Anti-vaxxers crumble as every prediction fails to come true

How do the above papers explain this:

— Deception: The Great Covid Cover-Up by Rand Paul
https://a.co/aYuEf6A

 

Blah, blah, blah. None of that refutes the self-evidently most likely way the virus got into the markets: someone taking sacrificed research animals from the garbage bins at the Wuhan Coronavirus Gain of Function Research Laboratory and selling them in the Huanan market to make a quick buck.

 

Plus:

— Deception: The Great Covid Cover-Up by Rand Paul
https://a.co/85rVNPP

 

Plus:

— Deception: The Great Covid Cover-Up by Rand Paul
https://a.co/cm5UyaM

 

The vaccines are both safe and effective. A few examples.

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/bl...es-prevented-millions-deaths-hospitalizations

From December 2020 through November 2022, we estimate that the COVID-19 vaccination program in the U.S. prevented more than 18.5 million additional hospitalizations and 3.2 million additional deaths. Without vaccination, there would have been nearly 120 million more COVID-19 infections. The vaccination program also saved the U.S. $1.15 trillion (Credible Interval: $1.10 trillion–$1.19 trillion) (data not shown) in medical costs that would otherwise have been incurred.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.08.08.22278547v6.full

Abstract
SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections in vaccinated individuals and reinfections among previously infected individuals have become increasingly common. Such infections highlight a broader need to understand the contribution of vaccination, including booster doses, and natural immunity to the infectiousness of persons with SARS-CoV-2 infections, especially in high-risk populations with intense transmission such as prisons. Here, we show that both vaccine-derived and naturally acquired immunity independently reduce the infectiousness of persons with Omicron variant SARS-CoV-2 infections in a prison setting. Analyzing SARS-CoV-2 surveillance data from December 2021 to May 2022 across 35 California state prisons with a predominately male population, we estimate that unvaccinated Omicron cases had a 36% (95% confidence interval (CI): 31-42%) risk of transmitting infection to close contacts, as compared to 28% (25-31%) risk among vaccinated cases. In adjusted analyses, we estimated that any vaccination, prior infection alone, and both vaccination and prior infection reduced an index case’s risk of transmitting infection by 22% (6-36%), 23% (3-39%) and 40% (20-55%), respectively. Receipt of booster doses and more recent vaccination further reduced infectiousness among vaccinated cases. These findings suggest that although vaccinated and/or previously infected individuals remain highly infectious upon SARS-CoV-2 infection in this prison setting, their infectiousness is reduced compared to individuals without any history of vaccination or infection, underscoring some benefit of vaccination to reduce but not eliminate transmission.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ariann...ts-and-common-misconceptions/?sh=1e9d979747c3

Though often the subject of misinformation, repeated studies show Covid vaccines are effective at providing protection against and developing severe Covid and hospitalization.

https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/covid-19-health/how-we-know-covid-19-vaccines-work

 

Ridiculous crap with not one iota of proof. The wet markets sell live animals. Duh. Post some proof of your silly opinion.

 

You praise safety estimates from medical and technical sources above but ridicule risk estimates and data from other medical and technical sources.

Why is that?

 

Rand Paul doesn’t understand what he is talking about. Sometimes it takes decades to find the animal origin. Where do his stats come from because epidemiological evidence says otherwise.

 

Why is it you can’t refute any science posted here with actual science rather than the opinions of biased anti-vaxxers. Explain how the number of deaths decreased radically after the vaccines were introduced. Explain why epidemiologists are wrong related to the data they collected. Explain why actual expert virologists are lying about the genetic origins of the Covid 19 virus. Explain why Rand is more knowledgeable than the majority of virologists who have stated and shown the zoonotic origins of the virus. Give real examples of Rands actual research, not opinion. Your responses are weak and show that your reliance on misinformation.

 

Rand Paul is quoting and referencing medical experts. Why do you constantly claim that journalists and/or authors who report on scientific studies don’t know anything or are unreliable?

 

I am posting data and estimates from medical and technical sources. Your refusal to acknowledge that facts is evidence of propagandizing.

Ask yourself “what information will it take to convince yourself that covid mRNA vaccines pose above average risks compared to other vaccines and therefore only those individuals at high risk to covid should be vaccinated”?

