I Got a 'Mild' Breakthrough Case
At the beginning of the pandemic, health agencies started misrepresenting and overstating the certainty of science, in order to attempt to get more buy-in from the public.<p>It started with masks. The studies that we had about masks really were not great, but they did a risk-reward calculation behind closed doors: worst case scenario, the surgical masks don&#x27;t impact the spread and it changes nothing; best case scenario, we reduce community spread. The problem with this is that if they told the public that this was how they were thinking about the problem, they wouldn&#x27;t get people wearing the masks, so they overstated their confidence in it when speaking to the public. A good amount of people truly believe that the science was clear. But it wasn&#x27;t.<p>It continued with tests. It&#x27;s much better to have a high rate of false positives than to have any rate of false negatives, so they pumped up the cycle count to accomplish this. They later toned it down. To the public, the tests aren&#x27;t even questioned, most people believe they&#x27;re pretty accurate, and most people are unaware that they have changed the criteria throughout the last year and a half. They sold it to the public like this because they knew that people would avoid getting tested and staying quarantined if they didn&#x27;t trust the tests.<p>Lately, it&#x27;s about the vaccines. There is no serious scientist that believed that the vaccines would prevent COVID from becoming endemic. It was obvious that this was going to be with us for the rest of our lives back all the way in April of last year (or earlier). There are no serious scientists that believe that 2 shots and a booster is going to be the end of it, and yet they&#x27;re happy to tell us that we &quot;might&quot; need boosters. Do any serious scientists actually believe that? These aren&#x27;t &quot;breakthrough&quot; cases, because it&#x27;s not truly a vaccine in the sense that the Polio vaccine was a vaccine. It&#x27;s a prophylactic. We <i>always knew</i> it was a prophylactic, but they sold it to the public as something else, because people wouldn&#x27;t get it if they didn&#x27;t lie.<p>We need to decide if we&#x27;re okay with science agencies lying to us. Is their purpose to exact change on society, or is their purpose to do good science and tell us honest results? All of the confusion in this article stems from the misrepresentations they sell us.