NY Times Is Grooming You for Covid Reinfections Forever, Every 3-4 Months
Whatever happened to the magic jabs?
Let me condense the pile of steaming propaganda from NY Times to this brief Q&A session:
Q. “How Often Can You Be Infected With the Coronavirus?“ - asks NY Times on May 16.
A. “repeatedly, sometimes within months.”
Q. How come? Weren’t the “vaccines” designed to prevent that?
A. “The central problem is that the coronavirus has become more adept at reinfecting people. Variants that are adept at dodging the body’s defenses, and waves of infections two, maybe three times a year — this may be the future of Covid-19, some scientists now fear.”
Q. Body’s defenses? But, again, what about the vaccines?!
A. “The new variants have not altered the fundamental usefulness of the Covid vaccines. Most people who have received three or even just two doses will not become sick enough to need medical care if they test positive for the coronavirus. And a booster dose, like a previous bout with the virus, does seem to decrease the chance of reinfection — but not by much.“
Q. So, what are you to do to us next?
A. “…the Covid vaccines should be updated more quickly, even more quickly than flu vaccines are each year. Even an imperfect match to a new form of the coronavirus will still broaden immunity and offer some protection.“ “
The way to get it under control is not, ‘Let’s all get infected a few times a year and then hope for the best.“
And there you have it - “vaccines” failed, therefore we need more “vaccines” more often! Rrroll up your sleeves, peasants!
Notice a sleight of hand, though, right there in the middle! The author of this propaganda piece states that both previous jabbing OR a previous bout with the virus offer only limited-in-time “protection”, and “not by much” at that. They do reference a scientific article to back it up, so!
Their calculus is simple, though: 99.9% of the gullible peasants will not follow the link OR read the study, even if their life depends on it.
So, I will do it for them here. “A previous bout with the virus” link points to this study: “Effectiveness of Primary and Booster COVID-19 mRNA Vaccination against Infection Caused by the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Variant in People with a Prior SARS-CoV-2 Infection“ (BMJ Yale, 2022.04.19). As it turns out, this study never compared unvaccinated convalescent reinfected with the jabbed reinfected in the first place!
They actually compared fully-jabbed&reinfected with the boosted&reinfected:
We estimated the effectiveness of primary vaccination during the period before and during booster eligibility (14-149 and ≥150 days, respectively, after 2nd dose) and of booster vaccination (≥14 days after booster dose).
We conducted two analyses, each with an outcome of Omicron BA.1 variant infection (S-gene target failure defined) and each stratified by prior SARS-CoV-2 infection status. The odds ratio comparing boosted and booster eligible people with prior infection was 0.83 (95% CI, 0.56-1.23), whereas the odds ratio comparing boosted and booster eligible people without prior infection was 0.51 (95% CI, 0.46-0.56).“
Note that nothing is being said by the esteemed authors of the “study” about the median time period from “becoming fully jabbed” to “reinfection” vs “becoming boosted” to “reinfection”. Haven’t we heard from the same “scientists” that these “vaccines” wear off, rapidly? Wouldn’t this piece of insight influence the study “conclusions” in any way? Rhetorical.
In other words, infected&boosted got reinfected 83% as often as infected&fully-jabbed. Whereas uninfected&boosted got infected 51% as often ad uninfected&fully-jabbed. Meaning, the more you jab, the less protection is conferred unto you by the virtue of being prior-infected. Moreover:
The effectiveness of primary vaccination 14-149 days after 2nd dose was 36.1% (95% CI, 7.1-56.1%) and 28.5% (95% CI, 20.0-36.2%) for people with and without prior infection, respectively. The effectiveness of booster vaccination was 45.8% (95% CI, 20.0-63.2%) and 56.9% (95% CI, 52.1-61.2%) in people with and without prior infection, respectively.
Meaning, you have FEWER chances to get reinfected after you became “fully jabbed” IF you were prior-infected. But, you have MORE chances to get reinfected after you became “boosted” IF you were prior-infected. I.e., the more you boost, the worse off you become. The authors of this “study” word it more diplomatically: “These findings support primary vaccination in people regardless of prior infection status but suggest that infection history should be considered when evaluating the need for booster vaccination.“
Have you ever heard of the Original Antigenic Sin? I.e., you can’t keep jabbing with the similar jabs trying to fine-tune failing “vaccine” to the new variants as your immune system “latches on” to the originally invoked “immunity”, no matter how good or bad. So, jab judiciously or not at all.
Full circle back to the NY Times post and its conclusion that we must be jabbed much more often with more experimental gene treatments. Haven’t they just shot themselves in the foot by referencing this “study”, no matter how flawed?
And the beautiful part of it is: they don’t give a hoot! Not many lemmings read past the article’s title/subtitle, let alone follow the links to “scientific” articles, let alone try to make sense of it all. It’s much easier to do one’s part, get another jab and get on with one’s life (bar any ill effects from the jabs), occasionally discriminating against the great unwashed/unvaccinated for daring to read past the subtitles and to make their own judgements.