People who are fully vaccinated against covid-19 are far less likely to infect others

[Jeffr2]

13 hours ago, Stubby said:

Fully vaccinated people as likely to spread Delta variant as unvaccinated, a yearlong U.K. study shows.
 

Try to keep up. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00648-4/fulltext

 

 

Just because it's published in the Lancet means it's an approved study.  Anyone can put their study up there.  Anyone. 

 

It's proven if you are vaccinated, you are MUCH less likely to get covid.  Which means, you are MUCH less likely to spread the virus.

 

Try to keep up!  It's really not that hard.

[Jeffr2]

8 hours ago, The Cipher said:

Yeah sure. Ideally they'd get vaccinated. But if they just don't want to, they just don't want to. I don't see any reason to hold society up for them, it's their choice to make. Why are we being asked to bend over to save people who don't even want the help? If they live, they live. If they die, they die.

 

There's no fallacy, I just bluntly don't think saving every life is the priority that clearly a lot of other people seem to think it is.

Your missing the point.  The unvaccinated are causing this pandemic to extend.  If they were vaccinated, we'd be close to being done!  And yes, many of us care about their lives, even if they don't.  But we care about ours and our loved ones more.  That way they need to get vaccinated.  That's the recommendation of EVERY credible doctor and scientist. 

[Jeffr2]

7 hours ago, The Cipher said:

I don't believe in any grand Covid conspiracy theory. The virus is what it is. The news sensationalized it -> causing general populations to panic -> and then governments locked down because pandering to frightened populations create political incentive for opportunistic politicians.

 

A lot of governments (as evidenced by Thailand) are aware that travel needs to normalize at some point. But the residual fear in populations makes that kinda hard in practice.

 

No government wants millions of deaths on their watch because even if that might only be, for example, 0.06% of population, every politician is aware that gen pub is going to focus on the raw number and not the rate. Just look at how hard it's been for me to get anyone on here to think in percentages. Allowing scary-sounding death rate numbers is political suicide for any politician - particularly those facing the ballot box. And I could take this opportunity to eviscerate the sacred cow of democracy, but I'll save that execution for a different time.

 

Anyway I do understand why and how we got into this never-ending mess. But that doesn't mean I have to like it.

I'd call blaming the news for the problems we're having with covid constitutes a conspiracy theory. LOL

[Henryford]

This is a joke right? Look at the UK, 90% vaccinated but with 40,000 + cases a DAY, 4x times the rate in Thailand. If that was the case here we would still be in full lockdown.

[roo860]

9 minutes ago, Henryford said:

This is a joke right? Look at the UK, 90% vaccinated but with 40,000 + cases a DAY, 4x times the rate in Thailand. If that was the case here we would still be in full lockdown.

Does it not come down to the number of tests they do in the UK compared to tests in Thailand?

[Leeroy Jenkins]

19 hours ago, The Cipher said:

After having to register for my third vaccine passport in the last month (this time with gov-mandated authenticator app!) I have decided to go on a (probably ill advised) rant.

 

I'm a pro-vaxxer. I got vaccinated and generally encourage other people to do the same. But bluntly, I believe that it's every individual's choice to get or not get the vaccine. We need to just accept that and open up. Like, 100% open up. If they die, they die. If they pass it to a vulnerable person and the vulnerable person dies, they die. If they pass it to me and I die, I die. The ongoing disruption of normal life at this point is ridiculous. Like, it's legit insane.

 

On a percentage basis, Covid has always only killed very small amount of people. As we learned more about the disease, that rate declined. And as vaccines rolled out and continue to roll out across the world, that rate has declined further. At this point we are looking at rates well below 1% mortality in fully vaccinated persons. Please don't @ me with "bUt MiLliOnS oF pEopLe." If you want to say that, all you're really saying is that you don't understand percentages and you're bad at math (among other things).

