I have been seeing loads and loads of anecdotes on places like reddit of people who have had the bivalent vaccine (who had the first vaccines too, since that's the only way you can have the bivalent) and a little over two weeks later they now have covid.
Most of them had covid before. I am guessing that those people still have covid in their bodies, and the bivalent is giving them an immune whack and the virus is taking advantage and becoming symptomatic again. In the case of those who never had covid, I guess the immune whack from the bivalent is making them susceptible to covid in the community.
I have two friends - in their early 70s, of course; credulous, trusting and fearful - who are about to get the bivalent. They have not yet had covid. I have begged them to isolate afterwards for a couple of weeks. They are both in lousy shape and they really wouldn't benefit from a case of covid.
I hope Brian will write a piece about the Fortune article. The big question of course is whether the awful long-post-covid deaths are due to covid or the vaccine, or both.
This may be the first time I get on board with the "worry window" theory, which says people are more likely to be infected after injection - one of the big things missing in the original roll-out and the third/fourth doses was any actual anecdotes of infections. As if people would get a positive test after the injection but wouldn't mention it online. But now it really does seem to be happening.
I like your theory of viral persistence being the cause, as it could reflect tolerance (https://unglossed.substack.com/p/boosting-tolerance-igg4). I am going to give that a lot of thought. It could be valid even for those who weren't aware of a prior infection.
Yes, I am worried that my (thoroughly vaccinated) friends may have had prior covid infections without knowing it and are still carrying reservoirs of covid, and so isolation after the getting the bivalent won't actually help.
That was how I felt before the summer. In San Diego at least there has been a big cultural change since the mask mandate went away (though you can't see it in the universities or medical campuses). And yet the WaPo comments haven't moved. So the size of this "ready to swing back" group is what counts, and that's hard to predict
I hear you about the Substack subscriptions. I recently came to the realization that it is really quite expensive. I was thinking of cancelling a paper magazine subscription and spending the money instead on a Substack I've been wanting to subscribe to. I realized that my $20 subscription (which is about average for a magazine) would only pay for a few months of one Substack. $5 or 6 a month doesn't sound like a lot, but its $60 to 72 a year, WAY more than a regular magazine. More even than a lot of daily newspapers.
I know it's different and some authors put a lot of content out a week. But still. If some authors could offer $1 or 2 subscription, I'd be able to subscribe to a lot more stacks.
I've recently made a comment on Substack's open post about how to increase "paid readers" and I made a comment that several people would like to have an a la carte approach in that they can essentially pay for articles that they enjoy . Hopefully they notice that comment and it provides another alternative for people who would like it and are in financial straits.
I would note that I proposed the Recommendation system that rolled out this year back in late 2020, but in a comment on a patreon of a wonk who has an open line with one of the substack designers; so it probably wasn't the origin of the idea on their end (especially since it took so long to implement). But who knows...
My version included bundled subscriptions. So like someone could subscribe to me, and pick from two of my network to have as a free add-on on their end, and then their $5 would be split between the selected feeds. The free-for-all model substack came up with is probably better.
Very interesting. It does such that we would never know 🤷♂️. I do hope no Substack employee is going around being a real-life version of the "I made this" meme.
The free-for-all may have worked on the smaller scale, but now that everyone and their mother has a Substack I think we're dealing with the candy isle of Substacks with people not knowing which ones to choose. At the same time, I think the "pay for what you read/enjoy" model may result in lower than $5 a month subscriptions for many readers, but if it means more readers may be willing to subscribe it may work out in the end.
We aren't allowed to charge $1-2 for a monthly subscription. Substack has set the minimum monthly payment at $5/month. I was able to set my yearly subscription at $30/year, which works out to $2.50 per month.
One of the reasons I don't like the substack payment model.
On the other hand the logic behind it is, sadly, sound. $1 plans would lead to more overall engagement and support but the $5 floor concentrates support into the "whales" in any given ecosystem. If you are a Covid vaccine skeptic, you come to substack, run into the latest recycled clickbait post by one of the top three, plop down your 5. Same for any other ecosystem in substack; same for any other "influencer ecosystem" - a handful of producers actually make a living and the rest generate content for free.
People also seem oddly more inclined to want to praise and give money to the people who are already famous and have money. I see so many people going on about how Naomi Wolf is "brave" - nothing against her, but what about us little people? She was already famous for her best-selling books and we unknowns often risk much more by speaking out
I've always wanted to make this comment rather publicly, but I find it quite infuriating to see how many smaller writers must pay to comment in other more popular Substacks with the hope that they will get noticed if they post their article. I wonder how much money people are dishing out to those who already have so much just to get noticed.
