The concept of jabs protecting the jabbed, REGARDLESS OF OTHERS' JAB STATUS has, AGAIN, been disregarded in favor of the same ol' fear-inducing, division-creating narrative that:
the jab and the jabbed protect OTHERS (i.e., the jab doesn't protect the jabbed),
OTHERS have the ability, duty and responsibility to protect the obedient/jabbed (by getting jabbed) and
if the unjabbed don't fulfill their duty/responsibility to get jabbed, the obedient/jabbed will suffer/die.
Only NOW, the concept of the unjabbed associating/mixing with the jabbed is being cited as a ("the") primary risk ("cause") for infections among the jabbed.
Absolute, utter bs.
The concept of jabs protecting the jabbed, REGARDLESS OF OTHERS' JAB STATUS has, AGAIN, been disregarded in favor of the same ol' fear-inducing, division-creating narrative that:
the jab and the jabbed protect OTHERS (i.e., the jab doesn't protect the jabbed),
OTHERS have the ability, duty and responsibility to protect the obedient/jabbed (by getting jabbed) and
if the unjabbed don't fulfill their duty/responsibility to get jabbed, the obedient/jabbed will suffer/die.
Only NOW, the concept of the unjabbed associating/mixing with the jabbed is being cited as a ("the") primary risk ("cause") for infections among the jabbed.