Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Government Response To The Coronavirus


James Daulton

Recommended Posts

47 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

Oh, sorry.  It's relevant because Fauci denied ever funding any such research just today while testifying before Congress. 

That's important for two reasons.  First, because it's bad when government officials lie to us.  Especially public health officials who absolutely need to maintain credibility.

Second, for some reason the whole "lab leak" hypothesis has been treated from the start like some weird, fringe conspiracy theory, and it's never been at all clear to me why that should be the case.  It fits the fact of the pandemic -- as we know them -- extremely well.  Also, it doesn't rely on any kind of actual conspiracy.  We know with 100% certainty that gain of function research is a thing that exists.  We know with 100% certainty that WIV conducted research on bat coronaviruses like SAR-CoV-2.  We "knew" from prior reporting that the NIH funded gain of function research on coronaviruses at WIV.  All this hypothesis requires is for a researcher to get a little sloppy in a lab or cave somewhere, which can and does happen.

But mainly I'm baffled as to why Fauci would lie about something that can easily be proved or disproved in publicly available grant applications.  Either he's lying, which would be kind of bizarre, or a bunch of reporting has been wrong for well over a year, which would also be kind of bizarre given the "public records" thing.   

Edit: I'm not finding a good link for this or I would post one.  The MSM has collectively been abysmal when it comes to reporting on WIV.

I don’t think the lab leak has been dismissed as a fringe conspiracy theory. It being man-made or released certainly was but I’ve also thought that the initial spread coming from the lab was a realistic possibility that doesn’t change that the massive spread begun in the wet market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

Second, for some reason the whole "lab leak" hypothesis has been treated from the start like some weird, fringe conspiracy theory, and it's never been at all clear to me why that should be the case.  It fits the fact of the pandemic -- as we know them -- extremely well.  Also, it doesn't rely on any kind of actual conspiracy.  We know with 100% certainty that gain of function research is a thing that exists.  We know with 100% certainty that WIV conducted research on bat coronaviruses like SAR-CoV-2.  We "knew" from prior reporting that the NIH funded gain of function research on coronaviruses at WIV.  All this hypothesis requires is for a researcher to get a little sloppy in a lab or cave somewhere, which can and does happen.

I just went through the Newsweek link several times to confirm something. Counter to my expectations, the Newsweek article does not, in fact, suggest that the NIH funded gain-of-function research at the Wuhan lab. Here are the specifics from the Newsweek link:

Quote

The NIH research consisted of two parts. The first part began in 2014 and involved surveillance of bat coronaviruses, and had a budget of $3.7 million. The program funded Shi Zheng-Li, a virologist at the Wuhan lab, and other researchers to investigate and catalogue bat coronaviruses in the wild. This part of the project was completed in 2019.

So far, no NIH-funded gain-of-function research in Wuhan. Next paragraph:

Quote

A second phase of the project, beginning that year, included additional surveillance work but also gain-of-function research for the purpose of understanding how bat coronaviruses could mutate to attack humans. The project was run by EcoHealth Alliance, a non-profit research group, under the direction of President Peter Daszak, an expert on disease ecology.

Gain-of-function research is mentioned, but apparently not at the Wuhan lab (?) or else I think the Newsweek writer mentions it explicitly. It's also possible that the second phase didn't get to the gain-of-function part before funding was pulled in April 2020.

That might be Fauci's out -- that Rand Paul is incorrect about the specific type of NIH-funded research conducted in Wuhan. (Louisiville, KY Courier-Journal 5/11/2021)

FWIW, Daszak gave Nature.com an interview about this last summer. He doesn't mention "gain of function" but he does talk about "spillover" -- though he seems to mean "spillover" that happens naturally.

I mean, it does look bad if you connect the dots a certain way. It just looks like the Newsweeks and the Rand Pauls out there don't quite have the goods yet to really make these accusations stick. Not to say that those goods will never be found -- just that they've not yet been presented for public consumption.

  • Thanks 1
  • Thinking 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Doug B said:

I mean, it does look bad if you connect the dots a certain way. It just looks like the Newsweeks and the Rand Pauls out there don't quite have the goods yet to really make these accusations stick. Not to say that those goods will never be found -- just that they've not yet been presented for public consumption.