I find it rather disheartening to think how many people are trying to make Substack their main form of livelihood but must do so by giving people with thousands of subscribers even more money with the hope that their investments pay off in the end.
You have a point. And subscriptions add up. I guess requiring payment for people to post on your substack eliminates the worst commenters, the trolls: is that why substack writers do that? But it also throws out a lot of good along with them. I try to remember to mention good substack authors when I post, but should do it more often. Not a fan of the pay-to-post stacks but I can see why one might be driven to do that by the shit posters.
I can afford one or two subscriptions here. Brian's is probably the densest with his reasoned response to stuff. Joomi's is another. If I have to triage I'm going with them. Not that there aren't others as worthwhile but for now..
The cult is real. Part of it is that COVID and the vaccines shined a light on what was previously an area of mass hypochondria in the shadows. Part of it is that a lot of people are incurious bots.
These people are so gone. As for me, no gene therapy, no masking, living, socializing (never missed a holiday, went to theme parks) and working (never missed a day) as a free person in Florida and I haven’t even had a cold. I see the vaxxed around me getting sick over and over 😑
The only way to cure CovIDIOCY is to kill it with more boosters.
These MORE-ONS are hopeless.
I don't see why anyone would bother to try to educate them -- f789 them... offer to drive them to the booster pop up clinic .. congratulate them each time they announce they've shot another payload of poison... well done ... awesome... thank you for protecting the community!
How to influence CovIDIOTS and make friends with them
I'm not sure the vaxxed could be convinced that the effectiveness is in negative territory. The same way you see this broad denial of vax adverse events. They do not want to come to terms with the reality of what they've been injected with; and doctors do not want to acknowledge the products they've been giving could be causing harm. To your thought, I could see a shift in the victim pattern. "I was a victim at risk of dying from covid and now I am a victim of vaccine harm, at greater risk." They get to carry on with the anxiety coddling.
"A 35-year-old acquaintance drops dead from a hemorrhagic stroke. A friend in her 40s, and another in his 70s, experience recurrent spells of extreme dizziness, their hearts pounding in their chests when they stand. A 21-year-old student with no prior medical history is admitted to the ICU with heart failure, while a 48-year-old avid tennis player, previously healthy, suddenly suffers a heart attack. A relative is diagnosed with pericarditis, an inflammation of the protective sac surrounding the heart.
I can’t confirm the exact etiology of all these cases. But every one of the people I mentioned had a history of COVID either days or months beforehand–and all of them experienced only mild cases of infection at the time."
If they can't deny the facts, blaming the virus for the facts is the natural instinct for the minions of covidstan. The Vax can do no wrong...must never say anything against the Vax...the Vax is all powerful and all knowing...any doubt of the Vax will be punished...even if it's in your room in the dark late at night...
"my best friend got boosted, got Covid anyway, was hospitalized and then died in peace one night. i'm just so thankful he didn't have to go on a ventilator and suffer."
HHS Secretary Becerra is likely to extend the PHE declaration another ninety days, which kicks it into next January, but with the CDC essentially throwing in the towel and moving COVID reporting to a regime similar to their weekly reports during the yearly flu season, it will be interesting to if WaPo and the rest of corporate media can paper over that glaring dichotomy.
hands = wrung
I have been seeing loads and loads of anecdotes on places like reddit of people who have had the bivalent vaccine (who had the first vaccines too, since that's the only way you can have the bivalent) and a little over two weeks later they now have covid.
Most of them had covid before. I am guessing that those people still have covid in their bodies, and the bivalent is giving them an immune whack and the virus is taking advantage and becoming symptomatic again. In the case of those who never had covid, I guess the immune whack from the bivalent is making them susceptible to covid in the community.
I have two friends - in their early 70s, of course; credulous, trusting and fearful - who are about to get the bivalent. They have not yet had covid. I have begged them to isolate afterwards for a couple of weeks. They are both in lousy shape and they really wouldn't benefit from a case of covid.
I hope Brian will write a piece about the Fortune article. The big question of course is whether the awful long-post-covid deaths are due to covid or the vaccine, or both.
