Coronavirus outbreak - From China to the World.

[Coughdrop addict]

This is what covidiots actually believe:

[Heathen Hammer]

DoD "Project Salus" data analysis program shows that mRNA vaccines aren't as effective as Big Pharma claims them to be. It appears, that over time the rate at which fully-vaccinated individuals experience worsening health outcomes, which shatters the government narrative about "pandemic of the unvaccinated".

[PointOfViewGun]

DoD "Project Salus" data analysis program shows that mRNA vaccines aren't as effective as Big Pharma claims them to be. It appears, that over time the rate at which fully-vaccinated individuals experience worsening health outcomes, which shatters the government narrative about "pandemic of the unvaccinated".

The fact that vaccine effectiveness wanes over time, as it does with most vaccines, and that vaccines are less effective against Delta variant were not things that were argued to the contrary by anyone. Why are you fighting the wind mills?

[Heathen Hammer]

The fact that vaccine effectiveness wanes over time, as it does with most vaccines, and that vaccines are less effective against Delta variant were not things that were argued to the contrary by anyone. Why are you fighting the wind mills?

So you agree that "pandemic of the unvaccinated" is an unfounded myth then? Good.

[PointOfViewGun]

So you agree that "pandemic of the unvaccinated" is an unfounded myth then? Good.

Do those points mean that the pandemic is not driven by the unvaccinated? Not really. So, why would I agree with that?

[Heathen Hammer]

Do those points mean that the pandemic is not driven by the unvaccinated? Not really. So, why would I agree with that?

Because DoD study shows that unvaccinated have nothing to do with growing amount of worse health outcomes.

[PointOfViewGun]

Because DoD study shows that unvaccinated have nothing to do with growing amount of worse health outcomes.

Where does it show that?

[antaeus]

Where does it show that?

Definitely curious to see the answer to this one...

[Heathen Hammer]

From the JAIC Project Salus document:
In this 80% vaccinated 65+ population, an estimated 60% of COVID-19 hospitalizations occurred in fully vaccinated individuals in the week ending August 7th.

By August 21st, 71% of covid-19 “cases” were occurring among fully vaccinated individuals:
In this 80% vaccinated 65+ population, an estimated 71% of COVID-19 cases occurred in fully vaccinated individuals.

[antaeus]

How does that show that unvaccinated have nothing to do with growing amount of worse health outcomes?

[Heathen Hammer]

How does that show that unvaccinated have nothing to do with growing amount of worse health outcomes?

In this 80% vaccinated 65+ population, an estimated 71% of COVID-19 cases occurred in fully vaccinated individuals.

[antaeus]

That doesn't show that unvaccinated have nothing to do with growing amount of worse health outcomes.

You're going to need to show some analysis as to how the stats you provide lead to the statement you have made.

[PointOfViewGun]

Heathen Hammer, nothing you have shown so far tells us that the pandemic is not driven by the unvaccinated. Your own graph shows that the unvaccinated are twice as likely to get represented in hospitalization compared to the vaccinated.

[Ludicus]

From UK,


Covid early response one of worst public health failures in UK history, say MPs.

In particular:... The initial decision to delay a comprehensive lockdown—despite practice elsewhere in the world—reflected a fatalism about the spread of covid that should have been robustly challenged at the time.

• Read the full report (HTML)
• Read the report's summary (HTML)
• Read the report's conclusions and recommendations (HTML)
• Read the full report (PDF)
• Find all publications related to this inquiry, including oral and written evidence

Key excerpts,
76.The veil of ignorance through which the UK viewed the initial weeks of the pandemic was partly self-inflicted.

77.The initial UK policy was to take a gradual and incremental approach to introducing non-pharmaceutical interventions. A comprehensive lockdown was not ordered until 23 March 2020—two months after SAGE first met to consider the national response to covid-19.99 This slow and gradualist approach was not inadvertent, nor did it reflect bureaucratic delay or disagreement between Ministers and their advisers. It was a deliberate policy—proposed by official scientific advisers and adopted by the Governments of all of the nations of the United Kingdom

78.As a result, decisions on lockdowns and social distancing during the early weeks of the pandemic—and the advice that led to them—rank as one of the most important public health failures the United Kingdom has ever experienced

81.But even without an effective test and trace system earlier, social distancing and locking down would have bought much-needed time: time for vaccine research to bear fruit; time for treatments to be developed that could mean that experiencing covid-19 was less serious; time for test and trace systems to be developed and made effective so that the prevalence of the disease could be lowered without the entire population being restricted.

Conclusions

152.During the first three months of the covid pandemic, the UK followed the wrong policy in its use of non-pharmaceutical interventions. When the UK moved from the ‘contain’ to ‘delay’ stage, there was a policy of seeking to only moderate the speed of infection through the population—flattening the curve—rather than seeking to arrest its spread. The policy was pursued until 23 March.

