Federal Judge Blocks the CV Jab mandate for Fed Contractors

[Two Wings]

With the Delta varient vaccines have proven a superior form of immunity than "natural immunity" from the initial virus.

wait ... so the reason the cv vaxed/infected numbers are up is because they are "programmed for Alpha" ... and not the Delta ... but still have 1/2 the cases of covid19 with a substantial part of the population cv jabbed.

But the cv jab is more effective than natural immunity?

huh?

 

[JonC]

wait ... so the reason the cv vaxed/infected numbers are up is because they are "programmed for Alpha" ... and not the Delta ... but still have 1/2 the cases of covid19 with a substantial part of the population cv jabbed.

But the cv jab is more effective than natural immunity?

huh?

The covid vaccination was designed to protect against the initial vaccine. The 95% effectiveness was from the clinical trials where the vaccine (the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines) were demonstrated to be 95% effective against the covid virus in healthy adults. Anti-covid-vaxers know this (they are not stupid) but ignore it because it does not suit itself to their propaganda. Obviously on the ground this will fluctuate (especially since it was initially prioritized to the elderly and immunocompromised.....again, the anti-covid-vaxers know this but ignore it).

The Pfizer vaccine was shown to be about 80% effective against the Delta varient (the Moderna vaccine a little higher). But just as with "natural immunity" the effectiveness decreases with time.

After 6 to 8 months the Pfizer vaccine is estimated to be 50% to 60% effective (the Moderna vaccine over 70% effective).

Again, you strike me as an intelligent man. I suspect you are aware of this. You just want to argue a specific agenda, and that is fine.

 

[Two Wings]

The covid vaccination was designed to protect against the initial vaccine. The 95% effectiveness was from the clinical trials where the vaccine (the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines) were demonstrated to be 95% effective against the covid virus in healthy adults. Anti-covid-vaxers know this (they are not stupid) but ignore it because it does not suit itself to their propaganda. Obviously on the ground this will fluctuate (especially since it was initially prioritized to the elderly and immunocompromised.....again, the anti-covid-vaxers know this but ignore it).

The Pfizer vaccine was shown to be about 80% effective against the Delta varient (the Moderna vaccine a little higher). But just as with "natural immunity" the effectiveness decreases with time.

After 6 to 8 months the Pfizer vaccine is estimated to be 50% to 60% effective (the Moderna vaccine over 70% effective).

Again, you strike me as an intelligent man. I suspect you are aware of this. You just want to argue a specific agenda, and that is fine.

just seems to me you're arguing both sides of this for the best estimation of the cv vax, Jon.

You declare that the reason 1/2 of the current/last 3-4 months cases' being cv jabbed is because the jab is for the alpha strain and they're getting infected by the delta variant.

but how can natural immunity to delta be inferior to the cv jab immunity when the cases are evenly split between the TWO conditions? I'm just analyzing your own posts ... I'm actually taking your word for it ... but the math isn't adding-up.

 

[JonC]

just seems to me you're arguing both sides of this for the best estimation of the cv vax, Jon.

You declare that the reason 1/2 of the current/last 3-4 months cases' being cv jabbed is because the jab is for the alpha strain and they're getting infected by the delta variant.

but how can natural immunity to delta be inferior to the cv jab immunity when the cases are evenly split between the TWO conditions? I'm just analyzing your own posts ... I'm actually taking your word for it ... but the math isn't adding-up.

I do argue both sides. I believe there are good reasons to take the vaccine and good reasons not to take the vaccine.

How can natural immunity be inferior? Heck, I don't even see why so many have had covid three times already. Seems like natural immunity would at least provide a bit more protection.

But it doesn't. @Reynolds posted that he had covid and it was like a cold. But the second go around he said it was much worse.

Given natural immunity does not work I am willing to at least take my chances with a vaccine.

I posted before that surviving covid would be an excellent defense (obviously I was wrong) the problem being the vaccine is far less likely to cause serious effects than the virus.

You guys have complained that vaccinated people get covid and are asymptomatic, walking around spreading it to unvaccinated people. I'm fine with that. I don't mind getting an asymptomatic covid case from an asymptomatic vaccinated person and spreading it to an unvaccinated guy. He made his choice, I made mine. All is fair in the cesspool of viruses and vaccines.