 

At some point during the pandemic, society seems to have collectively decided that its overriding imperative was to prevent Covid cases at all costs. All other considerations be damned. As far as I'm aware that was never debated at any point, and the logic of the premises underpinning that idea never came under scrutiny. Most people aren't even aware that it's a values judgment rather than a fundamental truth or necessity (if you understand this, try and explain it someone and watch their brains contort in any attempt not to process. You might even see it in responses to this post). People were scared, and that made restrictions politically expedient. The result? This single minded obsession with minimizing case counts regardless of the proportionality of measures taken to that effect.

 

At this point we're still seeing panic of single digit deaths per day. In some parts of the world determined to stick to a zero Covid policy, we see mass restrictions over even a single new case. Like, are you serious? Does it not occur to people at any point how absolutely disproportionate measures are now to risk? Many countries (with vaccine saturaiton 70%+!) are still maintaining abnormal measures affecting day to day life, to say nothing of high barriers to international travel. It's unbelievable.

 

How much inconvenience are we going to have to endure before we just nut up and get on with it? Like, if you're a person who genuinely thinks Covid is still a big deal, what specific rate or number would be the threshold at which you would no longer feel that arduous measures were warranted? Have you even thought about it? Because I'm betting you haven't.

 

Ok rant over. I feel less frustrated now. As you were, lads. Carry on.

Finally some logic. Thank you

[The Cipher]

13 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

Your missing the point.  The unvaccinated are causing this pandemic to extend.  If they were vaccinated, we'd be close to being done!  And yes, many of us care about their lives, even if they don't.  But we care about ours and our loved ones more.  That way they need to get vaccinated.  That's the recommendation of EVERY credible doctor and scientist. 

I'd call blaming the news for the problems we're having with covid constitutes a conspiracy theory. LOL

Respectfully, I'm pretty sure it isn't me that's missing the point here.

 

Basically my point is that there is more than one viable path forward in dealing with the pandemic. And the optimal path isn't necessarily the one that minimizes deaths. That last sentence is uncomfortable for many people to accept but is critical to understanding the case I'm making.

 

I think people should get vaccinated too. I've said as much many times. But if they don't, I don't see any reason to continue holding up society for them (or anyone). The risk of Covid to the integrity our overall societies is miniscule at this point. At what level of risk or vaccine saturation would it be acceptable to drop all restrictions? This question needs to be answered to avoid an ever-moving target. "60% vaccination, no 70%, actually 80%, in fact - let's just keep restrictions in place until we've hunted down the last hermit and shoved a needle in their arm." If you understand the risk/reward tradeoff on a societal level, you will understand why I am so against continued restrictions despite being broadly supportive of vaccination.

 

Also - regarding the media, I'm not blaming the news for the problems that we're having so much as I am the general public's poor data comprehension skills (as evidenced by the fact that we are having this conversation). Think about it like this. Every night for almost two years now the news has been steady blasting case counts and death counts as numbers devoid of context. 100 new cases, 1000 new cases, one million total deaths. But what do those numbers actually mean? The context is critical. I'm going to repeat that. The context is critical.

 

I'll spare you a whole data science lesson, but basically - when it comes to populations that number in the billions and an event that happens over time, it's helpful to understand numbers by thinking in percentages and trends. Unfortunately this isn't something that gen pub really seems to understand, and our media orgs and politicians made absolutely no effort to aid in that understanding. I don't think there was any behind the scenes grand plan for this. I just think that it was simply in the interest of media businesses (record eyeballs) and politicians (perceived low death counts are a political opportunity and perceived high death counts are political suicide) to not take the difficult but more optimal path and explain the context of these numbers to the populations that they supposedly serve.

[placeholder]

19 hours ago, The Cipher said:

After having to register for my third vaccine passport in the last month (this time with gov-mandated authenticator app!) I have decided to go on a (probably ill advised) rant.

 

I'm a pro-vaxxer. I got vaccinated and generally encourage other people to do the same. But bluntly, I believe that it's every individual's choice to get or not get the vaccine. We need to just accept that and open up. Like, 100% open up. If they die, they die. If they pass it to a vulnerable person and the vulnerable person dies, they die. If they pass it to me and I die, I die. The ongoing disruption of normal life at this point is ridiculous. Like, it's legit insane.

