Remember when the media claimed that Covid was “the pandemic of the unvaccinated?” Here is Joe Biden claiming that. Here is Don Lemon calling everyone who disputed that “stupid.” Here are Democrat voters losing their minds. What a difference a year makes. The craziest vaccine pushers made a complete U-turn (here, here, and here.)
The real science rarely makes a change that drastic in just a year. But the difference between “THE SCIENCE” of Covid and the real science is “THE SCIENCE” never allowed any challenge. That kind of “science” (also known as dogma) cannot possibly stand up to the test of time. So, inevitably, many (arguably, most) tenets of “THE SCIENCE” gave in faster than a grown man under pressure from the Twitter mob. And when that happened, “the followers of THE SCIENCE” demanded absolution for their errors, because what they said was, as Joe Biden puts it, “true at the time.”
The science that is only “true at the time” is not very useful to humanity. You don’t need a meteorology degree from Harvard to look out the window and see that it’s snowing right now. You would like to know if it’s going to be a cold winter to see if you need to invest in a fur coat. And that is where Harvard’s meteorology department comes in. Unfortunately, that is not what we got from “THE SCIENCE” of the Branch Covidians. All Dr. Fauci and his disciples were doing was what the rest of us could easily do: base their conclusions on the present situation which provided no insight on the whole duration of the pandemic.
Two years ago to this day, the pharma companies revealed the clinical studies claiming that the double Covid shot was “95% effective.” Nobody asked at the time what that meant; but for most of us who knew the meaning of the word “vaccine” that meant “one and done” (or in that particular case, “two and done.”) That, however, soon turned out not to be the case. And when “breakthrough infections” became commonplace, “followers of THE SCIENCE” shifted their narrative. It wasn’t that the pharma companies have not done the proper studies – it’s the people who believed they haven’t, and acted accordingly (by skipping the vax,) who were at fault.
Today, the media admits that “the unvaccinated” are not driving the spread of Covid. Yet, because THE SCIENCE is never wrong, they continue to demand you get a booster de jour, because… why not?
Here are Washington Post arguments for getting vaccinated – all of them invariably failing to produce a logical reason that you should.
- At this point in the pandemic, a large majority of Americans have received at least their primary series of coronavirus vaccines, so it makes sense that vaccinated people are making up a greater share of fatalities.
This statement is absolutely true when it comes to statistics. It is also utterly ridiculous as a medical argument. The larger the group (any group) the more members of that group will die of Covid (or anything else for that matter), based on pure numbers. Unless, of course, there is something that will prevent them from dying. The Covid vax would be that something, one would hope – but based on the statement above, it is clearly not. WaPo just stated that the Covid vax does not change the mathematical correlation between vaccines and deaths – so what would be the reason for getting the vax, again?
A vaccine either protects you from the disease, or it doesn’t. Example: more people taking the polio vaccine does not result in more people dying of polio. It leads to fewer people dying of it. This is the way the vaccines work; Covid vaccine, clearly, doesn’t, according to WaPo’s own admission.
- Individuals at greatest risk of dying from a coronavirus infection, such as the elderly, are also more likely to have received the shots.
This is likely true, even though WaPo provides no evidence that elderly population is the most vaccinated. We know that is true in Florida where the vaccination effort was always focused on the seniors. Not only the elderly were initially known to be more at risk of Covid complications, but also the long term side effects of an experimental vaccine are not as important for the people who are not likely to live for longer than 10 years.
However, it is also true that older people are more vary of new and untested medical treatments than the younger crowd. Most of my older friends resisted taking the Covid vax, while most young people were eager to take them. I can argue that in states like California, it is the younger population who is the most vaccinated. WaPo provides no evidence of their claim, only stating that it’s “more likely” that it’s the elderly vaccinated population leading to the increase in deaths. Be it as it may, WaPo’s unsubstantiated claim only confirms what we’ve known all along: the elderly and the seriously ill are more at risk of dying from Covid.
- Vaccines lose potency against the virus over time and variants arise that are better able to resist the vaccines, so continued boosters are needed to continue to prevent illness and death.
