This thread just hit 100k views! 2170 replies!
Masks are Never Coming Off
198,404 Views |
2981 Replies |
Last: 4 mo ago by Wangchung
Have you decided whether masks are coming off yet?Doc Holliday said:
This thread just hit 100k views! 2170 replies!
As long as there's fear of spread, there will be masks.Sam Lowry said:Have you decided whether masks are coming off yet?Doc Holliday said:
This thread just hit 100k views! 2170 replies!
We've been planning and preparing for this historic moment.
— President Biden (@POTUS) June 22, 2022
Yesterday, Jill and I met with families and young children who were waiting for their vaccine shots – and others who had just received it. pic.twitter.com/WyaF5d7f7c
JUST IN - EU extends the "Digital COVID Certificate" for another 12 months.
— Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) June 23, 2022
BIDEN: "You see Dr. Jha, see that guy right there? He's the guy that's running the CDC for me these days."
— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) June 21, 2022
Rochelle Walensky is the director of the CDC. Ashish Jha is Biden's COVID response coordinator. pic.twitter.com/vmD1H4a1xk
And as long as there are masks, this thread will be here to ***** about them.Doc Holliday said:As long as there's fear of spread, there will be masks.Sam Lowry said:Have you decided whether masks are coming off yet?Doc Holliday said:
This thread just hit 100k views! 2170 replies!
Elmo, everyone's favorite red Muppet, has received the Covid-19 vaccine https://t.co/GdPySvGHqU
— CNN (@CNN) June 28, 2022
Because the data supports kids getting shots
Bear living in the woods of Bend Oregon
TXBEAR_bf said:
Because the data supports kids getting shots
Definitely supports puppets getting it.
It's okay to have questions about COVID-19 vaccines for children! Elmo's dad Louie talked to their pediatrician, and learned that Elmo getting vaccinated is the best way to keep him and his whole neighborhood safe and healthy! #CaringForEachOther pic.twitter.com/aWkCfysJPE
— Sesame Street (@sesamestreet) June 28, 2022
Have we flattened the curve yet?
Rawhide said:
Have we flattened the curve yet?
Man, no *****
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
Just got off the phone with a long-time friend, retired intel, age late 60's. Double vaxxed, double boosted. Just got CV. He's pissed. Thought he was protected.
whiterock said:
Just got off the phone with a long-time friend, retired intel, age late 60's. Double vaxxed, double boosted. Just got CV. He's pissed. Thought he was protected.
He's wrong to be pissed. I have not understood people who think the jabs give you 100% permanent protection from a mutating bug.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
Just got back from New York and New Jersey. Felt like Texas. A few masks, no requests for papers.
I have heard anecdotally that Broadway is still Covid Crazy, but that makes sense given it is the realm of the crazy, privileged Karen.
I have heard anecdotally that Broadway is still Covid Crazy, but that makes sense given it is the realm of the crazy, privileged Karen.
Maybe because the "experts" told us it would ...quash said:whiterock said:
Just got off the phone with a long-time friend, retired intel, age late 60's. Double vaxxed, double boosted. Just got CV. He's pissed. Thought he was protected.
He's wrong to be pissed. I have not understood people who think the jabs give you 100% permanent protection from a mutating bug.
Harrison Bergeron said:Maybe because the "experts" told us it would ...quash said:whiterock said:
Just got off the phone with a long-time friend, retired intel, age late 60's. Double vaxxed, double boosted. Just got CV. He's pissed. Thought he was protected.
He's wrong to be pissed. I have not understood people who think the jabs give you 100% permanent protection from a mutating bug.
The experts I heard didn't say that. People hear what they want to hear.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
Exactly.quash said:Harrison Bergeron said:Maybe because the "experts" told us it would ...quash said:whiterock said:
Just got off the phone with a long-time friend, retired intel, age late 60's. Double vaxxed, double boosted. Just got CV. He's pissed. Thought he was protected.
He's wrong to be pissed. I have not understood people who think the jabs give you 100% permanent protection from a mutating bug.
The experts I heard didn't say that. People hear what they want to hear.
Maybe the "experts" said that, but the experts never did.Harrison Bergeron said:Maybe because the "experts" told us it would ...quash said:whiterock said:
Just got off the phone with a long-time friend, retired intel, age late 60's. Double vaxxed, double boosted. Just got CV. He's pissed. Thought he was protected.
He's wrong to be pissed. I have not understood people who think the jabs give you 100% permanent protection from a mutating bug.
