Interesting headline here, eh? Another way to present this same reality would be “The COVID shots which we know don’t stop transmission also don’t reduce hospitalization unless you’re elderly”. But that headline wouldn’t help Pfizer out nearly as much as this gift-wrapping, would it? And when you realize the same people who control Pfizer also control Reuters, you realize this headline makes perfect sense. Par for the course in these wicked times.
Jan 9, 2023·edited Jan 9, 2023Liked by Theo Jordan
I am extremely skeptical about reports that any of this garbage helps the elderly. Plenty of elderly people have been killed by the shots. (Thank goodness they got the shot. It could have been so much worse.) Some Israeli reports have been legit but at this point, I don't trust any media reports out of any country who pushed this stuff.
Take up of the bivalent booster is now at 15.4% It barely inches up from week to week. Nobody wants it. Even the NY Times says so.
They can push Paxlovid as much as they want. Reports of metallic taste and the rebound effect are keeping most people away. Perhaps it may help the elderly but the study that I remember showed that it helped older people who were unvaccinated. There aren't that many of those around.....and those that are aren't probably aren't going to try it either. Even my vaxed husband (J&J and 1 booster) didn't want it when we both came down with Covid. He figured his immune system could handle it. He had a fever of 104 but got over it in about a week.
TV commercials in my area are constantly promoting the new Bivalent booster as working much better against both (outdated) variants, followed by "especially if you are over 55."
They know the younger viewers are not buying into it as much; however, they leave a little room for those on the fence, but kick the fear campaign up on those over 55 who are likely already a little more concerned about their health.
The word "especially" serves two purposes in their claim. It ramps up fear for the older, claiming they are at an especially higher risk, while also potentially giving some validity to the effectiveness, claiming it works especially in the older population, when they really mean statistically "only" for people over 55, but mostly people over 65.
I am extremely skeptical about reports that any of this garbage helps the elderly. Plenty of elderly people have been killed by the shots. (Thank goodness they got the shot. It could have been so much worse.) Some Israeli reports have been legit but at this point, I don't trust any media reports out of any country who pushed this stuff.
Take up of the bivalent booster is now at 15.4% It barely inches up from week to week. Nobody wants it. Even the NY Times says so.
They can push Paxlovid as much as they want. Reports of metallic taste and the rebound effect are keeping most people away. Perhaps it may help the elderly but the study that I remember showed that it helped older people who were unvaccinated. There aren't that many of those around.....and those that are aren't probably aren't going to try it either. Even my vaxed husband (J&J and 1 booster) didn't want it when we both came down with Covid. He figured his immune system could handle it. He had a fever of 104 but got over it in about a week.
Life with institutional trust burned to ashes is going to be a wild ride!
Agreed about skepticism of effectiveness in the elderly. Possibly harder to point to vax related issues or benefits with so many other comorbidities.
TV commercials in my area are constantly promoting the new Bivalent booster as working much better against both (outdated) variants, followed by "especially if you are over 55."
They know the younger viewers are not buying into it as much; however, they leave a little room for those on the fence, but kick the fear campaign up on those over 55 who are likely already a little more concerned about their health.
The word "especially" serves two purposes in their claim. It ramps up fear for the older, claiming they are at an especially higher risk, while also potentially giving some validity to the effectiveness, claiming it works especially in the older population, when they really mean statistically "only" for people over 55, but mostly people over 65.