Replies

How much is enough?
Gov. DeWine has made it clear that our only ‘escape’ from this insanity is getting enough people to take the shot, but he has been very very coy about a number, or even putting out a new metric with any number attached to it, although he has been pretty explicit about wanting to use accinevay coverage as our new metric.
Now why would that be? Why so hesitant when he’s been very clear for many months that this is our ‘only’ way out? Please see, first, the attached image highlighting what was recently published in The Lancet (https://www.thelancet.com/.../PIIS0140-6736.../fulltext...) decreeing what the coverage must be.
Nearly 100%
Regardless of age, sex or ethnicity. According to the number crunchers who can’t seem to get anything right over the last year, 100% of people need to get it, even if they are no risk at all from the disease.
Now, to be fair, they do mention that people can be protected by natural infection too. So that’s really great - all we would need to do is reduce the number of people who need to get accinevayed by the number who have previous immunity, right? And since we’ve been religiously tracking all of these cases, we should know who’s had it, right?
Hear what Gov. DeWine has to say about the numbers who have had it in the video clip below.
Now how is it that he says we don’t know how many people have immunity to it naturally? He tells us the case numbers every day. They must know! Unless they know that they’re inflating the numbers and including people who do NOT have COVID-19 in their COVID-19 numbers. People who may have just had symptoms, or ‘contact’ with someone who tested positive. Or all of those people who have been asymptomatically tested with antigen tests and tested positive. Or people who tested positive based on obscenely high cycle threshold counts.
And we can’t have people realizing that those ‘cases’ haven’t been actual infections all this time, now can we?