 

[Two Wings]

I do argue both sides. I believe there are good reasons to take the vaccine and good reasons not to take the vaccine.

How can natural immunity be inferior? Heck, I don't even see why so many have had covid three times already. Seems like natural immunity would at least provide a bit more protection.

But it doesn't. @Reynolds posted that he had covid and it was like a cold. But the second go around he said it was much worse.

Given natural immunity does not work I am willing to at least take my chances with a vaccine.

I posted before that surviving covid would be an excellent defense (obviously I was wrong) the problem being the vaccine is far less likely to cause serious effects than the virus.

every engagement we've had ... you've staunchly supported the cv vax. Perhaps even hyperbolizing it's pluses and virtually disregarding its minuses.

Are you telling me I was wrong in understanding the previous points you made? 1/2 of the current cases are because the jab was for alpha ... but the jab has superior immunity than natural immunity?

given 1/2 of the current cases are cv jabbed, it doesn't seem like "the jab is working."

See here's the thing ... and I'll stipulate this part I have yet to find a reasonable answer ... we don't know why the virus more easily infects some than others.

But likewise ... we have no mechanism for even guessing which of the 3 responses the immune system will have to the cv jab; let alone efficacy.

I'll stipulate something else ... this talking point about 'reduced symptoms.' OK ... so of the cases which are cv jabbed, the symptoms aren't as harsh as the non-cv jabbed.

But the non-cv jabbed have only the virus with which to contend. Not the virus PLUS the cv jab's risks -- which I know you minimize, but it's pretty clear it's not nothing. Not even close to nothing. Not even close to nothing using nothing as extreme hyperbole.

It's something ... it's substantial for a lot of folks and no one should be compelled to take something which can't be undone.

If the reaction by the immune system is "hyper" ... and the immune system starts attacking the body (most of the results of the near immediate deaths by the cv jab) ... how is that stopped?

This thing is LITERALLY playing russian roulette but having 4 bullets in the 6 shooter rather than 1. Perhaps 2 hollow point and 2 blanks --- which will do sufficient damage to disable ya. 3 things can happen and two of 'em aren't good. But don't let Alec Baldwin load it ... the odds change then!

 

[JonC]

every engagement we've had ... you've staunchly supported the cv vax. Perhaps even hyperbolizing it's pluses and virtually disregarding its minuses.

Are you telling me I was wrong in understanding the previous points you made? 1/2 of the current cases are because the jab was for alpha ... but the jab has superior immunity than natural immunity?

given 1/2 of the current cases are cv jabbed, it doesn't seem like "the jab is working."

See here's the thing ... and I'll stipulate this part I have yet to find a reasonable answer ... we don't know why the virus more easily infects some than others.

But likewise ... we have no mechanism for even guessing which of the 3 responses the immune system will have to the cv jab; let alone efficacy.

I'll stipulate something else ... this talking point about 'reduced symptoms.' OK ... so of the cases which are cv jabbed, the symptoms aren't as harsh as the non-cv jabbed.

But the non-cv jabbed have only the virus with which to contend. Not the virus PLUS the cv jab's risks -- which I know you minimize, but it's pretty clear it's not nothing. Not even close to nothing. Not even close to nothing using nothing as extreme hyperbole.

It's something ... it's substantial for a lot of folks and no one should be compelled to take something which can't be undone.

If the reaction by the immune system is "hyper" ... and the immune system starts attacking the body (most of the results of the near immediate deaths by the cv jab) ... how is that stopped?

This thing is LITERALLY playing russian roulette but having 4 bullets in the 6 shooter rather than 1. Perhaps 2 hollow point and 2 blanks --- which will do sufficient damage to disable ya. 3 things can happen and two of 'em aren't good. But don't let Alec Baldwin load it ... the odds change then!

Yes, you are wrong in understanding my previous posts. I never said anything about half of the current cases.

What I would be interested in is the death rate from May to present contrasting vaccinated and unvaccinated. That, IMHO, would be relevant data.