153.The flattening the curve policy was implemented by introducing new restrictions only gradually and slowly, acting as if the spread of the virus were susceptible to calibrated control. Modelling at the time suggested that to suppress the spread of covid-19 too firmly would cause a resurgence when restrictions were lifted. This was thought likely to result in a peak in the autumn and winter when NHS pressures were already likely to be severe. In addition, it was thought that the public would only comply with severe restrictions for a limited period, and so those restrictions should not be applied before they were most needed. This approach should have been questioned at the time for a number of reasons:

• it entailed people contracting covid in large numbers with hundreds of thousands of deaths likely to result;
• other countries, in Asia and in Europe, including some with experience of SARS and MERS, had chosen to implement earlier, more comprehensive strategies of non-pharmaceutical interventions, which were having success; and
• suppressing the spread of the virus in the early period would have bought valuable time to consider what was the best way to manage the pandemic in the medium term.

Recommendations and lessons learned
158.In the early days of a crisis, scientific advice may be necessarily uncertain: data may be unavailable, knowledge limited and time may be required for analysis to be conducted. In these circumstances it may be appropriate to act quickly, on a precautionary basis, rather than wait for more scientific certainty.


The press reacts,The Guardian view on the Covid report: a reckoning begins

The report published on Monday by two parliamentary committees is a stage in a longer process of learning from, and demanding accountability for, the UK government’s handling of the pandemic.

Fran Hall from @CovidJusticeUK

says the Covid inquiry must be brought forward and bereaved families want accountability not apologies

https://twitter.com/i/status/1448042603472117760


UK PM promises bereaved families a Covid inquiry chair by by Christmas

The group counts more than 4,000 families as members and has been pressing the government for an urgent start to the inquiry. Johnson had previously only said the statutory inquiry would start in spring 2022.

Covid inquiry: When will it happen and how does it work? - BBC

[EmperorBatman999]

The fact that vaccine effectiveness wanes over time, as it does with most vaccines, and that vaccines are less effective against Delta variant were not things that were argued to the contrary by anyone. Why are you fighting the wind mills?

But does a good vaccine’s effectiveness wane so rapidly to call for a booster within 6-9 months of the initial set of doses? Potentially for the next several years? Besides flu (an entirely different case because of the diverse array of types of flu), what shot has you needing a constant train of boosters? Most shots are good for nearly a lifetime, while others like tetanus call for a booster only every decade or so.

The mRNA vaccines are just plainly shoddy, and the pharmaceutical companies and their political allies are trying to make up every excuse so that they don’t have to admit that putting all effort into rushing a mediocre and dangerous vaccine was a giant waste in terms of actually stopping the virus. The result is that no RnD went into treatment methods to bring the dying from the brink. I suspect, too, from people I know who have lost relatives, that the vaccine culture has created a bias where hospitals won’t do their utmost to save the dying regardless of their personal choices: it is a criminal decline in care for sick.

[sumskilz]

But does a good vaccine’s effectiveness wane so rapidly to call for a booster within 6-9 months of the initial set of doses? Potentially for the next several years? Besides flu (an entirely different case because of the diverse array of types of flu), what shot has you needing a constant train of boosters? Most shots are good for nearly a lifetime, while others like tetanus call for a booster only every decade or so.

That's not an issue with the technology, it's an issue with the fact that people don't maintain significant long term immunity to any kind of coronavirus. Hence, the common cold, which is caused by a very small number of coronavirus strains we keep getting over and over.

EDIT: To be clear, I'm talking about HCoV-229E, HCoV-HKU1, HCoV-NL63, and HCoV-OC43. There are also rhinoviruses, and RSV, but people get those same coronaviruses over and over.

[PointOfViewGun]

But does a good vaccine’s effectiveness wane so rapidly to call for a booster within 6-9 months of the initial set of doses? Potentially for the next several years? Besides flu (an entirely different case because of the diverse array of types of flu), what shot has you needing a constant train of boosters? Most shots are good for nearly a lifetime, while others like tetanus call for a booster only every decade or so.

The mRNA vaccines are just plainly shoddy, and the pharmaceutical companies and their political allies are trying to make up every excuse so that they don’t have to admit that putting all effort into rushing a mediocre and dangerous vaccine was a giant waste in terms of actually stopping the virus. The result is that no RnD went into treatment methods to bring the dying from the brink. I suspect, too, from people I know who have lost relatives, that the vaccine culture has created a bias where hospitals won’t do their utmost to save the dying regardless of their personal choices: it is a criminal decline in care for sick.

You should actually see coronavirus and influenza as sister viruses. They're similar but different in some ways. Before the COVID pandemic, 30% of flu cases were caused by coronavirus. The flu vaccine gets renewed every year. In fact, its effectiveness lasts even less than half a year. It can be most effective when administered before the flu season starts. It's not surprising that the same would be true for a similar virus like coronavirus. There are other diseases, like whooping cough, where vaccines provide only a short time frame for immunity.

