|
Post by riverman on Mar 15, 2024 10:02:09 GMT
As they say, no shit Sherlock.Yet another conspiracy fact to add to the multitude of others derided by the terminally gullable.
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Mar 15, 2024 10:16:30 GMT
As they say, no shit Sherlock.Yet another conspiracy fact to add to the multitude of others derided by the terminally gullable. One report from Queensland Australia then it's true is it ... The report was done in 2022 when 90% of the people were vaccinated and the main Covid was the weak Omicron. Try telling people like Kate Garraway that there isn't a difference between Covid and flu those who were affected when Covid first took hold. From the bottom of the same report: - Prof Jeremy Nicholson, the director of the Australian National Phenome Centre at Murdoch University, said the question of whether long Covid is unique “cannot be simply answered in this work”.
“The study is observational, based on reported symptoms with no physiological or detailed functional follow-up data. Without laboratory pathophysiological assessment of individual patients, it is impossible to say that this is indistinguishable from flu-related or any other post-viral syndrome,” Nicholson said.So does that make you gullible to a type of click bait headline ?
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Mar 16, 2024 11:14:46 GMT
As they say, no shit Sherlock.Yet another conspiracy fact to add to the multitude of others derided by the terminally gullable. I'm really not getting the conspiracy angle here. Long Covid is just another example of a post viral illness. The study isn't saying it isn't real or the symptoms any less debilitating - it's just saying that calling it "Long Covid" implies it's something different to other post viral illnesses and the only reason it got such a high profile was because of the sheer numbers of people infected by Covid and exhibiting the post viral effects. Am I missing something?
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Mar 16, 2024 11:46:46 GMT
Any inquiries into the lockdown scandal yet?
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Mar 16, 2024 11:49:19 GMT
You just can't make this stuff up. Basically everything we were saying on here every day for 18 months but were called "conspiracy theorists". Bit of irony that this article has been produced by the most sacred shit rag to pro lockdown authoritarian psychos going!
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on Mar 16, 2024 12:32:00 GMT
You just can't make this stuff up. Basically everything we were saying on here every day for 18 months but were called "conspiracy theorists". Bit of irony that this article has been produced by the most sacred shit rag to pro lockdown authoritarian psychos going! Aye and how's that enquiry going. You know the one we know all the conclusions of already but is going to take another 3 years to finalise and pay untold amounts to the lawyers and the fucking idiots running it. The rest of the world have finished theirs months and years ago. No wonder we never get fuck all achieved in this country. We've become a joke. Can't wait for the next pandemic cos hardly anyone will pay any attention to the lying twats. And they're trying to hand decision making over to the WHO.... 😆
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Mar 17, 2024 9:23:05 GMT
You just can't make this stuff up. Basically everything we were saying on here every day for 18 months but were called "conspiracy theorists". Bit of irony that this article has been produced by the most sacred shit rag to pro lockdown authoritarian psychos going! How does that article confirm that long Covid is a conspiracy?
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Mar 17, 2024 9:28:11 GMT
You just can't make this stuff up. Basically everything we were saying on here every day for 18 months but were called "conspiracy theorists". Bit of irony that this article has been produced by the most sacred shit rag to pro lockdown authoritarian psychos going! How does that article confirm that long Covid is a conspiracy? It doesn't, it suggests the Guardian (who were previously absolutely anti any form of questioning the severity of covid of long covid and supported every possible authoritarian measure going, like you) are now coming to the realisation that perhaps, those previously accused as "conspiracy theorists" may have had a point. They won't be the first or the last to change their tune, just look at Piers Morgan. The Guardian wouldn't be seen dead posting an article like this a couple of years ago.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Mar 17, 2024 10:30:23 GMT
How does that article confirm that long Covid is a conspiracy? It doesn't, it suggests the Guardian (who were previously absolutely anti any form of questioning the severity of covid of long covid and supported every possible authoritarian measure going, like you) are now coming to the realisation that perhaps, those previously accused as "conspiracy theorists" may have had a point. They won't be the first or the last to change their tune, just look at Piers Morgan. The Guardian wouldn't be seen dead posting an article like this a couple of years ago. The article in no way questions the severity of covid or long covid. It is reporting on the observation that calling the post viral effects of covid "long covid" serves no good purpose - "long covid" is just another form of post viral infection. However whatever it's called it's still an issue because millions of people with little or no natural immunity contracted covid and many are suffering from the effects of a post viral infection that wouldn't have made them ill had covid not happened. If you are going to rewrite history it might be a good idea to use material that actually supports your rewrite. It might even help if you actually read the article first.