I guess I'm one lucky man (3 shots and I'm still here ). People take their chances either way. If the vaccines are Russian roulette it is 5 blanks in a six shooter while the vaccine is 4 blanks.

I would not trust Alec Baldwin to load my washer machine.

 

[JonC]

We can look at Texas, if we have to deal with statistics. Texas is close to 50/50 vax/ unvax and has a large population.

Texas is 55% fully vaccinated. As of October the covid death rate was 40% higher for unvaccinated people and the covid infection rate was 45% higher for the unvaccinated.

 

[Two Wings]

I never said anything about half of tge current cases.

OK . I apologize. I thought you were the one who exempted the cv jab's failure because we have delta and that's upped the cv jabbed to about 50% of the cases the last few months.

What I would be interested in is the death rate from May to present contrasting vaccinated and unvaccinated. That, IMHO, would be relevant data.

I'd be more interested in the death rate of those unvaxed who aren't >65 with comorbidities & dutifully abided by the "approved" protocol vice those in that same demographic who took action themselves with one of the "alternatives" like budesonide

There's no question to any but those who accept the CDC data on the adverse effects of the cv jab ... it's a significant risk just to take the jab, regardless of efficacy. 95%/2% whatever.

If the vaccines are Russian roulette it is 5 blanks in a six shooter while the vaccine is 4 blanks.

and I think this is revelation of accepting the CDC's numbers on the vax and on last year's accounting of cv deaths.

I would not trust Alec Baldwin to load my washer machine.

agreed.

 

[Two Wings]

We can look at Texas, if we have to deal with statistics. Texas is close to 50/50 vax/ unvax and has a large population.

Texas is 55% fully vaccinated. As of October the covid death rate was 40% higher for unvaccinated people and the covid infection rate was 45% higher for the unvaccinated.

but the cases are just about evenly split cv jabbed to non over the last 6 weeks. The ONLY argument which can't really be refuted because there's not that data ... is the degree of symptom and whether those hospitalized ever did anything but what the WHO/CDC/AMA approved protocol said to do.

 

[JonC]

I'd be more interested in the death rate of those unvaxed who aren't >65 with comorbidities & dutifully abided by the "approved" protocol vice those in that same demographic who took action themselves with one of the "alternatives" like budesonide

Why. 98.5% of those 65 and older have been vaccinated. And vaccinations started with those with comorbidities. The numbers should work in your favor if you include them.

 

[Two Wings]

Why. 98.5% of those 65 and older have been vaccinated. And vaccinations started with those with comorbidities. The numbers should work in your favor if you include them.

because it would validate what I and many with my view on the treatment protocol have been saying ...

it's part of the problem and why there was this manufactured crisis to "get a shot developed YESTERDAY"

we'd still benefit from A vaccination in targeted segments of our population, but we'd have had time to do that development and more of us would have already recovered from the alpha establishing the baseline for effective immunity from SARSCOVi2.

But we'll never know because we got scared into lockdowns et al. And the govt took over.

 

[JonC]

but the cases are just about evenly split cv jabbed to non over the last 6 weeks. The ONLY argument which can't really be refuted because there's not that data ... is the degree of symptom and whether those hospitalized ever did anything but what the WHO/CDC/AMA approved protocol said to do.

Cases, yes. I'm talking about deaths. I font mind getting an asymptomatic or even mild case of covid. I'd sit on my deck and smoke a pipe.....maybe have a beer. Or walk around infecting the unsuspecting passes by. Or grow a two week beard (not enough to pass as John Calvin but maybe Johnny Depp....a tall, fat, old Johnny Depp).

 

[JonC]

because it would validate what I and many with my view on the treatment protocol have been saying ...

it's part of the problem and why there was this manufactured crisis to "get a shot developed YESTERDAY"

we'd still benefit from A vaccination in targeted segments of our population, but we'd have had time to do that development and more of us would have already recovered from the alpha establishing the baseline for effective immunity from SARSCOVi2.

But we'll never know because we got scared into lockdowns et al. And the govt took over.

I don't see how. Looks like counting those over 65 would raise the death rate substantially if the vaccines were dangerous or ineffective. But the unvaccinated are the ones dying the most. Take out those 65+ and it really would be a pandemic among the unvaccinated.

