COVID OMICRON Thread

[Rosenbah]

IKR.

Coming in to INGO in 2022 and pulling out the chain link fence metaphor.
At least Rosenbah has some post about guns - seems sincere.

Thanks! I do like the site and am learning a ton. We all won't agree on everything but we all can learn and help!

 

[printcraft]

Well, at first, weren't claims of "immunity" to be above 90 percent?

It started at 100 and worked down from there.
I posted a link to the articles.
Yes, as bidet would say, you need to lower your expectations (daily).

 

[JettaKnight]

Thanks! I do like the site and am learning a ton. We all won't agree on everything but we all can learn and help!

We had some other newb come in posting a bunch of "covid is a hoax" stuff today, so I'm a bit jaded.

Regardless, I welcome you to INGO ... despite that you're from Springfield, OH - that took all our International Harvester jobs.

 

[JettaKnight]

Well, at first, weren't claims of "immunity" to be above 90 percent?

These claims of immunity at XX% are all BS.
Yes, it took me some time to realize that.


My current thinking is, "F*** it. Let's plow through this, and let this sucker mutate to a non-threatening form. Until then, vaccinating is a prudent course of action." (note the lack of demands in that)

 

[BigRed]

This is a question and answer I received on the other thread, "Indiana is Dead Last ...", and a link that addresses a claim of high non-covid deaths in Indiana. I found it interesting. My question is in blue. One quote from the article that caught my eye was, "Most of the claims for deaths being filed are not classified as COVID-19 deaths, Davison said."

Here's the link that talks about it:
https://www.thecentersquare.com/ind...cle_71473b12-6b1e-11ec-8641-5b2c06725e2c.html



Welcome to INGO Sir. As an un-vaxed (unwashed) individual, I'm following all these threads with interest. Would you care to expound on the reasons behind your decision? If not, I understand, but being retired, they can't very well cancel you like they are the other doctors and scientists who don't tow the line.
.

Hi Steve, To start with, I was hesitant to take anything not approved. 2/3 of all pharma product applications fail, so there was only a 33% chance of working / or working without adverse reactions. As time progressed, a quick look at VEARS was all I needed to convince myself that this was / is a failed application. There are dozens of peer reviewed studies that show complete recoveries with common inexpensive therapeutics. Now, in today's news, there is a monstrous 40% increase in Indiana deaths under 65 with only a small percentage being covid. Hmmm, think I made the right choice. I am retired, but if I weren't, and required to take the jab, I would simply have to find another means of income vs the risky results of poison death shot. Youngsters are immortal, (like I used to be), and they just don't get it... Kinda sad.

.

Just posting to say, "See! Told ya so."

 

[Ingomike]

Yes, it took me some time to realize that.

Keep working on that and you may catch up to others here…

 

[Drewski]

You have some catching up to do on the older Covid threads.

Also will help you know the players.

And the conceit. Although less common at INGO, it's clearly not hard to find.

IKR.

Coming in to INGO in 2022 and pulling out the chain link fence metaphor.
At least Rosenbah has some post about guns - seems sincere.

Totally. His "chain link fence" simile is so out of style, regardless of its suitability. All the cool kids / CNN medical analysts are pulling out "facial decoration" now.

"Cloth masks are little more than facial decorations. There's no place for them in light of Omicron," said CNN Medical Analyst Dr. Leana Wen, an emergency physician and visiting professor of health policy and management at the George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health, on CNN Newsroom Tuesday.

 

[JettaKnight]

Keep working on that and you may catch up to others here…

Approximately how many hours a day do you spend thinking about me?


A) 2-3
B) 3-6
C) Every waking hour

 

[mbills2223]

Approximately how many hours a day do you spend thinking about me?

A) 2-3
B) 3-6
C) Every waking hour

I'm dead lmaooo

 

[wtburnette]

Keep working on that and you may catch up to others here…

As I've said before, I don't think we'll ever know the actual number of deaths from COVID-19. The numbers have been misreported since the beginning. There have been plenty of news stories about it, but even worse, reports from various healthcare workers and family members of the deceased saying the same thing. I fully believe this was done on purpose to make this whole "pandemic" seem worse than it really was. Certainly not minimizing the impact to those affected by it, but for the mast majority of people it was not significant enough for the measures taken. The sooner we get back to worrying about our own health decisions and not anyone else's, the better.

 

[bobzilla]

Is she dead or in the hospital?

No one every claimed you'd be totally immune.

That’s a lie and you know it.

 

[HoughMade]

That’s a lie and you know it.

I see we're looking to the media again, then blaming vaccines when the media doesn't fully report upon them. Did some people say that? I'm sure. Is that what the studies say? No. In what other realm to be blame the underlying whatever when the media's reporting about it is inaccurate?

However, when reporting the results of studies, all you can do is report the results of studies.

If the study showed that over the 4 to 6 month study period (however long, sometimes up to 8 to 10 months), that there was a 90% reduction in infection compared to the control group and a 100% reduction in severe disease as compared to a control group, I'm not sure why those exact numbers should not be reported....or believed. The mistake, of course, is not acknowledging the limitations of the studies both in length of time and understanding that population wide results are often different than study results, but normally follow the same trends if not the exact numbers.

Further, I think the word "immunity" should have been avoided in favor of the more accurate "resistance".

