Select to expand quote

FormulaNova said..
"Freedom! I want freedom to not wear a mask...

Wasn't that long ago FN that people (potentially even the same people) were moaning the end of the world was here because of facial recognition technology and the imposition of a social credit system.

But - back then they all wanted to wear a mask and were complaining that the grubberment was about to make the wearing of hoddies and face coverings in public as illegal.

Now they are refusing to wear a mask in public and complaining that the goubberment is about to make not wearing face coverings illegal.


What if you told them wearing a mask stops facial recognition working ?

Select to expand quote

Carantoc said..

FormulaNova said..
"Freedom! I want freedom to not wear a mask...

Wasn't that long ago FN that people (potentially even the same people) were moaning the end of the world was here because of facial recognition technology and the imposition of a social credit system.

But - back then they all wanted to wear a mask and were complaining that the grubberment was about to make the wearing of hoddies and face coverings in public as illegal.

Now they are refusing to wear a mask in public and complaining that the goubberment is about to make not wearing face coverings illegal.


What if you told them wearing a mask stops facial recognition working ?

Good point but most of them wouldn't understand.

Select to expand quote

Carantoc said..

FormulaNova said..
"Freedom! I want freedom to not wear a mask...

Wasn't that long ago FN that people (potentially even the same people) were moaning the end of the world was here because of facial recognition technology and the imposition of a social credit system.

But - back then they all wanted to wear a mask and were complaining that the grubberment was about to make the wearing of hoddies and face coverings in public as illegal.

Now they are refusing to wear a mask in public and complaining that the goubberment is about to make not wearing face coverings illegal.


What if you told them wearing a mask stops facial recognition working ?

What if you told them...? well, nothing. You would need to put it into a really simple meme for them to understand or a youtube video. Maybe a trite image showing someone else saying it?

Please don't focus on the lack of logic otherwise the whole house of cards would fall down.

Oops..

www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/emergency-nurse-tests-positive-for-covid19-eight-days-after-vaccination/news-story/f7239b0b0546f810c9a0d7258e6dd8bd

Select to expand quote

psychomub said..
Oops..

www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/emergency-nurse-tests-positive-for-covid19-eight-days-after-vaccination/news-story/f7239b0b0546f810c9a0d7258e6dd8bd

Well, not really an oops, but pretty normal. Its not like you are injecting your body with things to fight off the virus, you are injecting your body with something that looks like the virus to make the body want to fight off the virus. I.e. its not instaneous, and its up to your body to do the fighting.

""We know from the vaccine clinical trials that it's going to take about 10 to 14 days for you to start to develop protection from the vaccine," Dr Ramers said."

Select to expand quote

FormulaNova said..

psychomub said..
Oops..

www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/emergency-nurse-tests-positive-for-covid19-eight-days-after-vaccination/news-story/f7239b0b0546f810c9a0d7258e6dd8bd

Well, not really an oops, but pretty normal. Its not like you are injecting your body with things to fight off the virus, you are injecting your body with something that looks like the virus to make the body want to fight off the virus. I.e. its not instaneous, and its up to your body to do the fighting.

""We know from the vaccine clinical trials that it's going to take about 10 to 14 days for you to start to develop protection from the vaccine," Dr Ramers said."

I don't think that's how it works. The article shows a picture of the Pfizer vaccine, which isn't using a weakened live or dead virus to force the body to develop immunity...

www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/different-vaccines/mrna.html

So if I understand it right, you'd test positive for antibodies eventually, but not the virus itself. Depends what you test for.

Select to expand quote

Kamikuza said..

FormulaNova said..

psychomub said..
Oops..

www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/emergency-nurse-tests-positive-for-covid19-eight-days-after-vaccination/news-story/f7239b0b0546f810c9a0d7258e6dd8bd

Well, not really an oops, but pretty normal. Its not like you are injecting your body with things to fight off the virus, you are injecting your body with something that looks like the virus to make the body want to fight off the virus. I.e. its not instaneous, and its up to your body to do the fighting.

""We know from the vaccine clinical trials that it's going to take about 10 to 14 days for you to start to develop protection from the vaccine," Dr Ramers said."

I don't think that's how it works. The article shows a picture of the Pfizer vaccine, which isn't using a weakened live or dead virus to force the body to develop immunity...

www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/different-vaccines/mrna.html

So if I understand it right, you'd test positive for antibodies eventually, but not the virus itself. Depends what you test for.

Isn't that essentially the same thing though. you are introducing something into your body that looks like the virus, in this case a particular protein that the virus has, and the body creates anytibodies against anything with that protein. The important point I am trying to make is that immunity is not instant, its making your body respond to something, which takes a while. Which easily explains why people can catch the virus while having had the vaccine. If on the other hand you get the virus after that 2 weeks or so...

