Maggie's Farm

That is incorrect. There is substantial evidence that COVID vaccination substantially reduces transmission, first by reducing the probability of infection, by reducing viral load and period of infectivity if infected, and consistent with what is already known from epidemiology. However, the protection against infection wanes over a period of a few months.

Hoss: Democrats had to redefine vaccine, because this wasn’t a vaccine.

It causes an immune response which results in the development of antibodies and immune memory. Why don't you think it's a vaccine?

Hoss: Not the first time, they did the same thing with recession

When exactly was recession "redefined"?

mudbug: s usual, you provide no support for your assertion that the exec did not admit that their vaccine was tested for stopping transmission but instead went on about another topic.

"No evidence that vac prevented transmission" was added by the editor, Bird Dog. See above. We were responding to that. (We will note, in light of your comments, that 'We Never Tested COVID Vaccine Against Transmission' appears to be a paraphrase, not a quote, even though it is enclosed with single quotation marks.)

Pfizer did not directly test whether COVID could be transmitted by breakthrough infections. However, if fewer people become infected, then it will reduce transmission. Also, if period and severity of infection are reduced, then it will reduce transmission. We know this from the fundamentals of epidemiology, and we know this from many follow-on studies.
https://www.gavi.org/vaccineswork/mounting-evidence-suggests-covid-vaccines-do-reduce-transmission-how-does-work

B. Hammer: Didn't know science had a speed.

Of course it does. Science is an accumulation of knowledge over time. Of note, the pace of science is faster now than it was in the past.

As for her specific comment, people were dying by the thousands, with millions at risk. mRNA technology allowed the rapid development of the vaccines, taking only weeks, but it had to be tested. Phased trials showed the vaccine significantly reduced the probability of contracting COVID with little sign of deleterious effects. Per protocol, once Phase 3 trials had been successfully completed, the vaccine was approved for distribution. But that's not the end of testing. Since then, billions of doses have been administered, millions of lives saved, with evidence of only rare deleterious effects.

B. Hammer: The quote was no paraphrase.

The quote is not in the article or in the video provided. Perhaps you could substantiate the quote.

B. Hammer: Good science, correct science, science that is looking for truth, does not have a speed.

Of course it does. As already noted, and you ignored, the pace of science is faster today than in the past. Furthermore, if a large asteroid were heading towards Earth, you would certainly expect the pace of research into the specific subject to increase substantially.

In any case, Phase 3 trials showed that the vaccine decreased the probability of disease. Even though they didn't directly test for a reduction in transmission, a reduction in disease occurrence will reduce the transmission rate of an infectious agent in a population. How did you think it worked? Of course, follow-on research showed the expected reduction. What wasn't known at the time was how long the protection would last.

SARS-CoV-2 was a novel coronavirus, meaning the human immune system had no memory of such a virus. When infected, it meant it could take a long time for the body to fight the disease, allowing the virus to replicate rapidly causing severe damage to the body. Vaccination or previous infection allows the body to recognize the virus in the future. So, while antibodies may wane, subsequent infection will be recognized and the body will quickly mount a defense, leading to either no infection or a much reduced viral load, again leading to lower transmission rates.

COVID vaccination has saved millions of lives. See Watson et al., Global impact of the first year of COVID-19 vaccination, The Lancet Infectious Diseases 2022.

jimg: You have absolutely no way of knowing this. Zero. None.

Z provides citation to peer-reviewed study in The Lancet.

j says, "Is not!"
 

Anon: Essentially Alex Jones got a {b}illion dollar judgement against him for claiming the Sandy Hook event didn't happen the way it was being presented in the media.

A jury found that Jones was liable for lying for money at the expense of the victims of Sandy Hook.

Anon: Should all reporters and public talking heads face the exact same risk. I can show you a million stories by thousands of reporters in the pat six years that are false and the reporters knew they were false. Should they all get billion dollar judgements against them?

The courtroom door is open.

Anon: There is a trainload of proof that it was stolen and could be proven in court if the courts would only take it up.

The courts did take it up. For instance,

Trump v. Pennsylvania: “Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy. Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here."
https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/203371np.pdf
 

Anon: But instead you cited an instance where the courts refused to take it up.

Appeals courts normally don't hear evidence, but decide matters of law. Regardless, they found "there is no clear evidence of massive absentee-ballot fraud or forgery. On the contrary, at oral argument in the District Court, the Campaign specifically disavowed any claim of fraud."

The District Court, which heard the evidence then dismissed the case, found, “One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption. That has not happened.”

Anon: Ask yourself if that judge still sits on the bench

The opinion was written by Stephanos Bibas, a Trump appointee, who still sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The other two judges who signed, Senior Judge D. Brooks Smith and Chief Judge Michael Chagares, also still sit on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
https://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/judges-biographies

The District Judge who heard the evidence then dismissed the case, Chief Judge Matthew W. Brann, is still on the bench.
https://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/content/chief-judge-matthew-w-brann

Lots of problems. First, the curve is based on Lindzen 2009, which Lindzen admitted included "some stupid mistakes...It was just embarrassing."

More specifically, the Earth's equilibrium temperature is about 33°C warmer than it would be without the greenhouse effect. The area under the curve should, therefore add up to 33°C. But it doesn't.

Yes, each additional unit of CO2 has less effect than the previous unit of CO2 (log), which is why climate sensitivity is stated per doubling of CO2. A variety of studies, using different methodologies, from studies of ice ages to volcanic eruptions to Earth's energy budget to calculations from first principles, indicate a climate sensitivity of about 2-4°C per doubling of CO2.

OneGuy: IF we decide to buy into the global warming scam then everyone must participate.

Global warming is occurring whether or not everyone agrees to "participate".

OneGuy: If I can't . . .

No response to the problem of anthropogenic global warming will be successful if it denies the benefits of modernity to the world's people. Not only is it untenable from a human perspective, but solving the problem will require economic growth and technological innovation to address.