Covid in The UK has PEAKED

[Satoshi Popinjay]

Still omicron everywhere, but it has PEAKED. And it peaked about two weeks earlier than expected. Deaths WAY down. What does this mean? Will it be over in England in another 3-4 weeks?

And whatever happens in England will happen a few weeks later in the United States.

Will it be over? Will it finally be over?

[Bill Vanek]

On Jan 14, 2022, Satoshi Popinjay wrote
(in article<d4d7e10c-3d01-49f1...@googlegroups.com>):

Fauci will find a way to keep it going. We can trust him for that one thing.

[Satoshi Popinjay]

On Friday, January 14, 2022 at 3:01:42 PM UTC-8, Bill Vanek wrote:
> On Jan 14, 2022, Satoshi Popinjay wrote

> (inooglegroups.com>):

> > Still omicron everywhere, but it has PEAKED. And it peaked about two weeks
> > earlier than expected. Deaths WAY down. What does this mean? Will it be over
> > in England in another 3-4 weeks?
> >
> > And whatever happens in England will happen a few weeks later in the United
> > States.
> >
> > Will it be over? Will it finally be over?
> Fauci will find a way to keep it going. We can trust him for that one thing.

I don't doubt that. At least he is finally losing some credibility. Except, of course, amongst the ultimate followers, like BillBlab.

Just to add something I meant to say earlier, Omicron incubation period is two days. Shorter by far than any other variant.

[BillB]

On Friday, January 14, 2022 at 2:24:48 PM UTC-8, Satoshi Popinjay wrote:
> Still omicron everywhere, but it has PEAKED.

Impossible.

[Satoshi Popinjay]

Peaked in the UK, dumb ass. Still say impossible?

[BillB]

Ya, I'm still going with impossible.

[VegasJerry]

On Friday, January 14, 2022 at 2:24:48 PM UTC-8, Satoshi Popinjay wrote:

Were all the previous peaks "over?" What happened then?

[VegasJerry]

On Friday, January 14, 2022 at 3:01:42 PM UTC-8, Bill Vanek wrote:

Yea, that's what BackupBillB meant by stupid posts...
(And the reason you're unable to respond).

Lol

> We can trust him for that one thing.

(There's that insecure "we" again...)

[VegasJerry]

On Friday, January 14, 2022 at 3:11:29 PM UTC-8, Satoshi Popinjay wrote:
> On Friday, January 14, 2022 at 3:01:42 PM UTC-8, Bill Vanek wrote:
> > On Jan 14, 2022, Satoshi Popinjay wrote
> > (inooglegroups.com>):
> > > Still omicron everywhere, but it has PEAKED. And it peaked about two weeks
> > > earlier than expected. Deaths WAY down. What does this mean? Will it be over
> > > in England in another 3-4 weeks?
> > >
> > > And whatever happens in England will happen a few weeks later in the United
> > > States.
> > >
> > > Will it be over? Will it finally be over?
> > Fauci will find a way to keep it going. We can trust him for that one thing.
.

> I don't doubt that. At least he is finally losing some credibility.

Where and with whom?

> Except, of course, amongst the ultimate followers, like BillBlab.

And science...

[Tim Norfolk]

It will never be completely done. Over 80% of deer in Ohio have tested positive for the virus, and it has been detected in over 100 mammal species. According to information from my wife, the omicron variant is so different from the delta variant that it is almost certain that the virus hopped to another species and back.

[Satoshi Popinjay]

On Saturday, January 15, 2022 at 7:39:23 PM UTC-8, Tim Norfolk wrote:

> It will never be completely done. Over 80% of deer in Ohio have tested positive for the virus, and it has been detected in over 100 mammal species. According to information from my wife, the omicron variant is so different from the delta variant that it is almost certain that the virus hopped to another species and back.

I think I posted something like that recently, like it going to mice, and back, and assholes like Jerrytard and BillBlab called me all kinds of morons and conspiracytards. In fact, unless you deny it, I might think that you were one of the people calling me an idiot.

[BillB]

Never happened. If you read what I wrote, I was assuming the theory was true. What's wrong with you?

[Satoshi Popinjay]

There's nothing wrong with me, it's easier to assume you disagreed than to look back and fact-check. Especially when I don't care what you agreed or disagreed with.

[BillB]

Of course you care. You were still hurting from a two week old perceived slight from me that never even happened. That's why you brought it up. Don't be ashamed. I have that effect on a lot of people. Everyone craves my approval.

[Satoshi Popinjay]

On Saturday, January 15, 2022 at 8:35:05 PM UTC-8, BillB wrote:

> Of course you care. You were still hurting from a two week old perceived slight from me that never even happened. That's why you brought it up. Don't be ashamed. I have that effect on a lot of people. Everyone craves my approval.

Then why have I still not gone back to fact-check? Because I don't give a fuck. I'd rather assume you did not agree with me, it's easier than looking it up. I know someone gave me a bunch of shit. If not you, it must have been Jerrytard. I just figured it was both of you, since you're essentially identical twins, mentally.

[BillB]

I said it was ironic that right-wingers would eat mouse turds if it was promoted as a cure on Facebook. That implies I was assuming the claim that it crossed over from mice was true. That's what would make it ironic.

I know, I know...8th grade.

[Tim Norfolk]

I did not. In the first place, I rarely insult people in that way. In the second, I know that such transmission is fairly common, especially given that this is a zoonotic disease.

[Satoshi Popinjay]

On Saturday, January 15, 2022 at 9:09:51 PM UTC-8, BillB wrote:

> I said it was ironic that right-wingers would eat mouse turds if it was promoted as a cure on Facebook. That implies I was assuming the claim that it crossed over from mice was true. That's what would make it ironic.
>
> I know, I know...8th grade.

The only reason I keep an account on Facebook is so I can examine pages from different casinos and look at their photos section. Sometimes I can catch a glimpse of some of the video poker they have. Other than that, I never use Facebook for anything. I use Twitter in a similar manner. Plus I can easily save articles.