"Not mRNA vaccines. Instead, they teach our cells how to make a protein-or even just a piece of a protein-that triggers an immune response inside our bodies. That immune response, which produces antibodies, is what protects us from getting infected if the real virus enters our bodies."

Wasn't the antibody test the reason they stopped the other trial as the antibodies looked like you had a response to HIV, whereas it was just the response to the engineered deactivated virus they were using. No chance of getting HIV, but enough of a negative perception that they though the public would not accept it.

Select to expand quote

FormulaNova said..

Kamikuza said..

FormulaNova said..

psychomub said..
Oops..

www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/emergency-nurse-tests-positive-for-covid19-eight-days-after-vaccination/news-story/f7239b0b0546f810c9a0d7258e6dd8bd

Well, not really an oops, but pretty normal. Its not like you are injecting your body with things to fight off the virus, you are injecting your body with something that looks like the virus to make the body want to fight off the virus. I.e. its not instaneous, and its up to your body to do the fighting.

""We know from the vaccine clinical trials that it's going to take about 10 to 14 days for you to start to develop protection from the vaccine," Dr Ramers said."

I don't think that's how it works. The article shows a picture of the Pfizer vaccine, which isn't using a weakened live or dead virus to force the body to develop immunity...

www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/different-vaccines/mrna.html

So if I understand it right, you'd test positive for antibodies eventually, but not the virus itself. Depends what you test for.

Which easily explains why people can catch the virus while having had the vaccine. If on the other hand you get the virus after that 2 weeks or so...

More than 2 weeks. All the vaccines getting publicity in the west require 2 doses. Old Mrs Keenan, the first woman in Britain to get the shot after it was approved, was shown getting her 2nd shot on the news today.
I saw something suggesting that the Oxford vaccine has a 12 week wait between the 2 jabs.


EDIT Hot off the press
Less than a week before taking office, 41-year-old Louisiana Congressman-elect Luke Letlow has died from COVID-19
Louisiana GOP Congressman-elect Luke Letlow died from COVID-19 less than two weeks after announcing that he tested positive for the virus. He was set to be sworn into Congress on Sunday. Letlow, who was 41-years-old, had been in the ICU since December 23.

The article didn't say if he dismissed the virus, but the pic accompanying didn't show a morbidly obese person. At 41, he's younger than most of us.

Select to expand quote

Mr Milk said..

FormulaNova said..

Kamikuza said..

FormulaNova said..

psychomub said..
Oops..

www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/emergency-nurse-tests-positive-for-covid19-eight-days-after-vaccination/news-story/f7239b0b0546f810c9a0d7258e6dd8bd

Well, not really an oops, but pretty normal. Its not like you are injecting your body with things to fight off the virus, you are injecting your body with something that looks like the virus to make the body want to fight off the virus. I.e. its not instaneous, and its up to your body to do the fighting.

""We know from the vaccine clinical trials that it's going to take about 10 to 14 days for you to start to develop protection from the vaccine," Dr Ramers said."

I don't think that's how it works. The article shows a picture of the Pfizer vaccine, which isn't using a weakened live or dead virus to force the body to develop immunity...

www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/different-vaccines/mrna.html

So if I understand it right, you'd test positive for antibodies eventually, but not the virus itself. Depends what you test for.

Which easily explains why people can catch the virus while having had the vaccine. If on the other hand you get the virus after that 2 weeks or so...

More than 2 weeks. All the vaccines getting publicity in the west require 2 doses. Old Mrs Keenan, the first woman in Britain to get the shot after it was approved, was shown getting her 2nd shot on the news today.
I saw something suggesting that the Oxford vaccine has a 12 week wait between the 2 jabs.


EDIT Hot off the press
Less than a week before taking office, 41-year-old Louisiana Congressman-elect Luke Letlow has died from COVID-19
Louisiana GOP Congressman-elect Luke Letlow died from COVID-19 less than two weeks after announcing that he tested positive for the virus. He was set to be sworn into Congress on Sunday. Letlow, who was 41-years-old, had been in the ICU since December 23.

The article didn't say if he dismissed the virus, but the pic accompanying didn't show a morbidly obese person. At 41, he's younger than most of us.

There's always outliers. The median doesn't make the news.

Zombie apocalypse on our doorstep.....

Select to expand quote

hashbrown said..

Hashbrown??? Nah! More like Hashcookie!!!

Woohoo! Heavy weather is back, it just has dumb memes for the idiots that can't understand anything else.

Select to expand quote

psychojoe said..

Mr Milk said..

FormulaNova said..

Kamikuza said..

FormulaNova said..

psychomub said..
Oops..

www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/emergency-nurse-tests-positive-for-covid19-eight-days-after-vaccination/news-story/f7239b0b0546f810c9a0d7258e6dd8bd

Well, not really an oops, but pretty normal. Its not like you are injecting your body with things to fight off the virus, you are injecting your body with something that looks like the virus to make the body want to fight off the virus. I.e. its not instaneous, and its up to your body to do the fighting.