Sam Lowry said:Maybe the "experts" said that, but the experts never did.Harrison Bergeron said:Maybe because the "experts" told us it would ...quash said:whiterock said:
Just got off the phone with a long-time friend, retired intel, age late 60's. Double vaxxed, double boosted. Just got CV. He's pissed. Thought he was protected.
He's wrong to be pissed. I have not understood people who think the jabs give you 100% permanent protection from a mutating bug.
So Fauci isn't an expert.
Careful buddy, if you keep saying stuff like that they'll cancel you.
Quote him and let's find out.whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:Maybe the "experts" said that, but the experts never did.Harrison Bergeron said:Maybe because the "experts" told us it would ...quash said:whiterock said:
Just got off the phone with a long-time friend, retired intel, age late 60's. Double vaxxed, double boosted. Just got CV. He's pissed. Thought he was protected.
He's wrong to be pissed. I have not understood people who think the jabs give you 100% permanent protection from a mutating bug.
So Fauci isn't an expert.
Careful buddy, if you keep saying stuff like that they'll cancel you.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/11/16/moderna-covid-19-vaccine-trial-effective-candidate/6307647002/
"Moderna's candidate COVID-19 vaccine looks to protect 94.5% of those who get it, trial shows"
"Experts"
"Moderna's candidate COVID-19 vaccine looks to protect 94.5% of those who get it, trial shows"
"Experts"
Not even close.Harrison Bergeron said:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/11/16/moderna-covid-19-vaccine-trial-effective-candidate/6307647002/
"Moderna's candidate COVID-19 vaccine looks to protect 94.5% of those who get it, trial shows"
"Experts"
Article literally quotes the outcome ratios in coming up with a 90% effectiveness against infection.Sam Lowry said:Not even close.Harrison Bergeron said:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/11/16/moderna-covid-19-vaccine-trial-effective-candidate/6307647002/
"Moderna's candidate COVID-19 vaccine looks to protect 94.5% of those who get it, trial shows"
"Experts"
Let me repeat what we're looking for: "100% permanent protection from a mutating bug."ATL Bear said:Article literally quotes the outcome ratios in coming up with a 90% effectiveness against infection.Sam Lowry said:Not even close.Harrison Bergeron said:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/11/16/moderna-covid-19-vaccine-trial-effective-candidate/6307647002/
"Moderna's candidate COVID-19 vaccine looks to protect 94.5% of those who get it, trial shows"
"Experts"
I would have given it the benefit of the doubt at 90%. Instead we're sub flu vaccine levels, and the benchmark changed from protection from infection to protection from severe COVID. A fascinating stat is that we will have more COVID cases in 2022 than we had in the entire pandemic prior to this year. And not just in the US, but globally.Sam Lowry said:Let me repeat what we're looking for: "100% permanent protection from a mutating bug."ATL Bear said:Article literally quotes the outcome ratios in coming up with a 90% effectiveness against infection.Sam Lowry said:Not even close.Harrison Bergeron said:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/11/16/moderna-covid-19-vaccine-trial-effective-candidate/6307647002/
"Moderna's candidate COVID-19 vaccine looks to protect 94.5% of those who get it, trial shows"
"Experts"
Let's at least be intellectually honest and say that the experts thought it would provide a high likelihood of protection against infection, and it has not, even with now a third booster.
The change was in public perception, at least the anti-vax public, not the actual benchmarks. The vaccines did provide a high level of protection against infection from the variants that were active at that time.ATL Bear said:I would have given it the benefit of the doubt at 90%. Instead we're sub flu vaccine levels, and the benchmark changed from protection from infection to protection from severe COVID. A fascinating stat is that we will have more COVID cases in 2022 than we had in the entire pandemic prior to this year. And not just in the US, but globally.Sam Lowry said:Let me repeat what we're looking for: "100% permanent protection from a mutating bug."ATL Bear said:Article literally quotes the outcome ratios in coming up with a 90% effectiveness against infection.Sam Lowry said:Not even close.Harrison Bergeron said:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/11/16/moderna-covid-19-vaccine-trial-effective-candidate/6307647002/
"Moderna's candidate COVID-19 vaccine looks to protect 94.5% of those who get it, trial shows"
"Experts"
Let's at least be intellectually honest and say that the experts thought it would provide a high likelihood of protection against infection, and it has not, even with now a third booster.
