I don’t know about anyone else, but I am actually, some days, flooded with information on COVID-19. There seems to be an almost infinite number of articles and essays written by various experts and just plain observers. I’ve come to the point where I do not know what to believe with some of what I see. Of course, I always try to discern an agenda whenever I can but even when there doesn’t seem to be one, I wonder why the information isn’t more broadly reported.
There is, I believe and have for a long time, a conspiracy among the media to not report items that would make a democrat administration look bad. I think history proves this. Think about the current Press Secretary: I’ve listened to her tell lie after lie, not even hiding from them, and most of the media, in that room,. will never challenge her.In her case, it’s got to be an easy job when you’re almost never challenged on anything you say. Like about the ”pandemic”.
What information are we to believe and who of the many experts should we trust to be impartial with their analysis of the ever growing knowledge of this Chinese virus? I think that some of it is ideological. It’s easy to see the ones that parrot government propaganda, ignoring the science that they should be following instead of political policy. The needing a “booster” shot six or more months after receiving the initial inoculation to me was troubling. Is it true that the vaccines currently in production wane in effectiveness after so short a time? Actually, if you read this, it’s worse than what we were initially told. It seems that at least the Pfizer vaccine, loses its effectiveness after two months. What does this mean? Well, it explains a lot, in my mind, about receiving the vaccine yet still able to not only contract the virus, but to spread it on as well. Is it possible this is why we hear people in government telling us that we should still be masked even if we’ve had the vaccine? It’s hard to know what to think. It makes me wonder if those health care workers that have refused to ne vaccinated knew this all along. Probably not in general because, hidden at the bottom of the same article says that the vaccine is 90% effective against hospitalization and death. So, an entire article about the waning effectiveness of the vaccine over 2 months but it’s still a life saver..? 20% effective for what exactly after two months versus 90% for risk of death. I understand what is being said, but it seems that this then invalidates the need for a booster, doesn’t it?
If the vaccine is 90% effective, after the two months, and somehow 70% or so after six or more months, why do we need a booster? And those that have had the virus, you know, the ones that are 27x better protected against the virus than those that have only had the shot? The 100 or so million? When someone actually figures this out, please let me know.