It's time once and for all to address the gaslighting talking point that "Covid jabs give you a much better chance of avoiding a severe infection even if they don't stop you from being infected." This is a canard, which I will prove here.
First of all, the canard is gaslighting because many using it are now trying to claim there were never any promises that jabs prevented infection. Tell that to our CDC, which on 3/29/21 published this study boasting 90% efficacy against transmission.
Now with #Omicron the risk of breakthrough infection has more than quintupled, while the risk of breakthrough hospitalizations for the jabbed has at least doubled!
This brings me to my first point, just as Delta made any prior data sample irrelevant, Omicron is now doing the same. So anyone showing you some jabbed/unjabbed chart going back a year is either an idiot or propagandist. Hopefully they at least get paid by Big Pharma for it.
Here's the second point: it's not a one-on-one proposition about whether or not to get jabbed. It's an overall risk assessment. And the truth is the overall risk of either Covid death or hospitalization is VERY, VERY LOW.
As of September 2021, CDC estimated there were at least 146.6 million Covid infections so far in the U.S. Let assume 3 more months has gone by without adding a single one. That's not the case, obviously, but we'll go with it to prove the overall point.
CDC also estimates as of 12/25/21 there has been approximately 2,598,680 total Covid-associated hospitalizations in the U.S. Only 2% of them have been under the age of 18, btw, while 42% have been 65 and older (by the far biggest bloc).
That would mean only 1.7% of ALL Covid infections have ever led to hospitalization, and that's if we under-estimate infections by three months up against current Covid hospitalization rates. In other words, the actual rate would be even lower.
Some will say "well the jabs deserve credit for those numbers dropping so low." I would actually grant that under the pre-Delta paradigm. However, post-Delta, CDC says the hospitalization rate is actually HIGHER than it was in the 3rd and 4th quarters of 2020 before we had jabs.
In other words, the pre and post-Delta data basically cancels each other out, and we're pretty much back to base line.
Now to Covid deaths. Worldometer reports there have now been 852,474 total deaths with Covid in the U.S. That would put the overall IFR for Covid in the U.S. at just 0.58%, which is still using a 3-month old infection number so that IFR is actually lower.
Data from WHO shows Delta produced worse death numbers during the seasonal Sun Belt wave and well into fall in 2021 than we saw in 2020 before any jabs.
However, the early part of the Northern seasonal wave was actually showing fewer deaths than late-November through December last year if you look at the WHO data. And of course the Northern states are all more jabbed.
But, and this is a big but, there are massive breakthrough surges now happening in the Northern seasonal wave, at least somewhat driven by Omicron. Thus, we will need to check back in a month or so to see if that wall against lethality holds up.
Still, though, we have to deal with the overall risk assessment. The overall severe infection risk assessment for those under 65 (and especially under 75) from Covid is blessedly very, very, very low.
That means those in the younger demos are right to be concerned about long-term side effects of experimental technology. Especially when a FDA panel member openly admits it has to test its actual safety on our kids:
The average death with Covid is over 75 with up to 4 co-morbidities. About 16% of the population is 65+, so obviously the percentage goes down the older we go. Therefore, once again, the vast majority of Americans are not at serious risk for severe Covid infection jabbed or not.
That's why charts like this from @SenRonJohnson resonates with so many people. They're not non-conformist idiots. They're critical thinkers doing a risk-benefit analysis of Covid risk for them vs the jab.
We are ALL taking a risk. Either with a virus of likely malicious origin or experimental tech whose long-term effects won't be fully known till experienced in real-time. Especially if we're going to re-inject and re-inject with boosters every few months into perpetuity.
Stop comparing it to the flu shot in that regard. The flu shot has been around for decades, isn't mandated, doesn't lie/embellish about its true efficacy, and you're not asked to take three or four of them in a year.
And this doesn't even take into account the ongoing and evil denial of early treatments, and how many severe infections that savagery has caused. Or the WITH vs FROM Covid counting scam that has been happening all along.
I've seen people at places like even Breitbart post here the same Big Pharma commercials claiming to be data the corporate media blue check marks have a fetish for. Both are wrong, as I've demonstrated, because they don't factor in the overall risk ratio on both ends.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I looked into the cross tabs of this poll in 3 key battleground states -- Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Because it is absolutely impossible for Trump to get the required 270 Electoral College votes without winning at least 1 of them. Darned near impossible for him to get there without winning at least 2 of them.
Here are some cross-tabs that just don't make sense:
Nevada
-Claims Trump is winning women by 9 there when he lost them by 10 in 2020 (if this is true, why all the caving on abortion then?).
-Claims Trump is winning men there by 18 when he won them by only 5 in 2020.
