No Jab for me...here's why...Web site

Correct...he called it RARE....which is slim to none.



It's spread by symptomatic people.
Okay, so you were paraphrasing. That was not terribly clear. :) He did day "unlikely" but "rare" does not mean NONE. It is "rare" to have "breakthrough" infections after being vaccinated even with the best vaccines, but it can still happen. So one cannot say "none."

We now know that asymptomatic people CAN spread the virus, as they carry about the same payload of viruses as those with symptoms, but much less effieciently. But they don't drive pandemics, because they don't usually go around hacking and coughing all over the place. Knowledge of the virus and how it works continues to evolve.

But that JAMA Internal Medicine article I linked to on another thread did say that asymptomatic people CAN spread the virus, though less efficiently, since they usually do not cough or sneeze.


For the retrospective study, published Thursday in JAMA Internal Medicine, researchers analyzed samples from 303 patients between the ages of 22 and 36 who tested positive for the novel coronavirus at a community treatment center in Cheonan, South Korea.

Of the 303 patients, 110 were asymptomatic before they began self-isolating. However, 21 of those individuals, or 19%, turned out to be pre-symptomatic and developed symptoms of Covid-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus, between 13 and 20 days after beginning isolation.

The remaining 89 of the 110 asymptomatic patients did not develop symptoms over the course of a 20- to 26-day follow-up timeframe, according to the researchers. However, they found that the asymptomatic patients had as large of a viral load in their noses, throats, and lungs as patients who were infected with the coronavirus and developed symptoms of Covid-19.

Further, the researchers found that asymptomatic patients carried the virus nearly as long as symptomatic patients. Almost 34% of the asymptomatic patients tested negative for the novel coronavirus after 14 days, and that percentage grew to 75% after 21 days. In comparison, 29.6% of the symptomatic patients tested negative after 14 days, and just under 70% tested negative after 21 days....

Benjamin Cowling, an epidemiologist at the University of Hong Kong who was not involved in the study, added that the results "confirm what we've suspected for a long time—that asymptomatic cases can transmit infection." However, Cowling said, because asymptomatic people don't cough or sneeze, they might not be as efficient at spreading the virus as symptomatic people.

Many, many times I have read articles in magazines and the newspaper during flu season, that warn that even asymptomatic people can transmit the flu to others, even if the asymptomatic people feel just fine. And covid-19 is more contageous than even the flu, according to an article i read in the newspaper a few months ago.

Johns Hopkins also has this to say:

  • People infected with the coronavirus or the flu may not realize they are sick for several days, and during that time can unknowingly spread the disease to others before they even feel sick.

Here is a bit more, from last November, that explains why covid-19 seems to be more contagious:


One of the reasons is that the incubation period for covid-19 is much longer than for flu--flu is round 2-14 days, but covid is up to 2 weeks, so asymptomatic people could be shedding the virus without even being aware of it.
 
Last edited:
Okay, so you were paraphrasing. That was not terribly clear. :) He did day "unlikely" but "rare" does not mean NONE. It is "rare" to have "breakthrough" infections after being vaccinated even with the best vaccines, but it can still happen. So one cannot say "none."

I said SLIM to none. That is RARE.

We now know that asymptomatic people CAN spread the virus,

RARELY...
But that JAMA Internal Medicine article I linked to on another thread did say that asymptomatic people CAN spread the virus, though less efficiently, since they usually do not cough or sneeze.

Right...so it is RARE.
 
I didn't say never, I said I don't....pay attention.

But doesn't everyone know Tucker is on FOX? I don't live under a rock.
I didn't until this thread, since I don't watch Fox or any other program for national/international news. I never even heard of the guy until last week. I only occasionally watch TV for local news. National and international news I get from the newspaper.
 
I said SLIM to none. That is RARE.



RARELY...


Right...so it is RARE.
But NOT NONE. Though "slim to none" can mean "EXTREMELY unlikely, VERY rare."

Rare meaning:

rare
[rer]

ADJECTIVE
  1. (of an event, situation, or condition) not occurring very often.
    "a rare genetic disorder" ·
    [more]
    synonyms:
    infrequent · few and far between · scarce · sparse · scattered·
    [more]
    • (of a thing) not found in large numbers and consequently of interest or value.
      "the jellyfish tree, one of the rarest plants on earth"
      synonyms:
      unusual · uncommon · unfamiliar · out of the ordinary · atypical · singular · remy

So, while it would be rare, I don't think it is EXTREMEMLY rare or VERY rare. Just...rare. But maybe not as rare as we think, according to my link about that JAMA article, since asymptomatic people don't stay home and go about among other people, and they could still sneeze and cough, due to allergies, dust, etc.

