Dr. Fauci: “We have the tools to protect ourselves, and that's the thing we keep saying over and over again.”
They certainly do have the tools to protect themselves. Those tools are MSM and the Big Pharma Industrial Complex. I bet they keep saying that over and over again because if that fails it's prison time.
Hilarious rundown on the "tools" groupthink. These people continue to fail upwards with the support of a credentialed class whose entire worldview rests on believing the government and experts are doing a great job.
What puzzles me now is all the "offramps" the experts and credentialed people have had. They could have declared a fake victory so many times and just stopped testing. Now with each prolongation they are on increasingly thinner ice with the public.
They can't stop because then the veil drops and even the jabbed-up zomborgs might wake up to the Wizards' cowardly projections. Plus, remember that the black magicians want total control over humans, through their Trans-Human enslavement agenda, and over all organic life so they can remain existing here. If we turn the lights on full blast, it's back to entropy for those f**king f**kers and their f**kery.
'Public Health Experts' in government & academia are actors, paid puppets reading the script. the PSYOP is not debatable. Evil is good, good is evil, bitter is sweet, vaccines are safe and effective, the government is here to protect you. "The Corona End Game" https://lionessofjudah.substack.com/p/the-corona-end-game
"Universal masking, another agreed upon tool to stop a virus, doesn’t work, yet the “experts” continue to swear by the act of securing a dirty rag to your face."
Jordan, STOP! You're killing me with laughter! The preposterousness of this two-year-long ugly clown parade should be making EVERYONE LAUGH at the pathetic puppets flailing on the tell-a-vision, Insta-Ghoul, Faceborg/MetaMonster, and Twysteria — and yet they dig deeper into their psychomania and wait for the clowns to throw out more death-and-destruction flavored candy, ignoring the obvious fact you (and I, and so many many others) keep pointing out:
"But the thing about these “tools” is that they require blind faith in order to work, since every observable metric shows that they’ve failed in catastrophic fashion."
Wait! Were you referring to the "two-weeks-no-two-years-no-two-decades-to-flatten-the-curve tools," or the TOOLS pushing this serial lie?🤣
Stop the "clueless" shit. They're not clueless or failed. They're DEMONIC MASS MURDERERS, and their medical knowledge enables them to kill and torture EXPERTLY.
We received a direct response from Cornell President Martha Pollack today.
First is the query that was sent to her followed by her response. We will be responding back over the weekend. If anyone has specific remarks to her comments please do so and we will include them if they fit with our next correspondence.
President Pollack,
It is hard for me to understand how such COVID measures can continue when the survival rate for a significant majority of the public is greater than 99.95%. It is very hard to believe that these decisions are based on science when there is so much data showing the lack of severity of this illness. Here are the age-stratified statistics of the Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) for the disease, recently compiled by John I. A. Ioannidis, one of the most prestigious bio-statisticians in the world.
0-19: .0027% (or a survival rate of 99.9973%)
20-29 .014% (or a survival rate of 99,986%)
30-39 .031% (or a survival rate of 99,969%)
40-49 .082% (or a survival rate of 99,918%)
50-59 .27% (or a survival rate of 99.73%)
60-69 .59% (or a survival rate of 99.31%)
More than 70, between 2.4 and 5.5% (or a survival rate of 97.6 and 94.5% depending on residential situation)
Can you please help us understand the rationale for the ongoing restrictive COVID measures and vaccine mandates given such data?"
=========
Martha's reply:
Dear _______:
Thank you for your message.
While the overall survival rates for COVID-19 may appear reassuringly high, they are only one of the many relevant metrics driving our public health decisions. These data also mask significant differences among sub-populations: for individuals who are older, as well as those who are immunocompromised or otherwise at risk, the chance of death is far higher. There are many, many people in these categories within our campus and local communities, and it is our responsibility to protect them.
Additionally, our concern is not only with disease survivability, but with the many other impacts, known and unknown, of a novel, highly contagious, and potentially severe disease. As has been well documented, even mild presentations of COVID can lead to long-lasting and debilitating symptoms, including in young and healthy people. Moderate and severe cases requiring hospitalization can create an unmanageable burden on the health care system, making it impossible for people with other medical issues to receive care. This is a particular concern as we head into what is expected to be an especially severe flu season.
Finally, a disease with a 99.5% survivability rate, at population level, will result in many, many deaths. At Cornell, with our community of 36,000 people, a policy of unchecked infection could mean 180 deaths. With a hospitalization rate of “only” 2%, 720 people would require hospitalization—a number far beyond Tompkins County’s capacity to care for. And it is important to remember that Cornell forms only part of a larger local community; allowing the virus to spread freely at Cornell would cause illness and death, and even potentially healthcare system collapse, across the region.