ATL Bear said:I would have given it the benefit of the doubt at 90%. Instead we're sub flu vaccine levels, and the benchmark changed from protection from infection to protection from severe COVID. A fascinating stat is that we will have more COVID cases in 2022 than we had in the entire pandemic prior to this year. And not just in the US, but globally.Sam Lowry said:Let me repeat what we're looking for: "100% permanent protection from a mutating bug."ATL Bear said:Article literally quotes the outcome ratios in coming up with a 90% effectiveness against infection.Sam Lowry said:Not even close.Harrison Bergeron said:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/11/16/moderna-covid-19-vaccine-trial-effective-candidate/6307647002/
"Moderna's candidate COVID-19 vaccine looks to protect 94.5% of those who get it, trial shows"
"Experts"
Let's at least be intellectually honest and say that the experts thought it would provide a high likelihood of protection against infection, and it has not, even with now a third booster.
Let's be intellectually honest and admit that the benchmark for approval of these vaccines was a 50 percent reduction in infection or severe illness.
Delta was the deadliest variant, and it was known before this article was written. It ravaged across Europe and the US 8 months later. The vaccine has continually operated like an advance therapeutic and not an immuno-vaccine as it was originally thought and touted to be. There's certainly a benefit to reducing severe COVID, no argument there. It has not curbed spread by any meaningful measure, nor does it appear it ever will. This wasn't a miss by the "ant-vax" crowd, it was a miss by the actual product itself.Sam Lowry said:The change was in public perception, at least the anti-vax public, not the actual benchmarks. The vaccines did provide a high level of protection against infection from the variants that were active at that time.ATL Bear said:I would have given it the benefit of the doubt at 90%. Instead we're sub flu vaccine levels, and the benchmark changed from protection from infection to protection from severe COVID. A fascinating stat is that we will have more COVID cases in 2022 than we had in the entire pandemic prior to this year. And not just in the US, but globally.Sam Lowry said:Let me repeat what we're looking for: "100% permanent protection from a mutating bug."ATL Bear said:Article literally quotes the outcome ratios in coming up with a 90% effectiveness against infection.Sam Lowry said:Not even close.Harrison Bergeron said:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/11/16/moderna-covid-19-vaccine-trial-effective-candidate/6307647002/
"Moderna's candidate COVID-19 vaccine looks to protect 94.5% of those who get it, trial shows"
"Experts"
Let's at least be intellectually honest and say that the experts thought it would provide a high likelihood of protection against infection, and it has not, even with now a third booster.
According to who?D. C. Bear said:ATL Bear said:I would have given it the benefit of the doubt at 90%. Instead we're sub flu vaccine levels, and the benchmark changed from protection from infection to protection from severe COVID. A fascinating stat is that we will have more COVID cases in 2022 than we had in the entire pandemic prior to this year. And not just in the US, but globally.Sam Lowry said:Let me repeat what we're looking for: "100% permanent protection from a mutating bug."ATL Bear said:Article literally quotes the outcome ratios in coming up with a 90% effectiveness against infection.Sam Lowry said:Not even close.Harrison Bergeron said:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/11/16/moderna-covid-19-vaccine-trial-effective-candidate/6307647002/
"Moderna's candidate COVID-19 vaccine looks to protect 94.5% of those who get it, trial shows"
"Experts"
Let's at least be intellectually honest and say that the experts thought it would provide a high likelihood of protection against infection, and it has not, even with now a third booster.
Let's be intellectually honest and admit that the benchmark for approval of these vaccines was a 50 percent reduction in infection or severe illness.
ATL Bear said:Delta was the deadliest variant, and it was known before this article was written. It ravaged across Europe and the US 8 months later. The vaccine has continually operated like an advance therapeutic and not an immuno-vaccine as it was originally thought and touted to be. There's certainly a benefit to reducing severe COVID, no argument there. It has not curbed spread by any meaningful measure, nor does it appear it ever will. This wasn't a miss by the "ant-vax" crowd, it was a miss by the actual product itself.Sam Lowry said:The change was in public perception, at least the anti-vax public, not the actual benchmarks. The vaccines did provide a high level of protection against infection from the variants that were active at that time.ATL Bear said:I would have given it the benefit of the doubt at 90%. Instead we're sub flu vaccine levels, and the benchmark changed from protection from infection to protection from severe COVID. A fascinating stat is that we will have more COVID cases in 2022 than we had in the entire pandemic prior to this year. And not just in the US, but globally.Sam Lowry said:Let me repeat what we're looking for: "100% permanent protection from a mutating bug."ATL Bear said:Article literally quotes the outcome ratios in coming up with a 90% effectiveness against infection.Sam Lowry said:Not even close.Harrison Bergeron said:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/11/16/moderna-covid-19-vaccine-trial-effective-candidate/6307647002/
"Moderna's candidate COVID-19 vaccine looks to protect 94.5% of those who get it, trial shows"
"Experts"
Let's at least be intellectually honest and say that the experts thought it would provide a high likelihood of protection against infection, and it has not, even with now a third booster.
