Is the booster created by the government?
Flu shoot isn’t that uncommon , way before covid .
So what’s the problem ?

Jfc …
From your link right at the start ->

Rfk even go back 30 years about fauci and how he manipulated crisis like the aids one too lol .
Getting to understand why rfk as that coucou nest around him ….

Even had some garbage stuff about vaccine not being tested …
Typical stupid stuff from antivaxxxer again .

Ho well great source my dear man BJ .
You are welcome to learn science from conspiracy theorist …
At least he did good by monetizing the slurppers …

This is a great point that gets overlooked a lot.

What the hell does getting vaccinated have to do with the government?

No the Booster is created by Pfizer I do believe and pushed by the government

I have no problem if you want to get 10 boosters I was just saying most people are electing to not get past the first two shots
Why do you think that is

I’m double dosed and one booster and done

The flu shot and Covid vaccine are different types of vaccines

For the same reason people takes or not the annual flu shot shrug .
Obviously government rather see people takes it then not since many go to the hospital (wrongly) just for a regular cold , exacerbating hospitalization problems and cost.

If you are at high risk u should take both .
Personally I didn’t this year and I actually got sick for 3 days.
All good now .

Is it? I haven't noticed.

Don't forget there is more than one vaccine. Pfizer, Moderna, and Novavax in the US, for example,

Apathy, lethargy, ignorance, and misinformation.

Can you describe how, for example, Novavax and "the flu shot" are different types of vaccines and why that is relevant?

.

Well if you wish to look up the largest lawsuits you will find many are against pharmaceutical companies .

Please explain how this is misinformation? Tell me your reason so few individuals are getting booster shots people are still dying from Covid

One is a MRNA vaccine and one is not

The overall intake bivalent boosters in the US is 17%. But those >=65 are at 43.3%. The reason is that currently over 85% of the people dying from Covid are >=65.

But what is definitely weird is that blue states are covalent boosted at a much higher rate than red states. So overall in red states its about 20% to 25% and in blue states its 35% to 50%. With purple states above 30% for the most part (Nevada is lowish though).

Overall in the US people who are fully vaccinated are close to 70%. But people who are >= 65 are at 94.5% (and people >=18 are at 79%)

Looking at the weekly death rate in the US from Covid its currently at about 900 though in prior weeks it was at 1500 or so. So I would guess that about 37,500 to 75,000 people will die this year from Covid. And over 85% will be over 65.

So what this means is that for people >=65 it is probably between 1% to 1.5% dying each year who aren't vaccinated. This is going to include a substantial % of people who can't get vaccinated (like maybe half). Something like 2% to 3% of people can't get vaccinated due to medical conditions.

For people over 65 who have no booster its probably less than 1/10 of 1% (0.001) chance of dying from Covid but still it is likely 3x the death rate of those who have been bivalent boosted.

So my recommendation, if you are over 65, is to get the bivalent booster. I will be getting it soon (its been a little over a year since I was last boosted and I'm pretty sure it was an Omicron related booster). It will also likely reduce the chance of catching Covid the first few months after getting it and will also help reduce the viral load issues (so reduced long covid chances).

Ah, another Trumper claiming Covid is just like the flu. That theory was debunked by my boy Fauci: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...eadly-n1242340

LOL, so awesome.

Hey guys, look at the Wiki article, it says that the book will be absolutely factually spot on. I mean, look at that part of the article, not the rest of it. Ignore the rest of it, because well, it is wikipedia so you have take whatever they say with a huge grain of salt. But the parts I quoted, you don't have to take with a huge grain of salt because, well, they confirm what I already believe.

It must be because most people are highly educated about health and far more qualified than medical officials. I feel like such a fool for getting a booster a few months ago; I wish I had understood most people aren't getting it and what that means! :smacks head:

Sigh. Well I did suggest that people should read the book rather than take my word or wikipedia's on it. Kind of amazes me how people can rubbish a book without reading it but here we are.

I have no idea what question you are trying to answer with that.

Please explain how what is misinformation? The thing you just said? Why?

I already did. You even quoted my answer.

Wrong.

