June_2021.md 14 KB
so what now? let's say we get to a place where all those who were maliciously, incompletently or selfishly pushing forward spike protein vaccines is somehow convinced to stop, arrested, or comes to their own conclusions (miraculously) that they were wrong what would things look like, at that point? well, it would seem like a gross error on the part of the organizations who supported these initiatives, if they were to admit that they were wrong about their recommendations so they would certainly do their best to distance themselves from any specific persons who changed their mind or were implicated as having done something wrong in fact, people who are identified might also have agreed to performing certain duties should circumstances call for them and this could include taking a fall for a larger organization, by going along with evidence which implicates their guilt the organizations themselves would have learned that they were able to go very far with a flawed rationalec exit It's downright embarrassing to witness so many casual discussions among professionals in public settings wherein they pretend as though they're hoping to find evidence that natural immunity might exist. The very premise of a "vaccine" to confer immunity in place of having to have actually be infected by the virus rests on the assumption that raising antibody titers and producing some circulating B cells is sufficient to ward off infections by a pathogen whose description is limited to an estimation which is not only an estimated specification, but is one which is always becoming more dated. The goal is never to produce a more robust response than a natural infection, but to produce a response which is "good enough" to never have to induce a natural reaction. One's incentive to choose such a path, however, rests purely on the assumption that the entropic event of definitely inducing a reaction is more desirable than the possible entropic event of being infected, proliferating the infection to the point of symptoms, and having an advancement of disease such that serious symptoms are evoked. This is entirely one's choice, but there is no question that the natural response, should one happen to find themselves having produced one (and given that one is healthy), will be not only unequivocably superior in deaing with the target pathogen, but will confer greater cross-reactive immunity. It's unimaginable to think of the implications of having a subset of academics who have been led to believe natural immunity still needs to prove its viability in the presence og "great vaccines". exit
It's downright embarrassing to witness casual discussions among professionals in public settings who pretend as though they're hoping to find evidence that natural immunity might exist.
The very premise of a "vaccine" to confer immunity in place of having to actually be infected by the virus rests on the assumption tha raising antibody titers and producing some circulating B cells is sufficient to ward off infections by a pathogen whose description is limited to an estimation of a specification which becomes increasingly dated.
The goal is to never have to produce the more response a more robust natural infection, but instead to produce the response which is "good enough".
One's incentive to choose one over the other rests purely on the assumption that a definite and explicit entropic event of inducing a reaction is more desirable than the possible entropic event of being infected, proliferating an infection to the point of symptoms, and having a progression of disease such that serious symptoms are evoked. This is entirely one's choice, but there is no question that the natural response, should one happen to find themselves having produced one (and given that one is healthy), will not only be inequivocably superior in dealing with the target pathogen, but will confer greater cross-reactive immunity.
It's unimaginable to think of the implications of having vocal subsets of professionals who have been led to believe natural immunity still needs to have its viability proven in the presence of "great vaccines".human rights human dignity these are things most people claim to believe in and things which people implicitly act as though they expect them for themselves but when it comes to prioritizing human dignity at the most immediate the argument for imposing vaccination on the basis of dignity and human rights is a bit too complex==============v
okay here we go so what was the topic of the day.. I believe we were talking about the tradeoffs which no one is really considering if we're celebrating the efficacy or assumed efficacy of this treatment, that means that we're not being critical fo the data perhaps some have no criticisms of the data and are thus happy to accept good news but for those who already have a criticism of the data, the fact of the new announcements don't really prove anything. In fact, there are additional questions based on how the conclusions to which we have arrived In particular, we are wondering if the same standards are employed when testing vaccinated and unvaccinated or whether, for example, the unvaccinated deceased who have tested positive for PCR are more likely to be considered as having died from covid-19, as opposed to a vaccinated person if, for example, there are already known cases of persons testing positive for SARS-CoV2, in spite of having been vaccinated (and, yes, there are), then it stands to reason that some might see this as evidence that testing positive might not be something one needs to worry about, particularly with the vaccinated. This could bias one's ability to diagnose a death vaccinated person's death as covid-19, compared to a similar, albeit unvaccinated, case. In fact, we already have the answer to some of these questions from the mouth of the CDC itself: "As of May 1, 2021, CDC transitioned from monitoring all reported vaccine breakthrough cases to focus on identifying and investigating only hospitalized or fatal cases due to any cause. This shift will help maximize the quality of the data collected on cases of greatest clinical and public health importance.
