| Users Online Now: 2,570 (Who's On?) | Visitors Today: 1,262,121 | |
| Pageviews Today: 2,107,270 | Threads Today: 855 | Posts Today: 15,040 |
| 08:04 PM | ||
| Users Online Now: 2,570 (Who's On?) | Visitors Today: 1,262,121 | |
| Pageviews Today: 2,107,270 | Threads Today: 855 | Posts Today: 15,040 |
| 08:04 PM | ||
Compilation of reasons to tell Vaxtards to f*** off | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 78058726  Australia11/29/2021 10:08 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 78058726 Australia11/29/2021 10:09 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 78058726 Australia11/29/2021 10:09 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 78058726 Australia11/29/2021 10:10 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 78058726 Australia11/29/2021 10:10 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 78058726 Australia11/29/2021 10:11 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 78058726 Australia11/29/2021 10:11 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 78058726 Australia11/29/2021 10:12 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
SaveUSa
(OP) User ID: 80947256  United States11/29/2021 10:14 PM  Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Just picked a random one, had a flick Quoting: Sol-tari In this cluster of COVID-19 cases, little to no transmission occurred from asymptomatic case-patients. That's good! Presymptomatic transmission was more frequent than symptomatic transmission. The serial interval was short; very short intervals occurred. That's bad! The fact that we did not detect any laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 transmission from asymptomatic case-patients is in line with multiple studies That's Good! The 75% of SARS-CoV-2 transmissions in our cohort from case-patients in their presymptomatic phase exceeds reported transmission rates from other investigations (1,13,14). Possible reasons are the prior evidence that infectiousness peaks around the date of symptom onset, declining thereafter (15), and that case-patients probably reduced social contacts themselves once they experienced symptoms or when ordered to self-isolate. That's bad Of note are the consequences for public health management: first, the need for early detection of COVID-19 cases and for initiation of contact tracing as soon as possible to quarantine close contacts, particularly because short serial intervals may lead to further transmission chains. Second, suspect case-patients or persons with any respiratory illness should immediately self-isolate and inform their contacts met in the presymptomatic and symptomatic phases. The topping is also cursed [link to wwwnc.cdc.gov (secure)] From your link. Took me 5 minutes of reading. And your "proof" of a bullshit narrative actually bites you in the ass...because the study shows people are likely to infect other at the earliest stages, before symptoms even show within an individual- before the virus has even taken a hold and beaten their immune system Ain't gonna bother with the rest And this means the “study” is shit, but does at least further acknowledge that asymptomatic spread is not evidenced here. Which supports the other studies and articles also posted. “A limitation of our study is that evidence was obtained from a single outbreak and might not be applicable to other settings. We used only information as recalled by the case-patients, which is imperfect and may introduce errors or bias. Because we used development of respiratory symptoms as a proxy for possible SARS-CoV-2 infections among contacts, and because incidence of respiratory illnesses was still high in this winter timeframe, SARres may be overestimated. However, this possible source of misclassification should be nondifferential between groups. We excluded many HCs because of uncertainties about the potential simultaneous introduction of SARS-CoV-2 in the household, which may have led to an underestimation of SAR among HCs. In the transmission tree, we had to omit various source case–infectee pairs because case-patients’ recalled symptom onset differed substantially from surveillance data and was not plausible (Appendix). Finally, although community transmission of SARS-CoV-2 was deemed unlikely in the affected district at the time, we cannot rule out that some cases acquired infections from other sources.” So, no - the cdc “study” does not refute or discredit the other sources and articles. They had to “redefine” asymptomatic to “presymptomatic” because they knew other studies were forthcoming that would blow their narrative regarding lockdowns and contact tracing. Last Edited by SaveUSa on 11/29/2021 10:25 PM Within the surreal depths of "reality" lies the truth. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 78058726 Australia11/29/2021 10:14 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| SaveUSa