But we DO know more about the virus now than we did a year ago. Knowledge about it is evolving and probably will for some time to come.
 
Last edited:
Ferengi, the answer is in my post no. 1465, with a link to an article about something from the JAMA Internal Medicine journal. :)

So, while asymptomatic people are far less likely to spread the virus than symptomatic, it can still happen and their virus payload is about the same as for symptomatic people, according to the article.
 
Ferengi, the answer is in my post no. 1465, with a link to an article about something from the JAMA Internal Medicine journal. :)

So, while asymptomatic people are far less likely to spread the virus than symptomatic, it can still happen and their virus payload is about the same as for symptomatic people, according to the article.
IOW you have nothing
 
But NOT NONE. Though "slim to none" can mean "EXTREMELY unlikely, VERY rare."

Rare meaning:


So, while it would be rare, I don't think it is EXTREMEMLY rare or VERY rare. Just...rare. But maybe not as rare as we think, according to my link about that JAMA article, since asymptomatic people don't stay home and go about among other people, and they could still sneeze and cough, due to allergies, dust, etc.

But we DO know more about the virus now than we did a year ago. Knowledge about it is evolving and probably will for some time to come.
So the buzz word is...asymptomatic people...

What I hear is that they don't spread the China virus. Some say they can spread the virus. I've never seen the result of test that say one or the other.

For the most part asymptomatic people don't even know they had it...or have it unless they get tested and we do know there were a lot of false positives that probably made "asymptomatic people".
 
But NOT NONE. Though "slim to none" can mean "EXTREMELY unlikely, VERY rare."

Right....RARE. No one is going to get covid walking passed someone in a grocery store or any other store or sitting in a restaurant.

So, while it would be rare, I don't think it is EXTREMEMLY rare or VERY rare.

I disagree....I believe it's EXTREMELY rare.
 
Because the MSM has made a god out of this fraud.

Whoever controls the media controls the mind~~~Jim Morrison
Fauci is a highly respected scientist, and while he made missteps in the beginning, he was dealing with a previously unknown virus, and some of the earliest statements had to be revised as more data became available. This is how science works. It is not like religion where there is an aversion to making changes to doctrine. Or like some political sectors, where changed opinions are decried as "flip-flops" even when those changes are warranted by new data.
 
Yea, because forced Vaccines and “show me your papers” were a conspiracy theory a few months ago too....

Not that I expect you to understand what is to come.
Do you seriously think that unvaccinated people will be loaded into boxcars and sent to death camps? that is what your analogy suggests.

No one is proposing forced vaccination, but if people don't want to take this precaution against infection, then why is it wrong to impose restrictions on their activities depending on the circumstances? "Responsibility" used to be a Republican mantra, but apparently not when it comes to how to behave in a pandemic.
 
I’m sure you believe those paid shills.
Why do conservatives think that people who work as scientists and get paid for their jobs should not be trusted to present scientific information? Why is the fact that scientists get paid as scientists somehow make their public comments suspect?

Instead you think that political lobbyists or RW radio or television hosts or bloggers are good sources of information?
 
You’d be surprised just how many are.
Except you cannot name them and connect the dots to show how these scientists you do not trust are somehow influenced to say things that are not true.

So who is it who is forcing people like Fauci, in your opinion, to lie to the public?

Name them. You seem so convinced, so you should be able to name them, right?
 
Do you seriously think that unvaccinated people will be loaded into boxcars and sent to death camps? that is what your analogy suggests.

No one is proposing forced vaccination, but if people don't want to take this precaution against infection, then why is it wrong to impose restrictions on their activities depending on the circumstances? "Responsibility" used to be a Republican mantra, but apparently not when it comes to how to behave in a pandemic.
”Why is it wrong to impose restrictions on their activities...” You actually wrote that, and yet you claim no one is being forced to be vaccinated. Which activities will it come to? Being able to buy groceries? Going outside?

There are democrats, including politicians, who actually did say unvaccinated people should be rounded up and isolated from everyone else. The same thing they said about anyone who supported Trump. “Re-education camps” is what they called them.
 
No, it’s covered up for life.
No.
If you really think that, then present the evidence that this happens. You cannot. Just because you believe something, does not make it true.

If science is faked, then the results are flawed and subsequent studies based on those earlier flawed results will not work. This is how fraud or even honest mistakes can be discovered and corrected.

We cannot hope to have a functional scientific enterprise that supports technological innovations if flawed results are somehow routinely protected and covered up. We, in the USA, are highly respected for the innovative and accurate science we produce. If our results and conclusions cannot be supported in followup experiments, then we would destroy our reputation and our primacy in science.

We don't do what you are baselessly accusing us of doing.

As Neil deGrasse Tyson said: "The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."
 
Back
Top