[BillB]

I didn't say you. I know you seek out your quack cures on Youtube.

[VegasJerry]

.

Well hell, we all did. Like Polio, simply get the shot. It's how we got rid of Smallpox.


MANDATORY FOR ALL

Adenovirous
Hepatitis A
Hepatitis B
Influenza
Measles, mumps, rubella
Meningococcal
Poliovirus
Tetanus-Diphtheria
Varicella

ROLE SPECIFIC

Anthrax
Haemophilus influenzae type B
Japanese encephalitis
Pneumococcal
Rabies
Smallpox
Typhoid fever
Yellow fever

[Alim Nassor]

Are you trying to claim the shots in your mandatory list are REQUIRED for everyone? Because that is completely and totally false.

[VegasJerry]

.

> Are you trying to claim the shots in your mandatory list are REQUIRED for everyone?
> Because that is completely and totally false.

No. They contain examples of how society lowered risk and at times eliminated the problem by getting shots. In the old days, people would be required to remain in their houses and a yellow sign was stuck on their door; Quarantine.

Now the right-wing idiots (and idiot tennis players) take a false pride in not getting the shots. Even after Trump finally admitted he’d received the shots, and the booster. This endangers us all; especially people like me with deficient immune systems.

[Alim Nassor]

Except that none of those diseases were wiped out by mandates. And the people quarantined were the sick, not, perfectly healthy people who hadn't been vaccinated.

[Satoshi Popinjay]

The issue is that this is not the same kind of vaccine as those were. This is not even a vaccine. Plus, this is still experimental. With a dangerous spike protein.

By the way, it's not just Jerry's immune system that is deficient.

[Tim Norfolk]

Oh yes they were. Perhaps not here, but you can read about the last outbreak of smallpox.

[Tim Norfolk]

Go look up the dictionary definition of 'vaccine'.

[Satoshi Popinjay]

On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 6:33:48 PM UTC-8, Tim Norfolk wrote:

> Go look up the dictionary definition of 'vaccine'.

The old one or the new one?

[Alim Nassor]

You mean the old CDC definition of vaccine or the one they changed it to when this vaccine didn't work as expected?

Here is the Pre-Covid CDC definition of a vaccine. "Vaccine: A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease."

Here is what the definition was changed to when it was found that the Covid vaccine did not work as expected. "Vaccine: A preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases."

It's a subtle, but important change.

The definition of vaccination also changed. Here's the Pre-Covid definition. "Vaccination: The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.

And here is what the definition was changed to after the vaccine didn't perform as expected. "Vaccination: The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce protection from a specific disease."

Again, a subtle, but meaningful change.

[Alim Nassor]

It was not the usual practice to quarantine the healthy. Never has been

[BillB]

How is it meaningful?

[Alim Nassor]

From Merriam Webster; " IMMUNITY 1. medical : the power to keep yourself from being affected by a disease.

The vaccine does not do that. It's an acknowledged fact that it does not provide immunity, but it does seem to provide some protection.
The CDC definition had been unchanged for decades, until Covid and the vaccine that did not adhere to that definition, so they changed it and it's different enough that it is meaningful.

[BillB]

That is not an accurate medical definition of immunity and it never has been. The polio vaccine, for example, has about 90% efficacy. Flu vaccines are, I believe, usually in the 50-60% range. What vaccine has 100% efficacy? I doubt any exist. That's why they updated the definition. The word "immunity" was causing confusion.

[Alim Nassor]

LOL Sure it was. Why didn't it EVER cause confusion before?

[BillB]

I'm sure it did, but this is a whole new level of wackadoodles we are dealing with today on the right. And I thought the Teabaggers were bad! Nobody has ever seen anything like it. But it remains that if the qualification to be a vaccine is 100% efficacy, then I don't think there has ever been a vaccine. Can you name one?

[Alim Nassor]

The definition I provided said nothing about 100% efficacy. But it looks like the Covid vaccine has almost no efficacy against Omicron.

[Satoshi Popinjay]

On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 8:25:15 PM UTC-8, Alim Nassor wrote:

> The definition I provided said nothing about 100% efficacy. But it looks like the Covid vaccine has almost no efficacy against Omicron.

You're talking to a guy who doesn't acknowledge they changed the definition of "inflation".

[BillB]

How the definition you provided different than 100% efficacy? Isn't that what it was describing? If not, then what? What qualifies as a vaccine? Educate me. Unlike some around here, I am always willing to learn.

It is not true that the existing Covid vaccines have almost no efficacy against Omicron.

[Alim Nassor]

And the metrics by which they measure it.

[Alim Nassor]

Prior to covid it was never advised to get vaccinated so you would not catch it as bad, it was so you would not catch it at all. That doesn't mean there were no breakthrough cases, it means the expected outcome was almost always that you did not get the disease. At all.

>
> It is not true that the existing Covid vaccines have almost no efficacy against Omicron.

The media is full of stories from health officials and medical professionals that they believe everyone, or almost everyone is going to catch Omicron, vaccinated or not.

Here's one from your Grand Covid Poobah.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/11/health/us-coronavirus-tuesday/index.html

Omicron, with its extraordinary, unprecedented degree of efficiency of transmissibility, will ultimately find just about everybody," Dr. Anthony Fauci told J. Stephen Morrison, senior vice president of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "Those who have been vaccinated ... and boosted would get exposed. Some, maybe a lot of them, will get infected

And;
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/12/omicron-covid-contagious-janet-woodcock-fauci

“I think it’s hard to process what’s actually happening right now, which is [that] most people are going to get Covid, all right?” said Janet Woodcock, the acting head of the Food and Drug Administration.

[risky biz]

~ It was not the usual practice to quarantine the healthy. Never has been

This is how it was implemented in feudal Europe. When diseases became rampant every single person on an estate was quarantined, unable to leave. Any outsider approaching the estate was stoned.