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Mar 17, 2024 10:43:07 GMT
It doesn't, it suggests the Guardian (who were previously absolutely anti any form of questioning the severity of covid of long covid and supported every possible authoritarian measure going, like you) are now coming to the realisation that perhaps, those previously accused as "conspiracy theorists" may have had a point. They won't be the first or the last to change their tune, just look at Piers Morgan. The Guardian wouldn't be seen dead posting an article like this a couple of years ago. The article in no way questions the severity of covid or long covid. It is reporting on the observation that calling the post viral effects of covid "long covid" serves no good purpose - "long covid" is just another form of post viral infection. However whatever it's called it's still an issue because millions of people with little or no natural immunity contracted covid and many are suffering from the effects of a post viral infection that wouldn't have made them ill had covid not happened. If you are going to rewrite history it might be a good idea to use material that actually supports your rewrite. It might even help if you actually read the article first. Watching you cling on to your authoritarian wet dream is quite something. Still advocating murder of anti lockdowners and hurling old women in to police vans? As usual you're not actually reading the post and instead, ramble on about rewriting history. Let me re-word it given your apparently incapable of digesting fairly basic stuff. Two years ago, do you think the Guardian would have allowed an article like this to be published?
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Mar 17, 2024 10:51:53 GMT
You just can't make this stuff up. Basically everything we were saying on here every day for 18 months but were called "conspiracy theorists". Bit of irony that this article has been produced by the most sacred shit rag to pro lockdown authoritarian psychos going! You have read the report haven't you? As I said above, the sampling was done in 2022 when 90% of people were vaccinated and the Omicron was the prevalent strain, its about as much use as a comparison as Pep and Alex Neil in footballing tactics. A report based on testing from the original strain and before vaccines might be worth a read.
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Mar 17, 2024 10:58:19 GMT
You just can't make this stuff up. Basically everything we were saying on here every day for 18 months but were called "conspiracy theorists". Bit of irony that this article has been produced by the most sacred shit rag to pro lockdown authoritarian psychos going! You have read the report haven't you? As I said above, the sampling was done in 2022 when 90% of people were vaccinated and the Omicron was the prevalent strain, its about as much use as a comparison as Pep and Alex Neil in footballing tactics. A report based on testing from the original strain and before vaccines might be worth a read. You're missing my point. I'll ask you the same question. Read the headline of the article and ask yourself honestly, do you think the Guardian would have published articles like this two years ago? Surely you (as someone who firmly supported alot of the messaging around restrictions and the severity of covid) can see that the tone is massively shifting with mainstream media outlets like the Guardian who would just NEVER have even considered posting an article that so openly questions the severity of long covid.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Mar 17, 2024 13:48:26 GMT
The article in no way questions the severity of covid or long covid. It is reporting on the observation that calling the post viral effects of covid "long covid" serves no good purpose - "long covid" is just another form of post viral infection. However whatever it's called it's still an issue because millions of people with little or no natural immunity contracted covid and many are suffering from the effects of a post viral infection that wouldn't have made them ill had covid not happened. If you are going to rewrite history it might be a good idea to use material that actually supports your rewrite. It might even help if you actually read the article first. Watching you cling on to your authoritarian wet dream is quite something. Still advocating murder of anti lockdowners and hurling old women in to police vans? As usual you're not actually reading the post and instead, ramble on about rewriting history. Let me re-word it given your apparently incapable of digesting fairly basic stuff. Two years ago, do you think the Guardian would have allowed an article like this to be published? Being accused of being someone with an authoritarian wet dream by someone who recently described their own political wet dream as a fascist state where they were the supreme leader is beyond ironic. And what exactly is contentious about this article and why the hell wouldn't The Guardian (or any other newspaper) report it now or in the middle of the Covid epidemic? It's just a straightforward report on some credible research. The reason it has come out now is because Covid is a new disease and nobody had the raw data about long covid to compare with other post viral diseases. It isn't a change in attitude to the covid epidemic that has caused this article to be printed now - it's because the evidence to do the research is only now available. And the article isn't claiming it's any less serious than it ever was claimed to be, just that the term "long covid" isn't very useful because the symptoms and the severity are the same as other post viral diseases which nobody could say during the pandemic because the data wasn't available, Your problem is that you see anything to do with Covid (and pretty much everything else) in terms of your political ideology. Scientific research and public health advice are in and of themselves nothing to do with politics (or at least they shouldn't be). Politics comes into play in terms of how they are used in terms of public policy. Until you get that you will continue to make nonsensical posts like the one you brain farted out about this article in the Guardian.