The Republican Party was spreading anti-vaccine garbage well before anyone knew who Dr. Fauci was, it was a highlight of both the 2012 debates and the 2016 debates. Modern GOP voters have a broken culture of irresponsibility and blind obedience to Trump so they're shamelessly trying to pin the blame on Dr. Fauci instead of holding their own leadership accountable for courting anti-scientific lunacy. If not Fauci, they'd be blaming Obama or immigrants or whatever.


https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fact-ch...es-and-autism/


I think it's because of disinformation pushed online by irresponsible people who reject traditional Western medicine in favor of conspiracy peddling nonsense.

And it's amazing to me that people think everyone's going to take the time to go get and read every book they recommend by a conspiracy theorist before deciding what to think about it. Since I haven't read the book myself, I'm not going to tell you what to think about it, but I've heard enough from RFK Jr. and read enough about the book to decide I don't need to read anything further. And I should add about RFK Jr., I listened to Lex Fridman's 2.5 hour interview with him several months ago, and it was quite interesting. It's not like the man is a drooling idiot and has nothing insightful to say about any topic, but unfortunately there are a few areas where his ideas are...not as well-founded as others.

So if you want to convince people that his book has lots of valid things to say about Fauci, you're going to have to do better than "you should read his book". But I understand from earlier posts that you don't care that much, which is fine. You'll remain convinced that RFK Jr. is correct that Fauci is "a genuinely bad human being", and others will not be.

Well if the author is a moron that lies constantly and every review of the book says that this book is just this moron lying again, why would anyone even bother reading it?

you mean when Fauci said not to wear masks?

There's a lot people completely miss on the mask discussion, with regards to Fauci's comments. Let's go over it here, for the record.

There are two main reasons one might wear a mask:

1) as PPE (personal protective equipment), ie to stop themselves from being infected by others.
2) as source control, ie to stop themselves from infecting others.

Of course, some combination of the two reasons is possible as well.

Now in most cases, 2 is not that important, since if you are sick, the simplest recommendation is to just stay home (thus eliminating any need to wear a mask). So, primarily the consideration for whether or not to wear masks at the start of the pandemic was reason #1.

And here's the thing: it's always been pretty clear that masks aren't great at #1 (outside of N95+ masks). They aren't useless, mind you, but they aren't great.

Fauci's original controversial mask comments were given with only reason #1 in mind. When you read his comments in full and in context, this is clear. It's also evident by the timeline.

When these comments were made, it was not yet known that covid was transmitted very efficiently in the presymptomatic period (ie before one even knows they are sick) and in completely asymptomatic cases. Once it became known that this was true, reason #2 became extremely important. This is the reason that unviersal masking was always the recommendation, not just wear one if you want to protect yourself.

So, before discussing Fauci's comments about masks, make sure you know the context of what he was saying, when he was saying it, and why he was saying it.

Mask up!

I know the context. the guy in charge of infectious disease told people not to wear masks. then he told them to wear masks. understandably, those conflicting statements caused some trust issues.

were I tasked with stopping a pandemic, then I would have told people to mask up until we figure out whats going on. but I dont think competency is a requirement for Fauci's position. esp considering how awful he handled the AIDS pandemic.

how does context change things here?

I thought he knew it was a wuhan virus?

???

One possible mistake that I believe was pretty common in many countries was a lack of transparency around how certain they were about advice, especially early on. Like going back to what Lozen brought up about the 6 foot distancing - it simply made logical sense to me at the time that 6 feet wasn't some magical distance that had gone through some rigorous medical study that determined it was the perfect distance to keep everyone completely safe; it was what they thought was a sensible compromise between safety and practicality. But was that clearly communicated? Or masks in the very early days - I think there was a lot of hesitancy to tell everyone to wear masks immediately as there were concerns around the available supply, and hoarding. Also not clearly communicated. Now that's all very easy to say in hindsight, to look back now and consider that more transparency then may have meant a reduced loss of confidence in authorities. At the time, they were likely concerned that if you waver at all, some will take that as a signal that they can just ignore the advice and do whatever they want. Now, it seems like it may have been a mistake.