News Forum - CCSA Covid-19 plan: domestic vaccines, “learning to live with it”

[AdamX]

44 minutes ago, BlueSphinx said:

What I wrote was clearly IMPLIED in the Great Barrington Declaration.  You are disingenious as usual...

Here an excerpt from that document <  https://gbdeclaration.org/  >

As immunity builds in the population, the risk of infection to all – including the vulnerable – falls. We know that all populations will eventually reach herd immunity – i.e.  the point at which the rate of new infections is stable – and that this can be assisted by (but is not dependent upon) a vaccine. Our goal should therefore be to minimize mortality and social harm until we reach herd immunity. 

The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection. 

This is powerful, and shows the way to resist this medical tyranny is via organization such as these websites

Unfortunately, the media in conjunction with Pharma have managed to censor all debate on this and the resultant fragmentation of voices has allowed this madness to endure for the time it has.

Its beyond any reasonable doubt that debate about lockdowns and vaccines as we approach them at the moment is over, and the conclusion is that we have done more harm than we have prevented.

The question now arises, how did we allow ourselves to get here, was this mass psychosis deliberately engineered and how we prevent it from happening again.

It saddens me to say that I don't believe we can, and we can see this from some of the responses of the forever-lockdown-vax-only posters here

I pray that I am wrong

[Stonker]

47 minutes ago, BlueSphinx said:

Truly pathetic! Ten top scientists putting their reputation on the line by issuing a paper that is not yet peer-reviewed (and which I trust will not change anything to results and conclusions) cannot be compared with a leaked autopsy report of an alleged murder. 

Just how far in the sand is your head buried?

It has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with whether it's "peer-reviewed" or not!

Their reputations aren't "on the line" yet because THEY HAVEN'T ISSUED THE PAPER YET!

[mcambl61]

2 minutes ago, AdamX said:

This is powerful, and shows the way to resist this medical tyranny is via organization such as these websites

Unfortunately, the media in conjunction with Pharma have managed to censor all debate on this and the resultant fragmentation of voices has allowed this madness to endure for the time it has.

Its beyond any reasonable doubt that debate about lockdowns and vaccines as we approach them at the moment is over, and the conclusion is that we have done more harm than we have prevented.

The question now arises, how did we allow ourselves to get here, was this mass psychosis deliberately engineered and how we prevent it from happening again.

It saddens me to say that I don't believe we can, and we can see this from some of the responses of the forever-lockdown-vax-only posters here

I pray that I am wrong

Yes, spot on. You notice that it is mainly the people who are on left that want mass obedience to whatever "official" policy and sources of information have been deemed to the only source of information that can be used. 

[Stonker]

1 hour ago, Bob20 said:

Never mind, as long as that's all I see from them then the world is a nicer place without their conspiracies. Better focus on real life.

"Nicer" for sure, but people are dying because of the deliberate lies these people are spreading and being allowed to spread.

[AdamX]

1 hour ago, BlueSphinx said:

What I wrote was clearly IMPLIED in the Great Barrington Declaration.  You are disingenious as usual...

Here an excerpt from that document <  https://gbdeclaration.org/  >

As immunity builds in the population, the risk of infection to all – including the vulnerable – falls. We know that all populations will eventually reach herd immunity – i.e.  the point at which the rate of new infections is stable – and that this can be assisted by (but is not dependent upon) a vaccine. Our goal should therefore be to minimize mortality and social harm until we reach herd immunity. 

The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection. 

Readers,

if you are concerned at the way we are handling the covid response, you can add your voice to the other concerned citizens by signing the declaration on https://gbdeclaration,org

With the media against us, we don't have many ways to make our voices heard.

Signing up is  is one way we can

[BlueSphinx]

12 minutes ago, Stonker said:

Just how far in the sand is your head buried?

It has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with whether it's "peer-reviewed" or not!

Their reputations aren't "on the line" yet because THEY HAVEN'T ISSUED THE PAPER YET!