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Mar 17, 2024 14:06:08 GMT
Watching you cling on to your authoritarian wet dream is quite something. Still advocating murder of anti lockdowners and hurling old women in to police vans? As usual you're not actually reading the post and instead, ramble on about rewriting history. Let me re-word it given your apparently incapable of digesting fairly basic stuff. Two years ago, do you think the Guardian would have allowed an article like this to be published? Being accused of being someone with an authoritarian wet dream by someone who recently described their own political wet dream as a fascist state where they were the supreme leader is beyond ironic. And what exactly is contentious about this article and why the hell wouldn't The Guardian (or any other newspaper) report it now or in the middle of the Covid epidemic? It's just a straightforward report on some credible research. The reason it has come out now is because Covid is a new disease and nobody had the raw data about long covid to compare with other post viral diseases. It isn't a change in attitude to the covid epidemic that has caused this article to be printed now - it's because the evidence to do the research is only now available. And the article isn't claiming it's any less serious than it ever was claimed to be, just that the term "long covid" isn't very useful because the symptoms and the severity are the same as other post viral diseases which nobody could say during the pandemic because the data wasn't available, Your problem is that you see anything to do with Covid (and pretty much everything else) in terms of your political ideology. Scientific research and public health advice are in and of themselves nothing to do with politics (or at least they shouldn't be). Politics comes into play in terms of how they are used in terms of public policy. Until you get that you will continue to make nonsensical posts like the one you brain farted out about this article in the Guardian. This really is something else. Talk about the ultimate cringe reaguard action from a guy who openly wanted other oatcake posters to be killed for opposing lockdown views and is clinging on that badly to his covid madness that hes getting tangled in more knots than Piers Morgan on this subject. And you've got the nerve to say "nonsensical".😂😂 Let's just translate this in real terms - "I now know I was completely wrong about the pandemic and my authoritarian views towards it but I'm going to now argue that the only reason I was wrong was because I didn't have the evidence available. Therefore I was actually right". To call you a fraud (there are probably more fitting words) is understatement of the century. The only surprise in all of these was that you weren't given a lifetime ban for wishing death on other oatcake posters and that you've still got the nerve to post on this thread after 3 years being emphatically and evidently wrong. Yet you continue to backtrack.
|
|
|
Post by terryconroysmagic on Mar 18, 2024 1:10:46 GMT
Please provide empirical evidence for survival from Covid is greater for the vaccinated. Lot of people dying recently let’s so let’s see what the future brings If more unvaxxed people die from side effects of Covid why are governments not continually and relentlessly pushing the vaccine? You don’t get common sense do you? Some empirical evidence: www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsinvolvingcovid19byvaccinationstatusengland/deathsoccurringbetween1april2021and31december2022. There is a hell of a lot more. From credible sources, rather than from some random dickhead with a domain name. There are lots of people dying from the complications of COVID (the majority of deaths based on the fact that COVID is more likely to cause those complications) and some dying as a result of complications due to the vaccination (the minority of deaths because the vaccination is less likely to cause the same set of complications). Had the vaccinations not happened more people would have contracted the complications and died. There is no longer to push the vaccination because the rates of infection are low. There is a threshold where continuing to vaccinate people will cause more complications than the number of complications resulting from infection. I understand common sense and I understand the limitations of common sense and I understand where complex anti intuitive mathematical modelling trumps common sense every time. You don't. The “rates of infection are now low”, what a load of shite. The vaccine doesn’t prevent you getting Covid or are you still disputing that? So people are getting complications from Covid AND a vaccine that doesn’t stop you catching it… Yes you really do common sense… That report you cited doesn’t address my point at all re excess deaths. So a vaccine MAY slightly reduce deaths from Covid but cause a plethora of other harms but hey just ignore that altogether
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Mar 18, 2024 9:12:00 GMT
You have read the report haven't you? As I said above, the sampling was done in 2022 when 90% of people were vaccinated and the Omicron was the prevalent strain, its about as much use as a comparison as Pep and Alex Neil in footballing tactics. A report based on testing from the original strain and before vaccines might be worth a read. You're missing my point. I'll ask you the same question. Read the headline of the article and ask yourself honestly, do you think the Guardian would have published articles like this two years ago? Surely you ( as someone who firmly supported alot of the messaging around restrictions and the severity of covid) can see that the tone is massively shifting with mainstream media outlets like the Guardian who would just NEVER have even considered posting an article that so openly questions the severity of long covid. It's a click bait story and suckered you and others in, it's an obscure report based on awful data, they just wanted more clicks for their online forum. I will discuss the data and the severity of it, and yes, it was severe many people, many others it wasn't, lets just hope we don't get anything like it again.