I think we should just wait for a Chinese national to blow the whistle on this one. #sarcasm

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Doug B said:

I just went through the Newsweek link several times to confirm something. Counter to my expectations, the Newsweek article does not, in fact, suggest that the NIH funded gain-of-function research at the Wuhan lab. Here are the specifics from the Newsweek link:

So far, no NIH-funded gain-of-function research in Wuhan. Next paragraph:

Gain-of-function research is mentioned, but apparently not at the Wuhan lab (?) or else I think the Newsweek writer mentions it explicitly. It's also possible that the second phase didn't get to the gain-of-function part before funding was pulled in April 2020.

That might be Fauci's out -- that Rand Paul is incorrect about the specific type of NIH-funded research conducted in Wuhan. (Louisiville, KY Courier-Journal 5/11/2021)

FWIW, Daszak gave Nature.com an interview about this last summer. He doesn't mention "gain of function" but he does talk about "spillover" -- though he seems to mean "spillover" that happens naturally.

I mean, it does look bad if you connect the dots a certain way. It just looks like the Newsweeks and the Rand Pauls out there don't quite have the goods yet to really make these accusations stick. Not to say that those goods will never be found -- just that they've not yet been presented for public consumption.

Fain RO1AI110964. USASpending.gov shows that HHS funded EcoHealth Alliance to research  of caronavirus emergence.  Pres. Obama had outlawed gain of function in 2014.  There was a codocil in the law that said that it could be done for national security reasons.  The law said 2 people had to sign off on that and 1of the 2  was Fauci.  EcoHealth alliace leader is seen on youtube admitting that they funded the wuhan lab about caronavirus.  The WHO recently did an investigation into the origins of Covid.  Who represented the US?  The EcoHealth Alliance leader (Dasick i think his name is) who also put out the oft quoted this couldn't have came from a lab. The article that quoted most of this stuff  by the earlier mentioned Nicholas Wade shows a bunch of reasons why this is more likely to come out of a lab instead of in nature.  One of them was the middle animal to allow it to become transferrable to humans as bats couldn't transfer it directly to humans it had to go to a third party to mutate to it.  China found that animal in SARS and MERS within 9 months.  It's been almost 18 since the original outbreak in Wuhan an no animal has been found.

All this is non partisan information as this occurred over that last 2 presidents.  Both are responsible for Fauci's actions.  There is some justifications for Fauci funding the research as this is a way to get ahead of an outbreak before it starts.  The problem is Wuhan lab.  The Wade article says the Wuhan Lab didn't use near the level of protection that is required for this kind of research.  As i have noted ealier there is some justification for research, as the US Military does this for Chemical Weapons research even though we don't own any anymore but potential advesaries do.  These labs are kept at a very high level of safety. The only time i can remember any weapons research was the Anthrax letters and that was done diliberatly by one of the researcher himself according to the FBI.

The biggest issue is the media.  These things aren't that hard to find online and whether it is FOX, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, NBC, ABC, or newspapers etc this isn't being investigated enough.  This has to be tracked down no matter who is responsible.  Covid kills at about 1% rate.  What happens if something like Ebola which kills at an extremely high rate gets accidently out of some lab?  Whether you are Dem or Rep this is something that Congress should be demanding answers to from EcoHealth Alliance, CDC, Fauci, WHO, and China's govt.  The Wade article doesn't say for certain that Covid came froma  lab, but he shows how it is more likely than from a wet market.  Either way there needs to be answers for the litterally the whole world and none of the media seem to care much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, NightStalkers said:

Fain RO1AI110964. USASpending.gov shows that HHS funded EcoHealth Alliance to research  of caronavirus emergence.  Pres. Obama had outlawed gain of function in 2014.  There was a codocil in the law that said that it could be done for national security reasons.  The law said 2 people had to sign off on that and 1of the 2  was Fauci.  EcoHealth alliace leader is seen on youtube admitting that they funded the wuhan lab about caronavirus.  The WHO recently did an investigation into the origins of Covid.  Who represented the US?  The EcoHealth Alliance leader (Dasick i think his name is) who also put out the oft quoted this couldn't have came from a lab. The article that quoted most of this stuff  by the earlier mentioned Nicholas Wade shows a bunch of reasons why this is more likely to come out of a lab instead of in nature.  One of them was the middle animal to allow it to become transferrable to humans as bats couldn't transfer it directly to humans it had to go to a third party to mutate to it.  China found that animal in SARS and MERS within 9 months.  It's been almost 18 since the original outbreak in Wuhan an no animal has been found.

