The Florida Bill hides…

The GPs here do actually have lists of people who refuse, which I’m guessing is a longer list than they’ll admit, based on their desperation.

https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2021/2006/

This looks nice until you read it

https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2021/2006/BillText/er/PDF

1056 (d) The State Health Officer, upon declaration of a public
1057 health emergency, may take actions that are necessary to protect
1058 the public health. Such actions include, but are not limited to:

…..

page 38 on doc

1097 4. Ordering an individual to be examined, tested,
1098 vaccinated, treated, isolated, or quarantined for communicable
1099 diseases that have significant morbidity or mortality and
1100 present a severe danger to public health. Individuals who are
1101 unable or unwilling to be examined, tested, vaccinated, or
1102 treated for reasons of health, religion, or conscience may be

But it doesn’t prevent transmission, the NHS ADMITS it’s non-neutralizing, non-sterilizing. You can still pass it on, that changes nothing. This is an admission the Stab does NOTHING.

It’s insanity, the poorest of logic:

My mask doesn’t work unless you wear a mask.

My vaccine doesn’t work unless you get a vaccine.

Occam: THEY DON’T WORK, THEY NEVER DID.

I told you herd immunity is a myth. If you insist on 100% uptake, there is nobody to ‘protect’ and vitally, no control group to show them up for legal reasons.

1103 subjected to isolation or quarantine.
1104 a. Examination, testing, vaccination, or treatment may be
1105 performed by any qualified person authorized by the State Health
1106 Officer.

1107 b. If the individual poses a danger to the public health,
1108 the State Health Officer may subject the individual to isolation
1109 or quarantine. If there is no practical method to isolate or
1110 quarantine the individual, the State Health Officer may use any
1111 means necessary to vaccinate or treat the individual.

LAND OF THE FREE HUH?

At least they admit ‘vaccination’ is distinct from treatment. It treats nothing.

Authorised by the person Just Following Orders!

How are they gonna pass that here, apart from the already linked blame game conspiracy of Jabbed Dead caused by Normies? Rather than the thunderingly obvious explanation a la Occam it was the common denominator the Stabbing.

They claim to have nabbed 81% of adults here last I heard, why not stop? Didn’t America want 70% for so called herd immunity by artificiality (impossible)? At what point do they dial back? 100%. It’s about the domestic ID to take a piss in a public toilet.

Meanwhile, UK reached herd immunity the natural real way in APRIL. The papers also admitted this but proceeded to gloss over it.

https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-uk-set-to-reach-herd-immunity-milestone-within-days-say-scientists-12269405

Wait, there’s more!

1112 c. Any order of the State Health Officer given to
1113 effectuate this paragraph is shall be immediately enforceable by
1114 a law enforcement officer under s. 381.0012.

MUH MILITARY.
People forget they can legally enforce the law on duty.

Except as otherwise expressly provided in this
1191 act, this act shall take effect July 1, 2021.

Tick tock.

MEANWHILE

Amid fears a sizeable proportion of the population are still sceptical of getting the Covid vaccine, those who have so far turned down the chance to get inoculated may soon get a knock on the door to find out why. 

SHOVE YOUR DEATH LOTTO UP YOUR BACKSIDE.

And Boomers wonder why we never answer the door.

harassment

Door-to-door services have had some success during the pandemic with contact tracers and testers deployed to reach those who authorities have been unable to contact via other means. 

No, they’re intimidating people. Legally, it’s intimidation. They chose to ignore you.

Mr Zahawi has declined to say whether the Government is recording data on everyone who has so far refused the vaccine.

so far? try always

Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme yesterday, he confirmed that everybody who had had the vaccine went into the national immunisation vaccination system.

They don’t like being told no.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/06/24/nhs-workers-abused-covid-clinics-people-refuse-astrazeneca-vaccine/

NHS workers are being abused in Covid vaccination clinics by people who are refusing the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine due to fears of side effects, it has emerged.

They’re saying no, it’s their body.

Health boards have appealed to the Scottish Government for help to address a rise in “unacceptable” incidents in which members of the public have angrily demanded Pfizer or Moderna jabs instead.

That’s hilarious. They’re coming out with side effects now.

However, individuals do not get a choice over which vaccine they receive and those aged 40 or above are likely to be given an AstraZeneca dose, due to shortages of the others.

However, Prof McMahon also reported concerns that high numbers of missed appointments were impacting on the performance of its vaccine programme.

Recently, more than a quarter of appointments were missed in Lothian, mainly among those who were scheduled for a first dose.

Take the hint.

What’s your life worth to them?

The NHS is supporting this through a £10 payment to general practice for every COVID-19 vaccination they deliver to someone who is housebound, in line with JCVI prioritisation.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-vaccination-uptake-plan/uk-covid-19-vaccine-uptake-plan

But we must not be complacent; we know that there is variation in the level of uptake across different geographies and communities and we will not rest until everyone who is eligible is protected.

