Did they really say that 90% of people need to be vaccinated in order to reach herd immunity? I thought the whole idea behind herd immunity was that it was reached *without* vaccines. There's a lot here to be unraveled but with things going the way they are with the "justification" behind something as stupid as masks, my hopes are not too high. Here are some numbers anyway:
I'm gathering that pre-"vaccine" -
CV-19 Morbidity: 10% of population was infected
Infection fatality rate/IFR: 0.26% overall (and still not considering .02% or less for under 50 y/o)
**Non-vaccinated mortality rate for CV19 - not critical for this argument - is a heavily-weighted-towards-the-elderly (.26% * .1) = .026%, or 3/10,000 people; all while medical-cause mortality (including prescriptions and vaccines) hovers between 3 and 5/10,000 people across a much more evenly weighted demographic. Just sayin'**
They are saying the "vaccines" are "95% effective", when just living life is already 90% effective - with well over a 99% recovery rate from the 10% that have caught it? What constitutes that 5% vaccine ineffectiveness against catching CV19? And who would market a vaccine that is only 50% more effective than a placebo? And again, what IS that 5%: Catching CV19 or a severe adverse reaction and/or permanent vaccine injury?
So a serious "conversation" is being had on whether to take a risky, experimental, undertested, untrusted vaccine that is only 50% more effective than doing nothing at all (considering that masks/no masks and lockdowns/no lockdowns doesn't make any difference)? Sometimes I really think we are all being trolled big time.
But for all I care it could be magical unicorn tears, my issue is with the choice or lack thereof. That's why I'm saving my big pile of FU money right now.
