Covid vaccine increases death rates!

[+ augustus]

From CDC Covid Tracker -Death by Age Group (9/29/22)
Total Deaths to date - 901,138
Total Deaths to date 65 and Older 678,032 or 75.24% of total deaths.

Nearly all of the remaining deaths were people with immune system problems, mostly from chemo or comorbidities. 

[+ augustus]

YUP, @pubic_assistance is right!!!

[pubic_assistance]

3 minutes ago, coriolis888 said:

Check out the time period for the covid-19 vaccine to become effective.  It is two weeks.  

"Within a week of the party." did not give the vaccine sufficient time to become effective.

See - 

"How long does it take for the COVID-19 vaccine to work?"

Regardless of which vaccine you get, you won’t reach full protection until two weeks after your second or final dose. That’s about how long it takes your immune system to mount an antibody response to the vaccine.

Everyone was vaxxed long before the party. They were all CHECKED within a week of the party.

[coriolis888]

7 minutes ago, augustus said:

Unhinged hysteria combined with a complete lack of common sense.  

Don't you know that "common sense" is not common?

[Guest]

1 minute ago, coriolis888 said:

Check out the time period for the covid-19 vaccine to become effective.  It is two weeks.  

"Within a week of the party." did not give the vaccine sufficient time to become effective.

See - 

"How long does it take for the COVID-19 vaccine to work?"

Regardless of which vaccine you get, you won’t reach full protection until two weeks after your second or final dose. That’s about how long it takes your immune system to mount an antibody response to the vaccine.

I assumed he meant "... everyone agreed to get vaccinated and/or boosted, and checked for Covid within a week of the party...". I added the comma, which is how I understood his statement to be read(I could be wrong). You are correct when you state that if they were only vaccinated within a week of the party, they weren't really vaccinated. However, I think whoever threw the part now understands that getting tested several days before a party isn't helpful. My partner and I took a cruise from Iceland to Canada and Boston. Because of (now lapsed) Canadian rules, everyone on board had to be tested within 48 hours of boarding, yet the virus ran rampant among the thousands on board. (No one got seriously ill). 

[pubic_assistance]

2 minutes ago, augustus said:

YUP, @pubic_assistance is right!!!

What's always shocking in these conversations is that I start by saying that my information is from a SCIENTIST who is a WELL REGARDED -PUBLISHED - TEXT BOOK- IMMUNOLOGIST, and yet...I have people telling me my "opinion" is wrong.

I didn't share an opinion. I shared information that is SCIENTIFIC. So of course it's right.

You just can't believe this propaganda they call "the news" anymore. Yet...people do !

[pubic_assistance]

1 minute ago, Unicorn said:

However, I think whoever threw the part now understands that getting tested several days before a party isn't helpful

Because at that point we were all being lied to. Fauci told everyone it was important to be immunized to "stop the spread". Well clearly that wasn't true.

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, pubic_assistance said:

Everyone was vaxxed long before the party. They were all CHECKED within a week of the party.

Thanks for clarifying. You can see how important punctuation is! 😄

[SirBillybob]

47 minutes ago, augustus said:

The WHO said the virus is becoming less dangerous with every passing month.  I myself was never vaxxed, got Covid early on and recovered in like 3 days.  And I never wear a mask.  Unless you have pre-existing health issues, then just move on with your life. 

I’ll just be brief and readers can look it up, though many grasp it already. The logical fallacy presented: false dichotomy. 

[SirBillybob]

31 minutes ago, pubic_assistance said:

Because at that point we were all being lied to. Fauci told everyone it was important to be immunized to "stop the spread". Well clearly that wasn't true.

Another logical fallacy: false dichotomy. It’s only absolutely untrue that spread is reduced if there is no vaxx benefit conferred in terms of mitigating morbidity AND duration of infection. It is incontrovertible that morbidity is reduced by vaccination. “Stopping the spread” is a logical and common colloquial generic usage to underscore desired improvements in outcome. This constant conflating of public messaging regarding the salutary benefits of vaccination with devious misrepresentation intent, as vaxx yield was not accompanied by hoped for transmission elimination, is illogical. Infection is not dichotomous viz transmissibility, as if the same reproduction or attack rate results within a vaxx-saturated context and a vaxx-impoverished one. Immunity is on a temporal gradient. Host infectivity is on a temporal gradient. As illness duration is truncated, transmission window narrows. Less contagion, less exposure, less incidence. Putting forward that the only reason to support vaccination were to be sterile immunity falsely dichotomizes the intervention as if it could only be entirely valid or illegitimate. 

