Can you surmise why someone in a high office that has had two vaccinations and two boosters has tested positive for CV 19? There have been millions of 'breakthrough' cases. It is possible that the jabs are ineffective, and it is documented that any efficacy rapidly wanes. There is no data that proves masks are effective in reducing the spread of a respiratory virus. It is possible that the tests are unreliable, as the PCR tests were proven to be unable to distinguish between Covid and a corona virus caused cold. Kamala may be a false positive. Or, as I believe, it could be a summation of all of these suppositions.

@BDair E.

Excellent entertaining eloquently elaborated effusion.

What is the failure rate of condoms?
What is the failure rate of birth control pills?
What is the failure rate of pregnancy tests?

At your age u should know , breathing is more popular than sex . And more effortless . So u do the math . If u are able . Covid is transmitted by air . Often not a choice and unavoidable .

@Pralina1 Well, respiration is required every minute of every day, which I guess makes it popular. I have been getting by with having sex only about three to five times a week. I am not sure what mathematical relationship you can derive from that. For more than 99% of the population, without comorbidities such as obesity, diabetes, or Vitamin D deficiency, there was no severe reaction to exposure to a corona virus. Most people, like myself and my lady friend, have had mild symptoms or have remained asymptomatic.

I have not mentioned an expectation of 100% efficacy.
The efficacy of masks is nowhere near 100% in preventing the spread of a respiratory virus in a population. Mask mandates made no discernable impact. The Covid 'vaccines' provided a 2% 0r less absolute risk reduction using their own safety and efficacy trial data. The vaccines do not reduce your risk of contracting Covid. The mechanism of action of an intermuscular injection is all wrong for a respiratory virus which takes hold in your mucosa. Sending spike proteins throughout your bloodstream has no benefit..

@BDair Well, I'm certainly sure that YOU with all of your non-existent medical degrees know far more about vaccinations than doctors and scientists who have spent most of their adult lives studying and researching vaccinations and diseases.

What makes you think doctors are well versed in vaccinations? There is no real data available to them, because there have been no studies done. They rely on pharma corporations to tell them that their products are great. Many physicians are just drug pushers for Big Pharma, and it is well documented that they receive bribes and kickbacks to push certain therapeutics and procedures.

@BDair There are many studies on vaccinations and their safety just in the U.S. alone. But I'm sure you'll casually dismiss the all so no point in my pointing to where you can find them. And immunology is the brance of biomedice that specifically studies the immune system while pathology is the study of diseases. So, that's what makes me think doctors are well versed.

So, why do YOU think that YOU are well versed enough in medical science that you know better than doctors and scientists?

@Charles1971 But Wait! @BDair spends his entire day, 24/7/365, combing through every weirdo publication in the universe,to provide us with his invaluable (weirdo) insights.
Show some gratitude, man!
Also his time management is admirable, all that research and sex, too....oh, wait, 3 minutes here & there At Best.

No, not being 100% accurate or effective does not make them useless, being closer to 0% accurate or effective makes them worthless.

@BDair Then prove they are closer to 0% accurate or effective.

"ARR is also used to derive an estimate of vaccine effectiveness, which is the number needed to vaccinate (NNV) to prevent one more case of COVID-19 as 1/ARR. NNVs bring a different perspective: 81 for the Moderna–NIH, 78 for the AstraZeneca–Oxford, 108 for the Gamaleya, 84 for the J&J, and 119 for the Pfizer–BioNTech vaccines. The explanation lies in the combination of vaccine efficacy and different background risks of COVID-19 across studies: 0·9% for the Pfizer–BioNTech, 1% for the Gamaleya, 1·4% for the Moderna–NIH, 1·8% for the J&J, and 1·9% for the AstraZeneca–Oxford vaccines." [thelancet.com]

Outcome Reporting Bias in COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Clinical Trials - [pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]

@BDair Neither of your articles proves that vaccines, PPE or tests are closer to 0% effective.