 

https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(21)00991-0

There is currently no evidence that SARS-CoV-2 has a laboratory origin. There is no evidence that any early cases had any connection to the WIV, in contrast to the clear epidemiological links to animal markets in Wuhan, nor evidence that the WIV possessed or worked on a progenitor of SARS-CoV-2 prior to the pandemic. The suspicion that SARS-CoV-2 might have a laboratory origin stems from the coincidence that it was first detected in a city that houses a major virological laboratory that studies coronaviruses. Wuhan is the largest city in central China with multiple animal markets and is a major hub for travel and commerce, well connected to other areas both within China and internationally. The link to Wuhan therefore more likely reflects the fact that pathogens often require heavily populated areas to become established

 

I prefer to believe experts in virology over a snivelling idiot from Kentucky who thinks he knows more about viruses and infectious diseases than the experts.

I investigate information and I point out biased unreliable sources and counter the information they present. This is called critical thinking which many of the journalists/authors you quote don’t seem to engage in.

 

What you are doing is claiming that there is a favorable risk benefit situation for people who are at very very low risk to Covid. That is called propaganda.

Are you in favor of vaccination for children 6 months old and above? Are you in favor of vaccination for pregnant women?

 

It's absurd and disingenuous to require "proof" of facts that are so difficult to establish or even discern, and have been so assiduously concealed. But other posters here have provided ample evidence, and you know it.

No, they almost exclusively sell dead ones. Duh. They are called "wet" markets because the floors are hosed down after vendors have cleaned the fish and other thoroughly dead animals they are selling. You didn't know that, because you are just makin' $#!+ up and saying anything you think you can get away with.

<yawn> Read and learn (if you can summon any willingness to learn anything):
https://oversight.house.gov/release...-science-evidence-point-to-a-wuhan-lab-leak/

 

You don’t appear to understand how vaccines work or how being vaccinated protects others.

 

https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/id/8beb38e8-fd35-417f-b053-2b92d93f23fa/9781000846294.pdf

Conspiracy theories related to covid from around the world.

 

The Huanan market where they suspect the virus came from sold live animals which they often slaughtered in the market. There are actually two strains of the virus involved which can’t be explained by a lab leak.

It is ridiculous for you to make an absurd claim that some janitor took bats from the Wuhan institute and sold them and that is how the virus came to originate from the market. Just as absurd as the Chinese claiming the virus came from Maine lobsters that were imported to China.

No actual cases of covid were definitely linked to the Wuhan institute. Of the 41 people initially hospitalized with pneumonia and shown to have the virus through testing, two-thirds of them were linked to the Huanan market, none of them to the Wuhan institute. There were environmental samples taken from the market that indicated evidence of the covid virus. There was no genetic evidence of the virus within the institute.

 

You appear unable to answer simple questions?

 

Critical thinking involves not ignoring and denying evidence that conflicts with your preconceived or biased opinions.

I’ve pointed out numerous lines of evidence that conflict with your opinions in this thread. You continue to post things in conflict with evidence without even examining the evidence.

That is not critical thinking.

 

Are these the questions you want answered? They seem fairly generic but I will answer them.

I assume you are talking about covid vaccinations. Generally, a child with no underlying health conditions that would put them at serious risk would need a vaccination. Most parents in the UK feel this way which is why there has been such a low uptake of vaccines in school-aged children. However, since the vaccine can lesson the chances of transmission, a parent might want to consider getting a child vaccinated if they are living with people who have serious underlying conditions.

I am in favour of vaccination for pregnant women if they have any risks that would predispose them to serious illness or death. There aren’t really any concerns for healthy women related to getting to covid nor any concerns for the fetus.
Despite your erroneous assumptions about me, I don’t think it’s necessary for everyone to get the vaccine. It depends on the circumstances of each individual in terms of their health status and their living circumstances.

 

FFS, the snivelling troll from Kentucky, opens his book with the following words:

So, in other words, he opened his book with a lie. No scientist would ever resort to this kind of bullmerde.

 

Where is the lie?

— Deception: The Great Covid Cover-Up by Rand Paul
https://a.co/f9KVeM0

 

No; almost all the animals -- especially bats and other mammals that could carry coronavirus -- are sold dead. You are just objectively wrong. Again.

Your claims continue to be just outright false. The lab was conducting gain of function research on coronaviruses, and it would be normal for such research to create multiple new strains of the virus. You are just objectively wrong. Again.

No, your claims continue to be just false. It is not ridiculous at all. In fact, it is quite plausible.

No, because lobsters don't carry coronaviruses. The bats and other animals the Wuhan Coronavirus Gain of Function Research Laboratory uses do.

Irrelevant. I've explained one very plausible way the virus could have got from the institute to the market without first infecting anyone in the institute.

According to the institute and the Chinese government, anyway...

So, why did the institute delete its online database of novel coronavirus gene sequences a few months before the pandemic began?

 

Lol.