""We know from the vaccine clinical trials that it's going to take about 10 to 14 days for you to start to develop protection from the vaccine," Dr Ramers said."

I don't think that's how it works. The article shows a picture of the Pfizer vaccine, which isn't using a weakened live or dead virus to force the body to develop immunity...

www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/different-vaccines/mrna.html

So if I understand it right, you'd test positive for antibodies eventually, but not the virus itself. Depends what you test for.

Which easily explains why people can catch the virus while having had the vaccine. If on the other hand you get the virus after that 2 weeks or so...

More than 2 weeks. All the vaccines getting publicity in the west require 2 doses. Old Mrs Keenan, the first woman in Britain to get the shot after it was approved, was shown getting her 2nd shot on the news today.
I saw something suggesting that the Oxford vaccine has a 12 week wait between the 2 jabs.


EDIT Hot off the press
Less than a week before taking office, 41-year-old Louisiana Congressman-elect Luke Letlow has died from COVID-19
Louisiana GOP Congressman-elect Luke Letlow died from COVID-19 less than two weeks after announcing that he tested positive for the virus. He was set to be sworn into Congress on Sunday. Letlow, who was 41-years-old, had been in the ICU since December 23.

The article didn't say if he dismissed the virus, but the pic accompanying didn't show a morbidly obese person. At 41, he's younger than most of us.

There's always outliers. The median doesn't make the news.

Yes, you are right. He probably made the news because he was a congressman. All the other younger people that have died from it have been ignored.

Good point!

Select to expand quote

FormulaNova said..

Kamikuza said..

FormulaNova said..

psychomub said..
Oops..

www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/emergency-nurse-tests-positive-for-covid19-eight-days-after-vaccination/news-story/f7239b0b0546f810c9a0d7258e6dd8bd

Well, not really an oops, but pretty normal. Its not like you are injecting your body with things to fight off the virus, you are injecting your body with something that looks like the virus to make the body want to fight off the virus. I.e. its not instaneous, and its up to your body to do the fighting.

""We know from the vaccine clinical trials that it's going to take about 10 to 14 days for you to start to develop protection from the vaccine," Dr Ramers said."

I don't think that's how it works. The article shows a picture of the Pfizer vaccine, which isn't using a weakened live or dead virus to force the body to develop immunity...

www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/different-vaccines/mrna.html

So if I understand it right, you'd test positive for antibodies eventually, but not the virus itself. Depends what you test for.

Isn't that essentially the same thing though. you are introducing something into your body that looks like the virus, in this case a particular protein that the virus has, and the body creates anytibodies against anything with that protein. The important point I am trying to make is that immunity is not instant, its making your body respond to something, which takes a while. Which easily explains why people can catch the virus while having had the vaccine. If on the other hand you get the virus after that 2 weeks or so...

"Not mRNA vaccines. Instead, they teach our cells how to make a protein-or even just a piece of a protein-that triggers an immune response inside our bodies. That immune response, which produces antibodies, is what protects us from getting infected if the real virus enters our bodies."

Wasn't the antibody test the reason they stopped the other trial as the antibodies looked like you had a response to HIV, whereas it was just the response to the engineered deactivated virus they were using. No chance of getting HIV, but enough of a negative perception that they though the public would not accept it.

I don't think so -- the Pfizer etc mRNA thingy tells cells to make the spike proteins that then get attacked by T-cells, so when the SARS virus shows up with *its* spike-protein covered self, it gets attacked by the now-educated T-cells. There's none of the original virus involved.

Again, I don't think so -- it will depend on the test used: www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/coronavirus-disease-2019-testing-basics

AFAIK the RT-PCR test is the main one being used...? So if you used anti-body tests on someone who's had the vaccine, they'd test positive but that wouldn't actually tell you if they had the viral infection, I guess.

You're right about the negative perception though.

Select to expand quote

FormulaNova said..
Yes, you are right. He probably made the news because he was a congressman. All the other younger people that have died from it have been ignored.

Good point!

Said it before but -- under-40, flu is more deadly. Selection bias.

Select to expand quote

Kamikuza said..

FormulaNova said..

Kamikuza said..

FormulaNova said..

psychomub said..
Oops..

www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/emergency-nurse-tests-positive-for-covid19-eight-days-after-vaccination/news-story/f7239b0b0546f810c9a0d7258e6dd8bd

Well, not really an oops, but pretty normal. Its not like you are injecting your body with things to fight off the virus, you are injecting your body with something that looks like the virus to make the body want to fight off the virus. I.e. its not instaneous, and its up to your body to do the fighting.

""We know from the vaccine clinical trials that it's going to take about 10 to 14 days for you to start to develop protection from the vaccine," Dr Ramers said."