As an aside, from a local hospital group with hospitals in 3 counties up here:

Do vaccinated people get sick? Yes. Do they get hospitalized? Yes. Do they die? Yes....but that only tells a small part of the story.

Obviously the above graphic is a localized snapshot, but it is representative of what is out there and worth considering.

[ETA] I would note that the 3 hospitals above are in 3 counties with an approximate 53% fully vaccinated rate between them, meaning that if vaccines made no difference, you would expect to see closer to equal numbers between vaccinated and unvaccinated. What the "cases" are is not revealed...but who cares? I don't care that much about people getting sick. Severely sick requiring hospitalization, ICU or ventilator is more important. As I have said since the beginning, a realistic goal could never be eradication, but with vaccinations, therapeutics and, as we have seen, less severe strains, this thing can become just another seasonal flu.

 

[EOD Guy]

Insert Purple….Any bias as to colors used to differentiate who got the jab and who didn’t? Hmmmm?

 

[KLB]

They don't say if those people are there WITH Covid or because of Covid.

 

[Ingomike]

I see we're looking to the media again, then blaming vaccines when the media doesn't fully report upon them. Did some people say that? I'm sure. Is that what the studies say? No. In what other realm to be blame the underlying whatever when the media's reporting about it is inaccurate?

However, when reporting the results of studies, all you can do is report the results of studies.

If the study showed that over the 4 to 6 month study period (however long, sometimes up to 8 to 10 months), that there was a 90% reduction in infection compared to the control group and a 100% reduction in severe disease as compared to a control group, I'm not sure why those exact numbers should be reported....or believed. The mistake, of course, is not acknowledging the limitations of the studies both in length of time and understanding that population wide results are often different than study results, but normally follow the same trends if not the exact numbers.

You fail to mention where the media got what they reported, they usually don’t make up stuff from nothing, they like accomplices. The got it from the likes of the talking heads from the FDA, CDC, NIH, etc. Then it was regurgitated by the politicians. We all know what we were told when they rolled out the vaccines…

 

[HoughMade]

You fail to mention where the media got what they reported, they usually don’t make up stuff from nothing, they like accomplices. The got it from the likes of the talking heads from the FDA, CDC, NIH, etc. Then it was regurgitated by the politicians. We all know what we were told when they rolled out the vaccines…

I have no problem blaming the government for telling us what they think will cause the results they want rather that full and accurate information. I think that this is a huge reason for distrust (rightfully of the .gov), vaccination hesitancy and it was a phenomenal mistake. The government has done this throughout the pandemic and for a long time before it.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

I see we're looking to the media again, then blaming vaccines when the media doesn't fully report upon them. Did some people say that? I'm sure. Is that what the studies say? No. In what other realm to be blame the underlying whatever when the media's reporting about it is inaccurate?

However, when reporting the results of studies, all you can do is report the results of studies.

If the study showed that over the 4 to 6 month study period (however long, sometimes up to 8 to 10 months), that there was a 90% reduction in infection compared to the control group and a 100% reduction in severe disease as compared to a control group, I'm not sure why those exact numbers should be reported....or believed. The mistake, of course, is not acknowledging the limitations of the studies both in length of time and understanding that population wide results are often different than study results, but normally follow the same trends if not the exact numbers.

Further, I think the word "immunity" should have been avoided in favor of the more accurate "resistance".

As an aside, from a local hospital group with hospitals in 3 counties up here:

Do vaccinated people get sick? Yes. Do they get hospitalized? Yes. Do they die? Yes....but that only tells a small part of the story.

Obviously the above graphic is a localized snapshot, but it is representative of what is out there and worth considering.

[ETA] I would note that the 3 hospitals above are in 3 counties with an approximate 53% fully vaccinated rate between them, meaning that if vaccines made no difference, you would expect to see closer to equal numbers between vaccinated and unvaccinated. What the "cases" are is not revealed...but who cares? I don't care that much about people getting sick. Severely sick requiring hospitalization, ICU or ventilator is more important. As I have said since the beginning, a realistic goal could never be eradication, but with vaccinations, therapeutics and, as we have seen, less severe strains, this thing can become just another seasonal flu.

^^^ THIS ^^^

From the first reports of the Pfizer clinical trials it was clear that the vaccines effectively reduced symptomatic cases and severe cases of OG COVID.

None conferred immunity from infection.

In fact, multiple members here stated they would not take a vaccine until one was developed that conferred immunity to infection and prevented contagiousness and that none of the vaccines were that.

 

[Ingomike]

^^^ THIS ^^^

From the first reports of the Pfizer clinical trials it was clear that the vaccines effectively reduced symptomatic cases and severe cases of OG COVID.

None conferred immunity from infection.

In fact, multiple members here stated they would not take a vaccine until one was developed that conferred immunity to infection and prevented contagiousness and that none of the vaccines were that.

That may be what technical papers said but that is not what the powers that be said and it s not what vax proponents on here said then…

 

[bobzilla]

That may be what technical papers said but that is not what the powers that be said and it s not what vax proponents on here said then…

And it’s not what I hear people telling me daily.

 

[Alpo]

That may be what technical papers said but that is not what the powers that be said and it s not what vax proponents on here said then…

You either get vaccinated or become a member of the control group. Your choice.

I don't think anyone (I might have missed an outlier) on INGO has ever advocated for mandatory vaccination. So the continual b*tching about INGO "proponents" is inaccurate and agenda driven.