[risky biz]

On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 8:25:15 PM UTC-8, Alim Nassor wrote:

~ The definition I provided said nothing about 100% efficacy. But it looks like the Covid vaccine has almost no efficacy against Omicron.

If you're willing to ignore the small fact that it prevents almost every vaccinated person from hospitalization and death.

BTW- the current vaccine wasn't designed to inoculate against Omicron. It's just a happy coincidence that it has limited effectiveness.

[risky biz]

On Monday, January 17, 2022 at 5:48:44 AM UTC-8, Alim Nassor wrote:


~ Prior to covid it was never advised to get vaccinated so you would not catch it as bad, it was so you would not catch it at all. That doesn't mean there were no breakthrough cases, it means the expected outcome was almost always that you did not get the disease. At all.

You're referring to vaccines that were designed for a specific disease and comparing it to a vaccine that was designed for a variant DIFFERENT from the one now predominating. Apples and oranges. The real problem is that our vaccine design and production aren't fast enough to keep up with mutations.

Vaccines that are still in the research phase could possibly provide protection against ANY coronavirus, including the common cold.

[risky biz]

On Friday, January 14, 2022 at 2:24:48 PM UTC-8, Satoshi Popinjay wrote:
> Still omicron everywhere, but it has PEAKED. And it peaked about two weeks earlier than expected. Deaths WAY down. What does this mean? Will it be over in England in another 3-4 weeks?
>
> And whatever happens in England will happen a few weeks later in the United States.
>
> Will it be over? Will it finally be over?

Go here ..

https://app.powerbigov.us/view?r=eyJrIjoiMjA2ZThiOWUtM2FlNS00MGY5LWFmYjUtNmQwNTQ3Nzg5N2I2IiwidCI6ImU0YTM0MGU2LWI4OWUtNGU2OC04ZWFhLTE1NDRkMjcwMzk4MCJ9

.. and shorten the slider on the 'Total Daily New Cases' to about 1-month or so.

[BillB]

On Monday, January 17, 2022 at 5:48:44 AM UTC-8, Alim Nassor wrote:

> > > The definition I provided said nothing about 100% efficacy. But it looks like the Covid vaccine has almost no efficacy against Omicron.
> > How the definition you provided different than 100% efficacy? Isn't that what it was describing? If not, then what? What qualifies as a vaccine? Educate me. Unlike some around here, I am always willing to learn.

> Prior to covid it was never advised to get vaccinated so you would not catch it as bad, it was so you would not catch it at all. That doesn't mean there were no breakthrough cases, it means the expected outcome was almost always that you did not get the disease. At all.
>

That is simply not true. What you are describing is 100% efficacy and effectiveness. Again, can you name for me something that you consider to be a true vaccine? Has one ever existed?

> > It is not true that the existing Covid vaccines have almost no efficacy against Omicron.
> The media is full of stories from health officials and medical professionals that they believe everyone, or almost everyone is going to catch Omicron, vaccinated or not.
>
> Here's one from your Grand Covid Poobah.
>
> https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/11/health/us-coronavirus-tuesday/index.html
>
> Omicron, with its extraordinary, unprecedented degree of efficiency of transmissibility, will ultimately find just about everybody," Dr. Anthony Fauci told J. Stephen Morrison, senior vice president of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "Those who have been vaccinated ... and boosted would get exposed. Some, maybe a lot of them, will get infected
>

I don't have a "Grand Covid Poobah," but what is being said there does not equate with "everyone is going to catch Omicron." What is your interpretation of the last sentence?

> And;
> https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/12/omicron-covid-contagious-janet-woodcock-fauci
>
> “I think it’s hard to process what’s actually happening right now, which is [that] most people are going to get Covid, all right?” said Janet Woodcock, the acting head of the Food and Drug Administration.

Again, "most people" does not equate with "everyone."

[Alim Nassor]

And when I said it has "almost no" efficacy, that does not equate with "none". And when I said "almost everyone", that does not equate with "everyone"

[Bill Vanek]

On Jan 17, 2022, BillB wrote
(in article<dd89c08f-b454-4cec...@googlegroups.com>):

> > Omicron, with its extraordinary, unprecedented degree of efficiency of
> > transmissibility, will ultimately find just about everybody," Dr. Anthony
> > Fauci told J. Stephen Morrison, senior vice president of the Center for
> > Strategic and International Studies. "Those who have been vaccinated ...
> > and boosted would get exposed. Some, maybe a lot of them, will get infected
> I don't have a "Grand Covid Poobah," but what is being said there does not
> equate with "everyone is going to catch Omicron." What is your interpretation
> of the last sentence?

Have you abandoned trying to make sense? Sort of like Fauci? What is the
difference between, "will ultimately find just about everybody,”, and
“getting infected”? The virus is everywhere, it has already “found”
everyone. But Fauci clearly means just about everyone will catch covid, at
least in the first sentence, or else why say it? And what is the difference
between “just about everybody” and everybody, except for a bit of
hyperbole? You are LARPing. You are now Fauci’s defense attorney, too. You
are taking on too many clients. Too bad you can’t get paid. You’d need a
license for that, so all you can do is go on pretending. You have a rich
fantasy life.

[BillB]

The quotes you provided do not equate with "almost no efficacy" or "everyone, or almost everyone" either. I think you need to read them again, more carefully this time.

This is the third time I have ask this: if the Covid shots are not vaccines, can you name something that WAS in your mind a vaccine?

[BillB]

What he said is that everyone will be *exposed* to the virus, and that some of them, or maybe a lot of them, will become infected. I am a little unclear what part of that you are having difficulty understanding.

[Alim Nassor]

When the head of the FDA says most people are going to get Omicron, that pretty much means the vaccines efficacy is pretty bad. I never said it had zero efficacy. But it really doesn't have much.