All this is non partisan information as this occurred over that last 2 presidents.  Both are responsible for Fauci's actions.  There is some justifications for Fauci funding the research as this is a way to get ahead of an outbreak before it starts.  The problem is Wuhan lab.  The Wade article says the Wuhan Lab didn't use near the level of protection that is required for this kind of research.  As i have noted ealier there is some justification for research, as the US Military does this for Chemical Weapons research even though we don't own any anymore but potential advesaries do.  These labs are kept at a very high level of safety. The only time i can remember any weapons research was the Anthrax letters and that was done diliberatly by one of the researcher himself according to the FBI.

The biggest issue is the media.  These things aren't that hard to find online and whether it is FOX, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, NBC, ABC, or newspapers etc this isn't being investigated enough.  This has to be tracked down no matter who is responsible.  Covid kills at about 1% rate.  What happens if something like Ebola which kills at an extremely high rate gets accidently out of some lab?  Whether you are Dem or Rep this is something that Congress should be demanding answers to from EcoHealth Alliance, CDC, Fauci, WHO, and China's govt.  The Wade article doesn't say for certain that Covid came froma  lab, but he shows how it is more likely than from a wet market.  Either way there needs to be answers for the litterally the whole world and none of the media seem to care much.

That's because the media isn't any smarter than Fauci is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, kodycutter said:

Yankees coach tests positive after being fully vaccinated.

"Yankees third-base coach Phil Nevin has tested positive for COVID-19 in a “breakthrough” case after being fully vaccinated, the team announced......

The team reportedly received the one-dose Johnson & Johnson vaccine."

so can he spread it? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, kodycutter said:
6 minutes ago, -fish- said:

so can he spread it? 

i'm not smart enough to know that answer.

I've seen people insisting that once you're vaccinated, you shouldn't ever have to wear a mask.   seems like if you can still get infected, it sort of shoots that whole theory all to hell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Doug B said:

I just went through the Newsweek link several times to confirm something. Counter to my expectations, the Newsweek article does not, in fact, suggest that the NIH funded gain-of-function research at the Wuhan lab. Here are the specifics from the Newsweek link:

So far, no NIH-funded gain-of-function research in Wuhan. Next paragraph:

Gain-of-function research is mentioned, but apparently not at the Wuhan lab (?) or else I think the Newsweek writer mentions it explicitly. It's also possible that the second phase didn't get to the gain-of-function part before funding was pulled in April 2020.

That might be Fauci's out -- that Rand Paul is incorrect about the specific type of NIH-funded research conducted in Wuhan. (Louisiville, KY Courier-Journal 5/11/2021)

FWIW, Daszak gave Nature.com an interview about this last summer. He doesn't mention "gain of function" but he does talk about "spillover" -- though he seems to mean "spillover" that happens naturally.

I mean, it does look bad if you connect the dots a certain way. It just looks like the Newsweeks and the Rand Pauls out there don't quite have the goods yet to really make these accusations stick. Not to say that those goods will never be found -- just that they've not yet been presented for public consumption.

 

39 minutes ago, tonydead said:

That's because the media isn't any smarter than Fauci is.