While the work and sacrifice required to control the pandemic are unquestionably significant, it is our responsibility as an institution to do what we can to protect everyone in our campus and broader communities. I wish you the best for a safe and healthy holiday break.
But you didn't write 99.5%, you wrote 99.98% . That is a different order of magnitude. Plus, every one of those handful of bad outcomes would have been in someone with a lot of comorbidities.
I wonder what the endgame of this could possibly be. I used to think it was to make everyone feel obligated to vaccinate. Now everyone is vaxxed, no one is in danger and everyone is sent home anyway. Are they planning to do this for years to come?
DI you write back and ask if being so fucking stupid took effort or was she able to do it easily because she's bought?
You say 99.98% (for the average age of a Cornell student one assumes) and she talks about 99.5% without a) saying where she got it from or b) appearing to realise that it's 25 times greater.
The claim about a hospitalization rate of 2% leading to 720 hospitalisations might make sense IF all 36,000 people got infected at once but CLEARLY a) that's not going to happen and b) she doesn't seem to realise that that 'turn of events' is exactly what would need to happen to give her argument any weight. Is it bad faith? Does she know what she's saying and doesn't care OR is she just fucking stupid?
She's ended with the meaningless platitude about having a nice holiday break as if to beguile you into thinking she's a nice person and not someone whose just spend a few paragraphs either having not read your email carefully enough to understand it OR having read it carefully, ignoring your points entirely and using her response to talk absolute and likely-scripted utter fucking shit as an excuse to deprive you of your civil liberties.
That's not the hallmark of a nice person that's the hallmark of a shill.
That's great Jay. I might add that your "caustic" tone is perfectly appropriate given the dishonesty of these creeps.
We are crafting a response and will broadcast it to the larger Cornell community when complete. We plan to include a part of what you wrote.
Off the top of my head here are some other items that sprung to mind off of your remark:
"You say 99.98% (for the average age of a Cornell student one assumes) and she talks about 99.5% without:
A) Saying where she got it from or;
B) Appearing to realize that it's 25 times greater.
The claim about a hospitalization rate of 2% leading to 720 hospitalisations might make sense IF all 36,000 people got infected at once but CLEARLY;
A) That's not going to happen and;
B) She doesn't seem to realize that that 'turn of events' is exactly what would need to happen to give her argument any weight;
C) She/the university are both making the case that these "vaccines" prevent hospitalizations BUT we must be concerned ABOUT mass hospitalizations. A contradiction within itself.
Now we could also add that that should mean if the situation were considered so precarious that students should not be held in isolation in a hotel but they should be monitored in at least a quasi-medical situation and/or they should be sent home so as to avoid the scenario whereby they could;
A) Overwhelm hospitals in a rural county with limited capacity;
B) Infect the local community.
And to that we could add that we have been hearing about this potential for hospitals to be overwhelmed for nearly two years when in fact the data is crystal clear that hospitals throughout NY State have been experiencing record low levels of bed usage including ICU facilities for every month of these last two years- including those months at the height of "the pandemic."
Allen, caustic was what I was going for. These people infuriate me with their bad faith arguments and dishonesty.
You present age-stratified data where the stratified nature is almost the entire point because you can then highlight the risk in the main demographic at Cornell; those aged 20-30yrs.
And what does she do? Immediately de-stratifies that data thus negating/hiding/obscuring that obvious point whilst still being able to claim she isn't lying.
Surely she, having reached her position, couldn't be so mathematically naive as to not understand the significance of what she did to arrive at the 0.5% figure; effectively saying all age groups are reasonably equally represented in your community - including young children and elderly people.
And if she's not naive then her ignorance of your data is deliberate and if it's deliberate it's dishonest; her reply was a bag of shit handed to you with a smile; a bad faith argument from the start.
I'm mad at myself too - picked up a couple of typos in my original post and that's never good when accusing others of stupidity!
...maybe she should also be concerned about the “impacts, known and unknown” of the injectable biologics... actually she doesn’t care about anything other than💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵.
We have safe, effective and affordable meds to mitigate it - see Uttar Pradesh. It should obvious to any rational person that the measures they implemented - and want to implement - were not about mitigating rowuhan.
The public health experts have the same sort of "tools" in their "toolbox" as the clowns at the Fed. The country is being guided by bottom-feeding PR firm talking points.
Dr. Fauci: “We have the tools to protect ourselves, and that's the thing we keep saying over and over again.”
They certainly do have the tools to protect themselves. Those tools are MSM and the Big Pharma Industrial Complex. I bet they keep saying that over and over again because if that fails it's prison time.