So, because vaccines lose potency over time (which comes as a surprise to those who believed they were “95% effective”) and new variants are “more resistant,” then your solution is more vaccines? Vaccines are not vitamins, where the more you take the better protected you are. We don’t “load up” on vaccines – and you know this if you vaccinated your young children against any illness. Even a flu vax, that is largely ineffective by any standard, is taken only once a year. Yet, “THE SCIENCE” is now claiming that Covid boosters are needed continuously? In that case, we should probably consider selling them over the counter in a vitamin aisle.
- The BA.5 omicron subvariant became dominant in July and consistently accounted for the majority of new coronavirus infections across the United States until earlier this month. The highly transmissible strain fueled a surge of new infections, reinfections and hospitalizations throughout the summer.
I am glad the disciples of Dr. Fauci have discovered yet another “subvariant,” but how is booster de jour going to help with it, again?
In August, the highly contagious BA.5 variant reached its peak:
- That month, unvaccinated people aged 6 months and older died at about six times the rate of those who had received their primary series of shots.
That statement is a clear contradiction to the article’s previous claim. People who received “their primary series of shots” have probably received them many months ago. We are on the 5th shot at this point, so it’s safe to assume that “the primary series of shots” are way in the past. Because WaPo just stated (correctly so!) that vaccine efficacy wanes over time, how is “the primary series of shots” still protecting people who got them? Once again, we have no real science behind any of this. We have no data when people that WaPo surveyed received “their primary series of shots.” As far as we know, those shots had no connection to their Covid outcome.
- People with one booster dose were even better protected. Unvaccinated people over the age of 5 had about 8 times the risk of dying from a coronavirus infection than those who received a booster shot.
As you can see, WaPo is manipulating their data set based on the results they want to produce. In the previous statement, they quoted “people aged 6 months and older.” This time, it’s “all people over the age of 5.” It is not very clear why not survey the same group of people, other than to manipulate the data to achieve a “convincing” outcome.
If you are doing real science, “all people over the age of 5” should never be lumped into one study group. We already know that Covid outcomes vary considerably depending on age, so the group you should study is kids under 16, for example – and then you will learn that Covid deaths are likely approaching zero, whether vaccinated or not. Based on that, claiming that kids under the age of 16 need a monthly booster shot because some people over 80 who received it are still alive is ridiculous.
- Among individuals who were eligible to receive additional booster shots, the gap is even more striking. Unvaccinated people 50 and up had 12 times the risk of dying from COVID-19 than adults the same age with two or more booster doses.
Here, yet again, we see a new “subset” of data, for no apparent reason. In this case, they are looking at people over 50, which is a far cry from “all people over the age of 5,” but we’ll let that slide. WaPo doesn’t tell us who was “eligible to receive additional booster shots”; however, we know they were older people, and that means they were more vulnerable to Covid complications. A good question to ask is what else, besides not being vaccinated, might have contributed to their deaths. Be it as it may, none of this explains why getting “additional boosters” be of any benefit to healthy young people, or infants, for that matter.
“[David French] pointed out that 100 percent vaccination could have prevented 300,000 deaths between January 1, 2021 and April 30, 2022.”
David French, is, apparently, a media person, and not a medical professional of any kind. So it is unclear how he came up with that “heartbreaking” number of lives that we “could’ve saved” if people just listened to him. I clearly remember Joe Biden doing the same routine by claiming that “wearing a mask for 3 months would save 40,000 lives.” Today, by walking into any clinic wearing a cloth mask, you will learn that this noble act does not protect you from so much as a cold: you will be immediately instructed to switch your cloth mask to a surgical one (which is of dubious effectiveness as well.)
But to get back to the tearful plea for “100 percent vaccination,” at what point in history did we learn that for vaccines to work, that was a requirement?” And more importantly, given that nobody on Earth is stupid enough to believe that a 100% vaccination rate is realistic, who would have ever gotten the vax in the first place?
“Americans’ uptake of the latest booster shots continues to be slow.”
Today, fewer than 5% of Americans have gotten the latest booster. I seriously doubt that the latest WaPo article would make that number go any higher.