My point is they aren't asking the questions.  Most of the feedback about the origins of the virus were from an article of virologists that were led by the EcoHealth alliance.  At a minimum this group has a severe conflict of interest or could be somewhat cuplable in what has happened.  One of they  key easy to understand thing in that article is where the first patients in china's hospitals were first seen.  It shows that the hospitals that were located next to the subway line between the Wuhan lab and the Wuhan International Airport had most of the firsts patients.  This also shows how the virus spread around the world.  No matter who did wrong in either Dem or Rep admins this needs to be tracked down to learn how not to have this happen again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, -fish- said:

I've seen people insisting that once you're vaccinated, you shouldn't ever have to wear a mask.   seems like if you can still get infected, it sort of shoots that whole theory all to hell.

i haven't been vaccinated. still wear a mask and do tend to get slightly annoyed if i run into a non-masker in the store who is getting too close, but thankfully not a ton of them, but i dont go out much.        it's worrisome if the vaccine isn't up to snuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, -fish- said:

I've seen people insisting that once you're vaccinated, you shouldn't ever have to wear a mask.   seems like if you can still get infected, it sort of shoots that whole theory all to hell.

From day one we've known none of the vaccines are 100% effective, just like EVERY OTHER vaccine in history.  So not sure why this is so surprising to some.  As far as wearing a mask, given the percentages, it's reasonable to tell people who've been vaccinated that they don't have to wear a mask.  Enough of the population is reasonably safe either from being vaccinated or having antibodies to combat Covid.  We've never said we were going to wait until  no one could get this thing before we got back to normal. It's really weird the way the risk management has morphed from "flattening the curve" to "OMG one guy got Covid after being vaccinated!!!!".  Just really weird.  So much for "following the science."

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, kodycutter said:

i haven't been vaccinated. still wear a mask and do tend to get slightly annoyed if i run into a non-masker in the store who is getting too close, but thankfully not a ton of them, but i dont go out much.        it's worrisome if the vaccine isn't up to snuff.

The vaccine is not expected to prevent all transmission.   It's expected to prevent most, and to lessen the effects if you do get infected so that you don't die.   But I keep reading in this forum that once you're vaccinated, you most definitely can't spread it.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, kodycutter said:

i haven't been vaccinated. still wear a mask and do tend to get slightly annoyed if i run into a non-masker in the store who is getting too close, but thankfully not a ton of them, but i dont go out much.        it's worrisome if the vaccine isn't up to snuff.

Why would you consider this an indication that the vaccine is not "up to snuff?"  No one has ever said these vaccines are 100% effective. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, John123 said:

Why would you consider this an indication that the vaccine is not "up to snuff?"  No one has ever said these vaccines are 100% effective. 

some may be better than others.   that's what i'd like to know.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, -fish- said:

I've seen people insisting that once you're vaccinated, you shouldn't ever have to wear a mask.   seems like if you can still get infected, it sort of shoots that whole theory all to hell.

 depends on the timing of when he was exposed vs when he got the vaccine.  And the Moderna and Phizer vaccines were at least 94% effective with the J and J was lower.  The thing about masks (which i normally use in public) is they are only supposed to help you not get the virus.  If you are concerned about the virus wear your mask.  Honestly only the n95 masks are truly safe from the virus.  Also the case quoted above we don't know the health history of the person.  My mom died in 2016 from complications of COPD.  Has she lived she would have likely died of Covid as the treatment of COPD takes down your antibodies and covid is really concentrated on lungs as part of what it attacks.

The problem with US Govt and CDC in particular both Trump and Biden admins is they don't seem to look at what is going on.  You get guidance that said you don't need masks early in outbreak.  Now you need to wear them outside but some statistics show that it's like 0.2 percent chance of getting out outside, even without the vaccine.  The CDC should be doing science not flip flopping around for special interest groups or political parties be they Dem or Rep...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, -fish- said:

The vaccine is not expected to prevent all transmission.   It's expected to prevent most, and to lessen the effects if you do get infected so that you don't die.   But I keep reading in this forum that once you're vaccinated, you most definitely can't spread it.  

Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, John123 said:

It's really weird the way the risk management has morphed from "flattening the curve" to "OMG one guy got Covid after being vaccinated!!!!"

This is a really good point. Is it really news that Phil Nevin caught COVID after a vaccination? His chance of NOT skating right through it is astronomically small. Which is a big part of the vaccine's benefit -- the effects of the illness are muted for those who do contract the virus. Flu vaccines are the same way.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, tonydead said:
1 hour ago, -fish- said:

The vaccine is not expected to prevent all transmission.   It's expected to prevent most, and to lessen the effects if you do get infected so that you don't die.   But I keep reading in this forum that once you're vaccinated, you most definitely can't spread it.  

