See hidden discussions | Win great prizes | Get free support
Glad if you like assuming people outside that criteria are happy to continue dying despite being less at risk.Im glad the author notes it needs to be 90% of over 60s and 90% of over 35 with comorbidities that needs the vax, rather than saying everyone. Ie. Vax the ones that are at risk. That makes sense to me.
Sadly we don't really have much choice in the matter, you will die, you can't pick and choose when generally.
Of course we have choice unless you subscribe to the narrative that we will just try our best and that’s good enough despite death of others who could have better outcome if not excluded. The less people at risk regardless of their risk profile the better for them and the collective.Sadly we don't really have much choice in the matter, you will die, you can't pick and choose when generally.
But you're making it sound like the covid is a guaranteed death sentence, which it isn't.
Are there no links other than Twitter links?Yip
2 weeks after my 2nd Pfizer shot , I will live my life normally again.
Its inevitable that we'll all catch it at some point , but I'm not too worried about getting the sniffles.
The article is the usual doom and gloom though.
If 60% of the population is vaccinated and Delta spreads so rapidly , then surely between vaccination and natural immunity we would achieve herd immunity or close to.
Also complete vaccine escape is very unlikely, there might be reduced efficiencies but complete escape is extremely unlikely.
Here is a senior scientist that works on the vaccines that explains why : link
The durability of protection only lasting a few months is more fear mongering. Of course it's possible a variant could evade our immune systems but again its very unlikely.
Did you know that people who caught the original SARS virus in early 2000's still had protection from Covid , 17 years later : link
So in short , things aren't quite as bad as the article is claiming but lets all get vaccinated and learn to live with the virus.
Yes! So the answer is to find proper workable treatments and drugs that will deal with the virus infection.If vaccines will only offer limited protection, more needs to be done on treatment to ensure the rate of death drops to completely insignificant levels, these treatment options but be as simple as aspirin or panado, otc at supermarkets, problem is, with and meds, an EUA is dangerous and completely unethical.
As with breakthrough infections, it is definitely a thing, more studies needs to be done to see just how big of an issue and how it interferes with our systems to result in severe illness and possibly death, if we want to go back to normal we need knowledge, not just a percentage used like a sales brochure.
So what is the accepted fatality rate for Covid 19? And dontbtell me no one knows.They are still there. You should read the comments on this article they posted on Facebook, truly scary how many “experts” arguing about it.
The issue is all of those are at risk but we just don't know who will die. So you have to go by the assumption that all can die and not just 90% of them.Im glad the author notes it needs to be 90% of over 60s and 90% of over 35 with comorbidities that needs the vax, rather than saying everyone. Ie. Vax the ones that are at risk. That makes sense to me.
So what is the accepted fatality rate for Covid 19? And dontbtell me no one knows.
What is the mortality rate?
Which one should be used to characterise this disease?
Then compare it with the flu.
And then tell us all if it is the same, worse or better than the flu.
And then, you will be able to state with evidence to support your statement that "it is just like the flu".
Not complicated at all.
Yes! So the answer is to find proper workable treatments and drugs that will deal with the virus infection.
Instead, the entire world is enslaved by the idea that this virus is only controllable by vaccines. At the cost of developing treatments.