Previous data on all vaccine breakthrough cases reported to CDC from January–April 202So what does this mean? It means that for vaccinated persons, they were only considering them as being covid positive if that positive was discovered at a lower cycle threshold this means that for any vaccinated people who are in a hospital, they are far less likely to test positive for SARS-CoV 2, whereas the same problem if a highly permissive standard for positivity is being applied to all the non-vaccinated patients this gives us a very biased dataset to begin working from but then we still have to contend with the factor of unvaccinated persons, who test positive, but don't actually die of COVID-19, being counted as a covid death statistic that's completely ignoring those who have symtpoms that are consistent with COVID-19 then we also need to evaluate differences of bias in evaluating those who had the appropriate symptoms there are too many points of failure with unknown error margins, and it even still just fails to answer some more important questions for example, if someone is ocncerned about SARS-CoV2 ,t hen that' sall fine and good but are they not also concerned about future challenges to their lives? Are they not concerned that they might have other pathogens to deal with? Do they think that biasing their immune system towards a pathogen of modestly greater-than-average concern (compared to flu) is going to make them live longer? I know that, for example, I've compared Geert Vanden Bossche with Mike Yeadon, and hinted as to my opinion on which one is more plausibly correct in their analysis and we've also seen their discourse, unfortunately, devolve to a state where they're no longer willing to continue communicating on the subject But the prospect of selection pressures, regardless of how unlikely regarding coronaviruses, to produce escape variants is a valid theoretical concern and there are examples worth pointing to (are there?-> double check) Rather than being concerned about that 0.15% IFR pathogen which we already know about would you rather not be more concerned with being prepared to deal with the 50-80% IFR pathogen which no one has heard about? Would it not be better to prepare to survive the unsurvivable, rather than incur some cost in order to survive that which you might not even notice could even be a threat to you? exit
Sacrifice of a Child
Greatest gesture of subservience and submission Act of faith -> believe that the current state of the world, such as it is, can be a fate worse than death. We need to take a leap towards a different world, through making a personal sacrifice for the benefit of all - for the good, the deserving and unless we are able to make that sacrifice, we are not included in the good. The sacrifice makes you deserving of a better world.
Why
One is already in so deep, especially the adult mind with its layers of neurological noise and clumsily constructed structure of symbolic memory. One has become unable to look back, particularly on certain aspects of the world, and has thus assimilated a propensity to reinforce the sacrifices already made - a demonstration of the Sunken Cost fallacy, perhaps.
The Schools
Higher learning is making it mandatory for their campuses and residences. It's interesting as the campuses are already populated by the higher classes of society, and this allows them to potentiate greater opportunity to observe additional localized expression of excluding other dwellers of community.
Messaging
We are deep in cognitive dissonance when discussing the potential of SARS-CoV2 transmission among youth.
Either one is fear mongering children into believing they are in grave danger whenever in the presence of anyone (because they necessarily among the lowest risk group), or they are frightening them for having the capacity to kill one another's loved ones. What's even better is that capacity for educators and administrators to perceive their proximity to ripely passionate creatures in their age of vigour, and that this puts them at an unreasonable risk.
There is no way out of it, we either have a message of the young sacrificing themselves for the old, or we have a message to fear that which should be less fearful, which may very well oversensitize their fear in perpetuity. To be break one down into fearing the lowest possible risk might irreperably fracture the mind. It's comforting to some, however, that some may never complain about it (I believe this is because they're resilient).
What are the tradeoffs that no one is really considering, when celebrating the "observed efficacy" of a treatment. Does it mean that we're not being critical of the data? Should the benefit of having a celebration ellide the need to be critical of the data?
For those who already do criticize that data, the fact of there being a new announcement isn't really so groundbreaking. What's most groundbreaking about it, in fact, are the questions which come adjoined in declaring the findings.
For example, if the same standards have been employed in the testing of the vaccinated and unvaccinated. Or whether, for example, a deceased vaccinated individual with a positive test are more or less likely to be conidered as having died from the disease, in spite of having been vaccinated.
Issues which might affect one's perceived valence of probabilities include:
- sensationalist headlines of positively tested persons who were vaccinated that were revealed to be not have suffered symptoms
- suggestion that someone who died post-vaccination was not diagnosed as having been killed by the vaccine
Sacrificing a child In a great gesture of submission and subservience, as one acts to offer the necessary cost for incurring a threat (even so little as an afternoon of discomfort), one meets a marvelous call to action, in the name of civility, through offering up the child. The state of the world, such as it is, could even be a fate worse than death, as it's thought that the suffering in the wild is palpably greater than those rare events which happened to someone else's child. As, you see, to leave it be would mean allowing an element of injustice alongside death already unescapable.
Of course, if one weren't so certain, they might already be in too deep. The adult mind, with layers of neurological noise and a clumsily constructed structure of symbolic memory (though amazing and sophisticated, we can thankfully always do better). Unable to look back, one has assimilated a propensity to reinforce their sacrifices already made - a demonstration of the sunk cost fallacy.
Or is it just an evolved sense to acknowledge some tax to participate in community?
Higher learning makes this sacrifice mandatory for their campuses and residences. Campuses already populated by the higher classes of society - this allows them to potentiate enhanced opportunity to observe additional localized expressions of excluding other dwellers of the community.
What is the messaging? We are deep in cognitive dissonance when discussing the potential of SARS-CoV2 transmission among youth.
Either one is fear mongering children into believing they are in grave danger whenever in the presence of any human (already being in the lowest risk group), or they are frightening them as threats to one another's loved ones. What might even be better is the capacity for educators and administrators to perceive their proximity to ripely passionate creatures in their age of vigour as being an unreasonable risk in and of itself.
We either have a message of the young sacrificing themselves for the old, or we have a message to fear that which should be the least fearful, which may oversensitize their fear in perpetuity.
To be broken down into fearing the lowest possible risk might irreperably fracture the mind, though some won't even complain (I hear they're the resilient ones).