'We're worse off than we were a year ago'--and that was before 'Omicron'--it turns out that multiplying the number of 'variants' significantly elevates the level of gaslighting
Correct: 'Considered a variant of concern by the World Health Organization, alpha was first identified in Kent in the UK in September 2020 and drove the UK’s second wave.'
Right. What I had in mind was this: "The vaccine was not specifically designed against Delta, but to fight a virus [the Alpha variant] that no longer circulates today." Wasn't it for the original Wuhan variant, not Alpha?
Please beware of "paralysis by analysis". "They" can spin study and study, data after data, to distract us with the minutia. To get us to disprove their claims, rather than proving theirs first.
I agree completely, hence my "new" category "Thus Always to Tyrants".
I'm also reminded by Karl Rove's statement about "truth" and "objectivity": we may all try to "fact-check" this and that, all the while the powers-that-be act.
Actually, Drosten et al serve a purpose for those who can see: they "invariantly" state the opposite of the truths. Of course, we need to always apply common sense lest they double-cross us by actually stating the occasional truth, especially in off-topic ways!
There is a proverb that if you don't know jewelry; know a jeweler. Since we know this jeweler Drosten, then his blings are bogus.
Question (correction?): weren't these genetic vaccines made for the original Wuhan virus? The Alpha variant is the UK variant, right?
Correct: 'Considered a variant of concern by the World Health Organization, alpha was first identified in Kent in the UK in September 2020 and drove the UK’s second wave.'
Source: https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n1971
Right. What I had in mind was this: "The vaccine was not specifically designed against Delta, but to fight a virus [the Alpha variant] that no longer circulates today." Wasn't it for the original Wuhan variant, not Alpha?
Please beware of "paralysis by analysis". "They" can spin study and study, data after data, to distract us with the minutia. To get us to disprove their claims, rather than proving theirs first.
I agree completely, hence my "new" category "Thus Always to Tyrants".
I'm also reminded by Karl Rove's statement about "truth" and "objectivity": we may all try to "fact-check" this and that, all the while the powers-that-be act.
Let's break that circle.
Actually, Drosten et al serve a purpose for those who can see: they "invariantly" state the opposite of the truths. Of course, we need to always apply common sense lest they double-cross us by actually stating the occasional truth, especially in off-topic ways!
Dr Simon Goddek and Bobby_Network have corrosively expose Drosten, the German Frauci.