Link

None of your unattributed stats have anything to do with transmission.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, -fish- said:

The vaccine is not expected to prevent all transmission.   It's expected to prevent most, and to lessen the effects if you do get infected so that you don't die.   But I keep reading in this forum that once you're vaccinated, you most definitely can't spread it.  

Did the yankee coach spread it? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, -fish- said:

None of your unattributed stats have anything to do with transmission.   

:lol:  They must be attributed if you can make any sort of claim like that, even falsely.    

Edited by tonydead
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

Man, I am going to need a primer on when you guys believe and don't believe NYT and MSM.  

You want the Fox link?  Man a person can't win around here with the source police.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, John123 said:

You want the Fox link?  Man a person can't win around here with the source police.

Just curious, guy.   :shrug:  

So many posts around here about what a rag the NYT has become, how MSM can't be trusted, etc.   So are those posts incorrect?  Maybe these places are usable only when they agree with an article?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

16 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

Man, I am going to need a primer on when you guys believe and don't believe NYT and MSM.  

Did you read the article? Did you follow the links? Did you look at the studies? 

Unnamed sources means you have to trust the NYT.

Named sources with links to studies and lots of data means you dont have to trust the NYT.

This isnt complicated

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

 

Did you read the article? Did you follow the links? Did you look at the studies? 

Unnamed sources means you have to trust the NYT.

Named sources with links to studies and lots of data means you dont have to trust the NYT.

This isnt complicated

 

 

actually it's gotten complicated trying to figure out when MSM is just promoting the liberal agenda and when it can be trusted.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, tonydead said:

:lol:  They must be attributed if you can make any sort of claim like that, even falsely.    

you make no sense.  you jumped into another conversation and posted irrelevant statistics with no attribution.  i dont need the link to know they are irrelevant, since the question was about transmission.

you should really try reading sometime before you post.  or just stop following me around and responding with irrelevant crap.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, -fish- said:

you make no sense.  you jumped into another conversation and posted irrelevant statistics with no attribution.  i dont need the link to know they are irrelevant, since the question was about transmission.

you should really try reading sometime before you post.  or just stop following me around and responding with irrelevant crap.  

 You were talking about a break through case of a vaccinated person contracting the virus yes?  That has an .008% chance of happening. Vaccinated people dont carry the virus. Its settled science, yet you act like you get all your information from this forum.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, tonydead said:

 You were talking about a break through case of a vaccinated person contracting the virus yes?  That has an .008% chance of happening. Vaccinated people dont carry the virus. Its settled science, yet you act like you get all your information from this forum.  

the question was transmission from a breakthrough case.  you linked to a post about three statistics unrelated to transmission.   im sorry you have a problem with comprehension, but its not my job to teach you how to read.  go stalk someone else.  you're not clever or interesting, and you offer nothing relating to the actual topic being discussed.  run along.  adults are talking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, -fish- said:

the question was transmission from a breakthrough case.  you linked to a post about three statistics unrelated to transmission.   im sorry you have a problem with comprehension, but its not my job to teach you how to read.  go stalk someone else.  you're not clever or interesting, and you offer nothing relating to the actual topic being discussed.  run along.  adults are talking.

If you dont carry it you cant transmit it. It's pretty simple.    :shrug:

Epidemiology 101

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Our data from the CDC today suggests that vaccinated people do not carry the virus, don't get sick, and that it's not just in the clinical trials, but it's also in real-world data." 

- Walensky. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if you are infected with the virus (breakthrough cases) you are carrying the virus.  if you cant understand that, you really shouldn't be trying to participate in a conversation about potential transmission, but it does explain your irrelevant links.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

cant quote from my phone, but:

"Though vaccinated people appear to be less likely to transmit the virus, it remains unclear just how much transmission could still happen. That’s because people’s viral load can vary widely in general; the reported decrease in viral loads in vaccinated people is small compared with the range of viral levels experts have seen in COVID-19 patients, Kilpatrick says."

so vaccinated people with a breakthrough case may carry less viral load, which can reduce transmission rates.  but the only study was Pfizer, and it was a small sample.

