placeholder

Actually, in the small city of Serrana which was part of an experiment to see how effective vaccination was, when the level reached 75% of all adults vaccinated, something like herd immunity was reached. 25% of the unvaccinated adults had already had covid. So together that's a bit over 80 percent. And this was with using coronavac which is not nearly as effective as stopping transmission as most other vaccines. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/city-brazil-returns-normal-after-almost-all-adults-get-vaccinated-against-covid-19-180977897/

Actually, that is the correct dosage: "The updated extract in section 6.6 states: Each vaccine dose of 0.5 ml is withdrawn into a syringe for injection to be administered intramuscularly" https://www.sehd.scot.nhs.uk/publications/DC20210108AstraZenica.pdf

The thing is. lots of people who claim to be interested in the truth, are using the VAERS as a source of evidence. Without highly sophisticated statistical techiques followed by actual physical follow through, it's useless. It's just being used as fuel for motivated reasoning.

What it says is that there is a vanishingly small number of people who are coming down with the flu. I have no idea why you are bringing vaccinations into this. It has nothing to do with your original false claim.

If you think that the measures taken to control covid haven't pretty much eliminated flu deaths. then you haven't been paying attention to the science. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6937a6.htm https://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/weeklyarchives2020-2021/week08.htm https://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/index.htm

The fact that you ask a question in the subject using the pejorative word "panicking" and then assert it is so in the body of the text gives your game away. You're clearly trying to cast aspersion on those who want to be vaccinated. As for this sentence of yours... "History may show the people who rushed to take any vaccine offered by the Thai government may not win the race for longevity." sure, anything is possible. But given the huge amount of evidence out there, it's vanishingly unlikely. And that you posit it at all, provides further confirmation of whe

You really think it's a sound argument to refer to what you believe will happen in the future. Especially when there's plenty of evidence in existence to show that you're wrong? If you follow the reports you would find that vaccines are still providing powerful protection against the latest variants. So, no, it doesn't look like we'll have to be taking "3, 4, 5 shots per year".

Just possibly Russians mistrust the vaccine because their government launched it before conducting Phase 3 trials. What kind of government cares so little about its citizens that it would do such a thing? Russia Approves Coronavirus Vaccine Before Completing Tests https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/11/world/europe/russia-coronavirus-vaccine-approval.html

As I pointed out elsewhere Marjorie Taylor Greene unraveled a long time ago. She's the person who contended that the Rothschilds wielded space lasers to start forest fires in California.

I doubt that. Why would he antagonize people he appointed? Rather, it's customary for a new administration to ask political appointees to resign.

I guess I'm in good company, then.

I was replying to this: Humans have been eating things they shouldn't for what, 50,000 years or so? And all of a sudden in late 2019 we have Covid-19? I'm sorry but you will never get me to believe that "animal to human jump" crock certain people would like us to believe.

Right. Next you'll be telling us that it's a crock about smallpox, tuberculosis, ebola, and HIV originating from animal sources, too.

Haven't found one yet for Ebola.

So by your own reasoning that vaccines "only prevent one becoming actually ill" means that they don't protect one? Does "protect" mean something different in New Zealand than it does in other parts of the English speaking world?