 

On a percentage basis, Covid has always only killed very small amount of people. As we learned more about the disease, that rate declined. And as vaccines rolled out and continue to roll out across the world, that rate has declined further. At this point we are looking at rates well below 1% mortality in fully vaccinated persons. Please don't @ me with "bUt MiLliOnS oF pEopLe." If you want to say that, all you're really saying is that you don't understand percentages and you're bad at math (among other things).

 

At some point during the pandemic, society seems to have collectively decided that its overriding imperative was to prevent Covid cases at all costs. All other considerations be damned. As far as I'm aware that was never debated at any point, and the logic of the premises underpinning that idea never came under scrutiny. Most people aren't even aware that it's a values judgment rather than a fundamental truth or necessity (if you understand this, try and explain it someone and watch their brains contort in any attempt not to process. You might even see it in responses to this post). People were scared, and that made restrictions politically expedient. The result? This single minded obsession with minimizing case counts regardless of the proportionality of measures taken to that effect.

 

At this point we're still seeing panic of single digit deaths per day. In some parts of the world determined to stick to a zero Covid policy, we see mass restrictions over even a single new case. Like, are you serious? Does it not occur to people at any point how absolutely disproportionate measures are now to risk? Many countries (with vaccine saturaiton 70%+!) are still maintaining abnormal measures affecting day to day life, to say nothing of high barriers to international travel. It's unbelievable.

 

How much inconvenience are we going to have to endure before we just nut up and get on with it? Like, if you're a person who genuinely thinks Covid is still a big deal, what specific rate or number would be the threshold at which you would no longer feel that arduous measures were warranted? Have you even thought about it? Because I'm betting you haven't.

 

Ok rant over. I feel less frustrated now. As you were, lads. Carry on.

I don't know how many times I've seen this kind of thing re: covid. Somebody claims to be vaccinated but then says it's everybody's right to choose. Or that it's time to open up regardless of the level of vaccination. Let's get something straight, It could be that such a person  really is vaccinated. Or it could be that this someone is practicing social engineering. In this case it would be a kind of engineering called concern trolling.  Which means to apparently to be on the side of people you are trying to persuade otherwise but actually pretending to be one of them. An example being  someone falsely claiming I used to be a Republican but they got so bad that now I'm an independent or a democrat. Or vice-versa. The fact is that it's entirely irrelevant to the argument over whether or not such a person is vaccinated. It doesn't change the calculus one bit over whether vaccinations should be mandatory or whether the time is ripe for relaxation of standards.

 

Edited October 31, 2021 by placeholder

[Jeffr2]

7 minutes ago, The Cipher said:

Respectfully, I'm pretty sure it isn't me that's missing the point here.

 

Basically my point is that there is more than one viable path forward in dealing with the pandemic. And the optimal path isn't necessarily the one that minimizes deaths. That last sentence is uncomfortable for many people to accept but is critical to understanding the case I'm making.

 

I think people should get vaccinated too. I've said as much many times. But if they don't, I don't see any reason to continue holding up society for them (or anyone). The risk of Covid to the integrity our overall societies is miniscule at this point. At what level of risk or vaccine saturation would it be acceptable to drop all restrictions? This question needs to be answered to avoid an ever-moving target. "60% vaccination, no 70%, actually 80%, in fact - let's just keep restrictions in place until we've hunted down the last hermit and shoved a needle in their arm." If you understand the risk/reward tradeoff on a societal level, you will understand why I am so against continued restrictions despite being broadly supportive of vaccination.

 

Also - regarding the media, I'm not blaming the news for the problems that we're having so much as I am the general public's poor data comprehension skills (as evidenced by the fact that we are having this conversation). Think about it like this. Every night for almost two years now the news has been steady blasting case counts and death counts as numbers devoid of context. 100 new cases, 1000 new cases, one million total deaths. But what do those numbers actually mean? The context is critical. I'm going to repeat that. The context is critical.