Edited October 10, 2022 by SirBillybob

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, SirBillybob said:

...“Stopping the spread” is a logical and common colloquial generic usage to underscore desired improvements in outcome....

Yes, that, and also transmission from vaccinated people was only first documented with the Delta variant, so it matters when that statement was made. At this point, vaccination seems to only "Slow the spread" because the window of infectivity is shorter. I don't know if the new vaccine actually prevents those with omicron from spreading the virus or not; I haven't seen those data. Had everyone gotten vaccinated prior to the emergence of the Delta variant, the vaccine could, theoretically, have stopped the spread. That being said, it was clear that, due to the large number of anti-vaxxers, this was not going to happen. 

If he used the words "Stop the spread" after transmission from vaccinated had been documented (I believe it was around June 2021, if I'm recalling correctly), then there is a kernel of validity to PA's criticism of Fauci's choice of words. People in his position need to choose their words carefully. I've cringed slightly at Fauci's choice of words on a few occasions. Just last week he was on the Steve Colbert show, and when SC asked him how people could mitigate the effects of an infection (which was probably a leading question to get him to recommend Paxlovid), Fauci just said "Well, you gotta get vaccinated beforehand." That should have been his cue to say "Paxlovid, taken within 48 hours of symptom onset in at-risk individuals, decreases risk of hospitalization/serious illness by 90%." 

[SirBillybob]

1 hour ago, Unicorn said:

Yes, that, and also transmission from vaccinated people was only first documented with the Delta variant, so it matters when that statement was made. At this point, vaccination seems to only "Slow the spread" because the window of infectivity is shorter. I don't know if the new vaccine actually prevents those with omicron from spreading the virus or not; I haven't seen those data. Had everyone gotten vaccinated prior to the emergence of the Delta variant, the vaccine could, theoretically, have stopped the spread. That being said, it was clear that, due to the large number of anti-vaxxers, this was not going to happen. 

If he used the words "Stop the spread" after transmission from vaccinated had been documented (I believe it was around June 2021, if I'm recalling correctly), then there is a kernel of validity to PA's criticism of Fauci's choice of words. People in his position need to choose their words carefully. I've cringed slightly at Fauci's choice of words on a few occasions. Just last week he was on the Steve Colbert show, and when SC asked him how people could mitigate the effects of an infection (which was probably a leading question to get him to recommend Paxlovid), Fauci just said "Well, you gotta get vaccinated beforehand." That should have been his cue to say "Paxlovid, taken within 48 hours of symptom onset in at-risk individuals, decreases risk of hospitalization/serious illness by 90%." 

Fauci is irrelevant to the majority of the world, including me. I don’t pay much attention to USA news or visit. I doubt the blood bath south of our border is attributable to him, or that the most pristine and semantically correct or optimally worded projections would have contributed much to the variance in outcomes. He is a convenient scapegoat when whoever was in that position was a proverbial Sisyphus. Would I hang him out to dry for not accurately second-guessing the host’s MO? I don’t think so.

Stop? Slow? Who doesn’t want an unequivocal answer. The problem is expectations and entitlement. How could you design a transmission research study then now ever? Too many confounding variables contributing to the variance in the binary logistic regression inferential statistics. Infection exists or doesn’t at any point in time in an individual because it simply got them. The reasons are multi factorial. You cannot isolate the myriad of contributions to exposure and infection in the way that vaxx vs placebo is dichotomized in RCT. For example: scores of two person households; 1:1 assignment, half of pairs where 1 provided artificial immunity (primary, boost, what have you?); half of pairings neither immune at baseline. Pairs are not isolated silos. One non-immune or immune could have 100-fold outside contacts compared to another. You cannot control for, hold constant, all the factors that swirl around the central question: does a vaccinated individual transmit virus yielding infection to another? All that can be determined is that infection is possible, and we already know it. That better outcomes are underpinned by transient quantitative immunity. If it were, say, a prospective design of 10,000 theoretical households over 3 months, capturing the typical 1% rate of cases (100 in this case) how many antigen tests? Daily? 1,800,000 tests in the budget? What chi-squared analysis even if not multivariate? What variables loaded into a multivariate logistic regression model? And where are you going to get completely non-immune households at this juncture? Do you think vaxx negativists will line up at the recruitment depot?

