COVID-zero doctor believes the vaccinated aren’t safe around unvaccinated, but still believes you should be vaccinated
(LifeSiteNews) – One of Ontario’s most zealous COVID-zero fanatics is up to his old tricks and has reached a new low by comparing the unvaccinated with people who “drive [their] car 200 kilometres an hour and think that’s fun … ”
Dr. David Fisman made the insane comment during a recent interview while speaking about a new study he co-authored.
The study is called “Impact of population mixing between vaccinated and unvaccinated subpopulations on infectious disease dynamics: implications for SARS-CoV-2 transmission.”
You may recall that Fisman had to resign from a pseudo-governmental organization, the Ontario Science Table, last year because of a conflict of interest. The conflict arose when it was discovered that he was getting paid by a teacher’s union to advocate for school closures while also getting paid by the government to tell them whether or not to stay locked down.
Currently, all levels of Canadian governance are as corrupt they have ever been, so for a medical bureaucrat to be forced to resign for ethical reasons is saying something.
At any rate, Fisman and two other researchers have compiled a study that appeared in a recent addition of the Canadian Medical Association Journal, and it is striking. I say it is striking because it is striking to see the depths of illogicality that the Canadian medical profession has descended to.
The authors of the study suggest that their models (yes, people still believe in COVID models) show that the unvaccinated pose a disproportionate danger to the vaccinated.
Now, you may be thinking to yourself – “why would an unvaccinated person be a danger to a vaccinated person … if they are vaccinated?”
It is a good question, but unfortunately for us, it is only COVID sages who get paid in multiple ways by the government who are qualified to answer such riddles.
Something doesn’t add up
According to the study, vaccinated people are at a greater risk to be infected when they are around the unvaccinated. But the unvaccinated who are around the vaccinated are infected less than the vaccinated in the same situation.
All of this is based on a mathematical model that made estimates about things that could happen based on hypothetical mixing of the jabbed and unjabbed.
subscribe to our daily headlines US Canada Catholic
The study says that this happens because the vaccinated are a “buffer” for transmission.
So, in laymen terms, this means that jabbed people get sick from unjabbed people, but unjabbed people don’t get sick from jabbed people.
If this is true, the vaccines do not stop infection, and unvaccinated people are somehow less likely to get infected in some scenarios than vaccinated people … Why would anyone get jabbed if that is the case?
Adding to his charming road-rage analogy, Fisman castigated the unvaccinated by saying: “ … we don’t allow you to do that on a highway [drive fast] partly because you can kill and injure yourself, but also because you’re creating risk for those around you.”
But the study says that the unvaccinated are NOT at risk around the vaccinated, and that the vaccinated are not protected from infection from the unvaccinated.
We might extend his analogy and say that the safest thing to do would be to “take the vaccinated off the road,” since clearly nothing they do will protect them.
Fisman hates freedom
The real motivation behind the study is revealed by Fisman in an interview where he said, “We thought what was missing from that conversation was, what are the rights of vaccinated people to be protected from unvaccinated people?”
“What we kind of concluded is that the decision to not be vaccinated — you can’t really regard it as a self-regarding risk (because) you’re creating risk for other people around you by interacting with them.”
Of course, the clean should be kept away from the unclean, because the medicine only works if everyone takes it.
Perhaps we should just segregate the unjabbed from public life so that the jabbed never get sick again …
Fisman hates logic
Now, of course, vaccine segregation has already happened for months, yet it is the jabbed who are in the hospital at a rate that exceeds the unjabbed. However, real-life information does not have a place in Fisman’s COVID logic.
In addition, something else from his study and comments stand out, namely that the unjabbed pose a risk to the jabbed.
If this is true, wouldn’t the unjabbed pose a risk to each other?
It stands to reason that if Fisman is worried that unvaxxed Ontarians are spreading a virus to vaxxed Ontarians, that they would also spread it to each other. And, if the jabbed act as a “buffer’ against infection, then why have vaccinated Ontarians consistently taken up the vast majority of hospital beds?
Wouldn’t this buffer simply buffer away all the COVID?
Furthermore, Fisman admitted that the mathematical model can’t reflect the real world or the “diverse factors.” I think by diverse factors he means those pesky things called “human behaviour” and “free will.”
At the same time, he also said that the study undersold the awesomeness of vaccines.
So, according to Fisman’s COVID logic, the jabbed are not safe around the unjabbed, and he knows this because of math. However, it is math that doesn’t reflect reality, but, vaccines still work … which is evidence by the jabbed getting sick from the unjabbed.
Perhaps Fisman is no longer on the take from teacher’s unions and government cronies and has moved on to a career as a salesmen for migraine medication – this might explain the seeming desire to make people’s heads explode.