EVERYONE

That’s eerie and dystopic. Shades of Borg. All of them.

But they’re not protected, the NHS admits you can still get and transmit it. That’s zero protection personally or socially.

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20210203-why-vaccinated-people-may-still-be-able-to-spread-covid-19

There’s no evidence that any of the current Covid-19 vaccines can completely stop people from being infected – and this has implications for our prospects of achieving herd immunity.

No such thing as protected.

In fact, most vaccines don’t fully protect against infection, even if they can block symptoms from appearing. As a result, vaccinated people can unknowingly carry and spread pathogens. Occasionally, they can even start epidemics. 

Remember this. DIY Pandemic since the natural route failed.
So the only asymptomatic cases possible are the jabbed.

“There are two main types of immunity you can achieve with vaccines. One is so-called “effective” immunity, which can prevent a pathogen from causing serious disease, but can’t stop it from entering the body or making more copies of itself. The other is “sterilising immunity”, which can thwart infections entirely, and even prevent asymptomatic cases. The latter is the aspiration of all vaccine research, but surprisingly rarely achieved.”

Asymptomatic isn’t how the natural immune response works. Yeadon covered this.

https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/covid-19-vaccinations/

no working total, not suspicious at all

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/vaccinations

here it is

they claim 83.3%

God help us all.

They’ll have no excuse come autumn. 6/7 covered definitely qualifies as nationally covered. Either it protects the stabbed or, as evidence suggests, it’s more fatal to them due to ADE. That counts as a jab reaction.

I was in a class once and a bleeding heart asked why we used so many animal models. The professor rounded on her and asked Would you rather we kill your relatives instead? Shut her right up. I think about this a lot.

It was a biology class. He also went into a short burst of a lecture on longitudinal effects.

If they actually got even 60% (which they admit is basically mostly white people) then bye bye native population.
I hope to God I’m wrong. Alas, the trajectory of the data by reaction gets worse by the day.
Maybe this was a punishment for Brexit, would explain Boris.

I’m not sure I want to see what the world looks like, after this horror.

Herd immunity isn’t a thing

Funny how they openly admit this when their own life depends on it.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/15/epidemiologist-britain-herd-immunity-coronavirus-covid-19

Let me take the arguments on their merits. The stated aim has been to achieve “herd immunity” in order to manage the outbreak and prevent a catastrophic “second wave” next winter – even if Matt Hancock has tried to put that particular genie back in the bottle this weekend. A large proportion of the population is at lower risk of developing severe disease: roughly speaking anyone up to the age of 40. So the reasoning goes that even though in a perfect world we’d not want anyone to take the risk of infection, generating immunity in younger people is a way of protecting the population as a whole.

saving his own neck

suddenly it’s a myth!

The UK should not be trying to create herd immunity, that will take care of itself.

antibodies are NOT produced, reinfection cases are being reported

https://thehill.com/changing-america/well-being/prevention-cures/484942-japan-confirms-first-case-of-person-reinfected

https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2016/01/15/vaccine-shedding-such-a-myth-the-guardian-wrote-about-it/

includes “Herd Immunity And Measles: Why We Should Aim For 100% Vaccination Coverage”

medical fascism, called it

“Like when you drill down about the hypothesis and myth of herd immunity. How much, you ask? How many is enough to sacrifice on the altar of Complete Strangers Who Might Hypothetically Benefit? It used to be 50-70% given as a percentage, at the start. But the longer you drill down, the higher their shrill calls for control, by now they’re calling for;

100%”

100% protects 0%, making the effort FUTILE.

Unless there’s another reason they wanna inject everyone.

This is mass murder folks. Pure. Simple.

The ‘Protected’ Group constitutes more than 1% of the population, leaving the Herd Immunity % required at 99. And why should 99 people sacrifice their own health for a complete stranger? This is never morally argued but implied in a cowardly way while turning a blind eye to lawsuit bribes and damage cases ending in death, paralysis and disease.

….

It currently stipulates that in order to provide immunity to a population against contagious diseases like measles you must vaccinate at least 95% of the population. Theoretically-speaking, with a vaccination rate of 95%, the diseases should be eradicated.

The ‘Victim Group’ is more than 5% total though. This is impossible.

Impossible. Even in theory.