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Mar 18, 2024 9:26:35 GMT
You're missing my point. I'll ask you the same question. Read the headline of the article and ask yourself honestly, do you think the Guardian would have published articles like this two years ago? Surely you ( as someone who firmly supported alot of the messaging around restrictions and the severity of covid) can see that the tone is massively shifting with mainstream media outlets like the Guardian who would just NEVER have even considered posting an article that so openly questions the severity of long covid. It's a click bait story and suckered you and others in, it's an obscure report based on awful data, they just wanted more clicks for their online forum. I will discuss the data and the severity of it, and yes, it was severe many people, many others it wasn't, lets just hope we don't get anything like it again. But whether it's click bait or whether you agree/disagree with the point isn't my point. The Guardian are changing their tone on the severity of covid as so many mainstream media outlets have been doing over the past year. Over these coming few years we are going to see more and more backtracking, mark my words.
|
|
|
Post by adri2008 on Mar 18, 2024 11:00:07 GMT
A disease that was a genuine problem for the elderly and those already weakened but minimal risk for the young and healthy - yet the government decided to coerce everybody into mass vaccinations. I had text messages and letters for months pestering me to get the kids vaccinated despite knowing full well that it had minimal if any benefit at all. Obviously I didn't comply with the ridiculous requests yet this was somehow deemed as irresponsible.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Mar 18, 2024 17:50:22 GMT
Being accused of being someone with an authoritarian wet dream by someone who recently described their own political wet dream as a fascist state where they were the supreme leader is beyond ironic. And what exactly is contentious about this article and why the hell wouldn't The Guardian (or any other newspaper) report it now or in the middle of the Covid epidemic? It's just a straightforward report on some credible research. The reason it has come out now is because Covid is a new disease and nobody had the raw data about long covid to compare with other post viral diseases. It isn't a change in attitude to the covid epidemic that has caused this article to be printed now - it's because the evidence to do the research is only now available. And the article isn't claiming it's any less serious than it ever was claimed to be, just that the term "long covid" isn't very useful because the symptoms and the severity are the same as other post viral diseases which nobody could say during the pandemic because the data wasn't available, Your problem is that you see anything to do with Covid (and pretty much everything else) in terms of your political ideology. Scientific research and public health advice are in and of themselves nothing to do with politics (or at least they shouldn't be). Politics comes into play in terms of how they are used in terms of public policy. Until you get that you will continue to make nonsensical posts like the one you brain farted out about this article in the Guardian. This really is something else. Talk about the ultimate cringe reaguard action from a guy who openly wanted other oatcake posters to be killed for opposing lockdown views and is clinging on that badly to his covid madness that hes getting tangled in more knots than Piers Morgan on this subject. And you've got the nerve to say "nonsensical".😂😂 Let's just translate this in real terms - "I now know I was completely wrong about the pandemic and my authoritarian views towards it but I'm going to now argue that the only reason I was wrong was because I didn't have the evidence available. Therefore I was actually right". To call you a fraud (there are probably more fitting words) is understatement of the century. The only surprise in all of these was that you weren't given a lifetime ban for wishing death on other oatcake posters and that you've still got the nerve to post on this thread after 3 years being emphatically and evidently wrong. Yet you continue to backtrack. Let me take this a one point at a time. 1 I have not changed my views on the COVID pandemic or the steps taken to mitigate its effects. If the science changes on the nature of COVID or best practice in terms of public health policy in tacking a similar pandemic (which is certainly possible) I will reconsider my position. To date is hasn't. 2 The Guardian article you quoted does not in any way support your assertion that the Guardian and others are shifting their position on COVID. The article does not in any way suggest that COVID is any less serious than it was purported to be to be at the time. All it says is that long COVID is pretty much the same as other post viral syndromes and calling it "long COVID" doesn't actually help in dealing with it. It does not claim that the effects of post COVID viral infection isn't a thing or less serious than first thought. You are reading into the article something that simply isn't there. 3 On several occasions you have accused me of making death threats to other oatcake posters. This is indeed serious and if proven I should be subject to a ban. I have therefore reported this post to Admin to investigate your claims and take appropriate action. If my behaviour on this board is as you describe I am surprised no-one has taken action previously. I trust you will cooperate fully with Admin in substantiating your claim and secure an appropriate sanction.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Mar 18, 2024 18:12:28 GMT