[Alim Nassor]

Maybe you need more convincing
https://www.wbrc.com/2022/01/16/infectious-disease-experts-warn-covid-could-infect-nearly-everyone-eventually/

“It is possible that everyone will get it at some point,” Kimberlin said. “I don’t think this virus is going to go away. Unlike a year and a half ago, where we had hopes the genie would go back in the bottle and the virus eradicated from the world, that isn’t going to happen.”

https://www.ocregister.com/2021/10/03/vaccinated-or-not-everyone-is-likely-to-get-covid-19-at-some-point-many-experts-say/

“The idea that we’re going to live our lives without ever getting it is a fantasy — and a dangerous one,” said Andrew Noymer, an epidemiologist and demographer at UC Irvine. “A lot of people just don’t understand that. We’re all going to get it.”

[BillB]

What you said, I believe, is no efficacy. Most means greater than 50%. They are not the same. From what I read ( a week or two ago) is that data from the UK suggested about 30% efficacy against Omicron.

[Alim Nassor]

I NEVER said "no" efficacy. What many experts are no sayin is what I also said. Almost everyone will get it. That surely doesnt suggest 30% efficacy.

[BillB]

Sure, anything is "possible," especially since we know that protection from the vaccines wane over time. I don't think that means the vaccines have almost no efficacy against Omicron.

> https://www.ocregister.com/2021/10/03/vaccinated-or-not-everyone-is-likely-to-get-covid-19-at-some-point-many-experts-say/
>
> “The idea that we’re going to live our lives without ever getting it is a fantasy — and a dangerous one,” said Andrew Noymer, an epidemiologist and demographer at UC Irvine. “A lot of people just don’t understand that. We’re all going to get it."

Again...he said "ever." I suppose that must include that period of time after the vaccines' effectiveness have waned. I don't think that equates with the vaccines having almost no efficacy against infection. It's also unclear to me what he means by "get it." Is he talking about exposure or infection? Vaccines don't prevent exposure. You "get" the virus, but your immune system, because you have been vaccinated, recognizes, attacks, and neutralizes that exposure before the progression to infection and resultant disease. At least, that's my understanding of how it works.

[BillB]

Pardon me. You said almost no efficacy, which to me sounded like the twin brother of no efficacy. Can you quantify what you mean by "almost no efficacy?" I took it as something like one or two percent. And again, using terms like "get it" aren't very clear. Are you talking about exposure or infection or infection progressing to some kind of measurable disease. I think I read before that everyone has cancer cells in their body, but you wouldn't go around saying "I have cancer" based on that.

[BillB]

By the way, "many experts" does not indicate a preponderance of expert opinion, which is my standard. I don't even know what "many experts" means.

[BillB]

On Monday, January 17, 2022 at 10:15:42 AM UTC-8, Bill Vanek wrote:

Just curious...why do you persist with this absolute nonsense about me pretending to be someone's lawyer? I have done no such thing. Interpreting someone's words or trying to understand what was actually meant when someone misspeaks is in no way, shape or form acting as or pretending to act as their lawyer. It just shows you are totally ignorant about what it means to act as someone's lawyer (understandable given your very low level of knowledge and education). Either that or it is you who has a rich fantasy life. Or... maybe you are just spewing nonsense on purpose because you don't care how foolish it makes you look? Which one is it?

[BillB]

Here is what Pfizer is saying:

"According to the companies’ preliminary data, a third dose provides a similar level of neutralizing antibodies to Omicron as is observed after two doses against wild-type and other variants that emerged before Omicron. These antibody levels are associated with high efficacy against both the wild-type virus and these variants. A third dose also strongly increases CD8+ T cell levels against multiple spike protein epitopes which are considered to correlate with the protection against severe disease. Compared to the wild-type virus, the vast majority of these epitopes remain unchanged in the Omicron spike variant."

That doesn't sound like "almost no efficacy" to me. But we are drifting away from the topic of this discussion. For the fourth time, if you don't consider the Covid shots to be vaccines, can you give me an example of something you do consider to be a vaccine? Or is vaccine just a term that was invented to describe something that has never existed?

[VegasJerry]

"Except" this is your dodge of the point?

> And the people quarantined were the sick, not, perfectly healthy people who hadn't been vaccinated.

Fucking DUH!
Why do you think they were quarantined?

(JFC!)

[VegasJerry]

> > Except that none of those diseases were wiped out by mandates. And the people quarantined were the sick, not, perfectly healthy people who hadn't been vaccinated.

.

> The issue is that this is not the same kind of vaccine as those were. This is not even a vaccine.

Yea, actually it is.

> Plus, this is still experimental.

No, actually it's not.

> With a dangerous spike protein.
>
> By the way, it's not just Jerry's immune system that is deficient.

It's your brain (or lack thereof)

[VegasJerry]

On Monday, January 17, 2022 at 10:15:42 AM UTC-8, Bill Vanek wrote:

> On Jan 17, 2022, BillB wrote
> (in article<dd89c08f-b454-4cec...@googlegroups.com>):
> > > Omicron, with its extraordinary, unprecedented degree of efficiency of
> > > transmissibility, will ultimately find just about everybody," Dr. Anthony
> > > Fauci told J. Stephen Morrison, senior vice president of the Center for
> > > Strategic and International Studies. "Those who have been vaccinated ...
> > > and boosted would get exposed. Some, maybe a lot of them, will get infected
> > I don't have a "Grand Covid Poobah," but what is being said there does not
> > equate with "everyone is going to catch Omicron." What is your interpretation
> > of the last sentence?

.

> Have you abandoned trying to make sense? Sort of like Fauci? What is the
> difference between, "will ultimately find just about everybody,”, and
> “getting infected”? The virus is everywhere, it has already “found”
> everyone.

No, is had not; and you can't show that is has.

And, once again, I'll stop reading another of your worthless babbles;
as, once again, again, you'll never be able to reply to me without
embarrassing yourself. ... Again....

[VegasJerry]

.

No, you said it was everywhere...

[Alim Nassor]

>>It's also unclear to me what he means by "get it." Is he talking about exposure or infection?

Could you possibly twist it in any more of an obtuse manner? LOL

[Alim Nassor]

Yes, I guess you can be more obtuse. LOL

[BillB]

That is not an answer.

