NY Supreme Court orders reinstatement of fired untaxed staff, with backpay, says “Being vaccinated does not prevent an individual from contracting or transmitting COVID 19” Adding that the mandates were “about compliance”
….

Except that originally people were told if they get vaccinated they would not get the virus. Then it changed to..

“…When a German parliamentarian asked Lauterbach why so many vaccinated people were winding up hospitalized with COVID despite being vaccinated after being promised they would get only mild cases, the Health Minister could no longer deny it, conceding vaccinated people were indeed suffering in hospitals from severe cases. Lauterbach was left with no choice – he had to concoct a new promise: If you get vaccinated, you won’t die of serious COVID in the hospital…”


https://notrickszone.com/2022/10/25/...not-prevented/

Or… We could have a look-see at this study:

“…study of five million clients of US Veterans Affairs health services found that for the vaccinated, reinfection resulted in more serious health outcomes than their initial infection. In other words, vaccination including boosters did not decrease the risk of reinfection among clients of US veterans health services but did increase the severity of symptoms. Nor did vaccination provide any more protection against reinfection than the unvaccinated had…”


https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-1749502/v1

Comments via: https://hatchardreport.com/dr-helen-petousis-harris-backtracked-on-her-previous-overwhelmingly-pro-vaccine-advice-and-said-enough-is-enough/


:hmm:

It's worth actually reading that link. The study says nothing of the sort re vaccination increasing severity of symptoms. It would be incredible if the study really said that as the whole world would be jumping on it.

The guy who you quoted seems a little unreliable. He's notorious for copying made up facts and disclaims any responsibility for that. He is not even a medical doctor. He has given different accounts of what subject he is a doctor in!

It's bad form to link to a report and then show a summary of it which is made up BS.

Hmmm… if he is a “little unreliable” then you can offer up some quotes of same… ?..:hmm:

Re the study. I revisited the study that I linked to via The Hatchard Report (THR) and noted it were an abstract of a pre-print dated 17/June/22. Following the link at that site gives the current release published 10/November/22. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-02051-3

The THR claims were made reference the pre-print version. As I am unable to read the full pre-print version I do not know what changes were made for publication so am unable to comment on veracity of the conclusions that THR made. I am yet to fully read the current release.



.

I just showed you an example where what he claimed is not substantiated in the report you linked.

Perhaps you can tell us what your quoted Dr is a doctor of?

About a years back pay for 5 drivers. They are running up fast atm at the Fairwork place.

https://rebekahbarnett.substack.com/...-train-drivers

That’s it then. Only one example..:hmm:

As to his Dr claims… https://hatchardreport.com/about-guy/


Certainly a bit of a ‘different’ sort of chap..;)

I'm pointing out the claim re the vaccinated is baseless. You added the links yourself and there's enough in them to show the report doesn't back his claim.

Your latest link has added nothing to make me believe anything he says.

Who could have guessed that the climate change denying guy also is against vaccinations!?

I spot a Bot…

;)

:)

I don’t agree with every thing posted on the site: https://hatchardreport.com/


…back to the research papers. Kent Based, you do understand the difference between the preprint and published versions of a research paper ?



:hmm:

Fear-mongering nonsense..

This VA study (like the VA long Covid study) is junk. An observational study looking for associations. That's it.

The group that got reinfected was way sicker at baseline.
Look at Supp table 1 and Supp table 6 (support data is where authors bury all the data they have to include, but know that the lay press will never read).
Way more lived in residential aged care (nursing homes) - 6.8 V 2.6%
More type 2 diabetes - 36% V 32%
More anxiety (23 v 15%) and depression (21 v 15%) - these are very significant comorbidities regarding propensity to report other symptoms)
During the FIRST infection, those patients who subsequently got reinfected were more likely to be admitted to hospital (18% V 9%), more likely to be admitted to ICU (5 V 2%), and more likely to receive antivirals & immunomodulators (17 V 12%) compared to those who didn't get reinfected. than those who didn't get infected.

The reinfected group also had a far poorer immunisation history than those who were not reinfected. Thus, 62% of those not reinfected had received no immunisations, while 87% of those reinfected had received no immunisations (this is historical data which is why these numbers are so low)

So those who got reinfected were sicker across a range of measures, had received fewer vaccinations. and their 1st infection was (not surprisingly) more severe than those who did not get reinfected.

This study only shows that frailer sicker non-immunised people do worse. That's it.

and I spot tin foil. A lot of tin foil.

It's not difficult
1) You saw a claim which seems incredible
2) You cut and pasted the claim without checking if it was true.
3) You also pasted the supporting link. I don't know whether you read that, understood that or even bothered to examine the link at all?
4) The fact that your link doesn't support your claim is an issue you caused by blindly cut and pasting.

I know most covid vaccine deniers like to proclaim that they "do their own research". Perhaps try examining your sources in future?

I spot a preschooler Bot…;)

Hmmm…

Kent Based, you do understand the difference between the preprint and published versions of a research paper ?


:hmm:

I understand the difference between a boomer crapping on about how bad vaccines are and the difference between a boomer with a real life. Get over it tossers…the rest of the world is getting on with it, Jesus Christ…, now go and check on your rapidly declining property investments…

Not true, in Texas the only places where masks were required after the first few months were those places where the federal govt ruled, like the airport.

I haven’t read the paper in depth yet. slats11, you seem to have read the paper in depth. Reference the published paper, can you tell us what defined being vaccinated ? For example, the minute somebody receives their first vaccine, are they considered as vaccinated ? …or might it be they are not considered vaccinated until say two weeks after they receive the vaccine ?




.