This may be the first time I get on board with the "worry window" theory, which says people are more likely to be infected after injection - one of the big things missing in the original roll-out and the third/fourth doses was any actual anecdotes of infections. As if people would get a positive test after the injection but wouldn't mention it online. But now it really does seem to be happening.
I like your theory of viral persistence being the cause, as it could reflect tolerance (https://unglossed.substack.com/p/boosting-tolerance-igg4). I am going to give that a lot of thought. It could be valid even for those who weren't aware of a prior infection.
I mention the Fortune article in yesterday's post, glancingly https://unglossed.substack.com/i/77233293/here-there-and-everywhere
Yes, I am worried that my (thoroughly vaccinated) friends may have had prior covid infections without knowing it and are still carrying reservoirs of covid, and so isolation after the getting the bivalent won't actually help.
Well ~ IMPO (In My Prayerful Opinion) COVID-19 nose-jab testing
and quackcines and 5G are NOT SAFE FOR ANYONE!
STAY WELL NATURALLY! I post publicly and freely on MeWe.
ETERNAL LIFE BLESSINGS FOR YAHWEH'S SAINTS!
This was far too depressing a read. It seems like the needle has barely moved and can easily, at any moment, swing back the other way. Ugh!
That was how I felt before the summer. In San Diego at least there has been a big cultural change since the mask mandate went away (though you can't see it in the universities or medical campuses). And yet the WaPo comments haven't moved. So the size of this "ready to swing back" group is what counts, and that's hard to predict
SchadenFriday! This article brought the beast out in me, laughing at these poor sad specimens. And your comments.
I hear you about the Substack subscriptions. I recently came to the realization that it is really quite expensive. I was thinking of cancelling a paper magazine subscription and spending the money instead on a Substack I've been wanting to subscribe to. I realized that my $20 subscription (which is about average for a magazine) would only pay for a few months of one Substack. $5 or 6 a month doesn't sound like a lot, but its $60 to 72 a year, WAY more than a regular magazine. More even than a lot of daily newspapers.
I know it's different and some authors put a lot of content out a week. But still. If some authors could offer $1 or 2 subscription, I'd be able to subscribe to a lot more stacks.
I've recently made a comment on Substack's open post about how to increase "paid readers" and I made a comment that several people would like to have an a la carte approach in that they can essentially pay for articles that they enjoy . Hopefully they notice that comment and it provides another alternative for people who would like it and are in financial straits.
I would note that I proposed the Recommendation system that rolled out this year back in late 2020, but in a comment on a patreon of a wonk who has an open line with one of the substack designers; so it probably wasn't the origin of the idea on their end (especially since it took so long to implement). But who knows...
My version included bundled subscriptions. So like someone could subscribe to me, and pick from two of my network to have as a free add-on on their end, and then their $5 would be split between the selected feeds. The free-for-all model substack came up with is probably better.
Very interesting. It does such that we would never know 🤷♂️. I do hope no Substack employee is going around being a real-life version of the "I made this" meme.
The free-for-all may have worked on the smaller scale, but now that everyone and their mother has a Substack I think we're dealing with the candy isle of Substacks with people not knowing which ones to choose. At the same time, I think the "pay for what you read/enjoy" model may result in lower than $5 a month subscriptions for many readers, but if it means more readers may be willing to subscribe it may work out in the end.
We aren't allowed to charge $1-2 for a monthly subscription. Substack has set the minimum monthly payment at $5/month. I was able to set my yearly subscription at $30/year, which works out to $2.50 per month.
One of the reasons I don't like the substack payment model.
On the other hand the logic behind it is, sadly, sound. $1 plans would lead to more overall engagement and support but the $5 floor concentrates support into the "whales" in any given ecosystem. If you are a Covid vaccine skeptic, you come to substack, run into the latest recycled clickbait post by one of the top three, plop down your 5. Same for any other ecosystem in substack; same for any other "influencer ecosystem" - a handful of producers actually make a living and the rest generate content for free.
The Pareto Distribution as Jordan Peterson likes to remark.
People also seem oddly more inclined to want to praise and give money to the people who are already famous and have money. I see so many people going on about how Naomi Wolf is "brave" - nothing against her, but what about us little people? She was already famous for her best-selling books and we unknowns often risk much more by speaking out
I've always wanted to make this comment rather publicly, but I find it quite infuriating to see how many smaller writers must pay to comment in other more popular Substacks with the hope that they will get noticed if they post their article. I wonder how much money people are dishing out to those who already have so much just to get noticed.