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/coronavirus-covid-19-pfizer-vaccine-may-reduce-transmission

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Biff84 said:

I don’t think the lab leak has been dismissed as a fringe conspiracy theory. It being man-made or released certainly was but I’ve also thought that the initial spread coming from the lab was a realistic possibility that doesn’t change that the massive spread begun in the wet market.

How that is still listed as fact is maddening.  There’s far better evidence that patient zero came from the Wuhan lab in the Fall of 2019 - from US intelligence as well as Chinese sources.  But because “Trump said so” the US mainstream media under-reports this evidence.

https://www.ibtimes.com/wuhan-lab-researchers-became-sick-first-reported-covid-19-cases-says-us-3124611

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/13/first-covid-19-case-happened-in-november-china-government-records-show-report

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, -fish- said:

if you are infected with the virus (breakthrough cases) you are carrying the virus.  if you cant understand that, you really shouldn't be trying to participate in a conversation about potential transmission, but it does explain your irrelevant links.

 

We got that. Sorry you're a step behind. 0.008% chance of that happening. 

ETA: And they still have to transmit it after that. 

Edited by tonydead
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, ekbeats said:

How that is still listed as fact is maddening.  There’s far better evidence that patient zero came from the Wuhan lab in the Fall of 2019 - from US intelligence as well as Chinese sources.  But because “Trump said so” the US mainstream media under-reports this evidence.

https://www.ibtimes.com/wuhan-lab-researchers-became-sick-first-reported-covid-19-cases-says-us-3124611

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/13/first-covid-19-case-happened-in-november-china-government-records-show-report

Yep. It's the Wuhan Lab Virus.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve Hilton at Fox News has done incredible work over the last few months on the origins of Covid and Fauci’s connection to the Wuhan lab gain of function research.  And he has been roundly ridiculed as a conspiracy theorist by Liberal lapdog media outlets:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/fox-news-pundit-steve-hilton-pushed-a-ridiculous-conspiracy-theory-that-dr-fauci-is-behind-the-coronavirus/ar-BB1d7Bkg
 

The Nicholas Wade piece that caused the dust up between Fauci and Paul today is the culmination of Hilton’s work and in my opinion he has been thoroughly vindicated.  As for Fauci, facts are facts and his denials today were on technicalities based on carefully chosen words.  But the Liberal media loves the guy so he’ll be protected.  The preposterous myth that Covid originated and evolved naturally will continue to be cited as fact, and in the end we will have learned nothing about the greatest man-made disaster since the atomic bomb.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, -fish- said:

cant quote from my phone, but:

"Though vaccinated people appear to be less likely to transmit the virus, it remains unclear just how much transmission could still happen. That’s because people’s viral load can vary widely in general; the reported decrease in viral loads in vaccinated people is small compared with the range of viral levels experts have seen in COVID-19 patients, Kilpatrick says."

so vaccinated people with a breakthrough case may carry less viral load, which can reduce transmission rates.  but the only study was Pfizer, and it was a small sample.

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/coronavirus-covid-19-pfizer-vaccine-may-reduce-transmission

 

 

 

 

Can you please post an example of a fully vaccinated person transmitting the virus? 

Thanks. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, KarmaPolice said:

actually it's gotten complicated trying to figure out when MSM is just promoting the liberal agenda and when it can be trusted.  

All the media should be somewhat tainted by their reporting.  One of the most dangerous things done recently by MSM was the bounties for American soldiers by the Russians.  All MSM was in an uproar about it.  Now that Biden is President it becomes low confidence intelligence.  It always was.  What if Trump had took it seriously and started some kind of attack due to this?  And before you say it  couldn't happen look at Iraq.  We had all kinds of CIA people insisting on Al Queida was in bed with Saddam.  You want to know who pushed both of these?  The intelligence community.    I am no Trump fan i don't think he has the personality to be a good president but he was elected and stuff like CIA leaking BS intelligence to the media is wrong.  Fox covering for Trump is also wrong.  The real problem is the media in the old days would disclose their sources if they were lied to.  Now it is just accepted.  One way to look at the media is take Fox and MSM and look at the articles from both.  Likely you can go by the middle case of them, meaning truth lies in the middle.  Sometimes it leans to one side or the other but there has been so much BS reported that is obviously wrong, like masks aren't needed when covid hit.

