Imperial College is Gates controlled garbage.

They came up.with the fake models used to shutdown the US.
[Reply]

Riiiiggggghhhht! Another marketing gimmick to push vaccines that are really gene therapies and which maim and kill. Damned if you get the vax and damned if you don't.
[Reply]

Models based on assumptions—like those climate models. Out in what you want to get out what you want or rather—garbage in; garbage out.
[Reply]

The first part of the scam is you need to deny natural immunity.

That's why Fauci denies it and Walensky. You can't scare people and sell as much product without this first principle.
[Reply]

Comrade Mayor Lucas decree. Other suburbs in KC haven't been mandatory for some time and rural areas for the most part didn't wear them.
[Reply]

When Fauci calls his more recent numbers "real" and he tells us his initial numbers were given to manipulate people's behavior, that is strong evidence Fauci lied.

Your error is you do not know the practical application of Bayes theorem.
[Reply]

The actual quote might help:

We really don’t know what the real number is. I think the real range is somewhere between 70 to 90 percent.
[Reply]

You cherry picked one sentence and left out the rest. Now you are compounding your errors or you are purposely being dishonest like Fauci.
[Reply]

I posted that to show that he admits that he doesn't know what it will take to reach herd immunity. But sure, if you want the rest:

When polls said only about half of all Americans would take a vaccine, I was saying herd immunity would take 70 to 75 percent ... Then, when newer surveys said 60 percent or more would take it, I thought, "I can nudge this up a bit," so I went to 80, 85. We need to have some humility here .... We really don’t know what the real number is. I think the real range is somewhere between 70 to 90 percent. But, I'm not going to say 90 percent."
[Reply]

He's always defending Fauci.

They could lead him away in handcuffs and he'll still be here doing the same thing.
[Reply]

When he thinks the real range is 70-90 percent but throws out the number 60 percent to manipulate people's behavior he is lying.
[Reply]

As were many of the people who either ended up hospitalized or passed it on to someone else who ended up hospitalized. My job isn't a sales pitch here, I'm just reflecting what we do and don't know, according to the science.

If you want to say no to the mask, that's your choice under our current policy, but every study we have says it makes a difference.

If you want to say no to the vaccine, that's your choice under our current policy, but every study we have says it makes a difference.

Our standards should not be "anything less than the bubonic plague should be effectively ignored." It should be "am I doing everything reasonable to protect my community's health." Masks and vaccines are reasonable. You're shrugging off a disease that has basically killed off the population of Alaska in under two years.

What we don't know is exactly how effective vaccines will or won't be against it, and we don't know if it's more or less deadly. And we shouldn't think we know more than the scientists.
[Reply]

Asking people to prove that Fauci's a liar isn't defending him, dipshit.
[Reply]

He always defends Fauci because he initially trusted Fauci. He doesn't know how to use Bayes Theorem to modify his judgements when new evidence comes to light. Instead he ignores it or engages in mental gymnastics to maintain his initial belief.
[Reply]

Again, the bolded part (which is correct) shows that Fauci wasn't lying above.

Manipulation doesn't always entail lying, as shown above. Did and does he want to get as many people vaccinated as possible? Yes, absolutely.
[Reply]