@Builder,
Quoting from the press release about above mentioned study
Vaccines still effective against Delta variant of concern, says Oxford-led study of the COVID-19 Infections Survey
University of Oxford wrote:Obtaining two vaccine doses remains the most effective way to ensure protection against the COVID-19 Delta variant of concern dominant in the UK today, according to a study from the University of Oxford.
[...]
Two doses of either vaccine still provided at least the same level of protection as having had COVID-19 before through natural infection; people who had been vaccinated after already being infected with COVID-19 had even more protection than vaccinated individuals who had not had COVID-19 before.
However, Delta infections after two vaccine doses had similar peak levels of virus to those in unvaccinated people; with the Alpha variant, peak virus levels in those infected post-vaccination were much lower.
Professor Sarah Walker, Professor of Medical Statistics and Epidemiology at the University of Oxford and Chief Investigator and Academic Lead for the COVID-19 Infection Survey, said: ‘We don’t yet know how much transmission can happen from people who get COVID-19 after being vaccinated – for example, they may have high levels of virus for shorter periods of time.
‘But the fact that they can have high levels of virus suggests that people who aren’t yet vaccinated may not be as protected from the Delta variant as we hoped. This means it is essential for as many people as possible to get vaccinated – both in the UK and worldwide.’
@Walter Hinteler,
Quote:However, Delta infections after two vaccine doses had similar peak levels of virus to those in unvaccinated people; with the Alpha variant, peak virus levels in those infected post-vaccination were much lower.
Here's the facts everyone is ignoring. From your post, Walter. '
@Builder,
What makes you think it's being "ignored"? I've heard it reported in news coverage of the pandemic, along with the finding that vaccinated people who do come down with the delta variant don't suffer as severely and often avoid having to be hospitalized.
Currently it's the
mu variant which is raising more concern.
@Builder,
Builder wrote:Here's the facts everyone is ignoring. From your post, Walter. '
I'm neither ignoring nor did anyone else ... who could read, listen and/or watch that in the media. (It was published more than three weeks ago.)
That Delta spreads more easily among people vaccinated against Covid-19 than other previous coronavirus variants has been suspected before.
This study now proves that this is very likely.
This means that despite vaccination protection, some of those vaccinated may pass on the Delta virus, thus possibly contributing to its spread.
The data on Delta transmission show that Covid-19 vaccines protect against serious illness and death - but that people who are vaccinated but need to take precautions, like wearing masks indoors etc. .
@Walter Hinteler,
Builder seems like he’s trying to suggest that the information in your article validates dubiousness about Covid vaccination.
That’s weird because it clearly doesn’t.
Just seems determined to find some conspiracy in the efforts to combat Covid, and will point to anything at all as proof.
It’s a lot like all the grabassery we’ve had to listen to from people still trying to prove Biden didn’t win.
Grasping at straws; peddling horse ****.
@snood,
And believing lizards rule the Earth and David Icke is the messiah.
Right now in Texas…
Anybody aged 21 and over who wants to can legally open-carry a handgun without training, license, permit or note from their momma.
Anybody.
Also right now in Texas-
A law was just passed that empowers anybody who wants to, to act as sort of an ‘abortion vigilante’ . It offers them thousands of dollars to report on and turn-in anyone they suspect of trying to get an abortion or helping someone get an abortion.
Fanatical, pistol-packing abortion bounty hunters.
I mean, what could go wrong?
Prisoners Obama exchanged for Bowe Bergdahl now in senior Taliban posts
Nearly all of those who hold senior positions have close ties to al Qaeda
By Kyle Morris | Fox News
"Four out of five Guantanamo detainees whom former President Barack Obama released in exchange for former U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl in 2014 now hold senior positions in the interim government created by the Taliban in Afghanistan.
According to the Afghan television network TOLOnews, the Taliban-formed government gave leadership positions to Khairullah Khairkhwa, Norullah Noori, Abdul Haq Wasiq, and Mohammad Fazl; all of whom were released in a 2014 deal between the Obama administration and the Taliban to free Bergdahl, whom the Taliban had held as a prisoner since 2009.
On Tuesday, the Taliban announced that Khairkhwa would serve as acting minister for information and culture, Noori would serve as acting minister of borders and tribal affairs, Wasiq would serve as acting director of intelligence, and Fazl would serve as deputy defense minister.
Wasiq will reprise his role as the Taliban's intelligence director, previously serving in the role prior to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on America. U.S. intelligence agencies determined that Wasiq had close tied to al Qaeda while he was serving in that position at the time.