The pre-print of the study the 10 Israeli scientists authored is available on the web, and I added it as an attachment to an earlier post in this discussion, but I add it again here. 

Are you suggesting that reputed scientists are making pre-prints of their study available, containing content that they are not convinced warrants at least some consideration? 

Your continual insults are getting boring, but given that your content-wise arguments are less than paper thin it's probably your only way of making your point.

Comparing SARS-CoV-2 natural immunity to vaccine-induced immunity.pdf

[Stonker]

 

4 hours ago, BlueSphinx said:

The Great Barrington Declaration is a 1 page document with only 8 paragraphs.  I didn't 'cherry pick' but simply posted the 2 paragraphs of relevance for what we are discussing.

For me it is crystal clear that the 2nd paragraph implies what I stated, as it reads:        The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk."

If that's how you "interpret" it, then either your English is nowhere near as good as it appears or you' re an even bigger deceiver than I thought you were.

The last would be difficult, but all too evidently that's the case as you're claiming the Declaration says something which it very clearly  doesn't.

4 hours ago, BlueSphinx said:

#2 cannot be interpreted otherwise than vaccinating those highest risk groups, or are you suggesting to better protect them by keeping them isolated forever?

Of course it not only can but it does, as the six paragraphs you've left out make very clear - the GBD's only about lockdowns, nothing else.

It isn't open to interpretation or suggestions, but is very specific.

The key word is "while":

"The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk."

"while" is not "forever".  It's for as long as it takes for "those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection".

That's what it says, nothing else, so that's what it means, nothing else.

At that time, with an estimated uncontrolled 'r' rate of 3 and an estimate of herd immunity being reached at 70% of the population, that would have been achieved in a relatively short time - after only ten rounds, starting with one person, 90,000 people would be infected (actually 88,572), after fifteen over 32 million (32,240,208) and after twenty nearly 8 billion so well short of "forever".

Try to understand - bucking the trend may be fun for you and make you feel important, but your deceit and stupidity can kill people.

 

Edited August 31, 2021 by Faz
edited combative wording.

[Stonker]

3 hours ago, BlueSphinx said:

Are you suggesting that reputed scientists are making pre-prints of their study available, containing content that they are not convinced warrants at least some consideration? 

 

 

I'm not "suggesting" anything - simply pointing out that what you're claiming, here and elsewhere, isn't just incorrect but are deliberate deceits.

It doesn't get much simpler than that.

Edited August 31, 2021 by Faz
edited combative wording

[Stonker]

5 hours ago, Shuddup said:

I sorry clear this up for me . Wouldn’t the all important herd immunity be obtained much much quicker by vaccination than waiting for people to get sick and pass it on to family and friends.

Actually, "no".

Assuming an 'r' number of 3 totally unprotected, you'd have nearly 90,000 cases after only 10 rounds (88,572) , 32,240, 208 after fifteen, and nearly eight billion after only twenty.

Unfortunately you'd also have rather a lot dead, hospitals unable to handle any sick for any reason, and morgues overflowing with dead bodies in the streets possibly leading to various other rather unpleasant pandemics - not that the anti-vaxxers / freedom and rights nut-jobs seem to think that's a problem.

[JackIsAGoodBoy]

6 hours ago, Stonker said:

What on earth are you talking about "unlike"?

They have roughly the same amount vaccinated, and fewer with post-infection immunity as they've had fewer cases.

It simply isn't physically possible for them to have greater herd immunity whether they've "chosen" to or not.

The virus spread much more wider in Sweden last year because of little restrictions. That is how you get the herd immunity. Widely reported in the media this Swedish approach.

That is why with the new delta variant the cases are milder than in Israel because of that much more effective natural immunity already in place against the alpha variant among the Swedish populace. If you get through Covid it is much better than the vaccines against future Covid variants. No competition there.

Then there is this theory that the mRNA vaccines causing specific antibodies (against the spike protein) that might outcompete or outproduce your other antibodies in the long run. That is because it is an active new (spike) protein producing program for your cells, not anymore a passive immune system response to a foreign element introduced to your body.

