Posted on 01/19/2021 8:47:08 AM PST by SeekAndFind
“You ask too many questions, comrade. We vill send someone from the Ministry of Truth to answer them.”
Has it been vetted on millions of people with decades of detailed analysis?
Nope.
After 2030, I will _consider_ taking it, if the serious vetting shows solid efficacy and minimal risk.
A serious beating by Antifa will probably give the OP the desired attitude adjustment.
Unity, comrades!
Joining together for our glorious future!
Conditioning...conditioning...conditioning...
Slow incrementalism, subtle deception, acceptance of your new ‘normal’.
“So...what is it actually doing?????????????????????????????πππ”
It’s designed to erode the masses liberties while they accept it and become more passive.
But they changed the definition to mean when everyone has gotten vaccinated.
Why did they change the definition?
You should consider a prophylactic treatment of Ivermectin / HCQ, zinc, and Budesonide before taking the vaccine. That will raise your zinc levels to combat the active virus in the vaccine, and hopefully reduce it’s lethal effects.
RE: You should consider a prophylactic treatment of Ivermectin / HCQ, zinc, and Budesonide before taking the vaccine. That will raise your zinc levels to combat the active virus in the vaccine, and hopefully reduce itβs lethal effects.
Yep, I agree. Why this option was never widely promoted is something that is a puzzle ( although I hear that the CDC has tolerated its use, i.e., no Physicians are barred from administering it ).
Edit to add: I was referring to IVERMECTIN, not HCQ or Budesonide.
Not sure exactly what you’re referencing without a link, but the Herd Immunity Threshold is the number of immune individuals within a population required for Rt to drop below 1, thus beginning the inevitable decline in new infections as the pathogen runs out of available hosts. It’s a function of the R0, which is the rate of spread within a completely vulnerable population and it’s defined as 1-1/R0. So if your R0 is 2, HIT is 50%. If R0 is 4, HIT is 75%.
The newest variants of COVID-19 appear to have increased transmissibility, but we don’t yet have enough data to accurately assess their R0. Estimated ranges are from 4.35 to 5.7. At the high end, HIT is achieved at 82%. Immunity can be achieved either through infection (assuming the individual survives and is not immuno-compromised) or vaccination.
Fauci and his CDC pals have proved that they are speaking to their own agenda and are not trusted by an increasing number of people.
They have changed the designation of wearing masks from regular people who are not sick should not wear them to everyone needs to wear them, and they have changed the definition of herd immunity expressly to suit their own money-making opportunities.
It has been nearly a whole year of lies and deceit. I am tired for being fed a constant diet of fear.
RE: Immunity can be achieved either through infection (assuming the individual survives and is not immuno-compromised) or vaccination.
How long does natural immunity last compared to immunity via vaccination?
So the short answer is we don't know yet because we haven't reached the end of immunity for any group. This is a good thing because it means immunity looks good for at least about a year. Expectations based on previous experience with SARS2003 and MERS2012 tell us we should see ~2-3 years regardless of whether you've been infected or been vaccinated. But until we get to the point of actually observing failing immunity, we can't say for certain.
One piece of good news came out recently from Moderna's Phase 1 group: the people examined maintained higher levels of neutralizing antibodies after several months than those who had been infected by SARS-CoV-2. This matches up with the evidence seen previously that showed a stronger immune response to certain vaccine candidates than from the actual infection.
Today our immune systems work the very same way. Some people will die in the beginning because their immune systems are weak.
The problem of "vaccination only" ideas and implementation is that it ignores our natural immune responses.
The biggest boon to natural immune health has actually been sanitation - clean water, building sewage systems and clean food. These measures did more for health than giving people shots. It is interesting that more than a 100 years ago the larger cities, which were once havens for ill-health, began to clean their water, at the same time vaccines got going. Which one actually did us more good?
I am not an anti-vaxxer. However, I believe that counting solely on a shot to protect us is ignoring our own immune systems to our peril.
But who would voluntarily get an unproven vaccine for a virus that has a 99.8% survivability rate?
I'll take my chances like I always have.
...and Ivermectin reduces your .2% death rate 80%!
I’m not getting the vaccine. No need to.
My uncle got the Swine flu shot and became paralyzed for 2 weeks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.