I don't think that's how it works. The article shows a picture of the Pfizer vaccine, which isn't using a weakened live or dead virus to force the body to develop immunity...

www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/different-vaccines/mrna.html

So if I understand it right, you'd test positive for antibodies eventually, but not the virus itself. Depends what you test for.

Isn't that essentially the same thing though. you are introducing something into your body that looks like the virus, in this case a particular protein that the virus has, and the body creates anytibodies against anything with that protein. The important point I am trying to make is that immunity is not instant, its making your body respond to something, which takes a while. Which easily explains why people can catch the virus while having had the vaccine. If on the other hand you get the virus after that 2 weeks or so...

"Not mRNA vaccines. Instead, they teach our cells how to make a protein-or even just a piece of a protein-that triggers an immune response inside our bodies. That immune response, which produces antibodies, is what protects us from getting infected if the real virus enters our bodies."

Wasn't the antibody test the reason they stopped the other trial as the antibodies looked like you had a response to HIV, whereas it was just the response to the engineered deactivated virus they were using. No chance of getting HIV, but enough of a negative perception that they though the public would not accept it.

I don't think so -- the Pfizer etc mRNA thingy tells cells to make the spike proteins that then get attacked by T-cells, so when the SARS virus shows up with *its* spike-protein covered self, it gets attacked by the now-educated T-cells. There's none of the original virus involved.

Again, I don't think so -- it will depend on the test used: www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/coronavirus-disease-2019-testing-basics

AFAIK the RT-PCR test is the main one being used...? So if you used anti-body tests on someone who's had the vaccine, they'd test positive but that wouldn't actually tell you if they had the viral infection, I guess.

You're right about the negative perception though.

That's why I said it 'looks like the virus' and not 'it is a deactivated virus'. Clearly you need to make the body react to something that is the same as the virus you are trying to protect against.

The actual response to the virus is a normal reaction of the body, but you are priming it first to recognise it before it can get enough presence in the body.

Yeah, the methods of testing for the virus I hadn't looked at. As you say, there are multiple ways to test for its presence or previous presence.

This is all a moot discussion though as the iluminati are going to not let us survive and are going to have us all living under a bridge with our silver ingots.

Select to expand quote

Kamikuza said..

FormulaNova said..
Yes, you are right. He probably made the news because he was a congressman. All the other younger people that have died from it have been ignored.

Good point!

Said it before but -- under-40, flu is more deadly. Selection bias.

I was trying to be a bit cheeky there as Psychojoe seemed to be trying to say, but never actually said, that this case was an outlier. It could be, but I think it was newsworthy because of the congressman line.

What do you mean by selection bias? That people under 40 that get it are more likely to die, or that its reported more, or something else?

Less than 400 deaths in England under 60 out of 63 000 so why the need for widespread lockdowns?

Why shut large sections of the economy down when you are going to hurt / impoverish a hundred times more people than you are going to help?

Then factor in the underlying other conditions the 400 deaths had and their policy of strict lockdown for all makes even less sense.

A good percentage of businesses are forecast to never recover.

Select to expand quote

hashbrown said..
Less than 400 deaths in England under 60 out of 63 000 so why the need for widespread lockdowns?

Why shut large sections of the economy down when you are going to hurt / impoverish a hundred times more people than you are going to help?

Then factor in the underlying other conditions the 400 deaths had and their policy of strict lockdown for all makes even less sense.

A good percentage of businesses are forecast to never recover.

Maybe people feel bad for killing off the older people?

I am sure its fine thinking that 'whats a few years matter', but it probably matters a lot when you are that age.

With the Spanish Flu, it was not just older people that died, so what makes you think this would be different if it spread freely across the community?

Letting the old live their last few years happy makes more sense.

Keeping them locked up in nursery homes with limited contact to loved ones is immoral by anyone's standard.

A sure way to shorten their life.

Select to expand quote

hashbrown said..
Letting the old live their last few years happy makes more sense.

Keeping them locked up in nursery homes with limited contact to loved ones is immoral by anyone's standard.

A sure way to shorten their life.

How is that 'immoral by anyone's standards'? You are putting words into other people's mouths. To me 'immoral' is putting your short term discomfort ahead of someone else's life.

With older people dying within weeks or months, you are saying its better for them to live this painful couple of weeks than a couple more years? Another 10 years? Another 20 years? Its not like the few weeks or months of close contact with their loved ones will be comfortable. If they catch Corona virus it could be very uncomfortable.

Somehow you would prefer an older person to suffer 3 weeks of pain and then die because they got to see their relatives for a visit or two? Sounds a bit twisted to me. Somehow you think they will live for 'years' with Corona virus.

If I were a conspiracy theorist, I would think it would be better in the new world order to kill them all off instead of trying to protect them, but maybe logic does not apply in this case?

No. It's research and development.