IRL:

In 1933, Dr. Arthur W. Hedrich, a health officer in Chicago, IL observed that during 1900-1930, outbreaks of measles in Boston, MA appeared to be suppressed when 68% of the children contracted the virus.3

When the mass vaccination campaign for measles in the US began in earnest in the mid-1960s, the US Public Health Service planned to vaccinate over 55% (based on the Baltimore observation) of the U.S. population, and it announced that it fully expected to eradicate measles by 1967.

the Public Health Service came up [made up] with vaccination rate figures of 70-75% as the way to ensure herd immunity. When eradication was still not achieved at those rates, public health officials jacked up the rates to 80%, 83%, 85%, and ultimately to 90%.5

Now the rate is up to 95% to achieve herd immunity. But as we see with the continual outbreaks, even at 95% we still do not have full immunity. In China, the vaccination rates are even higher—99%. But there are also still measles outbreaks there.6 So is the answer 100%? And what if at 100% you still get outbreaks? We’ve gone from herd immunity supposedly achieved at 55% to herd immunity that is clearly not achieved even at 95%. At what point will public health officials have to confront the possibility that herd immunity may not be the best theory on which to base vaccination policy?

My red pills would kill you, child.

At least the minimalists aren’t smug anymore.

Vaccine shedding such a myth the Guardian wrote about it + Herd Immunity 100% fascism

Vaccine shedding, covered here.

Click to access Live-Virus-Vaccines-and-Vaccine-Shedding.pdf

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/aug/27/man-found-to-have-been-shedding-virulent-strain-of-polio-for-30-years

Websites like this;

“Vaccine Shedding”: Time Up For Another Vaccine Myth

encourage fascists to think they can make life or death decisions for other people’s children. That they have no legal obligations toward (unlike the parents).

Can you sue the manufacturers? No.
Can you sue the doctors who told you to take it, despite counter indicators like pregnancy or family history? No.
Can you sue the people in your life who manipulated you into getting it with rhetoric about being a baby-killer? No.

Even though they are legally culpable in every conceivable sense.

Nowhere are criminal charges available (against professionals in-role) even though lying about toxins (poisons) is otherwise considered murder.

Until you can sue people for taking on (giving/giving advice) and abusing a medical duty of care, the uptake rates will remain low.

Most parents have their wits about them and think: I won’t sacrifice my child’s health for yours. It’s the natural genophilic instinct.

Their reasoning is to force people to do something on the off chance it might benefit themselves (r-types), but if they’re vaccinated themselves, and vaccine failure is such a ‘myth’ to them, why should others’ behaviour impact them? Logically that would be impossible.

Vaccine Fascists: Communist emotional blackmail, give yourself up to the herd, shame on you, you put others in danger.
Any other moral issue from a Leftist: it’s my choice e.g. to take drugs, I’m not hurting anyone at any point and you shouldn’t judge me because I allow you to do what you want.

Despite how behavioural studies have shown many behaviours, especially anti-social ones, are socially contagious.

It’s a Big Lie on par with Global Warming.

Ever thought there might be a connection between the use of adjuvants (that irritate the immune system, no really they’re supposed to) in a clustered combined schedule and the inexplicable rise of autoimmune conditions over recent times?

http://www.alternet.org/story/80129/the_autoimmune_epidemic%3A_bodies_gone_haywire_in_a_world_out_of_balance

Like when you drill down about the hypothesis and myth of herd immunity. How much, you ask? How many is enough to sacrifice on the altar of Complete Strangers Who Might Hypothetically Benefit? It used to be 50-70% given as a percentage, at the start. But the longer you drill down, the higher their shrill calls for control, by now they’re calling for;

http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/herd-immunity-and-measles-why-we-should-aim-100-vaccination-coverage

Herd Immunity And Measles: Why We Should Aim For 100% Vaccination Coverage

hahaha fuck you

So who the fuck is this supposed to be protecting?

We have to protect everyone by …not leaving anyone in the control group to protect. Why don’t they want a group of people to remain unvaccinated? It would make the vaccine manufacturers look bad.

Why do you think there are no studies with a control group? This is basic science.

I’ve said before, why are there no longitudinal studies double-blind between kids that get the full schedule and kids that get saline? With a population of thousands either side?

Wouldn’t that settle this debate forever?

Yet they don’t want to do that study. They want everyone to get the drugs and we’ll have nobody to compare to.

If you think this is an IQ thing, Silicon Valley has been recently dragged up for a witch hunt on the subject for having low vaccination rates.

Why 92? All these numbers given for herd immunity are arbitrary, except 100%.

Herd immunity is actually a ripoff of the economic theory of the Free Loader/Rider hypothesis, which apparently doesn’t exist when discussing the welfare state but the Left suddenly believe in free riding on ‘herd immunity’ by a magical group of Victims nobody can point at. How many are there being protected by it, as a percentage? The rhetoric is useful to them. Usually people cited who have no voice: babies, the elderly, the immunocompromised, given the size of these demographics alone, the % they’re giving now are IMPOSSIBLE.

