So you are saying that if you survive a virus you do not have a protective immune system response? Does science (AKA Dr, Faucci) know that it's wrong and that vaccines don't really work since that act upon that principle? Nobody is breaking out any champagne as they are talking about likely possibilities and not absolutes.
1. No. There will be a degree of protective immune response, ranging from low to high...the metrics depending on a number of variables such as the state of their immune system / whether they have at risk comorbidities / whether they are immuno compromised, the timespan from initial exposure / vaccination, to subsequent breakthrough infection etc, etc, etc. There will be a number of nitwits who will see a talking head in a lab coat saying that they will be protected from future infection, but not thinking of it in probabilistic terms. The bobblehead in a lab-coat 'said that they were protected', so they are good to go wherever...to a political rally, a family reunion, or a megachurch service, ignoring the risks concerned, to them and others, and the necessity of taking preventive measures such as social distancing etc. The same flawed thinking occurs when surprised individuals are amazed to learn that they had caused a pregnancy, or contracted an STD, (or both) even though they wore a condom. The black and white thinking of some people will be the death of them, and others, when shades of grey will indicate that the degree of risk, and protection that is offered by natural infection and/or vaccination is actually relative. Your sentence lacks clarity. Although you may know what you are trying to say, it doesn't come clearly in what you have expressed. 2. Although Dr Fauci is a qualified medical doctor, and has undertaken medical research, he is not 'Science', and 'Science' is not Dr Fauci...personifying science as an individual and vice versa may be an interesting rhetorical device, but it contributes little of any worth to the discussion. It does play well to the biases of those who are science skeptics and anti-Fauci though. 3. What "is wrong"? you have not indicated what it is that you feel that science / Fauci has wrong. 4. You haven't indicated what it is about the various vaccines that is not working. Or how they are ineffective. 5. What is the principle applied to anti-Covid19 vaccines which render render them ineffectual (not working)? 6. Fixed. have put a sarcasm emote in the appropriate place in post #60 At this stage the scientific community are not making definitive pronouncements on what those possibilities may be (likely or otherwise) just yet, without further real world data, and more research. Their announcements thus far have generally been very tentative, though that hasn't stopped some loony-toons from making all kinds claims without any reliable evidence. I am much more interested in the consensus of credible science, rather than individuals who are carny barking their preferred 'magic bullet'. It should be noted, that even when the scientific consensus makes a claim with a high degree of confidence, it is in the nature of science to be tentative, subject to revision, should new data or better methods of research / improved technology suggests a rethink on the subject. 7. That would be a nuance lost to a number of people who are anti-vaccine cynics / science skeptics I would like to know the probabilities, more so than the possibilities, as interesting as the possibilities may be.
sorry , Just food , see if you need just watch the cooking or taste VT The Pandemic Narrative Becomes Even More Ridiculous
backup of the quick photo posted above ! Now you should see the connect https://www.bitchute.com/video/rDQa8wTxmHqj/ S
Found this out and about, and the line "Introduced to help offset global inflation"! So, it is NOT about fighting a virus. Surprise, Surprise. U.S. Announces New Travel Restrictions as Scientists Give New COVID Variant The Name Omicron - A Strategic New Variant Introduced to Help Offset Global Inflation - The Last Refuge