Some empirical evidence: www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsinvolvingcovid19byvaccinationstatusengland/deathsoccurringbetween1april2021and31december2022. There is a hell of a lot more. From credible sources, rather than from some random dickhead with a domain name. There are lots of people dying from the complications of COVID (the majority of deaths based on the fact that COVID is more likely to cause those complications) and some dying as a result of complications due to the vaccination (the minority of deaths because the vaccination is less likely to cause the same set of complications). Had the vaccinations not happened more people would have contracted the complications and died. There is no longer to push the vaccination because the rates of infection are low. There is a threshold where continuing to vaccinate people will cause more complications than the number of complications resulting from infection. I understand common sense and I understand the limitations of common sense and I understand where complex anti intuitive mathematical modelling trumps common sense every time. You don't. The “rates of infection are now low”, what a load of shite. The vaccine doesn’t prevent you getting Covid or are you still disputing that? So people are getting complications from Covid AND a vaccine that doesn’t stop you catching it… Yes you really do common sense… That report you cited doesn’t address my point at all re excess deaths. So a vaccine MAY slightly reduce deaths from Covid but cause a plethora of other harms but hey just ignore that altogether The vaccine does not prevent infection. That is not how vaccines work. The vaccine stimulates the body's natural defence mechanisms to identify and attack the virus before it causes serious illness. People who have been vaccinated are way less likely to be made ill and as a result are less likely to infect others or contract any post viral illnesses. The levels of COVID infection in the community are way lower than at the height of the pandemic. With the majority of people vaccinated means that those who get infected aren't as ill and are way less likely to infect others because the bodies of the infected are killing it off before it can spread. People who remained unvaccinated are way more likely to be become seriously ill than those who are vaccinated. That is a scientific fact. People who remain unvaccinated are also more like to get the post viral illnesses associated with COVID. The vaccine does cause these same post viral illnesses as covid. However the percentage who people who experience these illnesses is way less than thepe centage of people who would have got these illnesses has they developed COVID. That is also a scientific fact. You can have a pop at me all your like but it doesn't change the fact that your understanding of the scientific evidence is completely wrong.
|
|
|
Post by terryconroysmagic on Mar 18, 2024 19:25:07 GMT
The “rates of infection are now low”, what a load of shite. The vaccine doesn’t prevent you getting Covid or are you still disputing that? So people are getting complications from Covid AND a vaccine that doesn’t stop you catching it… Yes you really do common sense… That report you cited doesn’t address my point at all re excess deaths. So a vaccine MAY slightly reduce deaths from Covid but cause a plethora of other harms but hey just ignore that altogether The vaccine does not prevent infection. That is not how vaccines work. The vaccine stimulates the body's natural defence mechanisms to identify and attack the virus before it causes serious illness. People who have been vaccinated are way less likely to be made ill and as a result are less likely to infect others or contract any post viral illnesses. The levels of COVID infection in the community are way lower than at the height of the pandemic. With the majority of people vaccinated means that those who get infected aren't as ill and are way less likely to infect others because the bodies of the infected are killing it off before it can spread. People who remained unvaccinated are way more likely to be become seriously ill than those who are vaccinated. That is a scientific fact. People who remain unvaccinated are also more like to get the post viral illnesses associated with COVID. The vaccine does cause these same post viral illnesses as covid. However the percentage who people who experience these illnesses is way less than thepe centage of people who would have got these illnesses has they developed COVID. That is also a scientific fact. You can have a pop at me all your like but it doesn't change the fact that your understanding of the scientific evidence is completely wrong. Well at least you’re starting to get onboard with the changing narrative, funny how this vaccine initially prevented infection…
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Mar 18, 2024 20:48:52 GMT
Covid bollocks - scam of the century. Shove your lockdowns, mask mandates and health & safety terrorism up your arse. And shove you anti science, anti medical research, anti public health advice up your arse. I don't understand why the people who actually know what they doing even bother to try to keep you alive - the species would be better off without you in the gene pool. Wrong. I didn't say you were dishing out death threats. I said you wished death on other posters, which is exactly what the above is. Disturbed, distasteful and evidently as per this thread, pretty thick. This isn't the only time you've put a post out of this kind of nature either. Good luck with admin.