The ‘Protected’ Group constitutes more than 1% of the population, leaving the Herd Immunity % required at 99. And why should 99 people sacrifice their own health for a complete stranger? This is never morally argued but implied in a cowardly way while turning a blind eye to lawsuit bribes and damage cases ending in death, paralysis and disease.

They’ll hold up naturally dead babies as the parent’s faults (evil) but ones caused by medical negligence (the parents and other’s) are fine??? Like the aborted fetal cells used in testing?
http://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/articles/human-cell-strains-vaccine-development

http://www.thevaccinereaction.org/2015/06/the-misunderstood-theory-of-herd-immunity/

It currently stipulates that in order to provide immunity to a population against contagious diseases like measles you must vaccinate at least 95% of the population. Theoretically-speaking, with a vaccination rate of 95%, the diseases should be eradicated.

The ‘Victim Group’ is more than 5% total though. This is impossible.

In an epidemiological review paper titled “Herd Immunity: History, Theory, Practice,” written by Paul E. M. Fine and published in 1993, the author notes that the first “published use” of the term herd immunity “appears to have been” in a paper titled “The spread of bacterial infection: the problem of herd immunity,” written by W. W. C. Topley and G. S. Wilson and published in 1923. From Fine’s paper, it seems that the theory of herd immunity was originally developed based on some observations with mice and some “simple mathematical formulations,” but the paper is unclear about whether the theory was ever validated through some of sort scientific peer review process—as is commonly the case with theories that eventually come to be widely accepted as “proven science.”12

In 1933, Dr. Arthur W. Hedrich, a health officer in Chicago, IL observed that during 1900-1930, outbreaks of measles in Boston, MA appeared to be suppressed when 68% of the children contracted the virus.3

That’s where the ‘modern’ stance of about 70% came from.

When the mass vaccination campaign for measles in the US began in earnest in the mid-1960s, the US Public Health Service planned to vaccinate over 55% (based on the Baltimore observation) of the U.S. population, and it announced that it fully expected to eradicate measles by 1967.

Guess what happened.

When that didn’t happen,

snort lol laugh haha hmph derision yeah duh really uhuh mhmm princess bride

the Public Health Service came up [made up] with vaccination rate figures of 70-75% as the way to ensure herd immunity. When eradication was still not achieved at those rates, public health officials jacked up the rates to 80%, 83%, 85%, and ultimately to 90%.5

When have your Government ever been wrong?

Did they ever consider pausing and re-evaluating the original premise behind the theory of herd immunity? Or did they trudge on, arbitrarily raising the bar?

Government? Admit wrongdoing? Nay, mistakes were made lassie but not by them!

Now the rate is up to 95% to achieve herd immunity. But as we see with the continual outbreaks, even at 95% we still do not have full immunity. In China, the vaccination rates are even higher—99%. But there are also still measles outbreaks there.6 So is the answer 100%? And what if at 100% you still get outbreaks? We’ve gone from herd immunity supposedly achieved at 55% to herd immunity that is clearly not achieved even at 95%. At what point will public health officials have to confront the possibility that herd immunity may not be the best theory on which to base vaccination policy?

When idiots are in charge

They’d get sued.

Ignoring the cases of vaccine failure, what is the effectiveness of a single vaccine? e.g. this is the first one I found, on a single mumps vaccine, full double-dose.

http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/47/11/1458.full

Increased reports of mumps in vaccinated populations prompted a review of the performance of mumps vaccines. The effectiveness of prior vaccination with 1 dose of vaccine ranged from 72.8% to 91% for the Jeryl Lynn strain, from 54.4% to 93% for the Urabe strain, and from 0% to 33% for the Rubini strain. Vaccine effectiveness after 2 doses of mumps vaccine was reported in 3 outbreaks and ranged from 91% to 94.6%. There was evidence of waning immunity, which is a likely factor in mumps outbreaks, aggravated by possible antigenic differences between the vaccine strain and outbreak strains. Inadequate vaccine coverage or use of the Rubini vaccine strain accounted for the majority of outbreaks reviewed; however, some outbreaks could not be prevented, despite high vaccination coverage with 2 doses of the Jeryl Lynn vaccine strain. Our findings indicate the need for more-effective mumps vaccines and/or for review of current vaccination policies to prevent future outbreaks.

The ‘scientists’ are shifting the blame to the politicians. This will end well.

cool nothing shocks me scientist indiana jones calm haha amused

Challenge: aside from the arbitrary HI % we have since established is a joke (100%? Really?)…

Total population (100%) – Unvaccinated Victim Group/s Hypothetically Protected by Herd Immunity (as a %) = Maximum % that CAN be vaccinated, to protect said Victim group via Herd Immunity.

How much of the Total Population is that? Anybody have a single number? That is the maximum that herd immunity rationales may cover. Hypothetically.