RE: Excess deaths fallout19 Feb 2023 14:39
In response to a question elsewhere :
Let's p**** this, first the NBC report and then the Lancet article.
The NBC report is looking at things from a US perspective. The US market was all about vaccines ('Warp speed' etc), unlike Europe (which recognised the (common sense) possibility of acquiring protection (note : not immunity) from natural infection and included 'documented prior infection' as a permitted basis for travel, which the US didn't.
Hence the surprise American reaction : Dr. Bob Wachter, the chairman of the department of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, said he did not expect the protection acquired from infection to be as robust as the meta-analysis found.
“The protection against severe infection, both the extent and the length of it at almost a year, is really surprisingly high,” said Wachter, who was not involved with the research...
You quote the study author Murray's endorsement of vaccines thus : 'experts stress that vaccination is the preferable route to immunity, given the risks of Covid, particularly in unvaccinated people.'
Two things that suggest this is disingenuous 'spin':
(a) it's a false comparison, talking about Covid risks to 'the unvaccinated', which was - and is- a very different cohort from 'the unvaccinated but previously infected': the Lancet article estimates that 46% of the global population was infected by omicron between 15 Nov 2021 and June 1 2022, the figure is undoubtedly vastly higher now.
(b) Murray's misuse of the word 'immunity', which suggests that the MRNA vaccines confer absolute protection against Covid. They don't.
He then 'doubles down' by saying “Why would you take the risk when you can get immunity [Ed.: you can't, not in the original meaning of the word] through vaccination quite safely[Ed.: he's ignored the side-effects and serious side-effects that we now know about]?”
This abuse of language is part of the coercive 'selling' of the vaccine to the American people, including co-option of the CDC: its definition of 'vaccination' has evolved from 'injection of a weakened/killed infectious organism to PREVENT disease' (up to 2015) via 'introduction of a vaccine to produce IMMUNITY' (to 2021) to the post Sept 2021 'to provide PROTECTION 'against a specific infection.
That's some shifting of the goalposts, IMO, and may excuse Murray's wording. Perhaps.
As to dishonest 'selling', see this claim by Fauci himself
hxxps://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/553773-fauci-vaccinated-people-become-dead-ends-for-the-coronavirus/
Note the rationale : “When you get vaccinated... you become a dead end to the virus and that’s when you get a point that you have a markedly diminished rate of infection in the community.” This was May 2021, when the US had 50% at least one jab.....and was quickly discredited in the subsequent autumn rise in new cases.
continued....
Sign In
Follow the stocks