 

[Two Wings]

Cases, yes. I'm talking about deaths. I font mind getting an asymptomatic or even mild case of covid. I'd sit on my deck and smoke a pipe.....maybe have a beer. Or walk around infecting the unsuspecting passes by. Or grow a two week beard (not enough to pass as John Calvin but maybe Johnny Depp....a tall, fat, old Johnny Depp).

ha.

well if the cases were 10% ... reflecting the advertised 90% effective ... then that'd check. But it's FAR higher than that AND ... introduce the risk of adverse effects as I've been saying ... and which have been grossly underrepresented in policy making. Well, that's just not a good bet.

 

[Two Wings]

... nevermind having to take ANOTHER jab every 6 months to keep that advertised (if perhaps not accurate) 90% efficacy number.

 

[JonC]

ha.

well if the cases were 10% ... reflecting the advertised 90% effective ... then that'd check. But it's FAR higher than that AND ... introduce the risk of adverse effects as I've been saying ... and which have been grossly underrepresented in policy making. Well, that's just not a good bet.

I do not care so much about claimed effectiveness. I don't trust either political agenda.

The fact that unvaccinated people are dying of covid 40% more than the vaccinated and getting covid 45% more is enough for me. That was Texas, but it reflects what I have seen here too. I'll take my chances with that.

 

[Reynolds]

I do argue both sides. I believe there are good reasons to take the vaccine and good reasons not to take the vaccine.

How can natural immunity be inferior? Heck, I don't even see why so many have had covid three times already. Seems like natural immunity would at least provide a bit more protection.

But it doesn't. @Reynolds posted that he had covid and it was like a cold. But the second go around he said it was much worse.

Given natural immunity does not work I am willing to at least take my chances with a vaccine.

I posted before that surviving covid would be an excellent defense (obviously I was wrong) the problem being the vaccine is far less likely to cause serious effects than the virus.

You guys have complained that vaccinated people get covid and are asymptomatic, walking around spreading it to unvaccinated people. I'm fine with that. I don't mind getting an asymptomatic covid case from an asymptomatic vaccinated person and spreading it to an unvaccinated guy. He made his choice, I made mine. All is fair in the cesspool of viruses and vaccines.

With your last paragraph, your true moral compass is revealed. You don't mind transmitting COVID. At least you finally admit it.

 

[JonC]

With your last paragraph, your true moral compass is revealed. You don't mind transmitting COVID. At least you finally admit it.

I care about as much as you care about getting a vaccine. I said last month that it is time to move on. If people do not want to be vaccinated that is perfectly fine with me. But don't expect me to bow to their decision. I would never intentionally pass on covid or any other disease. But if they die of their decision I do not feel responsible for their death.

You should feel the sane about me. If I die because I did not believe risks associated with the vaccine because info was clouded by all the misinformation you have posted then the ownership is on me.

 

[Two Wings]

I do not care so much about claimed effectiveness.

huh? you've corrected my 97% number from the "clinical trials."

I think you're putting too much faith in the accuracy of these reports and overlooking the setup for the legitimate deaths we've experienced from the disease --- the terrible treatment protocol.

... and while it may be a narrow window, there have no doubt been folks who have gotten jabbed with an infection in progress ... died ... and been called "un vaxed" cause they didn't make it two weeks passed their "fully vaxed" date.

part of that jabbing with the pandemic in progress problem.

 

[JonC]

huh? you've corrected my 97% number from the "clinical trials."

I think you're putting too much faith in the accuracy of these reports and overlooking the setup for the legitimate deaths we've experienced from the disease --- the terrible treatment protocol.

... and while it may be a narrow window, there have no doubt been folks who have gotten jabbed with an infection in progress ... died ... and been called "un vaxed" cause they didn't make it two weeks passed their "fully vaxed" date.

part of that jabbing with the pandemic in progress problem.

I corrected your claim because it was incorrect. Were you to have said the vaccine is 97% effective against becoming infected with covid I would have corrected you as well.

I think we both realize both sides manuplate statistics to suit their agenda.