Thomas Joscelyn, a senior fellow for the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), noted that Fazl will also return to his role as deputy defense minister. "U.S. officials found that Fazl worked with senior al Qaeda personnel, including Abdel Hadi al Iraqi, one of Osama bin Laden's chief lieutenants," Joscelyn wrote in a tweet. "Al Iraqi is still held at Guantanamo."
Late last month, following the Taliban's takeover of Afghanistan, the Taliban announced that Mohammad Nabi Omari, another former Guantanamo Bay Naval Base (GTMO) detainee with close ties to al Qaeda, would govern Khost Province.
In 2011, a Washington, D.C., district court judge found that Khairkhwa "was, without question, a senior member of the Taliban both before and after the US-led invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001."
The court also denied Khairkhwa’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, concluding that he "has repeatedly admitted that after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, he served as a member of a Taliban envoy that met clandestinely with senior Iranian officials to discuss Iran’s offer to provide the Taliban with weapons and other military support in anticipation of imminent hostilities with US coalition forces."
Sirajuddin Haqqani, the head of the militant group known as Haqqani Network, now serves as acting interior minister for the Taliban government. The U.S. has put a $10 million bounty on Haqqani's head. Since 2016, Haqqani has served as one of two deputy leaders of the Taliban.
Nebraska GOP Sen. Ben Sasse released a statement on Tuesday regarding the Taliban's formation of the government, insisting that the trust President Joe Biden and U.S. officials placed in the Taliban is "pathetic."
"President Biden still clings to an insane fantasy that the Taliban is kinder and gentler," Sasse said. "It’s nonsense. Haqqani is the Taliban’s new interior minister for precisely the same reason the FBI’s got a $5 million bounty on his head: he’s a bloodthirsty terrorist. He’s armed, dangerous, and running a country we just abandoned."
"Americans are still trapped behind Taliban lines, the Biden Administration is still refusing to disclose how many of our people they left behind, and the State Department keeps talking about how they really hope the Taliban ‘will live up to their commitments,'" Sasse added. "Pathetic."
Regarding the newly announced members of the Taliban's interim government, a spokesperson for the State Department told Fox News that officials are assessing the list of members, which mostly includes figures who have prime ties to terrorist organizations like al Qaeda.
"We have seen the announcement and are assessing it," the spokesperson said. "We note the announced list of names consists exclusively of individuals who are members of the Taliban or their close associates and no women. We also are concerned by the affiliations and track records of some of the individuals."
The spokesperson also said that the State Department will "continue to hold the Taliban to their commitments" regarding evacuation efforts.
"We understand that the Taliban has presented this as a caretaker cabinet. However, we will judge the Taliban by its actions, not words. We have made clear our expectation that the Afghan people deserve an inclusive government," the spokesperson added. "We will continue to hold the Taliban to their commitments to allow safe passage for foreign nationals and Afghans with travel documents, including permitting flights currently ready to fly out of Afghanistan to agreed-upon onward destinations. We also reiterate our clear expectation that the Taliban ensure that Afghan soil is not used to threaten any other countries and allow humanitarian access in support of the Afghan people. The world is watching closely."
The White House on Tuesday said there is "no rush" to recognize the Taliban as the official government of Afghanistan, adding that U.S. recognition will be "dependent" on the Taliban's actions, as the group announced the formation of its new government.
"There's no rush to recognition, and that will be planned dependent on what steps the Taliban takes," Psaki said. "The world will be watching whether they allow for American citizens, whether they allow individuals to leave who want to, and how they treat women and girls around the country."
Biden also considered the recognition of the Taliban-formed government to be "a long way off."
Fox News' Kelly Laco and Brooke Singman contributed to this article.
I just saw another video on a foreign website, in which The Taliban are seen using guns to disperse protesters while browbeating foreign journalists. They even proclaim that they wouldn't mind to zap the foreign journalists trying to take pictures.
One of the leaders of the Taliban reportedly remarked that the Taliban would like to work with foreign nations except Israel.
Just nuke the Taliban. Just do it.
One thing that seems to have gone unnoticed is the organisation that deals with international post has decided to ban stamps from British Indian Overseas Territory.
What this means is the international community is backing Mauritius’ claim to the Chagos Islands.
Diego Garcia is the big military base on the Islands used primarily by the USA.
It’s time to give it all back to the islanders, but in the meantime if a soldier wants to send a letter home he’ll have to use Mauritian stamp.