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Mar 18, 2024 20:52:03 GMT
And shove you anti science, anti medical research, anti public health advice up your arse. I don't understand why the people who actually know what they doing even bother to try to keep you alive - the species would be better off without you in the gene pool. Wrong. I didn't say you were dishing out death threats. I said you wished death on other posters, which is exactly what the above is. Disturbed, distasteful and evidently as per this thread, pretty thick. This isn't the only time you've put a post out of this kind of nature either. Good luck with admin. Yet another post in very poor taste
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Mar 18, 2024 21:08:14 GMT
Wrong. I didn't say you were dishing out death threats. I said you wished death on other posters, which is exactly what the above is. Disturbed, distasteful and evidently as per this thread, pretty thick. This isn't the only time you've put a post out of this kind of nature either. Good luck with admin. Yet another post in very poor taste Yet he attempts to take some bizarre kind of moral high ground. Pretty surreal stuff.
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Mar 18, 2024 21:09:41 GMT
Yet another post in very poor taste Yet he attempts to take some bizarre kind of moral high ground. Pretty surreal stuff. I was talking about yours😉 Joking of course
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Mar 18, 2024 21:20:28 GMT
Yet he attempts to take some bizarre kind of moral high ground. Pretty surreal stuff. I was talking about yours😉 Joking of course Careful. Death will be wished upon you if you're not careful ☠️😏
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Mar 18, 2024 21:26:04 GMT
I was talking about yours😉 Joking of course Careful. Death will be wished upon you if you're not careful ☠️😏 I’m ever so slightly more bothered about the real causes of death such as cancer etc unless he’s some kind of hitman
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Mar 18, 2024 21:55:42 GMT
The vaccine does not prevent infection. That is not how vaccines work. The vaccine stimulates the body's natural defence mechanisms to identify and attack the virus before it causes serious illness. People who have been vaccinated are way less likely to be made ill and as a result are less likely to infect others or contract any post viral illnesses. The levels of COVID infection in the community are way lower than at the height of the pandemic. With the majority of people vaccinated means that those who get infected aren't as ill and are way less likely to infect others because the bodies of the infected are killing it off before it can spread. People who remained unvaccinated are way more likely to be become seriously ill than those who are vaccinated. That is a scientific fact. People who remain unvaccinated are also more like to get the post viral illnesses associated with COVID. The vaccine does cause these same post viral illnesses as covid. However the percentage who people who experience these illnesses is way less than thepe centage of people who would have got these illnesses has they developed COVID. That is also a scientific fact. You can have a pop at me all your like but it doesn't change the fact that your understanding of the scientific evidence is completely wrong. Well at least you’re starting to get onboard with the changing narrative, funny how this vaccine initially prevented infection… Who said the vaccine prevented infection? Certainly no-one who understands how vaccines work. The narrative hasn't changed - it's you who have never actually understood what was actually said by those who actually know what they are talking about.
|
|
|
Post by terryconroysmagic on Mar 18, 2024 22:43:03 GMT
Well at least you’re starting to get onboard with the changing narrative, funny how this vaccine initially prevented infection… Who said the vaccine prevented infection? Certainly no-one who understands how vaccines work. The narrative hasn't changed - it's you who have never actually understood what was actually said by those who actually know what they are talking about. Are you serious???? Off the top of my head, the CEO of Pfizer, Joe Biden, multiple MSM outlets, Rachael W and I think the CDC did too. Your intractable sanctimony knows no bounds…
|
|
|
Post by terryconroysmagic on Mar 18, 2024 22:49:23 GMT
|
|