[BillB]

I am not being obtuse at all. It was you who was being vague. Perhaps deliberately? I think "almost no efficacy" reasonably translates to a minuscule percentage. So what did *you* mean by almost none?

[Alim Nassor]

I meant the same thing as the experts quoted who said almost everyone will get Omicron. If almost everyone is going to get it that's the same thing as saying it has almost no efficacy.

[Tim Norfolk]

On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 10:08:19 PM UTC-5, Alim Nassor wrote:
> On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 8:33:48 PM UTC-6, Tim Norfolk wrote:

> > > The issue is that this is not the same kind of vaccine as those were. This is not even a vaccine. Plus, this is still experimental. With a dangerous spike protein.

> > >
> > > By the way, it's not just Jerry's immune system that is deficient.

> > Go look up the dictionary definition of 'vaccine'.
> You mean the old CDC definition of vaccine or the one they changed it to when this vaccine didn't work as expected?
>
> Here is the Pre-Covid CDC definition of a vaccine. "Vaccine: A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease."
>
> Here is what the definition was changed to when it was found that the Covid vaccine did not work as expected. "Vaccine: A preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases."
>
> It's a subtle, but important change.
>
> The definition of vaccination also changed. Here's the Pre-Covid definition. "Vaccination: The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.
>
> And here is what the definition was changed to after the vaccine didn't perform as expected. "Vaccination: The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce protection from a specific disease."
>
> Again, a subtle, but meaningful change.

I didn't say the CDC, I said the dictionary.

[Tim Norfolk]

Not quite. If the vaccinated are much less likely to need hospitalization, or to die of it, that that is efficacy.

[BillB]

That doesn't explain to me what "get it" means. If the virus enters your body but your immune system shuts it down before you get what would be classified as an infection, did you "get it" or not? My understanding is that exposure and infection are two different things, as reflected in the quote you posted from my supposed "Grand Poobah."

And just for fun, I'll ask for the fifth time (which was at one time the topic of this discussion), if the Covid shots are not a vaccine, can you name something that is a vaccine?

[risky biz]

On Monday, January 17, 2022 at 12:20:25 PM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
> On Monday, January 17, 2022 at 10:15:42 AM UTC-8, Bill Vanek wrote:
> > On Jan 17, 2022, BillB wrote
> > (in article<dd89c08f-b454-4cec...@googlegroups.com>):
> > > > Omicron, with its extraordinary, unprecedented degree of efficiency of
> > > > transmissibility, will ultimately find just about everybody," Dr. Anthony
> > > > Fauci told J. Stephen Morrison, senior vice president of the Center for
> > > > Strategic and International Studies. "Those who have been vaccinated ...
> > > > and boosted would get exposed. Some, maybe a lot of them, will get infected
> > > I don't have a "Grand Covid Poobah," but what is being said there does not
> > > equate with "everyone is going to catch Omicron." What is your interpretation
> > > of the last sentence?
> > Have you abandoned trying to make sense? Sort of like Fauci? What is the
> > difference between, "will ultimately find just about everybody,”, and
> > “getting infected”? The virus is everywhere, it has already “found”
> > everyone. But Fauci clearly means just about everyone will catch covid, at
> > least in the first sentence, or else why say it? And what is the difference
> > between “just about everybody” and everybody, except for a bit of
> > hyperbole? You are LARPing. You are now Fauci’s defense attorney, too. You
> > are taking on too many clients. Too bad you can’t get paid. You’d need a
> > license for that, so all you can do is go on pretending. You have a rich
> > fantasy life.
> Just curious...why do you persist with this absolute nonsense about me pretending to be someone's lawyer? I have done no such thing. Interpreting someone's words or trying to understand what was actually meant when someone misspeaks is in no way, shape or form acting as or pretending to act as their lawyer. It just shows you are totally ignorant about what it means to act as someone's lawyer

~ (understandable given your very low level of knowledge and education).

He is also only about 4 1/2 feet tall, isn't he, Blabbermouth? Like everyone who sees you're full of poopy.

[Bill Vanek]

On Jan 17, 2022, BillB wrote

(in article<b8987fe0-5a70-4046...@googlegroups.com>):

No, you are not representing yourself as anyone’s attorney. You are simply
wording things as that person’s defense attorney would. And you know that
is what I was saying. I know it’s a natural thing for you to play dumb. You
can’t play dumb, because you actually are, but you can pretend to be
someone’s attorney. Do you even know what LARPing is? It was Beldin’s
thing, and yours, too. Research it.

[BillB]

I have no idea how tall he is. But I do know based on his comments that he has very little education, experience or understanding of the law.

[BillB]

You aren't making the slightest bit of sense. I am not pretending to be anyone's lawyer.

[Bill Vanek]

On Jan 17, 2022, Tim Norfolk wrote
(in article<1f1be9b9-0641-4963...@googlegroups.com>):

Is it? Why don’t we all be honest about this? Efficacy is the ability to
achieve a desired result. But what is the intended result? A prevention of
infection? If so, what is an infection? If you generate antibodies, I believe
that should be called an infection, whether there are symptoms or not, and
whether it’s a a minor or severe reaction. In other words, everything from
zero symptoms to death. And to be honest, I don’t even know if antibodies
are necessary to call something an infection. If the virus is simply present
in the body - you breathe it in, I believe that is an infection already. And
this is what Alim appears to be arguing about. You can’t rate the efficacy
of any vaccine until you agree on definitions and the intention of the
vaccine. And if you keep changing those things, you are simply being
dishonest.

[Bill Vanek]

On Jan 17, 2022, BillB wrote

(in article<c4b3c62e-7ebc-4238...@googlegroups.com>):

I would tell an intelligent person to reread what I wrote.

[BillB]

I have read all your exceedingly stupid claims. Larping is pretending to be something. I am not pretending anything.