Calling mRNA vaccines shoddy is exactly the way inactive vaccines were called first time they were developed. You have absolutely no reason to disparage them like that. Moreover, you're outright lying that no research and development went into treatment methods when there are multiple treatment drugs that were either redesigned/researched or completely developed against COVID. Merck just applied for emergency FDA approval for molnupiravir.

It's certainly disgraceful to see efforts of doctors, researchers and technicians to be disparaged so easily and so fundamentally...

[Cyclops]

My impression has been the UK botched their COVID response badly, they were well set up to tackle it so its a political failure in a very specific sense of a government failing to act intelligently. That was definitely the word out of the UK health services.

The US fell victim to factors that are in most contexts strengths, so you can see why it they were not able to contain COVID, but naturally the Yankee ingenuity has led to a very quick vaccination response. The vulnerabilities are structural so it'll be interesting to see if and how they respond to prepare for the next pandemic.

My own country has its political failings too, we have a well funded medical system and easil;y policed borders (and a fairly elaborate system, for keeping out non whites infected people) but a paralysed placeholder Prime Minister and some mining pawns holding the balance of power. Oh and NSW just had an Opus Dei led coup you cannot make this **** up.

[conon394]

But does a good vaccine’s effectiveness wane so rapidly to call for a booster within 6-9 months of the initial set of doses? Potentially for the next several years? Besides flu (an entirely different case because of the diverse array of types of flu), what shot has you needing a constant train of boosters? Most shots are good for nearly a lifetime, while others like tetanus call for a booster only every decade or so.

The mRNA vaccines are just plainly shoddy, and the pharmaceutical companies and their political allies are trying to make up every excuse so that they don’t have to admit that putting all effort into rushing a mediocre and dangerous vaccine was a giant waste in terms of actually stopping the virus. The result is that no RnD went into treatment methods to bring the dying from the brink. I suspect, too, from people I know who have lost relatives, that the vaccine culture has created a bias where hospitals won’t do their utmost to save the dying regardless of their personal choices: it is a criminal decline in care for sick.

I believe I would call your conclusion shoddy. So you need boosters you need boosters for a lot vaccines and the others have noted the COVID family of virus is not something as stable as Clostridium tetani something you need a booster for your whole life. The vaccines all them from China to Russia to the mRNA ones were produced at an amazing rate and there was no real metric for anyone to judge dosing or time to dither. Thus for example it would seem Moderna was correct in opting two larger doses over the smaller option by Pfizer (so the early data shows but the key issue lower dose lest potential shot reaction but likely longer effectiveness but potential bad public reaction). But hey I don't mind getting a flu shot every year and if I need COVID booster every 6 to 8 months I can deal with that as well. Just like I don't mind getting a tetanus shot every decade and the one they give in ER with barbed wire gash because you know nobody can really call up your medical record.

[sumskilz]

No one can guarantee that a treatment that hasn’t been tested long term will have no long-term side effects, and on principle I’m opposed to any coercive measures taken to promote vaccination. That said, I understand the mechanism behind the mRNA vaccines reasonably well, and I don’t think there is cause for concern. In fact, I’m almost certain the risk of long-term effects from mild cases of COVID is much greater than from the vaccines.

Regarding short term side effects of the vaccine, there was a study done in Israel on the Pfizer vaccine, N = 1,736,832 plus they had complete medical records for all before and after. There were no financial incentives or any other conflicts of interest involved.

A summary of the results:

Myocarditis was found to be associated with the vaccine, but rarely – 2.7 excess cases per 100,000 vaccinated individuals. (The myocarditis events observed after vaccination were concentrated in males between 20 and 34.) In contrast, coronavirus infection in unvaccinated individuals was associated with 11 excess cases of myocarditis per 100,000 infected individuals.

Other adverse events moderately associated with vaccination were swelling of the lymph nodes, a mild side effect that is part of a standard immune response to vaccination, with 78 excess cases per 100,000, appendicitis with 5 excess cases per 100,000 (potentially as a result of swelling of lymph nodes around the appendix), and herpes zoster with 16 excess cases per 100,000.

In contrast to the relatively small number of adverse effects associated with the vaccine, high rates of multiple serious adverse events were associated with coronavirus infection among unvaccinated patients, including: Cardiac arrhythmias (a 3.8-fold increase to an increase of 166 cases per 100,000 infected patients), kidney damage (14.8-fold increase; 125 excess cases per 100,000), pericarditis (5.4-fold increase; 11 excess cases per 100,000), pulmonary embolism (12.1-fold increase; 62 excess cases per 100,000), deep vein thrombosis (3.8-fold increase; 43 excess cases per 100,000), myocardial infarction (4.5-fold increase; 25 excess cases per 100,000), and stroke (2.1-fold increase; 14 excess cases per 100,000).

The full study here.

To be fair, if you're a young person without any serious health issues, your risk is extremely low with or without being vaccinated. I just think that if you're unconcerned about getting COVID, you should be even less concerned about getting the vaccine.