 

I'll spare you a whole data science lesson, but basically - when it comes to populations that number in the billions and an event that happens over time, it's helpful to understand numbers by thinking in percentages and trends. Unfortunately this isn't something that gen pub really seems to understand, and our media orgs and politicians made absolutely no effort to aid in that understanding. I don't think there was any behind the scenes grand plan for this. I just think that it was simply in the interest of media businesses (record eyeballs) and politicians (perceived low death counts are a political opportunity and perceived high death counts are political suicide) to not take the difficult but more optimal path and explain the context of these numbers to the populations that they supposedly serve.

Well, your opinion is at odds with the experts.  I hear what you are saying.  But.  Minimizing deaths and hospitalizations is what governments are trying to do.  Keep the medical facilities from being over run.  Which they have been, and are, in many areas.  Thus depriving others who desperately need the facilities from being able to use them.

 

Have mistakes been made?  Sure.  It's a NEW virus.  They're still trying to figure it out.

 

What would you say that difficult path is?

[Jeffr2]

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

I don't know how many times I've seen this kind of thing re: covid. Somebody claims to be vaccinated but then says it's everybody's right to choose. Let's get something straight, It could be that such a person  really is vaccinated. Or it could be that this someone is practicing social engineering. In this case it would be a kind of engineering called concern trolling.  Which means to apparently to be on the side of people you are trying to persuade otherwise but actually pretending to be one of them. An example being  someone falsely claiming I used to be a Republican but they got so bad that now I'm an independent or a democrat. Or vice-versa. The fact is that it's entirely irrelevant to the argument over whether or not such a person is vaccinated. It doesn't change the calculus one bit over whether vaccinations should be mandatory. 

 

One reason Thailand has tried to be strick (didn't happen due to corruption) is they know their medical facilities are sub standard and couldn't handle a sudden surge in cases.  They'd really lose face if bodies started piling up in the streets.  That did happen for a bit, but not very long.

[placeholder]

8 minutes ago, The Cipher said:

Respectfully, I'm pretty sure it isn't me that's missing the point here.

 

Basically my point is that there is more than one viable path forward in dealing with the pandemic. And the optimal path isn't necessarily the one that minimizes deaths. That last sentence is uncomfortable for many people to accept but is critical to understanding the case I'm making.

 

I think people should get vaccinated too. I've said as much many times. But if they don't, I don't see any reason to continue holding up society for them (or anyone). The risk of Covid to the integrity our overall societies is miniscule at this point. At what level of risk or vaccine saturation would it be acceptable to drop all restrictions? This question needs to be answered to avoid an ever-moving target. "60% vaccination, no 70%, actually 80%, in fact - let's just keep restrictions in place until we've hunted down the last hermit and shoved a needle in their arm." If you understand the risk/reward tradeoff on a societal level, you will understand why I am so against continued restrictions despite being broadly supportive of vaccination.

 

Also - regarding the media, I'm not blaming the news for the problems that we're having so much as I am the general public's poor data comprehension skills (as evidenced by the fact that we are having this conversation). Think about it like this. Every night for almost two years now the news has been steady blasting case counts and death counts as numbers devoid of context. 100 new cases, 1000 new cases, one million total deaths. But what do those numbers actually mean? The context is critical. I'm going to repeat that. The context is critical.

 

I'll spare you a whole data science lesson, but basically - when it comes to populations that number in the billions and an event that happens over time, it's helpful to understand numbers by thinking in percentages and trends. Unfortunately this isn't something that gen pub really seems to understand, and our media orgs and politicians made absolutely no effort to aid in that understanding. I don't think there was any behind the scenes grand plan for this. I just think that it was simply in the interest of media businesses (record eyeballs) and politicians (perceived low death counts are a political opportunity and perceived high death counts are political suicide) to not take the difficult but more optimal path and explain the context of these numbers to the populations that they supposedly serve.