[risky biz]

~ I have no idea how tall he is. But I do know based on his comments that he has very little education, experience or understanding of the law.

It's certainly obvious that you possess all those qualities. Why else would you be expounding on them at a poker newsgroup with about 12 members? None of those who give a shit what you did or are if you could just stop blabber-mouthing about it every 30 minutes or so.

[BillB]

If nobody gives a shit then I confused why certain people keep asking me about them and demanding proof...like you for example.

[VegasJerry]

Same as running from my posts without answering.

[VegasJerry]

Oh, oh! Somebody is using "science" on Alien Alim..

[Tim Norfolk]

Hypothetically, if we found a virus which just made you sneeze twice a day for a week, we wouldn't even try to treat it.

The ultimate purpose of vaccines is to reduce deaths, hospitalizations, and sicknesses which keep people in bed. The current vaccines for Covid do precisely that.

[risky biz]

~ If nobody gives a shit then I confused why certain people keep asking me about them and demanding proof...like you for example.

I confused, too. LOL.

That's like saying I give a shit about chewing gum stuck on the sole of my shoe.

[Alim Nassor]

Nope, that is not how efficacy is defined by the medical community Here's an example

Effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines against Omicron or Delta infection

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.30.21268565v1

Results We included 3,442 Omicron-positive cases, 9,201 Delta-positive cases, and 471,545 test-negative controls. After 2 doses of COVID-19 vaccine, vaccine effectiveness against Delta infection declined steadily over time but recovered to 93% (95%CI, 92-94%) ≥7 days after receiving an mRNA vaccine for the third dose. In contrast, receipt of 2 doses of COVID-19 vaccines was not protective against Omicron. Vaccine effectiveness against Omicron was 37% (95%CI, 19-50%) ≥7 days after receiving an mRNA vaccine for the third dose.

Conclusions Two doses of COVID-19 vaccines are unlikely to protect against infection by Omicron.

[Alim Nassor]

Well, he tried, but was wrong.

[BillB]

I will be the first to admit that you are at at least a fifth grade level when it comes to spotting typing errors. And I think it's pretty clear that despite your weak protestations, you are obsessed with me and care a lot. You even claimed once that my name does not appear on *any legal database*. You must have been searching for days to make that (erroneous) claim. Or was that just another one of your lies?

[Alim Nassor]

Yeah, that's why until just recently the CDC definition of a vaccine was to provide immunity.

[BillB]

On Monday, January 17, 2022 at 2:52:42 PM UTC-8, Bill Vanek wrote:

> Is it? Why don’t we all be honest about this? Efficacy is the ability to
> achieve a desired result. But what is the intended result? A prevention of
> infection? If so, what is an infection? If you generate antibodies, I believe
> that should be called an infection, whether there are symptoms or not, and
> whether it’s a a minor or severe reaction. In other words, everything from
> zero symptoms to death. And to be honest, I don’t even know if antibodies
> are necessary to call something an infection. If the virus is simply present
> in the body - you breathe it in, I believe that is an infection already.

Not according to healthdesk.org. As I already said, there is a difference between exposure and infection:

"When it comes to infectious diseases, "exposure" means coming into contact with a virus or bacteria. Infection happens when someone is exposed and actually becomes sick from the exposure. Exposure does not always lead to an infection. If the time a person is exposed to the virus is very short, if the amount of virus that enters the body is not in a large enough quantity, or if the body's immune system is able to quickly fight it off, then exposure will be less likely to lead to infection."

[Alim Nassor]

No one says they've got a cold if they sat next to someone with a cold. "Get it" means actually having Omicron, not just that they stood by someone with it.

[BillB]

Did you read the quote I posted from healthdesk.org? They said you can have the virus present in your body that could either be classified as an exposure or an infection. That's what I mean when I ask what he means by "getting it." Is he talking about a mere exposure or a full blown infection? I'm pretty sure it's the former, because Dr. Fauci (my supposed Grand Poobah) said everyone will get exposed and some or maybe a lot will be infected.

For the record, I don't think any of this is coming from Dr. Fauci directly. He is simply a messenger conveying the message he is receiving from all his experts behind the scenes.

[risky biz]

~ I will be the first to admit that you are at at least a fifth grade level when it comes to spotting typing errors. And I think it's pretty clear that despite your weak protestations, you are obsessed with me and care a lot. You even claimed once that my name does not appear on *any legal database*. You must have been searching for days to make that (erroneous) claim. Or was that just another one of your lies?


Your grasp of English is at a third-grade level so the obviousness of that is noticeable to any fifth-grader of average or above intelligence. Your conclusion that anyone who notices your lack of English skills can't be any more accomplished than a fifth-grader is just more evidence that you possess additional basic cognitive disabilities. For Christ's sake- I don't even use a spellchecker and I don't post gibberish like 'then I confused'.

Searching for days? More evidence of your cognitive disability. You stated where you were listed as an attorney, I found it in about 10 seconds with a search engine then took about 1 minute to determine that you weren't listed there as an attorney.

Your '*any legal database*' is yet another lie you have fabricated on the spot. The only database I looked at was the one you claimed and it turns out you were lying about that. That was months ago. You're enraged that someone fact-checked you and you can't seem to live it down. And the hypocrisy of it is that you're the one who gleefully participated in doxing Bea before she passed away.

[risky biz]

~ No one says they've got a cold if they sat next to someone with a cold. "Get it" means actually having Omicron, not just that they stood by someone with it.

A vaccine teaches the body to create antibodies, and B, and T cells that will fight off a virus once it has entered the body. It doesn't throw up a Star Wars force shield to stop it from entering the body.

[BillB]

My typing errors have nothing to do with my "grasp of English." I have already said I type very quickly and hit send. I couldn't care less if there are tying errors, which is why you will see numerous instances if misspellings, missing words, double words, transposed words, etc. Calling attention to them because you think it scores you points is nothing but a fantasy on your part.

