Truckulent:
A few hours earlier the British [zb] Corporation were hinting the opposite.
Were they? Any links please?
Truckulent:
As I’ve already said, anyone with any basic knowledge of how a virus works will confidently predict that ALL variants for a considerable time will be quashed by the vaccine.
Where does that come from?
Truckulent:
“New” strains are being mentioned that “may evade the vaccines” to keep the fear and control going.
“MAY” is a word that expresses possibility. It does not, or at least shouldn`t, be understood to give “hints” or suggest a likelihood. It is a neutral term.
Franglais:
Truckulent:
A few hours earlier the British [zb] Corporation were hinting the opposite.
Were they? Any links please?
Truckulent:
As I’ve already said, anyone with any basic knowledge of how a virus works will confidently predict that ALL variants for a considerable time will be quashed by the vaccine.
Where does that come from?
Truckulent:
“New” strains are being mentioned that “may evade the vaccines” to keep the fear and control going.
“MAY” is a word that expresses possibility. It does not, or at least shouldn`t, be understood to give “hints” or suggest a likelihood. It is a neutral term.
“May” is not a word that should be used when they are 99% sure it won’t. May is not quite neutral, it implies a likelihood of occurring far greater than the reality in this case. “Extremely unlikely” would be a better phrase - but isn’t used for reasons I’ve already gone into.
Sadly, the BBC have removed the article (so far as I can tell) in favour of the “Pfizer and Zeneca Work” story…
Basically, they aren’t reporting news. They’re reporting opinion and using words like “may” to get around the fact that they don’t know, but selling newspapers and click bait is easier when jumping on the “fear”
bandwagon.
The bit about mutations not yet having enough “poke” to evade the virus is broadly the opinion of a friend of mine. He has a PhD in pharmacy, has worked for a large pharmaceutical company developing all sorts of medication (including vaccines) and sat on various government committees etc. He is of the view that a “super strain” is unlikely to be forthcoming in the near future, given the effectiveness of the vaccines we have. Ok, it’s just his view. But after 40 years in the job he isnt just a pub expert. Also, everything he has predicted to happen thus far in this charade has done…
You pay your money and make your choice.
Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk
I have noticed that virologists etc say what might happen instead of looking at what is actually happening
I could say the same for the media who seem to want to make a mountain out of a mole hill
ROG:
I have noticed that virologists etc say what might happen instead of looking at what is actually happening
I could say the same for the media who seem to want to make a mountain out of a mole hill
Even when the media is neutral some read into reports what isnt there. There is exaggeration too often, in some quarters more than others, but when there isnt some provide their own hyped up interpretation.
Warning of a possible serious consequence, seems to be morphed in such a way that the more serious the possible outcome, the reader thinks it more likely?
There is a difference between the likelihood of an outcome and it`s possible seriousness.
And it is absolutely correct that virologists and epidemiologists should point to possible outcomes.
How else can we take actions to avoid possible bad outcomes?
Franglais:
ROG:
I have noticed that virologists etc say what might happen instead of looking at what is actually happening
I could say the same for the media who seem to want to make a mountain out of a mole hill
Even when the media is neutral some read into reports what isnt there. There is exaggeration too often, in some quarters more than others, but when there isnt some provide their own hyped up interpretation.
Warning of a possible serious consequence, seems to be morphed in such a way that the more serious the possible outcome, the reader thinks it more likely?
There is a difference between the likelihood of an outcome and it`s possible seriousness.
And it is absolutely correct that virologists and epidemiologists should point to possible outcomes.
How else can we take actions to avoid possible bad outcomes?
If you spend your life worrying about what might happen you’d never get out of bed.
The medics are currently in a state of panic because at the start of this situation they ■■■■■■ up big time - and are anxious to avoid a repeat of their failings. This is making an already cautious profession far more cautious.
If we continue to follow the current thinking nothing will ever return to normal because the tiny chance of a “super strain” will always be there. Indefinitely.
Covid will have to be treated like flu and a small number of deaths accepted.
Sure, we need to keep looking into Covid and better ways to deal with it. But scaremongering is going to result in folk thinking “scientists cry wolf”, and, should a “killer strain” appear, folk won’t take it seriously. “They’re off again, nowt to worry about, it’s been fine on every other occasion they’ve panicked”.
If these scientist really want to save lives, they need to start looking into sorting cancer, heart disease, dementia etc.
Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk
Franglais:
Covid: Pfizer and AstraZeneca jabs work against Indian variant - study
Current vaccines highly effective, after two doses, against India variant.
Yeah right so ‘highly effective’ that all the bs ‘vaccine passport’ plans are off and most of Europe is a no go area.
ROG:
I have noticed that virologists etc say what might happen instead of looking at what is actually happening
I could say the same for the media who seem to want to make a mountain out of a mole hill
You could do a lot worse than digest all the details contained in agenda 30.
Everything the media do and say is deliberate and under the control of government.
This is probably 50% about control but the ‘virus’ and where it originated is also an unarguable fact to that end.
Which just leaves the motivation for it by joing the dots using logical deduction.
China threw down the gauntlet probably twice, ( first with 9/11 it was no plane that hit the Pentagon ) and the rest follows from that, and the elites have too much too lose and have more to gain by selling out the free world to Communism. 
Truckulent:
If these scientist really want to save lives, they need to start looking into sorting cancer, heart disease, dementia etc.
You mean ‘scientists’ working to Bill Gates’ stated depopulation aims and/or working with China to create human ape hybrids and virus ‘gain of function’ ‘research’.Or Fauci’s, among others, links with the CCP and Wuhan lab.Those ‘scientists’.
The govt has by buying advertising re the covid farce saved some mainstream medias from going under, what chance a free press able to question a narrative when it’s obvious the implications of this strategy.
The only station 'm aware of still taking the mickey during their between records quips is Union Jack…possibly Jack Radio in its entirety but i listen to UJ in particular.
Couple of other indy radio stations are mere shadows of their former selves, pro vaccine rhetoric has been noticeably more on message, sickeningly so in some cases, will they really allow their own children to be part of this experiment when they come for them?
Blinding us with science…
Soon the master plan will appear, and those currently not working and not intending retirement - are likely to be in for a shock once they find out that their old job has since been taken over by someone else, likely not originally born in this country…
“The Great Reset Rollout - Continues”…
Winseer:
Blinding us with science…
Soon the master plan will appear, and those currently not working and not intending retirement - are likely to be in for a shock once they find out that their old job has since been taken over by someone else, likely not originally born in this country…
“The Great Reset Rollout - Continues”…
Which leaves the questions why do JSA/UC claimants still have to honour their job search commitments.While those in work are paid 80% of their wages to stay at home.
Also why isn’t claiming furlough, then making the furloughed worker ‘redundant’, a criminal offence of fraud ?.