These conundrums don’t make Fauci a limited dumb fcuk. We’re all limited lame ducks. The pandemic blind is too big. 

Edited October 11, 2022 by SirBillybob

[pubic_assistance]

1 hour ago, Unicorn said:

I don't know if the new vaccine actually prevents those with omicron from spreading the virus or not;

Again: the vaccine prevents "at risk" people from dying.

That's the only thing it does.

It doesn't prevent the spread of the virus.

 

[+ augustus]

3 hours ago, SirBillybob said:

“Stopping the spread” is a logical and common colloquial generic usage to underscore desired improvements in outcome.

But the "spread" cannot be stopped.  China is going to destroy itself trying.  The WHO said everyone is going to get COVID.  There is no way to stop that, but that it's mutating into less and less dangerous strains.  Since we know who is "at risk" (plenty of data), the logical conclusion is to protect that segment of the population and let the others move on to keep society functioning.  

Edited October 11, 2022 by augustus

[pubic_assistance]

1 hour ago, augustus said:

The logical conclusion is to protect that segment of the population and let the others move on to keep society functioning.  

*Bravo*

Nice to know there are a few critical thinkers left on this planet.

[Guest]

6 hours ago, SirBillybob said:

...How could you design a transmission research study then now ever?...

Although it is quite expensive, one can do genetic analyses in infected people in order to trace the source. That was being done early in the pandemic, when contacts were far less frequent. That's also how we found out that Delta evaded the vaccines. In fact, the way most vaccines cut back serious viruses to extremely low levels (measles, polio, mumps) is by stopping or seriously reducing transmission from infected people resulting in herd immunity. I don't know if such research is being done with the new omicron-specific vaccines. I haven't seen any yet. But surveillance was being done in the first half of 2021. I would deduce that, since it got approved by the FDA, the omicron-specific vaccines at least slow down its spread. 

[BSR]

I dont know who this woman is or what exactly her position is at Pfizer, but a Pfizer executive testified to EU Parliament that no prelaunch testing was done to prove that the vaccine reduced transmission, even though many were forced/pressured to get the vaxx because it purportedly stopped transmission. 

 

 

[SirBillybob]

2 hours ago, BSR said:

I dont know who this woman is or what exactly her position is at Pfizer, but a Pfizer executive testified to EU Parliament that no prelaunch testing was done to prove that the vaccine reduced transmission, even though many were forced/pressured to get the vaxx because it purportedly stopped transmission. 

 

 

Fake-ish news. Why current testimony is required is inane. The original FDA submission, in the public domain and which I read 22 months ago, made no claim regarding transmission. People wanted a rose garden so much that they believed it was promised. It wasn’t. We are essentially in a situation consistent with the early attempts at supportable evidence released 22 months ago. Some folks will go to the mat to justify a perception of being put-upon-pie Georgie-Peorgied. Show me where this victimization theme is evident in LMICs. Even if transmission claims were alluded to by entities extraneous to Pfizer/BNT they were subsumed within guidance that the salutary benefits of vaccination were solid in terms of attenuating poor CoV outcomes. An obsessional false dichotomy between disease reduction and transmission simply and sadly undergirds this victimization, undermining uptake and its irrefutable benefits. 

Edited October 11, 2022 by SirBillybob

[Guest]

The priority of the pharmaceutical company is to show a significant decrease in illness, because that's what will get FDA approval, and it's relatively easy to obtain that data. Demonstrating a drop in transmissibility is obviously a slower and more expensive task, and probably won't be funded by the pharmaceutical industry. Published studies showed that as the virus mutated, there was less protection from transmissibility:

This is data for the Delta variant:
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2116597#:~:text=Two weeks after the second,70) 2 weeks after the

"...Vaccination was associated with a smaller reduction in transmission of the delta variant than of the alpha variant, and the effects of vaccination decreased over time. PCR Ct values at diagnosis of the index patient only partially explained decreased transmission..."