If you look at the biggest sources of TV and print media it leans heavily Democratic in it's reporting.  This shows up in the trust in media polls, Rep dont trust MSM, and according to the last poll i saw neither do independents.  And Fox is no better as trust goes.  The reason that it as powerful as it has been is because it is a rarity of an opposing voice in the MSM.  When things like the bounties and the Biden laptop being Russian were easy to find out that the stories were bogus.  How hard is it to check the email chains on the laptop and find other people in the lists to verify?  Why not ask the Central Command commander if he has verified the intellegence on the bounties?  How hard is it for Fox to report that Trump saying the election was stolen needs to be proved by more than his word.

Media has become about money not the news.  And we all whether your lean Dem or Rep lose out to keep the politicians in line.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

Can you please post an example of a fully vaccinated person transmitting the virus? 

Thanks. 

There are only 116 million people fully vaccinated.  Maybe they need a bigger sample size before they're convinced.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, ekbeats said:

You racist ignorant tin-foil hat conspiracy supporting anti-science low information voting Trump supporter.  Be gone!

It's a white building.  I think I'm safe. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, ekbeats said:

Steve Hilton at Fox News has done incredible work over the last few months on the origins of Covid and Fauci’s connection to the Wuhan lab gain of function research.  And he has been roundly ridiculed as a conspiracy theorist by Liberal lapdog media outlets:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/fox-news-pundit-steve-hilton-pushed-a-ridiculous-conspiracy-theory-that-dr-fauci-is-behind-the-coronavirus/ar-BB1d7Bkg
 

The Nicholas Wade piece that caused the dust up between Fauci and Paul today is the culmination of Hilton’s work and in my opinion he has been thoroughly vindicated.  As for Fauci, facts are facts and his denials today were on technicalities based on carefully chosen words.  But the Liberal media loves the guy so he’ll be protected.  The preposterous myth that Covid originated and evolved naturally will continue to be cited as fact, and in the end we will have learned nothing about the greatest man-made disaster since the atomic bomb.

Something the Wade article brought up was location.  The virus that can be found in the bats is caves in Southern China.  Wuhan is over 1500KM from these caves.  Another thing is time of the year.  When it first appeared in Wuhan the bats would have been already in hibernation.  Another thing that bothers me about Fauci is why no one asks him why it so unlikely that it could come from a lab?  Why is ok for the EcoHealth Alliance to hire out the Wuhan Lab for testing (be it gain of function or not) and then support the idea that when WHO goes to investigate it brings along the Eco Health alliance president to be the only American with access to be on the team?  This is like having Sean Hannity investigate the Trump election result...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

Can you please post an example of a fully vaccinated person transmitting the virus? 

Thanks. 

I wasn't aware that we are able to pinpoint with such perfect precision who is transmitting the virus in a nation that is doing essentially zero contact tracing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, dkp993 said:

If so considering Fauci is pretty GD smart the bar is set pretty high. 

 Intelligence is not always about your jobs.  I have done IT for over 20 years.  A buddy of mine used to be an auto mechanic i got him to be an IT guy.  Doctors/IT guys/mechanics basically do the same thing, troubleshooting.  Ever notice when an IT guy, or a mechanic, or a doctor do when you meet them?  They ask a ton of questions.  Each has gone through training in their field but the essentially do the same thing.  A Doctor takes longer to get good at but the intelligence is not all that different.  Do you want Fauci protecting you from a cyber attack?  Do you want Fauci  installing pistons in your car's engine?  Do you want the auto mechanic to be doing your open heart surgery?

People make mistakes that can cause pain or death, they may not be intentional or they could be just be lazy.  Intelligence is how you use the skills you are born with and the ability to learn and retain not by what job you have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
  • Create New...