Meaning upsetting the balance of 5 types of antibodies in your system or within one of those groups. So you end up with a tilted immune system with a lot of specific antibodies against a Covid variant but not enough other antibodies. That makes you weaker with another viruses like influenza. But that is just a theory for now but why 2 dose recipients are now getting sicker than 1 dosers? Is it the tilted system?

[Stonker]

7 hours ago, BlueSphinx said:

The immunity you acquire after overcoming covid-infection protects not only against the covid-strain by which you got infected, but also against its variants.   And that immunity is as good as ever-lasting.  So it is   FAR SUPERIOR than the vaccine-induced specific immunity which wanes after a couple of months. 

Obviously these facts impact 'herd immunity'.

Really?

That's a "fact" is it?

I wonder why the authors of the yet to be published paper you're so keen on say "the degree
and duration to which previous infection with SARS-CoV-2 affords protection against
repeated infection also remains unclear" and that "...the results could suggest waning natural
immunity against the Delta variant"   then ... odd that, if it's a "fact" .....

.

 

[Bob20]

2 hours ago, Stonker said:

"Nicer" for sure, but people are dying because of the deliberate lies these people are spreading and being allowed to spread.

Correct, but numerous people have tried before us and CCC members are not interested in the discussion or the truth.

With every click they just disseminate more falsehoods, filling the internet with disinformation, which already outnumbers research and science for the simple fact that the internet is not the place where those are conducted.

Or, as has been suggested in PM, they could be clickbait, luring members into controversy as it keeps them there longer. That could be one reason why Thaiger is relatively lenient on them,while some have been banned from other sites...

Anyway, after you speak with the Jehova's witnesses once and you don't wish to convert or conform to their views, there is no need for a second meeting.

Same here.

[Stonker]

....

3 hours ago, AdamX said:

The question being posed was

Do we need a vax if we have natural immunity?

In any case, if we both agree that vax should be optional and not mandatory, we can easily co exist with our respective views.

Right?

No.  Your view kills people

3 hours ago, AdamX said:

Do we need a vax if we have natural immunity?

1. Strawman. The initial condition is that you already have natural immunity

Hardly a "strawman" if you unfortunately died hoping to get natural immunity, which is several tens of thousand times more likely than dying from a vaccine.

3 hours ago, AdamX said:

2. Natural immunity is very long lasting, as attested to by the fact that there are still people around that have Spanish flu antibodies.

Well, as I've just explained to @BS, that's not what the study you're both so keen on says.  Maybe the two of you hadn't read it after all, just the covering article by the nut-job .... or maybe you just couldn't understand it.

 

3 hours ago, AdamX said:

Boosters at this stage are totally pointless and borderline dangerous  if you have natural immunity

Oh dear ... that's not what your study says either, as they studied this in "Model 3" and state very clearly that "Examining previously infected individuals to those who were both previously infected and received a single dose of the vaccine, we found that the latter group had a significant 0.53-fold (95% CI, 0.3 to 0.92) (Table 4a) decreased risk for reinfection,"

Maybe you missed it, again, or didn't understand it, again, but what that means is that if you have natural immunity from being infected and you then get a single dose of the vaccine, then your risk of getting infected again is halved compared to someone with natural immunity who's not vaccinated.

4 hours ago, AdamX said:

3. See answer above

Well, again, your "answer above" was wrong according to your own link which is a bit awkward. The vaccine doesn't make as much difference as it would to someone who doesn't have natural immunity, but I'd say that halving your chances of getting infected again compared to someone who has natural immunity but isn't vaccinated is far from "totally pointless"!

[BlueSphinx]

 

A tweet by dr Robert Malone on the superiority of natural immunity over the mRNA induced vaccine-immunity

 

[Rain]

9 minutes ago, BlueSphinx said:

A tweet by dr Robert Malone on the superiority of natural immunity over the mRNA induced vaccine-immunity

Always thought this was well understood throughout the unorthodox thinking community. 

We can't improve on nature, even within the illusion that we can. 

Our downfall.