> Searching for days? More evidence of your cognitive disability. You stated where you were listed as an attorney, I found it in about 10 seconds with a search engine then took about 1 minute to determine that you weren't listed there as an attorney.
>
> Your '*any legal database*' is yet another lie you have fabricated on the spot.

Oh, really? So you didn't say "There must be a reason why you aren't listed as an attorney on any public database"? How did you determine that without searching every public database? Poor riskytard...caught red-handed in yet another bald-faced lie.



>The only database I looked at was the one you claimed and it turns out you were lying about that. That was months ago. You're enraged that someone fact->checked you and you can't seem to live it down.

LOL...he's doubling down on the lie.

>And the hypocrisy of it is that you're the one who gleefully participated in doxing Bea before she passed away.

More lies. It was already established that it was Ramashiva who doxed her. I had no participation in him doing that at all. I may have made some comment on it after the fact, but that doesn't change the fact that I did not participate in the act of doxing her. And I do recall that Ramashiva only did that because he asked her time and time and time again to just leave him alone and stop harassing him, and she didn't have the human decency to accede to that request. So I don't blame him at all for taking it to the next level. He gave her chance after chance after chance before he did it.

[risky biz]

~ My typing errors have nothing to do with my "grasp of English." I have already said I type very quickly and hit send. I couldn't care less if there are tying errors, which is why you will see numerous instances if misspellings, missing words, double words, transposed words, etc. Calling attention to them because you think it scores you points is nothing but a fantasy on your part.

What you have is a 'numerous' supply of excuses for sounding like a Hmong refugee that graduated from a six-month English crash course.

> > Searching for days? More evidence of your cognitive disability. You stated where you were listed as an attorney, I found it in about 10 seconds with a search engine then took about 1 minute to determine that you weren't listed there as an attorney.
> >
> > Your '*any legal database*' is yet another lie you have fabricated on the spot.

~ Oh, really? So you didn't say "There must be a reason why you aren't listed as an attorney on any public database"? How did you determine that without searching every public database? Poor riskytard...caught red-handed in yet another bald-faced lie.

By reading RGP, you phony. Others here have several times asked why they can't find your supposed name listed in any legal database. The only database I looked up is the one you specifically claimed you were listed on and you weren't. And you're OUTRAGED about that after expressing such morbid satisfaction when Bea's home address was published here after her life was threatened by more than one poster.

>
> >The only database I looked at was the one you claimed and it turns out you were lying about that. That was months ago. You're enraged that someone fact->checked you and you can't seem to live it down.
>
> LOL...he's doubling down on the lie.

> >And the hypocrisy of it is that you're the one who gleefully participated in doxing Bea before she passed away.

~ More lies. It was already established that it was Ramashiva who doxed her. I had no participation in him doing that at all. I may have made some comment on it after the fact, but that doesn't change the fact that I did not participate in the act of doxing her.

All you did was express how thrilled you were that it was being done WHILE it was being done, in response to the posts that did it. You yourself later revealed that your stalking of her was more thorough than Ramashiva's. That leads me to wonder if it was you who did the research and Ramasiva was just the publisher that you supplied it to on the sly. That would be stereotypical of your two-faced sneakiness.

~ And I do recall that Ramashiva only did that because he asked her time and time and time again to just leave him alone and stop harassing him, and she didn't have the human decency to accede to that request. So I don't blame him at all for taking it to the next level. He gave her chance after chance after chance before he did it.

You deserve a blue ribbon for being a lame, hypocritical fuck. You're the most egregious harasser on this newsgroup by far, ten times worse than Bea ever was, and all she ever did was ridicule your boorish and depraved behavior on this newsgroup.

And if you think employing the above innuendos in hopes it will frighten me like it did Bea, you're hallucinating. If anyone shows up at my door there won't be a lubed baseball bat. They're going to get lit up like the Chrysler Center Christmas tree and the coroner is going to wonder why someone cut their balls off.

[BillB]

In other words, you lied...AGAIN


>You yourself later revealed that your stalking of her was more thorough than Ramashiva's. That leads me to wonder if it was you who did the research andRamasiva was just the publisher that you supplied it to on the sly. That would be stereotypical of your two-faced sneakiness.

More lies.

> ~ And I do recall that Ramashiva only did that because he asked her time and time and time again to just leave him alone and stop harassing him, and she didn't have the human decency to accede to that request. So I don't blame him at all for taking it to the next level. He gave her chance after chance after chance before he did it.
>
> You deserve a blue ribbon for being a lame, hypocritical fuck. You're the most egregious harasser on this newsgroup by far, ten times worse than Bea ever was, and all she ever did was ridicule your boorish and depraved behavior on this newsgroup.

I haven't harassed anyone. And anyone who doesn't want me to respond to their posts can simply ask me and I will gladly comply (assuming they aren't libeling me like you always do from your cowardly perch of anonymity).

> And if you think employing the above innuendos in hopes it will frighten me like it did Bea, you're hallucinating. If anyone shows up at my door there won't be a lubed baseball bat. They're going to get lit up like the Chrysler Center Christmas tree and the coroner is going to wonder why someone cut their balls off.

LOL...what a nutcase. As if I give a flying fuck what shithole trailer park you live in.

[BillB]

On Tuesday, January 18, 2022 at 9:10:07 AM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:

> > > Your '*any legal database*' is yet another lie you have fabricated on the spot.

> ~ Oh, really? So you didn't say "There must be a reason why you aren't listed as an attorney on any public database"? How did you determine that without searching every public database? Poor riskytard...caught red-handed in yet another bald-faced lie.
>
> By reading RGP, you phony. Others here have several times asked why they can't find your supposed name listed in any legal database.

See how fluently and freely this clown lies? He JUST FINISHED lying that he never said it. Now I show him the quote and he moves on to a new lie. He said that the same day he was searching the Law Society database for me. And NOBODY, EVER, has said they searched every legal database for me, EXCEPT riskytard. He just can NOT stop lying. It's pathological.

>The only database I looked up is the one you specifically claimed you were listed on and you weren't.