This is essential history, not merely as regards anti-abortion but also as regards what has been a significant force in turning the GOP into the extremist organization it has become. The portion I've bolded is to draw particular attention to the role played by one man, Paul Weyrich.
Quote:There’s a straight line from US racial segregation to the anti-abortion movement
The supreme court’s refusal to block Texas’s restrictive new abortion law suggests that the end to country-wide legal abortion might be at hand. For white evangelicals, the rank and file of the anti-abortion movement who have worked tirelessly to overturn the 1973 Roe v Wade decision, this represents the culmination of efforts that date back to – well, about 1980.
Although leaders of the religious right would have us believe that the Roe decision was the catalyst for their political mobilization in the 1970s, that claim does not withstand historical scrutiny. What prompted evangelical interest in politics, in fact, was a defense of racial segregation.
Evangelicals considered abortion a “Catholic issue” through most of the 1970s, and there is little in the history of evangelicalism to suggest that abortion would become a point of interest. Even James Dobson, who later became an implacable foe of abortion, acknowledged after the Roe decision that the Bible was silent on the matter and that it was plausible for an evangelical to hold that “a developing embryo or fetus was not regarded as a full human being”.
I first began researching the origins of the religious right after a meeting at a Washington hotel conference room in November 1990. The gathering marked the ten-year anniversary of Ronald Reagan’s election to the presidency and, for reasons that are still not entirely clear to me, I was invited to this closed-door celebration. There I encountered a veritable who’s-who of the religious right, including (among others), Ralph Reed of Christian Coalition; Donald Wildmon from the American Family Association; Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention; Ed Dobson, one of Jerry Falwell’s acolytes at Moral Majority; Richard Viguerie, the conservative direct-mail mogul; and
Paul Weyrich, cofounder of the Heritage Foundation and architect of the religious right.
In the course of the first session, Weyrich tried to make a point to his religious right brethren (no women attended the conference, as I recall). Remember, he said animatedly, that the religious right did not come together in response to the Roe decision. No, Weyrich insisted, what got the movement going as a political movement was the attempt on the part of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to rescind the tax-exempt status of Bob Jones University because of its racially discriminatory policies, including a ban on interracial dating that the university maintained until 2000.
During a break following that session, I approached Weyrich to ensure that I had heard him correctly. He was emphatic that abortion had nothing whatsoever to do with the genesis of the religious right. He added that he’d been trying since the Goldwater campaign in 1964 to interest evangelicals in politics. Nothing caught their attention, he insisted – school prayer, pornography, equal rights for women, abortion – until the IRS began to challenge the tax exemption of Bob Jones University and other whites-only segregation academies...
@MontereyJack,
You know why the Taliban think that you are just a pusillanimous easy mark from America who truly buys into The Taliban's promise not to egg on anti-American sentiment? The answer: the Taliban find that Biden's America shies away from taking on foreign rivals, not to mention foreign terrorists. And the Democratic Party just wants to please some voters who just sneer at the suggestion that America should be a world leader. By their reckoning, they argue that America would do well to pare back military spending, defund the police, and soak the rich. At the same time, they think Biden's government should funnel money to all the projects supported by progressives, particularly more handouts for the black, free college, the cancellation of student debt , and more job openings for the black. Yes. It's all about helping black people eradicate poverty and even enrich some members of BLM.
Yet there is a huge cost for America if Biden wants to cede leadership to the Taliban. The Economist, which is supposed to vouch for Biden's Middle East policy, also shreds Biden for blinking at the fact that America's withdrawl, if anything, only emboldens anti-American forces in the Middle East; they even think that it teaches them how to beat out America's armed forces.
Most European nations, gutted by America's withdrawl, have made no secret of their desire to coalesce behind Macron and his plan to uphold EU "strategic autonomy". For Biden, that would mean the end of his strident calls to bolster trans-Atlantic defense cooperation; most European nations just don't trust him anymore.
You BLM supporters are selfish.
@blatham,
Very Interesting!!!!!!!!!
@Region Philbis,
.......aaahhhhh, but Republics are oxymoronic............
What is Cultural Marxism?
By William S. Lind
"In his columns on the next conservatism, Paul Weyrich has several times referred to “cultural Marxism.” He asked me, as Free Congress Foundation’s resident historian, to write this column explaining what cultural Marxism is and where it came from. In order to understand what something is, you have to know its history.