So true. The tools of dishonesty, censorship, and coercion have been used most frequently of all.
Hilarious rundown on the "tools" groupthink. These people continue to fail upwards with the support of a credentialed class whose entire worldview rests on believing the government and experts are doing a great job.
What puzzles me now is all the "offramps" the experts and credentialed people have had. They could have declared a fake victory so many times and just stopped testing. Now with each prolongation they are on increasingly thinner ice with the public.
They can't stop because then the veil drops and even the jabbed-up zomborgs might wake up to the Wizards' cowardly projections. Plus, remember that the black magicians want total control over humans, through their Trans-Human enslavement agenda, and over all organic life so they can remain existing here. If we turn the lights on full blast, it's back to entropy for those f**king f**kers and their f**kery.
'Public Health Experts' in government & academia are actors, paid puppets reading the script. the PSYOP is not debatable. Evil is good, good is evil, bitter is sweet, vaccines are safe and effective, the government is here to protect you. "The Corona End Game" https://lionessofjudah.substack.com/p/the-corona-end-game
"Universal masking, another agreed upon tool to stop a virus, doesn’t work, yet the “experts” continue to swear by the act of securing a dirty rag to your face."
Jordan, STOP! You're killing me with laughter! The preposterousness of this two-year-long ugly clown parade should be making EVERYONE LAUGH at the pathetic puppets flailing on the tell-a-vision, Insta-Ghoul, Faceborg/MetaMonster, and Twysteria — and yet they dig deeper into their psychomania and wait for the clowns to throw out more death-and-destruction flavored candy, ignoring the obvious fact you (and I, and so many many others) keep pointing out:
"But the thing about these “tools” is that they require blind faith in order to work, since every observable metric shows that they’ve failed in catastrophic fashion."
Wait! Were you referring to the "two-weeks-no-two-years-no-two-decades-to-flatten-the-curve tools," or the TOOLS pushing this serial lie?🤣
Stop the "clueless" shit. They're not clueless or failed. They're DEMONIC MASS MURDERERS, and their medical knowledge enables them to kill and torture EXPERTLY.
We received a direct response from Cornell President Martha Pollack today.
First is the query that was sent to her followed by her response. We will be responding back over the weekend. If anyone has specific remarks to her comments please do so and we will include them if they fit with our next correspondence.
President Pollack,
It is hard for me to understand how such COVID measures can continue when the survival rate for a significant majority of the public is greater than 99.95%. It is very hard to believe that these decisions are based on science when there is so much data showing the lack of severity of this illness. Here are the age-stratified statistics of the Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) for the disease, recently compiled by John I. A. Ioannidis, one of the most prestigious bio-statisticians in the world.
0-19: .0027% (or a survival rate of 99.9973%)
20-29 .014% (or a survival rate of 99,986%)
30-39 .031% (or a survival rate of 99,969%)
40-49 .082% (or a survival rate of 99,918%)
50-59 .27% (or a survival rate of 99.73%)
60-69 .59% (or a survival rate of 99.31%)
More than 70, between 2.4 and 5.5% (or a survival rate of 97.6 and 94.5% depending on residential situation)
Can you please help us understand the rationale for the ongoing restrictive COVID measures and vaccine mandates given such data?"
=========
Martha's reply:
Dear _______:
Thank you for your message.
While the overall survival rates for COVID-19 may appear reassuringly high, they are only one of the many relevant metrics driving our public health decisions. These data also mask significant differences among sub-populations: for individuals who are older, as well as those who are immunocompromised or otherwise at risk, the chance of death is far higher. There are many, many people in these categories within our campus and local communities, and it is our responsibility to protect them.
Additionally, our concern is not only with disease survivability, but with the many other impacts, known and unknown, of a novel, highly contagious, and potentially severe disease. As has been well documented, even mild presentations of COVID can lead to long-lasting and debilitating symptoms, including in young and healthy people. Moderate and severe cases requiring hospitalization can create an unmanageable burden on the health care system, making it impossible for people with other medical issues to receive care. This is a particular concern as we head into what is expected to be an especially severe flu season.
Finally, a disease with a 99.5% survivability rate, at population level, will result in many, many deaths. At Cornell, with our community of 36,000 people, a policy of unchecked infection could mean 180 deaths. With a hospitalization rate of “only” 2%, 720 people would require hospitalization—a number far beyond Tompkins County’s capacity to care for. And it is important to remember that Cornell forms only part of a larger local community; allowing the virus to spread freely at Cornell would cause illness and death, and even potentially healthcare system collapse, across the region.