Caught red-handed, and just continues lying like it never even happened. LOL What a weirdo. I have caught this guy in about a dozen blatant lies, just this week.

[risky biz]

~ I haven't harassed anyone. And anyone who doesn't want me to respond to their posts can simply ask me and I will gladly comply (assuming they aren't libeling me like you always do from your cowardly perch of anonymity).

You continually complain that half the newsgroup libels you. The other half just ignores your miserable juvenile behavior.

> > And if you think employing the above innuendos in hopes it will frighten me like it did Bea, you're hallucinating. If anyone shows up at my door there won't be a lubed baseball bat. They're going to get lit up like the Chrysler Center Christmas tree and the coroner is going to wonder why someone cut their balls off.

~ LOL...what a nutcase. As if I give a flying fuck what shithole trailer park you live in.

You were thrilled when Bea was doxed. You provided rationalizations for why you think she deserved it all of which were relatable back to your inability to tolerate the slightest critcism of your creepy behavior at RGP.

[BillB]

Another blatant lie. You posted three threads yesterday that didn't even get one pity response. Project much? And I don't "continually claim that half the newsgroup libels me". Another gigantic lie.

> > > And if you think employing the above innuendos in hopes it will frighten me like it did Bea, you're hallucinating. If anyone shows up at my door there won't be a lubed baseball bat. They're going to get lit up like the Chrysler Center Christmas tree and the coroner is going to wonder why someone cut their balls off.
> ~ LOL...what a nutcase. As if I give a flying fuck what shithole trailer park you live in.
>
> You were thrilled when Bea was doxed.

Yesterday he claimed I participated in her doxing. Now he is changing his story...AGAIN.

>You provided rationalizations for why you think she deserved it all of which were relatable back to your inability to tolerate the slightest critcism of your creepy >behavior at RGP.

Yes, I think when you continually and mercilessly harass a senior citizen when he has asked you six or seven times to just stop, then you've got what's coming to you. All he did was post her address. I have no idea why she wouldn't stop harassing him, but it really bothered me. I HATE cowards who insult and harass people from their cowardly perch of anonymity. So ya, I may have laughed when she got her comeuppance, but that doesn't mean I participated in her Doxing (if you can even call it that) as you so casually lied about AGAIN, for the second time in about a month. Maybe the first time was an accident, but this time was definitely just another one of your many deliberate lies about me.

[risky biz]

On Tuesday, January 18, 2022 at 9:44:22 AM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 18, 2022 at 9:10:07 AM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
> > > > Your '*any legal database*' is yet another lie you have fabricated on the spot.
>
> > ~ Oh, really? So you didn't say "There must be a reason why you aren't listed as an attorney on any public database"? How did you determine that without searching every public database? Poor riskytard...caught red-handed in yet another bald-faced lie.
> >
> > By reading RGP, you phony. Others here have several times asked why they can't find your supposed name listed in any legal database.
> See how fluently and freely this clown lies? He JUST FINISHED lying that he never said it. Now I show him the quote and he moves on to a new lie.

I said it was a lie that I searched for legal databases other than the one you specifically claimed. Stop lying. Me saying, "There must be a reason why you aren't listed as an attorney on any public database" because other people have mentioned it, and searching for such databases myself are two different things. One of the more laughable things about your lying is that you're a dumb liar. You're desperately stretching my words like taffy to try to rework them into a lie because I made it so obvious that your claim you 'predicted' 5-7% 'inflation' was a lie.

[risky biz]

~ Yes, I think when you continually and mercilessly harass a senior citizen when he has asked you six or seven times to just stop, then you've got what's coming to you. All he did was post her address. I have no idea why she wouldn't stop harassing him, but it really bothered me. I HATE cowards who insult and harass people from their cowardly perch of anonymity. So ya, I may have laughed when she got her comeuppance, but that doesn't mean I participated in her Doxing (if you can even call it that) as you so casually lied about AGAIN, for the second time in about a month. Maybe the first time was an accident, but this time was definitely just another one of your many deliberate lies about me.

The 'all I did was cheer on the lynch mob' defense. Repulsive.

'All he did was post her address'? In conjunction with physical threats to her by himself and others? What an ethics garbage dump you are.

[BillB]

On Tuesday, January 18, 2022 at 10:26:04 AM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 18, 2022 at 9:44:22 AM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 18, 2022 at 9:10:07 AM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
> > > > > Your '*any legal database*' is yet another lie you have fabricated on the spot.
> >
> > > ~ Oh, really? So you didn't say "There must be a reason why you aren't listed as an attorney on any public database"? How did you determine that without searching every public database? Poor riskytard...caught red-handed in yet another bald-faced lie.
> > >
> > > By reading RGP, you phony. Others here have several times asked why they can't find your supposed name listed in any legal database.
> > See how fluently and freely this clown lies? He JUST FINISHED lying that he never said it. Now I show him the quote and he moves on to a new lie.

> I said it was a lie that I searched for legal databases other than the one you specifically claimed. Stop lying.

aught red-handed and he is still lying. here is what he said just yesterday:

"Your '*any legal database*' is yet another lie you have fabricated on the spot." I proved he was lying, and he just moved on to the next set of lies without even blinking.

>Me saying, "There must be a reason why you aren't listed as an attorney on any public database" because other people have mentioned it, and searching for such >databases myself are two different things.

Name ONE person who has claimed to search every legal database for my name. Just ONE. Liar.

>One of the more laughable things about your lying is that you're a dumb liar. You're desperately stretching my words like taffy to try to rework them into a lie >because I made it so obvious that your claim you 'predicted' 5-7% 'inflation' was a lie.

You didn't do any such thing. I offered to show you the quote twice if you would finally admit you were a total and complete moron once I showed you, and you ran both times. In fairness though, I did say I thought 5% was the most likely. I only mentioned the 7% after the *second round* of Trump givaways, and only as a temporary remote possibility. Of course, when I made the 5% prediction, that was without the benefit of several major unforeseeable events.