Boosters

The numbers don't make sense anymore compared to the cost. From their report:

Diminishing returns

What did Bill G actually say? Without even searching for it, I bet its that he wants better vaccines (who doesnt want a better vaccine/medicine/treatment for any disease?) but that the current vaccines are performing well.

You've really spun down the rabbit holes recently.

He said that they need to fix the three promises of the current mRNA vaccines, which he then described as per my post above.

That is the thing, he said that the current vaccine does not perform very well, and that is particularly worrying for the elderly. And that is what was striking about his speech. The blocker/inhaler concept is very interesting I must say. Would be very appealing to people who simply don’t like masks.

So do you perhaps have a link to this speech so that people can judge for themselves whether what he actually said tallies with your description?

Because you language here is vague 'reportedly' ? Reported by whom and where?

At the moment your claims are without foundation.

Where did he say the current vaccine "does not perform particularly well"?

Exact part of the speech please.

Because it's not stated in the excerpted segment from about 54 minutes which you reference about the "three promises".

Earlier in the speech, at about 6:50 minutes, he also said of vaccines, with regard to the vulnerable which includes the elderly:

"You can cut the death rate by about 70%."

Therefore, I cannot tally your description either from the speech or with regard to those remarks.

Likewise the push for vaccines to pither out? Nobody who watches that speech could draw that conclusion on a fair and balanced asssessment.

The speech in full is here for people to make up their own minds about the fairness and accuracy of your description and whether you have misrepresented his remarks:

https://www.lowyinstitute.org/event/preparing-global-challenges-conversation-bill-gates

'seem' is the key word.

That's not the same thing.

There could be myriad of reasons in such a small set.

For one thing, they've already distinguished themselves in behaviour from you by getting boosted. What was their reasoning?

Are your friends picking it up from their kids?

How many of their infections were symptomatic?

Are they testing themselves more because of their jobs or vulnerable relatives? Is that why they went for boosters and you did not?

Maybe you had it and didn't realise it, and so now have natural immunity boost on top of your vaccination.

For any virus, there will be a small % of people who are just naturally immune. You could be one of the lucky ones.

You're been caught out perpetuating a con job.

Where did Bill Gates say: "does not perform particularly well"

This is what you wrote:

he said that the current vaccine does not perform very well

This made it seem like he actually said that. Not what your recollection was. But what he actually said.

He did not say that.

Having opinions is one thing, projecting them as others words and misrepresenting that in posts is entirely different.

Direct quote from you: he said that the current vaccine does not perform very well

You were clearly trying to present it as something he actually said.

Now the back tracking begins when your con job has been challenged.

You didn't link the speech, or a source, or an article with any details. That was an obvious red flag as to whether you were giving a good faith description of the entirety of what he said.

Strange also that in your 'interpretation' of the information he provided about vaccines, you didn't mention him talking in the speech about the major role of vaccines reducing the death rate.

So yes we are free to interpret his thoughts, and also free to challenge those who project their own bias against vaccines onto them.

As noted, the misinformation spin and running away from owning the source/quote and then putting your own interpretation on it, which you now want to dismiss, says more of you, then everybody else.

That shows people who self reported a positive test.

It doesn't distinguish between symptomatic and asymptomatic infection.

The point about paid time off misses that.

Entirely plausible to suggest people who were more engaged with the vaccination programme were also more likely to engage with testing.

Also, is that still a preprint or has it been peer reviewed yet???

But why did they get boosted and not others?

They have already demonstrated difference in behaviour and conduct when it comes to getting vaccinated. Why? The study does not examine that.

So to say it is very unlikely there would be no change in their testing behaviour is mere speculation without foundation.

And also, it's a pre print study?

That is a pure "strawman without foundation", right there.

It wasn't, you misrepresented Bill Gates and are now spinning down the anti-vax drain with multiple random claims.

Every single one of your claims is misrepresenting the details or out of context (to the extent they don't even need to be fact checked anymore), why would anyone discuss boosters and vaccines seriously with you?

Edit: As a quick example, I bet this is misrepresented, someone else will show how that's the case, and then it's deny, deny, again.

Do you fully stand behind this statement and stake your reputation on it?

We need to bear in mind the background rate of serious adverse events in the population. These studies detected no appreciable difference due to vaccination.

For vaccines there are the original trials which you are familiar with.

"The incidence of serious adverse events was low and was similar in the vaccine and placebo groups."

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577?query=featured_home

For boosters:

Serious adverse events were uncommon, similar in active vaccine and control groups. In total, there were 24 serious adverse events: five in the control group (two in control group A, three in control group B, and zero in control group C), two in Ad26, five in VLA, one in VLA-half, one in BNT, two in BNT-half, two in ChAd, one in CVn, two in NVX, two in NVX-half, and one in m1273.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)02717-3/fulltext