Monday, October 11, 2021

Down To Only One Question Now.. - by Karl Denninger

 Well that deteriorated quickly....

Unfortunately what this means is that now for anyone over 30 you are more likely to get infected, yes, adjusted for the population that is vaccinated, if you are vaccinated.  Indeed in the 40-49 age group you're close to double as probable on a per-population basis

This means that if your employer mandates the jabs he or she can be sued for putting those who can't get vaccinated at double the risk, on purpose, by enforcing the mandate.

Since there are people who can't (due to immune compromise, such as cancer patients) be vaccinated this is now intentional risk.

In other words this is hard, scientific evidence that these mandates by employers have increased the risk of customers (and other employees) contracting Covid-19.  This isn't a natural risk (which an employer is not responsible for) it's a man-made one created by the employer.

That's actionable.

So far this is not translating into higher risk of Covid hospitalization and death on a per-100,000 basis.  But that the vaccine makes you more likely to both get and give to others the virus is now established.  It is fact.  It is in fact true for everyone who is over 30.

I have pointed out that preventing infection was never in the cards; it was not part of the EUA, it was not part of the studies, it was never demonstrated.  But this is much worse because now we are talking about a direct threat to others.

The CDC, NIH and Biden almost-certainly know this.

This is why the mad rush to demand you get jabbed; they know damn well what this means and that while the manufacturer is immune the employers are not and in fact any such mandate leaves them wide open legally as soon as an unvaccinated person gets infected after being at said firm either as an employee or customer and sues the company on the basis of intentionally and maliciously increasing their risk by forcing their employees to get the jab, which is exactly what they did. 

The data from England is conclusive in that regard.

Indeed it is exactly this sort of outcome from 2018 that they fear and know employers are causing.  That outbreak, which was caused by actions taken (and intentionally not taken) resulted in both severe illness and deaths.  $6 million for just 13 kids who got screwed.

I bet that they've known this was happening right here in the US for months now.

I expected no effective protection.  What I did not expect was negative protection, but that's what we got.  This portends the potential for very, very bad things.

Specifically, if the impairment is only toward Covid-19; that is, this is some sort of VEI specific to Covid, then the issue ends there.  For those with natural (recovered) immunity they don't care and absolutely should not get the jab; indeed, if you're recovered and take them you may destroy your protection in part or whole and wind up susceptible to repeat infection you would otherwise not be hit with!  If you do that you're stupid and may well win a stupid prize.

But the 900lb Gorilla is that the impairment may not Covid-19 specific.  In other words the impairment may be immune system generalized, in which case those who took the jabs are screwed because that immune damage could be long-lasting or even permanent, yet the protection against serious outcomes is specific to Covid.  So yes, you're "safer" against a serious outcome even while screwing everyone else, but at the same time you are wildly more-susceptible to a severe or fatal outcome due to, for example, influenza.

We don't have any data on that yet, and thus there's no way to know if that is the case.  It is, however, a reasonable possibility and the few anecdotal pieces of data from people who have run immune screens following the jabs suggests it may indeed be the case.  This is the risk of Warp Speed; we may well have hosed roughly 200 million people and at the same time are now going to screw every person who cannot take the Covid shot due to serious immune compromise or other medical issue (e.g. allergic reactivity to the ingredients) in that we make it roughly twice as likely that someone who has been jabbed will get the virus anyway and give it to them.

Again: While the manufacturer is free from liability as a result of this anyone issuing a mandate is not and, conceivably, individuals may not be either if they took the jab voluntarily and especially if they exposed immune-compromised children in this fashion by, for example, jabbing their child who then infects and kills a leukemia patient.

We now have a reasonable hypothesis for why the summer surge happened too.

The government did what it usually does: It made it worse, and those corporate jackasses who lapped up the government's bull**** made it worse too and unlike the government they are not immune from lawsuit or worse.

Here it comes.