Then a further drop in efficacy for omicron:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.08.08.22278547v2

"...we estimated that any vaccination, prior infection alone, and both vaccination and prior infection reduced an index case’s risk of transmitting to close contacts by 24% (9-37%), 21% (4-36%) and 41% (23-54%), respectively. Receipt of booster doses and more recent vaccination further reduced infectiousness among vaccinated cases. These findings suggest that although vaccinated and/or previously infected individuals remain highly infectious upon SARS-CoV-2 infection in this prison setting, their infectiousness is reduced compared to individuals without any history of vaccination or infection...". 

Again, I haven't seen the transmissibility data with the new vaccine. One could certainly deduce that it'd be more efficacious than the old vaccine, but I haven't seen proof of that. 

[Spiritualadvisor]

In COVID hearing, #Pfizer director admits: #vaccine was never tested on preventing transmission.

"Get vaccinated for others" was always a lie.

The only purpose of the #COVID passport: forcing people to get vaccinated.

The world needs to know. Share this video! ⤵️
 

 

[+ Lucky]

The Washington Post today debunks the story:

But Ladapo’s recommendation — extrapolated from a short state analysis that has not been peer-reviewed, carries no authors and warns that its findings are “preliminary” and “should be interpreted with caution” — was swiftly condemned by medical and public health leaders, who said the Florida surgeon general’s announcement was politics masquerading as science and could lead Americans to forgo lifesaving interventions.

More than a dozen experts interviewed by The Washington Post — including specialists in vaccines, patient safety and study design — listed concerns with Florida’s analysis, saying it relies on information gleaned from frequently inaccurate death certificates rather than medical records, skews the results by trying to exclude anyone with covid-19 or a covid-related death, and draws conclusions from a total of 20 cardiac-related deaths in men 18 to 39 that occurred within four weeks of vaccination. Experts noted the deaths might have been caused by other factors, including underlying illnesses or undetected covid.

“We’re talking about a very small number of deaths. An extra death or two would potentially change these results,” said Robert Wachter, chair of the department of medicine at the University of California at San Francisco and co-author of a patient-safety textbook used in many medical schools. “I’m hesitant to even call it a paper; it isn’t published anywhere. The idea that [the analysis] … is being used to change policy — it does not have the scientific chops to do that.”

“If you submitted that to a peer-reviewed journal, unless you were paying them to publish it, it would get rejected,” added Daniel Salmon, who leads the Institute of Vaccine Safety at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. “Putting out half-baked reports from a department of health is a dangerous thing to do.”

Twitter briefly removed Ladapo’s post touting the study over the weekend, citing it as misinformation, before restoring it hours later; the tweet has since been shared more than 50,000 times, cheered by anti-vaccine advocates and amplified by conservative media highlighting Ladapo’s claim that his state will “not be silent on the truth.”

Link:https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2022/10/11/florida-surgeon-general-ladapo-covid-vaccines/

 

Also: https://www.politico.com/news/2022/10/11/medical-experts-reject-florida-surgeon-generals-covid-vaccine-guidance-00061352

 

The firestorm has put a spotlight on Ladapo, a Harvard-trained physician and researcher who had not specialized in infectious disease but rose to prominence after writing a number of op-eds in the Wall Street Journal questioning coronavirus vaccines, mask-wearing and other interventions. The columns caught the attention of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R), who late last summer offered Ladapo the job of overseeing a roughly 15,000-person health department in the nation’s third-most-populous state.

[+ WilliamM]

On 10/11/2022 at 2:59 PM, Unicorn said:

The priority of the pharmaceutical company is to show a significant decrease in illness, because that's what will get FDA approval, and it's relatively easy to obtain that data. Demonstrating a drop in transmissibility is obviously a slower and more expensive task, and probably won't be funded by the pharmaceutical industry. Published studies showed that as the virus mutated, there was less protection from transmissibility:

This is data for the Delta variant:
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2116597#:~:text=Two weeks after the second,70) 2 weeks after the

"...Vaccination was associated with a smaller reduction in transmission of the delta variant than of the alpha variant, and the effects of vaccination decreased over time. PCR Ct values at diagnosis of the index patient only partially explained decreased transmission..."

Then a further drop in efficacy for omicron:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.08.08.22278547v2

"...we estimated that any vaccination, prior infection alone, and both vaccination and prior infection reduced an index case’s risk of transmitting to close contacts by 24% (9-37%), 21% (4-36%) and 41% (23-54%), respectively. Receipt of booster doses and more recent vaccination further reduced infectiousness among vaccinated cases. These findings suggest that although vaccinated and/or previously infected individuals remain highly infectious upon SARS-CoV-2 infection in this prison setting, their infectiousness is reduced compared to individuals without any history of vaccination or infection...". 