-Claims Trump is winning Hispanics there by 11 when he lost them by 26 in 2020.
Pennsylvania
-Claims Trump is only losing women there by 3 when he lost them by 11 in 2020 (if this is true, why all the caving on abortion then?).
-Claims Trump is ahead there despite doing 5 points worse with whites than he did in 2020.
-Claims Biden is only getting 44% of the Philadelphia vote when he received 81% of it in 2020.
-Claims Biden is only getting 50% of the black vote there when he received 92% in 2020.
Percentage of electorate that is suburban/black during Trump era:
2022: 52/11
2020: 51/13
2018: 51/11
2016: 49/12
Can someone, anyone, please explain to me why the level of Righty election obsession on this app is like 90-10 more fixated on gaining another point or two of the voting bloc that is a sliver of the electorate — compared to the largest bloc of swing voters in every election?
Is it just as simple as the whites who consume our content are so desperate to be told they’re not racists anymore, that we are likewise this desperate for their business?
This is what I mean when I say the content we produce as an industry too often puts us at odds with what we claim are our stated goals as a movement.
Furthermore, check out this chart of states with black populations higher than the national average (blacks are 14% of US population). There are 16 of these states. What may surprise is you there are 6 solid red states and only 5 solid blue states. Furthermore, other than Michigan, the other 4 swing states here (GA, NC, VA, and FL) are swing due to wait for it…wait for it…wait for it…LARGE SUBURBAN POPULATIONS! You can’t make this up.
Text from someone who spends millions each election to help Republicans:
“I tell my donors this is a waste of money, and there is much more crossover appeal with Hispanics, but they don’t want to hear it. They’re tired of being called racists.”
Some takeaways from the #IACaucus results in this thread, the first official votes of the 2024 election.
Before the vote, I said I was confident in 4 things:
1) Turnout would be down. ✔️ 2) DeSantis would over-perform his polling. ✔️ 3) Haley wouldn't finish second. ✔️ 4) Haley would be closer to Vivek than DeSantis. ✖️
So I was right on 3/4. But there are details in there that must be further discussed, so we shall.
Turnout Would Be Down.
Make no mistake, this was a dominant performance by former President Trump. He more than doubled the record for largest caucus win ever (previously set by Dole 1988, who didn't win the nomination btw). Before we get into some other ominous signs within the turnout, though, that needs to be acknowledged from the jump. It is clear 'muh polls' were right about his support. Congratulations to him and his team. Tip of the cap. You blew the roof off the joint. Give them their flowers.
However, this election isn't about winning the Iowa Caucuses. It's really about winning 294 days from today. And to that end, there are concerns.
Yes, I expected turnout to be down. Until recently, this has been a low energy cycle in Iowa. Then we had the worst winter weather I can remember leading up to the in-person vote. However, I never expected a 41% drop in turnout from 2016. That is not good. When you factor in we have by far the most registered Republicans in the state's history, this is the worst turnout in the history of the Iowa Caucuses.
Can it all be chalked up to weather? Perhaps. But remember, GOP turnout was noticeably down across-the-board in the special and off-year elections in 2023 as well. So this is something to watch as we move forward, because I can't think of a time when a party had diminished turnout in a primary cycle and then went on to success in the general.
The biggest driver in depressed turnout? Shockingly it was white evangelicals -- long considered perhaps Trump's strongest base. They were 64% of caucus goers in 2016 but just 55% this year. No GOP nominee is winning a general election with depressed white evangelical turnout like that, no matter what percentage of them he gets.
My man is the first elected official to snap the spines of the demonic teachers' unions in a major urban population center. This is a generational accomplishment. All he does is win on policy, which is what matters most. Except when it doesn't...
The problem is it's very hard to build an uber-lucrative following in this business with a narrative of winning on policy, because much of the GOP base doesn't actually care about policy despite its claims to the contrary. We are not the people we claim to be.
Since we're not backed by gubmint and global corporations like Left Media, we often need to move where the food is. Which is more often found perpetuating a victim narrative more than a victor one, and exposing Leftist hypocrisy more than demanding GOP accountability.
With a night to sleep on it and reflect, thought I'd share some thoughts on the Colorado Supreme Court being the first to do the kinds of things I've been predicting for most of this year we were going to see. Let's try and look at this from several different angles.
Legal
People whose opinions I respect, including some that aren't even in the Trump Ride or Die camp, believe the opinion is basically junk. However, never forget this:
We are not a nation of laws, and never have been, but a nation of political will, and we will always will be.
For example, imagine Righty social media post-Roe v Wade. "This is complete bunk. There's no right to murder your kid in the Constitution, let alone an explicit right to privacy. This will get overturned." Instead, Roe was the "law of the land" for half a century.