact, but not before being pro liberty, meaning it is your choice to take the vaccine, and no one else's. And everyone makes the risk calculation differently (ie healthy 18 year old v. 70 year old with obesity). And I recognize that a vaccine must be presented in conjugation with other therapeutics because vaccination is not a catch all solution. Also the discussion about how mRNA vaccines may have potential side effects, which must be considered.

Then comes the discussion of variants, and the need for capturing data before recommending vaccination against variants, when the vaccine may not even bode well.

The strategy against Covid must be modified the moment it was evident that Covid would become endemic because vaccination would no longer end Covid, that ship has sailed. It's impossible for the vaccines to attack every possible variant, so the need for newly purposed vaccines that address variants will be required, just as is with the influenza vaccine (a new Covid shot every year, essentially).

So, that highlights the importance for alternative therapeutics for when someone actually gets Covid. Being pro alternative therapy is not being anti-vax, it's being pro medical science.

Of course. But a more equitable distribution of vaccines, or just selling them cheap to poorer nations, helps to reduce the amount of the virus in circulation, which reduces the number of mutations (variants), which improves things for everyone. This isn't an all-or-nothing situation. If a solution is very-good-but-not-perfect, that doesn't mean you can say 'oh, it's not perfect, therefore do nothing'.




The choice is either get vaccinated or get infected. There's no third option. Vaccination is preferable, as it means fewer deaths. Do you think that everyone should catch the virus, instead? Are you against the Covid vaccine specifically, or the concept in general? Do you think for example that the smallpox vaccine was a bad idea? Being 'anti-vaccine' means being 'pro-getting-infected', there's no other option here.




The evidence for the efficacy of the Covid vaccines is absolutely overwhelming, and building every day. Is the issue that you're somehow unaware of this, or simply that you choose to ignore it?

Gyfts: sorry, you were probably typing your reply when I edited my prior post, so you didn't read the last part.

Vaccination campaigns work, and have proven to do so many times in the past, and yeah, even against upper respiratory infections (tuberculosis rings a bell?). The reason why influenza has not been beat (yet) is because there are actually more than 1000 viruses that cause it, not because of it being an upper respiratory disease, or because of its transmissibility, etc.

Right, let me clarify. The remaining 5 percent of a population that does get infected will still maintain some level of viral load, rendering the vaccine ineffective. But given how transmissible Omicron is (140x times original alpha variant), it's reasonable to expect that most everyone will get it unless you are living in the middle of a forest, isolated from human interaction.

I was originally going to mention polio in my above post to illustrate that mass vaccination does in fact work, only in certain instances. Upper respiratory viruses like Covid are too transmissible for it to not end up endemic. Influenza is the same way.

So mass vaccination must only happen with the realistic expectation that the transmission can be controlled, and that's not feasible with Covid. So it's really a useless conversation to have.

No, there isn't. The fact that a vaccine has a rated statistical efficacy doesn't necessarily mean there will be a percentage of the population that will be infected because it didn't work. No vaccine ever created had a 100% efficacy, and many diseases have been eradicated because of consistent vaccination plans. Polio is the most common case, and the polio vaccine had a 60% efficacy, give or take.

Yet, polio vaccination (along with many other vaccine mass application) has not ended, and has been going on for longer than I've been alive, and nobody is asking "when it will end", yet covid vaccination started less than a year ago, and everybody is whining about it.
Here's a news flash: it's an emergency vaccine, so it's meant to be either approved for regular use or replaced by a better product, once there is one, but the actual vaccination is probably gonna last a long time.

You understand that even it's impossible to inoculate every person in the world simultaneously to prevent any variants from originating? Pfizer's vaccine had the highest efficacy at 95%, so even if everyone was vaccinated, there still would be transmission amongst a small portion of the population. It's how upper respiratory viruses work, they are too transmissible.

You also understand that there is data to suggest that the vaccines are not doing well against Omicron, correct? You seem to think the answer to anything Covid related is vaccination despite what the evidence might show.

To make it short: I don't care.
I'm not an infectologist, nor am I qualified in any way to make decisions as to how to deal with the pandemic, so I trust those that are. I don't follow bullshit "news" with an agenda. If a new vaccine comes available, I'll stick my arm out. Otherwise, I have enough problems as it is, to be wasting my time on things I know nothing about.

Early data do indeed suggest that symptoms are milder on average, but that transmissibility is vastly higher. The main reason for concern is that even if the percentage of infected people who have severe symptoms is lower, the total number of people who require hospitalisation can still be sufficiently high to overwhelm the service.

Hypothetical numbers to illustrate the point:

Delta: 10% of cases are severe, 100 people infected, so 10 people with severe symptoms.
Omicron: 5% of cases are severe, 500 people infected, so 25 people with severe symptoms.





Yes, if by "working as intended" you mean "everyone gets vaccinated". Developed nations have hoarded the vaccines, which means poorer nations are less protected and have more infections, which leads to more new variants, some of which will be at least partially vaccine-resistant, which means they spread back to developed nations. It's no coincidence that Omicron arose in a nation with a low vaccination rate.

You already have herd immunity because herd immunity is vaccinated population + natural immunity, but since the vaccinated can still transmit Covid, it's not really that effective.

And I would argue that those with natural immunity have more robust protection and don't require the need for continuing boosters, but that's another discussion.

We are at 2 years of Covid with world wide spread, had the vaccines been working as intended, the percentage of people with antibodies (or B cell/T cell immunity) would have long been past. At this point, it's in nearly everyone's interest to get infected with Omicron. High transmissibility, mild cold like symptoms. It's essentially the ticket out of the pandemic, yet there are failed attempts at trying to control it.

Still waiting from the "experts" for the data that Omicron is dangerous. The death counts for Omicron are negligible as of now.

Are we there yet? Are we there yet?
That's all I read. Amazing.

The plan (as far as they say) is to vaccinate as many people as possible. Past a certain percentage of the population, herd immunity can be achieved and the need for vaccinating everybody decreases.
Meanwhile, the virus keeps mutating, and extra doses may or may not be needed. In any case, you can choose not to be vaccinated, and deal with the consequences, should you have to.

You only about a year behind times. Only two doses in a lot of places is considered "unvaccinated" Israel started with forth.
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-offer-fourth-dose-covid-19-vaccine-people-over-60-2021-12-21/