Cultural Marxism is a branch of western Marxism, different from the Marxism-Leninism of the old Soviet Union. It is commonly known as “multiculturalism” or, less formally, Political Correctness. From its beginning, the promoters of cultural Marxism have known they could be more effective if they concealed the Marxist nature of their work, hence the use of terms such as “multiculturalism.”
Cultural Marxism began not in the 1960s but in 1919, immediately after World War I. Marxist theory had predicted that in the event of a big European war, the working class all over Europe would rise up to overthrow capitalism and create communism. But when war came in 1914, that did not happen. When it finally did happen in Russia in 1917, workers in other European countries did not support it. What had gone wrong?
Independently, two Marxist theorists, Antonio Gramsci in Italy and Georg Lukacs in Hungary, came to the same answer: Western culture and the Christian religion had so blinded the working class to its true, Marxist class interest that Communism was impossible in the West until both could be destroyed. In 1919, Lukacs asked, “Who will save us from Western civilization?” That same year, when he became Deputy Commissar for Culture in the short-lived Bolshevik Bela Kun government in Hungary, one of Lukacs’s first acts was to introduce sex education into Hungary’s public schools. He knew that if he could destroy the West’s traditional sexual morals, he would have taken a giant step toward destroying Western culture itself.
In 1923, inspired in part by Lukacs, a group of German Marxists established a think tank at Frankfurt University in Germany called the Institute for Social Research. This institute, soon known simply as the Frankfurt School, would become the creator of cultural Marxism.
To translate Marxism from economic into cultural terms, the members of the Frankfurt School – – Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, Wilhelm Reich, Eric Fromm and Herbert Marcuse, to name the most important – – had to contradict Marx on several points. They argued that culture was not just part of what Marx had called society’s “superstructure,” but an independent and very important variable. They also said that the working class would not lead a Marxist revolution, because it was becoming part of the middle class, the hated bourgeoisie.
Who would? In the 1950s, Marcuse answered the question: a coalition of blacks, students, feminist women and homosexuals.
Fatefully for America, when Hitler came to power in Germany in 1933, the Frankfurt School fled – – and reestablished itself in New York City. There, it shifted its focus from destroying traditional Western culture in Germany to destroying it in the United States. To do so, it invented “Critical Theory.” What is the theory? To criticize every traditional institution, starting with the family, brutally and unremittingly, in order to bring them down. It wrote a series of “studies in prejudice,” which said that anyone who believes in traditional Western culture is prejudiced, a “racist” or “sexist” of “fascist” – – and is also mentally ill.
Most importantly, the Frankfurt School crossed Marx with Freud, taking from psychology the technique of psychological conditioning. Today, when the cultural Marxists want to do something like “normalize” homosexuality, they do not argue the point philosophically. They just beam television show after television show into every American home where the only normal-seeming white male is a homosexual (the Frankfurt School’s key people spent the war years in Hollywood).
After World War II ended, most members of the Frankfurt School went back to Germany. But Herbert Marcuse stayed in America. He took the highly abstract works of other Frankfurt School members and repackaged them in ways college students could read and understand. In his book “Eros and Civilization,” he argued that by freeing sex from any restraints, we could elevate the pleasure principle over the reality principle and create a society with no work, only play (Marcuse coined the phrase, “Make love, not war”). Marcuse also argued for what he called “liberating tolerance,” which he defined as tolerance for all ideas coming from the Left and intolerance for any ideas coming from the Right. In the 1960s, Marcuse became the chief “guru” of the New Left, and he injected the cultural Marxism of the Frankfurt School into the baby boom generation, to the point where it is now America’s state ideology.
The next conservatism should unmask multiculturalism and Political Correctness and tell the American people what they really are: cultural Marxism. Its goal remains what Lukacs and Gramsci set in 1919: destroying Western culture and the Christian religion. It has already made vast strides toward that goal. But if the average American found out that Political Correctness is a form of Marxism, different from the Marxism of the Soviet Union but Marxism nonetheless, it would be in trouble. The next conservatism needs to reveal the man behind the curtain – – old Karl Marx himself.?
BLM supporters seem to be doing this in America. I think that they have other foreign governments backing them up on the sly. Russia and its allies?
They want to imperil l freedoms and gut institutions. Their goal has been to destroy Western culture. They belong to the new Left sponsored by foreign nations.
They are not even liberals.
They say you are stupid simply because you don't want to pander to anti-American forces. They call you stupid simply because you know that such foam-flecked progressive political animals are putting on airs when they brief against most conservative politicians.
Such far-left groups have form. They did that in developing nations first; now their targets are America and the EU.
