(02-08-2021, 10:40 PM)Ninurta Wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong here, but in this case, "after contracting Covid-19" in December, "a recent cluster"
also means "after taking the vaccine", which conveniently seems to have been left out... or is my timeline somewhat off?
No, the deliberate wording seems to shroud your correct assumption. The damned politicisation and England/Scotland
posturing in the media-world demands that simple 'facts-of-failure' become obscure. Personally, I believe this an old
article that has been kept to distract the reader from the Scottish National Party's current conspiracy-scandal and poorly
updated, an act that causes such questions as yours.
A number of elderly people and staff in the Care Home caught the virus in December 2020. The first case was recognised
on 20th December, six days after the announcement that the Scottish Government were 'rolling out' a vaccine system.
Nobody else of the residents' age were accepted during this outbreak.
By 13th January 2021, NHS Fife stated it had given the first injections of the vaccine in all of the regions of it's 76 Care Homes.
The Care Home involved is in the region of Fife.
It can be assumed that 24 days after the first case of Covid in the residence, the elderly occupants were still alive and accepted
the vaccine.
The reporting of the 14 days without a following case of the flu is irrelevant as it has no connection with the initial date of the
contagion, the assumed length of time for the virus's transmission is more than two weeks. Unless this statement is residue
from an earlier -but unpublished article.
On 6th February 2021, the media announce the deaths, 24 days after the vaccinations and ten days after the 'all-clear' from
Mossview Care Home and the assisting NHS Fife announcement.
...............................................
If one adheres to the narrative that Covid-19 is a disease that kills people -and not an infection that by compounding an already
outlying ailment results in possible death, the dating in this story is passable. However, when one brings social-care and social
-control into the equation, then there are problems and hence, your 'bullshit-light' started flashing!
The real fogginess of this article is by not stating when the 'cluster' actually died. A simple act of obfuscation by the media to favour
a political regime.
If the elderly had died between 20th December and the 13th January, it could be said by those responsible for issuing the vaccine
that it was just 'bad luck' and logistics involved in the rollout were too slow.
This isn't a good perspective for a Government ordering a health procedure involving old people and implies an insensitive attitude.
If this happened, then why is the story only surfacing on the 6th February? One would suggest the families of the dead might contact
the local newspaper via their grief or anger of the lack of Covid-sanitising and a publication of their tragic story would've been seen
anytime between the 20th December and early January.
But... if -with a slight use of slippery wordage, a Journalist could report the dates and 'good-feelings' comments like:
"NHS Fife said it worked closely with the council to handle the outbreak and prevent any further spread" and
"...it is now 14 days since the last positive test...",
then the reality of the actual time this article was written can be made abstruse.
The giveaway is this wording:
A total of 25 residents and 43 members of staff at Mossview Care Home in Lochgelly have tested positive for the virus so far.
So far...? an odd thing to say. The dead are dead and the vaccine administered, why are they testing the vaccine-injected residents
and staff in the same timeframe of this article?
'So far' is a comment used in present time and yet, the vaccine was administered in January.
Unless the article is older than the actual time of the vaccinations.
The key parts for those with an average study of such stories are:
That people died, an eye-catching hook in itself.
A proclamation of a resolute determination from a Governing body to manage caring deliverance of a exalted drug to worrying
public and vulnerable sections of society.
Which is basically propaganda.
That an ongoing concern is important and shows a 'finger-on-the-pulse' style of mentality of those elected to steer a country.
More Newspeak!
But for those who can smell an underlying spoor, such an article has to be written to make sure no connection can be made
between the deaths of these elderly folk and the vaccine that is supposed to assist with containing the disease they were
supposed to have died from.
They fell ill in December... no mention of death. They were given the vaccine in January... no mention of death.
The story is reported in February... ten dead. What could be deemed a rational conclusion from such arithmetic?
The injections brought on the fatalities?
This is why I believe it's an older article updated and the focus was originally on the tragedy for the 'global porn-fear' ratings
and then before a later publication, poorly re-jigged to avoid inference to a slow response from a Government that the media
really adheres to for other political reasons.
I hope this makes sense.
Edith Head Gives Good Wardrobe.