I find it rather disheartening to think how many people are trying to make Substack their main form of livelihood but must do so by giving people with thousands of subscribers even more money with the hope that their investments pay off in the end.
You have a point. And subscriptions add up. I guess requiring payment for people to post on your substack eliminates the worst commenters, the trolls: is that why substack writers do that? But it also throws out a lot of good along with them. I try to remember to mention good substack authors when I post, but should do it more often. Not a fan of the pay-to-post stacks but I can see why one might be driven to do that by the shit posters.
It's kind of top level buzz, I tune it out.
A step above being anonymous, none the less
I can afford one or two subscriptions here. Brian's is probably the densest with his reasoned response to stuff. Joomi's is another. If I have to triage I'm going with them. Not that there aren't others as worthwhile but for now..
I appreciate the word choice. Density is exactly what I try to bring out in my writing. Squeeze out every air bubble.
I can usually scan and read fast that way. Not with your stuff.
Thanks for collecting these testimonies
The cult is real. Part of it is that COVID and the vaccines shined a light on what was previously an area of mass hypochondria in the shadows. Part of it is that a lot of people are incurious bots.
These people are so gone. As for me, no gene therapy, no masking, living, socializing (never missed a holiday, went to theme parks) and working (never missed a day) as a free person in Florida and I haven’t even had a cold. I see the vaxxed around me getting sick over and over 😑
Those folks are wacky.
The only way to cure CovIDIOCY is to kill it with more boosters.
These MORE-ONS are hopeless.
I don't see why anyone would bother to try to educate them -- f789 them... offer to drive them to the booster pop up clinic .. congratulate them each time they announce they've shot another payload of poison... well done ... awesome... thank you for protecting the community!
How to influence CovIDIOTS and make friends with them
I'm not sure the vaxxed could be convinced that the effectiveness is in negative territory. The same way you see this broad denial of vax adverse events. They do not want to come to terms with the reality of what they've been injected with; and doctors do not want to acknowledge the products they've been giving could be causing harm. To your thought, I could see a shift in the victim pattern. "I was a victim at risk of dying from covid and now I am a victim of vaccine harm, at greater risk." They get to carry on with the anxiety coddling.
One of the WaPo comments highlighted this gem, which I am only just now reading:
Strokes, heart attacks, sudden deaths: Does America understand the long-term risks of catching COVID?
https://fortune.com/2022/10/06/strokes-heart-attacks-sudden-death-america-long-term-risks-catching-covid-carolyn-barber/
"A 35-year-old acquaintance drops dead from a hemorrhagic stroke. A friend in her 40s, and another in his 70s, experience recurrent spells of extreme dizziness, their hearts pounding in their chests when they stand. A 21-year-old student with no prior medical history is admitted to the ICU with heart failure, while a 48-year-old avid tennis player, previously healthy, suddenly suffers a heart attack. A relative is diagnosed with pericarditis, an inflammation of the protective sac surrounding the heart.
I can’t confirm the exact etiology of all these cases. But every one of the people I mentioned had a history of COVID either days or months beforehand–and all of them experienced only mild cases of infection at the time."
wow...
And the award for investigative journalism goes to ...........
wow - indeed, thats some article
If they can't deny the facts, blaming the virus for the facts is the natural instinct for the minions of covidstan. The Vax can do no wrong...must never say anything against the Vax...the Vax is all powerful and all knowing...any doubt of the Vax will be punished...even if it's in your room in the dark late at night...
what's the next rationalization?
"my best friend got boosted, got Covid anyway, was hospitalized and then died in peace one night. i'm just so thankful he didn't have to go on a ventilator and suffer."
lol
Good thing he didn't get sucked into any of the scam therapeutics that don't work!
With the CDC downshifting to weekly stats rather than daily, booster "uptake" is highly unlikely to increase any more than marginally.
https://newsletter.allfactsmatter.us/p/pandemic-postcript-the-cdc-will-now
HHS Secretary Becerra is likely to extend the PHE declaration another ninety days, which kicks it into next January, but with the CDC essentially throwing in the towel and moving COVID reporting to a regime similar to their weekly reports during the yearly flu season, it will be interesting to if WaPo and the rest of corporate media can paper over that glaring dichotomy.
You know, at least a maze has to be sufficiently complex to trap a rat. But cook up a simple dichotomy and you'll trap most people foreeeevooooooor
To quote Greg Gutfeld, my favorite comedic personality, people have been conditioned to accept "the prison of two ideas".