While the work and sacrifice required to control the pandemic are unquestionably significant, it is our responsibility as an institution to do what we can to protect everyone in our campus and broader communities. I wish you the best for a safe and healthy holiday break.
Sincerely,
Martha E. Pollack
But you didn't write 99.5%, you wrote 99.98% . That is a different order of magnitude. Plus, every one of those handful of bad outcomes would have been in someone with a lot of comorbidities.
I wonder what the endgame of this could possibly be. I used to think it was to make everyone feel obligated to vaccinate. Now everyone is vaxxed, no one is in danger and everyone is sent home anyway. Are they planning to do this for years to come?
DI you write back and ask if being so fucking stupid took effort or was she able to do it easily because she's bought?
You say 99.98% (for the average age of a Cornell student one assumes) and she talks about 99.5% without a) saying where she got it from or b) appearing to realise that it's 25 times greater.
The claim about a hospitalization rate of 2% leading to 720 hospitalisations might make sense IF all 36,000 people got infected at once but CLEARLY a) that's not going to happen and b) she doesn't seem to realise that that 'turn of events' is exactly what would need to happen to give her argument any weight. Is it bad faith? Does she know what she's saying and doesn't care OR is she just fucking stupid?
She's ended with the meaningless platitude about having a nice holiday break as if to beguile you into thinking she's a nice person and not someone whose just spend a few paragraphs either having not read your email carefully enough to understand it OR having read it carefully, ignoring your points entirely and using her response to talk absolute and likely-scripted utter fucking shit as an excuse to deprive you of your civil liberties.
That's not the hallmark of a nice person that's the hallmark of a shill.
That's great Jay. I might add that your "caustic" tone is perfectly appropriate given the dishonesty of these creeps.
We are crafting a response and will broadcast it to the larger Cornell community when complete. We plan to include a part of what you wrote.
Off the top of my head here are some other items that sprung to mind off of your remark:
"You say 99.98% (for the average age of a Cornell student one assumes) and she talks about 99.5% without:
A) Saying where she got it from or;
B) Appearing to realize that it's 25 times greater.
The claim about a hospitalization rate of 2% leading to 720 hospitalisations might make sense IF all 36,000 people got infected at once but CLEARLY;
A) That's not going to happen and;
B) She doesn't seem to realize that that 'turn of events' is exactly what would need to happen to give her argument any weight;
C) She/the university are both making the case that these "vaccines" prevent hospitalizations BUT we must be concerned ABOUT mass hospitalizations. A contradiction within itself.
Now we could also add that that should mean if the situation were considered so precarious that students should not be held in isolation in a hotel but they should be monitored in at least a quasi-medical situation and/or they should be sent home so as to avoid the scenario whereby they could;
A) Overwhelm hospitals in a rural county with limited capacity;
B) Infect the local community.
And to that we could add that we have been hearing about this potential for hospitals to be overwhelmed for nearly two years when in fact the data is crystal clear that hospitals throughout NY State have been experiencing record low levels of bed usage including ICU facilities for every month of these last two years- including those months at the height of "the pandemic."
Allen, caustic was what I was going for. These people infuriate me with their bad faith arguments and dishonesty.
You present age-stratified data where the stratified nature is almost the entire point because you can then highlight the risk in the main demographic at Cornell; those aged 20-30yrs.
And what does she do? Immediately de-stratifies that data thus negating/hiding/obscuring that obvious point whilst still being able to claim she isn't lying.
Surely she, having reached her position, couldn't be so mathematically naive as to not understand the significance of what she did to arrive at the 0.5% figure; effectively saying all age groups are reasonably equally represented in your community - including young children and elderly people.
And if she's not naive then her ignorance of your data is deliberate and if it's deliberate it's dishonest; her reply was a bag of shit handed to you with a smile; a bad faith argument from the start.
I'm mad at myself too - picked up a couple of typos in my original post and that's never good when accusing others of stupidity!
...maybe she should also be concerned about the “impacts, known and unknown” of the injectable biologics... actually she doesn’t care about anything other than💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵.
100 years of accepted science turned upside down just this time?? They're playing games 🤡
It's called hubris
We have safe, effective and affordable meds to mitigate it - see Uttar Pradesh. It should obvious to any rational person that the measures they implemented - and want to implement - were not about mitigating rowuhan.
What virus would that be. We do have the tools ignore the media and government & academia. Then it stops dead in its tracks.
The public health experts have the same sort of "tools" in their "toolbox" as the clowns at the Fed. The country is being guided by bottom-feeding PR firm talking points.
Stick your kungflu rules up your backside
But will a definition change mean more hospitalisations? https://nakedemperor.substack.com/p/increase-in-cases-or-definition-fiddling