As for your specific points about whether vaccinations should be mandatory and what is an acceptable level of risk. We have seen over and over and over again how hospitals get overwhelmed when an insufficient percentage of the population is vaccinated. Hospitals ICU beds are filled with those who chose not to get vaccinated. Care is delayed or denied for people who get ill from other diseases. So until Thailand gets its vaccination levels where they should be, it would be far better to wait rather than face the near certainty of a public health disaster.

[The Cipher]

2 hours ago, placeholder said:

Let's get something straight, It could be that such a person  really is vaccinated. Or it could be that this someone is practicing social engineering. In this case it would be a kind of engineering called concern trolling.  Which means to apparently to be on the side of people you are trying to persuade otherwise but actually pretending to be one of them.

Why tf would I lie about being vaccinated? I've already written about my rationale for getting vaccinated elsewhere. Specifically that it's a low effort action with that is highly likely to confer additional protection against Covid. In addition to that, in Vancouver where I currently am, gov policies make it impractical to live life without being vaccinated. I literally have no reason to lie about this. If I were anti-vaccine I'd have no problem just taunting you about my vax status and then calling you a p-ssy for being scared of a 99% survival rate.

 

Is it that hard to understand/accept that although I might be vaccinated myself, I just don't care if anyone else is vaccinated? Like, I meet people all the time at work meetings and just by generally living day to day life and their vaccine status doesn't even register in my mind. Built different.

 

2 hours ago, placeholder said:

As for your specific points about whether vaccinations should be mandatory and what is an acceptable level of risk.

I actually don't really care if vaccines are made mandatory. It doesn't affect me at all. I just want life to return to normal like immediately. And think it's stupid that even after two years of this so many people continue to view Covid through the scope of their feelings rather than their brains.

 

If vaccines need to be mandatory in order for life to normalize, make them mandatory. If not, then I'm not going to pretend like we can't just tank a structurally higher death rate for an interim period. Just do something that will result in immediate normalization. All the weakness I see around me is disgusting.

[The Cipher]

Ok sorry that comment was a little harsh. My bad.

[Stubby]

4 hours ago, Jeffr2 said:

Just because it's published in the Lancet means it's an approved study.  Anyone can put their study up there.  Anyone. 

 

It's proven if you are vaccinated, you are MUCH less likely to get covid.  Which means, you are MUCH less likely to spread the virus.

 

Try to keep up!  It's really not that hard.

Eeee, there's no convincing you, is there. It's the results of a year-long UK study led by Sarah Walker, Professor of Medical Statistics and Epidemiology at the University of Oxford. But you're probably now thinking: "So what... Just because it's an Oxford-led study by a team of experts, that doesn't mean it's true." You must be getting on a bit to be so stubborn in your views. Please don't respond with another of your "I'm on top of this... you're not" rants. Life's too short for bickering.

Thank you very much, and enjoy your Sunday.

[wprime]

On 10/30/2021 at 11:11 AM, HappyExpat57 said:

Respectfully, hasn't this subject been beaten to death? There are two camps: Those who accept the science and those who don't. You are not likely to change minds using science/facts. Just sayin'.

The problem is people like the below, who take the science and interpret it in their own way to conform to their pre-existing beliefs.

 

17 hours ago, Stubby said:

Fully vaccinated people as likely to spread Delta variant as unvaccinated, a yearlong U.K. study shows.
 

Try to keep up. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00648-4/fulltext

 

 

This study shows that breakthrough cases of vaccinated people who were infected in household settings by people with high enough viral loads to be symptomatic are just as likely to spread the Delta variant as the general unvaccinated population.

 

Vaccinated people are less likely to get infected in the first place and they're less likely to be exposed to high viral load cases than unvaccinated people, so overall they are less likely to spread the disease.

 

The study is useful to show that symptomatic vaccinated cases should be subject to isolation just like unvaccinated cases except with a shorter length due to faster viral clearance. It does not show that vaccinated people are just as likely to spread the disease.

