Thread by @YossiGestetner

A new COVID variant drives markets insane because officials decided that COVID Zero is the goal; rather than to focus on early care and/or to expand healthcare capacity which was the original goal of lockdowns: Slow (not stop) the spread so that hospitals don’t get overrun.

Policy makers force C19 vaccination as if those vaccines are like for Polio, MMR where you take a few shots spread out over time and you are good for life, but it’s not the case here which is why many vaccinated people die with C19 and which is why boosters are needed so often.

When deciding lockdown policies or mitigation efforts such as demand for testing, policy makers don’t care about natural immunity. They either don’t gather the data at all or ignore the studies which show its relevance or they hype marginal differences between jabs and natural.

We are told that a being vaccinated against C19 is better than not being, but officials don’t say much how natural immunity from an infection 6-9 months ago lines up against having taken the jab 6-9 months ago. At best what we get is how natural immunity 6 months ago lines up

to having been vaccinated a month ago which is dishonest because the vaccine works good 1-2 months after taking it. That we know. When there IS a study lining up natural immunity to vaccines such as the one the CDC had a month ago, we get taken on a ride about the “diffidences”

despite them being at best marginal; a few points apart. That CDC study wasn’t one where it lined up jab/infection from only 6-9 months ago. It had data from people who had the jab more recent which of course juiced its “effectiveness” data, yet Natural Immunity held up nicely.

“Protection offered by booster shot beats ‘natural immunity,’ study suggests,” blares a @latimes headline but the details are of people who got boosted weeks ago.

We know it works well very short term!

Show us more data of 6-8 months after infection vs 6-8 after shots.