(OP) User ID: 80947256 United States11/29/2021 10:19 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Guessing your thread includes most of my above referenced articles or studies. My objective here is to source “the source.” Giving folks more ready access to the authoritative info they need to more easily combat the more “cerebral” leftards that listen to public radio and other mind numbing bullshit. I put a ton of cdc links in here Thread: breaking news! CDC says booster shots are now MANDATORY because of omnicron! They are all in that other thread Its where I found them Or just go to seach box and type in CDC AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS Thanks! Keep ‘em coming! Within the surreal depths of "reality" lies the truth. |
| Sol-tari
User ID: 76243534 Australia11/29/2021 11:32 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Just picked a random one, had a flick Quoting: Sol-tari In this cluster of COVID-19 cases, little to no transmission occurred from asymptomatic case-patients. That's good! Presymptomatic transmission was more frequent than symptomatic transmission. The serial interval was short; very short intervals occurred. That's bad! The fact that we did not detect any laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 transmission from asymptomatic case-patients is in line with multiple studies That's Good! The 75% of SARS-CoV-2 transmissions in our cohort from case-patients in their presymptomatic phase exceeds reported transmission rates from other investigations (1,13,14). Possible reasons are the prior evidence that infectiousness peaks around the date of symptom onset, declining thereafter (15), and that case-patients probably reduced social contacts themselves once they experienced symptoms or when ordered to self-isolate. That's bad Of note are the consequences for public health management: first, the need for early detection of COVID-19 cases and for initiation of contact tracing as soon as possible to quarantine close contacts, particularly because short serial intervals may lead to further transmission chains. Second, suspect case-patients or persons with any respiratory illness should immediately self-isolate and inform their contacts met in the presymptomatic and symptomatic phases. The topping is also cursed [link to wwwnc.cdc.gov (secure)] From your link. Took me 5 minutes of reading. And your "proof" of a bullshit narrative actually bites you in the ass...because the study shows people are likely to infect other at the earliest stages, before symptoms even show within an individual- before the virus has even taken a hold and beaten their immune system Ain't gonna bother with the rest And this means the “study” is shit, but does at least further acknowledge that asymptomatic spread is not evidenced here. Which supports the other studies and articles also posted. “A limitation of our study is that evidence was obtained from a single outbreak and might not be applicable to other settings. We used only information as recalled by the case-patients, which is imperfect and may introduce errors or bias. Because we used development of respiratory symptoms as a proxy for possible SARS-CoV-2 infections among contacts, and because incidence of respiratory illnesses was still high in this winter timeframe, SARres may be overestimated. However, this possible source of misclassification should be nondifferential between groups. We excluded many HCs because of uncertainties about the potential simultaneous introduction of SARS-CoV-2 in the household, which may have led to an underestimation of SAR among HCs. In the transmission tree, we had to omit various source case–infectee pairs because case-patients’ recalled symptom onset differed substantially from surveillance data and was not plausible (Appendix). Finally, although community transmission of SARS-CoV-2 was deemed unlikely in the affected district at the time, we cannot rule out that some cases acquired infections from other sources.” So, no - the cdc “study” does not refute or discredit the other sources and articles. They had to “redefine” asymptomatic to “presymptomatic” because they knew other studies were forthcoming that would blow their narrative regarding lockdowns and contact tracing.  Sorry your own link fucked up your narrative  *Glitches May Occur. Consume(D) At Own Risk |
| SaveUSa
(OP) User ID: 80947256 United States11/30/2021 12:09 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Just picked a random one, had a flick Quoting: Sol-tari In this cluster of COVID-19 cases, little to no transmission occurred from asymptomatic case-patients. That's good! Presymptomatic transmission was more frequent than symptomatic transmission. The serial interval was short; very short intervals occurred. That's bad! The fact that we did not detect any laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 transmission from asymptomatic case-patients is in line with multiple studies That's Good! The 75% of SARS-CoV-2 transmissions in our cohort from case-patients in their presymptomatic phase exceeds reported transmission rates from other investigations (1,13,14). Possible reasons are the prior evidence that infectiousness peaks around the date of symptom onset, declining thereafter (15), and that case-patients probably reduced social contacts themselves