Again, let's be honest. The vaccines were going to be rolled out of all they did was reduce severe illness by 50 percent. That was the threshold standard under Operation Warp Speed.
ATL Bear said:According to who?D. C. Bear said:ATL Bear said:I would have given it the benefit of the doubt at 90%. Instead we're sub flu vaccine levels, and the benchmark changed from protection from infection to protection from severe COVID. A fascinating stat is that we will have more COVID cases in 2022 than we had in the entire pandemic prior to this year. And not just in the US, but globally.Sam Lowry said:Let me repeat what we're looking for: "100% permanent protection from a mutating bug."ATL Bear said:Article literally quotes the outcome ratios in coming up with a 90% effectiveness against infection.Sam Lowry said:Not even close.Harrison Bergeron said:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/11/16/moderna-covid-19-vaccine-trial-effective-candidate/6307647002/
"Moderna's candidate COVID-19 vaccine looks to protect 94.5% of those who get it, trial shows"
"Experts"
Let's at least be intellectually honest and say that the experts thought it would provide a high likelihood of protection against infection, and it has not, even with now a third booster.
Let's be intellectually honest and admit that the benchmark for approval of these vaccines was a 50 percent reduction in infection or severe illness.
FDA.
Ah, the minimum EUA requirement. Not sure we even met that on infection.D. C. Bear said:ATL Bear said:According to who?D. C. Bear said:ATL Bear said:I would have given it the benefit of the doubt at 90%. Instead we're sub flu vaccine levels, and the benchmark changed from protection from infection to protection from severe COVID. A fascinating stat is that we will have more COVID cases in 2022 than we had in the entire pandemic prior to this year. And not just in the US, but globally.Sam Lowry said:Let me repeat what we're looking for: "100% permanent protection from a mutating bug."ATL Bear said:Article literally quotes the outcome ratios in coming up with a 90% effectiveness against infection.Sam Lowry said:Not even close.Harrison Bergeron said:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/11/16/moderna-covid-19-vaccine-trial-effective-candidate/6307647002/
"Moderna's candidate COVID-19 vaccine looks to protect 94.5% of those who get it, trial shows"
"Experts"
Let's at least be intellectually honest and say that the experts thought it would provide a high likelihood of protection against infection, and it has not, even with now a third booster.
Let's be intellectually honest and admit that the benchmark for approval of these vaccines was a 50 percent reduction in infection or severe illness.
FDA.
Obviously we've talked about this before. It's just...wrong. The product was a vaccine, and by any normal standard it was effective against Delta. It's wasn't 100% effective, which brings me back to my question. When did Fauci, or any expert, ever say it was 100% effective and permanent against present and future variants?ATL Bear said:Delta was the deadliest variant, and it was known before this article was written. It ravaged across Europe and the US 8 months later. The vaccine has continually operated like an advance therapeutic and not an immuno-vaccine as it was originally thought and touted to be. There's certainly a benefit to reducing severe COVID, no argument there. It has not curbed spread by any meaningful measure, nor does it appear it ever will. This wasn't a miss by the "ant-vax" crowd, it was a miss by the actual product itself.Sam Lowry said:The change was in public perception, at least the anti-vax public, not the actual benchmarks. The vaccines did provide a high level of protection against infection from the variants that were active at that time.ATL Bear said:I would have given it the benefit of the doubt at 90%. Instead we're sub flu vaccine levels, and the benchmark changed from protection from infection to protection from severe COVID. A fascinating stat is that we will have more COVID cases in 2022 than we had in the entire pandemic prior to this year. And not just in the US, but globally.Sam Lowry said:Let me repeat what we're looking for: "100% permanent protection from a mutating bug."ATL Bear said:Article literally quotes the outcome ratios in coming up with a 90% effectiveness against infection.Sam Lowry said:Not even close.Harrison Bergeron said:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/11/16/moderna-covid-19-vaccine-trial-effective-candidate/6307647002/
"Moderna's candidate COVID-19 vaccine looks to protect 94.5% of those who get it, trial shows"
"Experts"
Let's at least be intellectually honest and say that the experts thought it would provide a high likelihood of protection against infection, and it has not, even with now a third booster.