2019-nCoV

Oh goodness, the right-wingers have busted out the youtube videos, and exposing math and science for the shams that they are. Scientific community is clutching their pearls now.

:rolleyes:
 
Oh goodness, the right-wingers have busted out the youtube videos, and exposing math and science for the shams that they are. Scientific community is clutching their pearls now.

:rolleyes:

I'm curious, if the video is of European parliament, is it instantly discredited because it is hosted on YouTube?
 
I wonder what qualifies as legitimate to Vanster and the rest of the cult. What is the standard that has to be met? If Fauci put a video on YouTube is it instantly discredited due to hosting or is that different?
 
vanster is aware of something called DEEP FAKES and takes everything he watches with a large GRAIN OF SALT
 
Oh goodness, the right-wingers have busted out the youtube videos, and exposing math and science for the shams that they are. Scientific community is clutching their pearls now.

:rolleyes:

Vanster is Lozza correct in his assertions?
 
"Now we know that the vaccines work well enough that the virus stops with every vaccinated person," Maddow said on her show the evening of March 29, 2021.

"A vaccinated person gets exposed to the virus, the virus does not infect them, the virus cannot then use that person to go anywhere else," she added with a shrug. "It cannot use a vaccinated person as a host to go get more people."

-r. maddow, march 29th, 2021

giphy.gif
 
Usual semantics and nonsense.

The primary endpoint of the original trials was prevention of COVID-19. Once it became evident very early that the injection also prevented infection, the widespread marketing effort was almost entirely based on this factoid. Get jabbed so that you don't infect others, be a good citizen. That was the faulty basis on which mandates were created.

By reducing COVID-19, and reducing infection, it reduced transmission. The part they didn't tell you was the horrible safety profile, and the pathetic waning effects of the shitty product. Because that wouldn't help sales.

That's what I said - it may have reduced transmission as a follow on effect, but it was not a feature of the vaccine itself
 
That's what I said - it may have reduced transmission as a follow on effect, but it was not a feature of the vaccine itself

That was not what we were fucking told, idiot.

Get the vaccine, stop the spread. Wear a mask, stop the spread. Maintain social distancing, stop the spread. If you don't you're the reason why grandma died.

People STILL FUCKING BELIEVE THIS SHIT. Why? Because no one in the media tells them otherwise and if they do they are labeled as anti-vaxxers and fascist uncaring assholes.
 





























Nope, never any claims. In fairness though you might not have seen these as they all received strikes and had their channels removed.

Oh wait they didn't? They're all still up and spreading misinformation? Weird.

Urgh. These are all confirming my timeline.

When the vaccines were first deployed, the claim to fame was reduced severity. Further down the line there was growing evidence that it reduced transmission. But then very shortly after, delta took to the stage and such a feature of the vaccine was lost, but reduction in severity remained (but reduced).

So from the beginning they were encouraged on the basis of reducing severity, and then just as we beginning to be able to say it had the added feature of reduction in infection and possibly transmission, those features were lost.

So I guess you could say that for that brief period before delta, reducing transmission could be touted as a motivation for widespread take up. Either by reducing infection or transmission itself. But then that feature was lost very quickly.

Check the time stamps on those clips. They all fall in line with what I said.
 
Back
Top