once they experienced symptoms or when ordered to self-isolate. That's bad Of note are the consequences for public health management: first, the need for early detection of COVID-19 cases and for initiation of contact tracing as soon as possible to quarantine close contacts, particularly because short serial intervals may lead to further transmission chains. Second, suspect case-patients or persons with any respiratory illness should immediately self-isolate and inform their contacts met in the presymptomatic and symptomatic phases. The topping is also cursed [link to wwwnc.cdc.gov (secure)] From your link. Took me 5 minutes of reading. And your "proof" of a bullshit narrative actually bites you in the ass...because the study shows people are likely to infect other at the earliest stages, before symptoms even show within an individual- before the virus has even taken a hold and beaten their immune system Ain't gonna bother with the rest And this means the “study” is shit, but does at least further acknowledge that asymptomatic spread is not evidenced here. Which supports the other studies and articles also posted. “A limitation of our study is that evidence was obtained from a single outbreak and might not be applicable to other settings. We used only information as recalled by the case-patients, which is imperfect and may introduce errors or bias. Because we used development of respiratory symptoms as a proxy for possible SARS-CoV-2 infections among contacts, and because incidence of respiratory illnesses was still high in this winter timeframe, SARres may be overestimated. However, this possible source of misclassification should be nondifferential between groups. We excluded many HCs because of uncertainties about the potential simultaneous introduction of SARS-CoV-2 in the household, which may have led to an underestimation of SAR among HCs. In the transmission tree, we had to omit various source case–infectee pairs because case-patients’ recalled symptom onset differed substantially from surveillance data and was not plausible (Appendix). Finally, although community transmission of SARS-CoV-2 was deemed unlikely in the affected district at the time, we cannot rule out that some cases acquired infections from other sources.” So, no - the cdc “study” does not refute or discredit the other sources and articles. They had to “redefine” asymptomatic to “presymptomatic” because they knew other studies were forthcoming that would blow their narrative regarding lockdowns and contact tracing. Sorry your own link fucked up your narrative Your opinion, but whatever. All I see is you attempting to derail multiple credible studies and opinions that refute the bullshit narrative you’ve likely swallowed. BTW - which booster are you on now? Within the surreal depths of "reality" lies the truth. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 68176410 Australia11/30/2021 12:27 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| SmoothSailing
User ID: 35509688 United States11/30/2021 07:04 AM  Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation |  "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear." Marcus Tullius Cicero |
| Sol-tari
User ID: 76243534 Australia11/30/2021 07:08 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Just picked a random one, had a flick Quoting: Sol-tari In this cluster of COVID-19 cases, little to no transmission occurred from asymptomatic case-patients. That's good! Presymptomatic transmission was more frequent than symptomatic transmission. The serial interval was short; very short intervals occurred. That's bad! The fact that we did not detect any laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 transmission from asymptomatic case-patients is in line with multiple studies That's Good! The 75% of SARS-CoV-2 transmissions in our cohort from case-patients in their presymptomatic phase exceeds reported transmission rates from other investigations (1,13,14). Possible reasons are the prior evidence that infectiousness peaks around the date of symptom onset, declining thereafter (15), and that case-patients probably reduced social contacts themselves once they experienced symptoms or when ordered to self-isolate. That's bad Of note are the consequences for public health management: first, the need for early detection of COVID-19 cases and for initiation of contact tracing as soon as possible to quarantine close contacts, particularly because short serial intervals may lead to further transmission chains. Second, suspect case-patients or persons with any respiratory illness should immediately self-isolate and inform their contacts met in the presymptomatic and symptomatic phases. The topping is also cursed [link to wwwnc.cdc.gov (secure)] From your link. Took me 5 minutes of reading. And your "proof" of a bullshit narrative actually bites you in the ass...because the study shows people are likely to infect other at the earliest stages, before symptoms even show within an individual- before the virus has even taken a hold and beaten their immune system Ain't gonna bother with the rest And this means the “study” is shit, but does at least further acknowledge that asymptomatic spread is not evidenced here. Which supports the other studies and articles also posted. “A limitation of our study is that evidence was obtained from a single outbreak and might not be applicable to other settings. We used only information as recalled by the case-patients, which is imperfect and may introduce errors or bias. Because we used development of respiratory symptoms as a proxy for possible SARS-CoV-2 infections among contacts, and because incidence of respiratory illnesses was still high in this winter timeframe, SARres may be overestimated. However, this possible source of misclassification should be nondifferential between groups. We excluded many HCs because of uncertainties about the potential simultaneous introduction of SARS-CoV-2 in the household, which may have led to an underestimation of SAR among HCs. In the transmission tree, we had to omit various source case–infectee pairs because case-patients’ recalled symptom onset differed substantially from surveillance data and was not plausible (Appendix). Finally, although community transmission of SARS-CoV-2 was deemed unlikely in the affected district at the time, we cannot rule out that some cases acquired infections from other sources.” So, no - the cdc “study” does not refute or discredit the other sources and articles. They had to “redefine” asymptomatic to “presymptomatic” because they knew other studies were forthcoming that would blow their narrative regarding lockdowns and contact tracing. Sorry your own link fucked up your narrative Your opinion, but whatever. All I see is you attempting to derail multiple credible studies and opinions that refute the bullshit narrative you’ve likely swallowed. BTW - which booster are you on now? Derail? Mate I just posted from the study. It shows asymptomatic people aren't to blame for the spread... But people prior to even that... Which ah...like I said... Is also cursed... Read the studies before you post next time Last Edited by Sol-tari on 11/30/2021 07:08 AM *Glitches May Occur. Consume(D) At Own Risk |
| SaveUSa
(OP) User ID: 80947256 United States11/30/2021 07:55 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: SaveUSa And this means the “study” is shit, but does at least further acknowledge that asymptomatic spread is not evidenced here. Which supports the other studies and articles also posted. “A limitation of our study is that evidence was obtained from a single outbreak and might not be applicable to other settings. We used only information as recalled by the case-patients, which is imperfect and may introduce errors or bias. Because we used development of respiratory symptoms as a proxy for possible SARS-CoV-2 infections among contacts, and because incidence of respiratory illnesses was still high in this winter timeframe, SARres may be overestimated. However, this possible source of misclassification should be nondifferential between groups. We excluded many HCs because of uncertainties about the potential simultaneous introduction of SARS-CoV-2 in the household, which may have led to an underestimation of SAR among HCs. In the transmission tree, we had to omit various source case–infectee pairs because case-patients’ recalled symptom onset differed substantially from surveillance data and was not plausible (Appendix). Finally, although community transmission of SARS-CoV-2 was deemed unlikely in the affected district at the time, we cannot rule out that some cases acquired infections from other sources.” So, no - the cdc “study” does not refute or discredit the other sources and articles. They had to “redefine” asymptomatic to “presymptomatic” because they knew other studies were forthcoming that would blow their narrative regarding lockdowns and contact tracing. Sorry your own link fucked up your narrative Your opinion, but whatever. All I see is you attempting to derail multiple credible studies and opinions that refute the bullshit narrative you’ve likely swallowed. BTW - which booster are you on now? Derail? Mate I just posted from the study. It shows asymptomatic people aren't to blame for the spread... But people prior to even that... Which ah...like I said... Is also cursed... Read the studies before you post next time Care to comment on any other? Last Edited by SaveUSa on 11/30/2021 07:56 AM Within the surreal depths of "reality" lies the truth. |
| Sol-tari
User ID: 76243534 Australia11/30/2021 08:09 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | [link to academic.oup.com (secure)] Make sure your Doctor knows how to correctly administer medicine as directed, be it in a syringe, pills or surgery. If they fuck up, they can kill you If done correctly, this one is invalid. Now, do your own research - most of these are articles, not scientific papers.  *Glitches May Occur. Consume(D) At Own Risk |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 79607951 Australia11/30/2021 11:51 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 81411713 Australia12/03/2021 01:51 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