[Stubby]

47 minutes ago, wprime said:

The problem is people like the below, who take the science and interpret it in their own way to conform to their pre-existing beliefs.

I never said anything about vaccinated people being at equal risk of COVID infection. I merely pointed out that those vaccinated people who DO catch COVID (and some do, right?) are just as infectious (the dirty spreaders) as the unvaccinated. So how have I twisted the narrative to conform to some pre-existing belief, as you put it?

[Longwood50]

18 hours ago, BritManToo said:

Would point out the 12 fully vaccinated restaurant staff in Hua Hin whom were all infected with COVID would tend to disprove this theory.

No it does not.  Being vaccinated is not 100% a guarantee you won't get Covid.  It only decreases the likelihood.  Even Pfizer which is the most effective of the vaccines is 95% effective.  Sinovac which is likely what these people received is only 50% effective in preventing a person from contracting Covid.  

That says nothing about any reduction in their ability  of passing the disease to others once contracted. 



 

[Longwood50]

On 10/30/2021 at 12:00 PM, Jeffr2 said:

I think the viral load is lower.  Maybe someone else out there can help.

That would make sense.  Even though the person can contract Covid after receiving a vaccine the severity of it is less therefore not as potent to spread to others either. 

[wprime]

50 minutes ago, Stubby said:

I never said anything about vaccinated people being at equal risk of COVID infection. I merely pointed out that those vaccinated people who DO catch COVID (and some do, right?) are just as infectious (the dirty spreaders) as the unvaccinated. So how have I twisted the narrative to conform to some pre-existing belief, as you put it?

The study: breakthrough cases of vaccinated people who were infected in household settings by people with high enough viral loads to be symptomatic are just as infectious as unvaccinated people.

 

Your interpretation: vaccinated people who DO catch COVID (and some do, right?) are just as infectious (the dirty spreaders) as the unvaccinated

 

See the difference? The study looks at a specific subset of vaccinated, infected people, you then incorrectly apply it to vaccinated people as a whole.

[Rimmer]

Misinformation troll post removed

[Jeffr2]

9 hours ago, Stubby said:

Eeee, there's no convincing you, is there. It's the results of a year-long UK study led by Sarah Walker, Professor of Medical Statistics and Epidemiology at the University of Oxford. But you're probably now thinking: "So what... Just because it's an Oxford-led study by a team of experts, that doesn't mean it's true." You must be getting on a bit to be so stubborn in your views. Please don't respond with another of your "I'm on top of this... you're not" rants. Life's too short for bickering.

Thank you very much, and enjoy your Sunday.

https://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/2013/oct/04/open-access-journals-fake-paper

 

Hundreds of open access journals accept fake science paper

 

Publishing hoax exposes 'wild west' world of open access journals and raises concerns about poor quality control

[placeholder]

15 hours ago, Longwood50 said:

No it does not.  Being vaccinated is not 100% a guarantee you won't get Covid.  It only decreases the likelihood.  Even Pfizer which is the most effective of the vaccines is 95% effective.  Sinovac which is likely what these people received is only 50% effective in preventing a person from contracting Covid.  

That says nothing about any reduction in their ability  of passing the disease to others once contracted. 



 

This study is way out of date. It was done before the advent of the Delta variant.

[placeholder]

19 hours ago, The Cipher said:

Why tf would I lie about being vaccinated? I've already written about my rationale for getting vaccinated elsewhere. Specifically that it's a low effort action with that is highly likely to confer additional protection against Covid. In addition to that, in Vancouver where I currently am, gov policies make it impractical to live life without being vaccinated. I literally have no reason to lie about this. If I were anti-vaccine I'd have no problem just taunting you about my vax status and then calling you a p-ssy for being scared of a 99% survival rate.

 

Is it that hard to understand/accept that although I might be vaccinated myself, I just don't care if anyone else is vaccinated? Like, I meet people all the time at work meetings and just by generally living day to day life and their vaccine status doesn't even register in my mind. Built different.

