Redditards at
/r/news and
/r/Coronavirus are not too happy about the news
CNN (
archive) is bringing... Dumping a few screenshots from the /r/news thread.
Let's just go over a few things here:
>Increase of necessary vaccinations from two to three (boosters included)
>sweeping mandate update to include booster/third jab
Yep, we speculated this was gonna happen five months ago.
>WHO Chief says giving boosters to healthy adults and vaccinating children "makes no sense" when high-risk groups around the world are waiting for their first dose
>WHO Chief admits healthy adults and children are not at a high-risk, says vaccinating kids makes no sense [since it prioritizes them over high-risk groups globally)
That sounds familiar, too, although I and others never took the "think of the poorer countries" approach. However it does yet again prove that kids are not in the high risk category for Covid, when was said from the start of the pandemic and has remained consistent to this day.
Best part:
WHO's special envoy to Covid-19 says
reliance on vaccines in a pandemic is an inappropriate public health strategy and could lead to new variants.
The real shock here is that CNN and the WHO turned out to be filled with alt-right conspiratard anti-vaxxers!
Joking aside, I'm genuinely surprised the WHO is going so far as to assert such things. I wonder if their tune changed because of that lawsuit from the Indian lawfirm. Or perhaps they've just had a change of heart. Who knows? The important thing is to watch and see if they speak out of both sides of their mouth, because so far:
What the WHO's special Covid-19 envoy said right here has been our central stance from the start.
EDIT: LOL Wait I just saw the rest of your post and checked. It's true. Miriam-Webster changed the definition of anti-vaxxer even further to include being against mandates.
This is like Pravda run by the brain-dead.
@EyelessMC LMICs means "Low to Middle Income Countries" and represents the kind of countries who can't afford Pfizer doses so they're using generic treatments like Ivermectin instead. The article impugns their motives and qualifications because they're not part of the Western academy (this
is racist), but in reality the majority of research is being done there because the majority of treatment is being done there.
So it really is exactly as Dr. Sheldrick said on that issue. Thanks for the clarification!