Again, I haven't seen the transmissibility data with the new vaccine. One could certainly deduce that it'd be more efficacious than the old vaccine, but I haven't seen proof of that. 

Thanks for such an on target response. I was scheduled to get the covid19 booster and the flu shot on the day the remnants of the hurricane hit the United States Northeast. Even with an umbrella, it was raining cats and dogs.

Glad I did!

[BSR]

On 10/11/2022 at 7:42 AM, SirBillybob said:

Fake-ish news. Why current testimony is required is inane. The original FDA submission, in the public domain and which I read 22 months ago, made no claim regarding transmission. People wanted a rose garden so much that they believed it was promised. It wasn’t. We are essentially in a situation consistent with the early attempts at supportable evidence released 22 months ago. Some folks will go to the mat to justify a perception of being put-upon-pie Georgie-Peorgied. Show me where this victimization theme is evident in LMICs. Even if transmission claims were alluded to by entities extraneous to Pfizer/BNT they were subsumed within guidance that the salutary benefits of vaccination were solid in terms of attenuating poor CoV outcomes. An obsessional false dichotomy between disease reduction and transmission simply and sadly undergirds this victimization, undermining uptake and its irrefutable benefits. 

The entire justification for the vaccine mandates was that the vaccine prevented or at least reduced transmission.  Thousands of people were fired.  Every person who lost their job for refusing the vaccine must be reinstated and compensated.  Every politician, bureaucrat, and corporate executive who mandated vaccines must be held accountable.  Let the lawsuits begin.

[BSR]

On 10/11/2022 at 7:42 AM, SirBillybob said:

Fake-ish news. Why current testimony is required is inane. The original FDA submission, in the public domain and which I read 22 months ago, made no claim regarding transmission. People wanted a rose garden so much that they believed it was promised. It wasn’t. We are essentially in a situation consistent with the early attempts at supportable evidence released 22 months ago. Some folks will go to the mat to justify a perception of being put-upon-pie Georgie-Peorgied. Show me where this victimization theme is evident in LMICs. Even if transmission claims were alluded to by entities extraneous to Pfizer/BNT they were subsumed within guidance that the salutary benefits of vaccination were solid in terms of attenuating poor CoV outcomes. An obsessional false dichotomy between disease reduction and transmission simply and sadly undergirds this victimization, undermining uptake and its irrefutable benefits. 

If Pfizer never claimed that the vaccine would reduce transmission, then why did Anthony Fauci say that we need people to get vaccinated "to break the chain of transmission"?

 

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, BSR said:

The entire justification for the vaccine mandates was that the vaccine prevented or at least reduced transmission.  Thousands of people were fired.  Every person who lost their job for refusing the vaccine must be reinstated and compensated.  Every politician, bureaucrat, and corporate executive who mandated vaccines must be held accountable.  Let the lawsuits begin.

Well, according to the studies I referenced above, vaccination, even from the old vaccine and the newest variant, provided a minimum 24% reduction in transmission (up to 41%). The reduction in transmission was greater with the Delta variant, even more so with Alpha, and much more with the original strain, for which the vaccine was devised. With the original strain, I don't recall any transmission from vaccinated people. Because of natural selection, the virus mutated to forms which evaded the vaccine to a great extent, and, thankfully, now rarely cause serious illness. 

In fact, one could argue that the huge number of unvaccinated is what caused the virus to stick around. I'm looking forward to seeing transmission data from the new vaccine. Although almost everywhere in LA have masking mandates been dropped, there are a few places still requiring them (mainly a few theaters), even though the protection from transmission from masking is at most 9.5%, and that from vaccination at least 24% (old vaccine). But nowhere are vaccine mandates still required (we used to have to show proof of vaccination)! I got a call the other day from the Geffen Theater asking if I'd like to buy any more tickets, and I told them that I'm done going to performances where I have to wear a mask for 3.5 hours+. The science is not there. If those who run the theaters don't feel qualified to understand the scientific study reports, they should at least listen to public health officials, none of which feel masking mandates are needed.