 

I actually don't really care if vaccines are made mandatory. It doesn't affect me at all. I just want life to return to normal like immediately. And think it's stupid that even after two years of this so many people continue to view Covid through the scope of their feelings rather than their brains.

 

If vaccines need to be mandatory in order for life to normalize, make them mandatory. If not, then I'm not going to pretend like we can't just tank a structurally higher death rate for an interim period. Just do something that will result in immediate normalization. All the weakness I see around me is disgusting.

The point is that it's irrelevant to the validity of the case you're making whether or not you've been vaccinated.

As for this 

"I actually don't really care if vaccines are made mandatory. It doesn't affect me at all."

You sure about that? What if you or someone in your family needs emergency treatment at a hospital but can't get it because the unvaccinated have made ICU beds unavailable?

 

[Chomper Higgot]

On 10/30/2021 at 11:11 AM, HappyExpat57 said:

Respectfully, hasn't this subject been beaten to death? There are two camps: Those who accept the science and those who don't. You are not likely to change minds using science/facts. Just sayin'.

We often hear rightful complaints about people repeating lies, we are Ben have a thread on the subject.

 

But complaining about repeating the truth is new.

[Chomper Higgot]

On 10/30/2021 at 1:53 PM, WhiteBuffaloATM said:

Covid should never have been a big deal. US / UK covid death rate around 0.2% total pop. Just add it to list of similar proportionate old sick people killers like winter flu, cancer, pneumonia, age…. but no, because so many younger self -abusers were dying from covid (fatties, smokers, druggies, alkys, backward cultures), and could not be isolated, including PM Johnson, ALL of us had to assume the burden of “protecting” these wasters, who were already bringing our national health services to their knees with necessary million dollar type Organ Transplants to prolong their generally miserable worthless lives, at expense always of innocent healthy taxpayers often denied medical care as an

additional burden……including in- breeding “cultures” producing disabled kids in UK etc. at ten times the indigineous rates……

 

Farewell Normality, Society, Economy, Jobs, Businesses. 

Greetings Increased Poverty, Despair, Mental Illness.

 

Recall that Triffid movie where the few Sighted were chained to the many Blind as human guide dogs.

Covid the exact reverse, where the extremely few Sick chained to the 99% + Healthy by the Idiot Politicians on grounds of “ compassion”… and the false but vote winning mantra that “ every life is priceless” , which later drove the wacky left wing nanny states like NZ, Aus, Cali, etc. to their insane Zero Covid nonsense ….. so all of us dragged off the cliff…..human mass psychosis at its “finest”……

Racist exposes himself and the world of hate living in his head.

 

 

[KhunLA]

46 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

So you get your ‘news’ from RT.

 

 

 

Quoting a UK study.  Typical, attack the messenger, not the message.

And which bias news source do you consider trustworthy ?

[placeholder]

14 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

Quoting a UK study.  Typical, attack the messenger, not the message.

And which bias news source do you consider trustworthy ?

And do you think that headline reasonably summarizes the conclusions of the researchers?

[mtls2005]

Will be interesting to see if fully vaccinated tourists are required to wear masks?

 

I suspect many coming are expecting to be able to go mask-less as there is little mention of mask mandates in the "Re-Opening" promotions.

 

 

 

 

[KhunLA]

7 minutes ago, placeholder said:

And do you think that headline reasonably summarizes the conclusions of the researchers?

Not sure what that means.  Would think any intelligent person would actually read the whole article and search the study if interested and wanting more info.  But have to admit, I'm not noticing much intelligence in the masses of late.

 

Sadly, most do not get past the headline, and why the world is in the state it is.  That's their problem, not mine.

[Jeffr2]

29 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

Quoting a UK study.  Typical, attack the messenger, not the message.

And which bias news source do you consider trustworthy ?

Easy to attack RT.  Misinformation at it's worse.  Stunning anyone would read that site.

 

Use this site to vet your sources.  Please.

 

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/rt-news/