TimHauck

Lol that 4 people “laughed” at this post, it’s 100% true. GC is full of sheep.

I just quoted myself calling Hotez a tool, which is literally the only time I’ve ever said his name on this forum. Go suck RFK off some more, he’s a liar like you.

More lies from the “most centrist poster here.” If I had to pick a “favorite doctor” it would probably be Vinay Prasad. Some have even called him an anticovidvaxxer which couldn’t be further from the truth, but he has called out the myocarditis risk for young men and advocated for better data before making drastic recommendations.

Broadly speaking, yes there was a decline in severity in outcomes seen during Omicron, as I’ve stated. But it wasn’t due to Omicron being significantly less severe, if at all, on its own. It’s because Omicron was the first time we saw significant numbers of infections among those with prior immunity from either previous infection or vaccination. But in areas with low prior immunity particularly among the elderly, such as Hong Kong, outcomes were much worse. I’m not contradicting anything.

Late summer to early fall. Here is under 65 in Florida 2015-2021

From a guy that is against endless boosters even: For reference, another couple of tweets of his from today (relevant to @Ultra Max Power ‘s question to me):

The first one is only comparing bivalent vs the monovalent booster, not vs the first 2 doses. It also doesn’t break down the ages any further than 18+ and 65+. The second one also does not compare to the first 2 doses, only to unvaccinated as well as vs the monovalent and various times of receiving the bivalent, which shows clear waning and thus is more evidence that the bivalent booster isn’t necessary for all ages. And speaking of ages the smallest age breakdown is 18-64. So no, these studies are not evidence that boosters are effective for people under about 40.