It's amazing that these numbers have been trending like this for about 3 months. And basicallly silence from anyone in the media or governments. So now the question has to be....are the vaccines actually causing the virus to continue to spread. There are studies that say the vaccine doesn't allow you to get full immunity when you get the virus. We might see that more going forward
Actually, the rate of infection in the fully vaxxed has been rising since June. The ratio of delta infections recorded in the Public Health England reports unvaxxed to fully vaxxed dropped from 7.4 in June to 1.6 in mid-September when they switched to the UKHSA reports. IMO, they thought normalizing by vaxx status and age would dilute the trend. It's only gotten worse in the last three months.
The number of infections in the vaxxed and unvaxxed both increased with each PHE report over the summer, but the vaxxed increased faster. The vaxxed category includes (21 days post dose 1, ≥21 days post dose 1, Received 2 doses).
It's not clear where breakthrough infections post dose 2 but less than 14 days fit into the data.
The PHE reports contain cumulative data. The UKHSA reports contain data for the previous four weeks, so there is always a three week cross-over.
Not a question if looking infection stat jump at vax intro every time everywhere. Plus, good Denmark study (last year) detailed increase transmission rate post dose 1 especially. Course, with so many vaxed, they can not admit/see this info without causing widespread public panic. Thus, the adjustments.
Politicians COULD blame drug companies and their respective approving bodies for this fiasco. They merely trusted the "experts." Drug companies, particularly Pfizer, historically maximizes profits at the expense of patients. Why believe them? Objectively speaking, it's hard to keep a straight face when thinking of the approval process, which accepted the dissolution of the control group at three months, but removed almost HALF that period with time between shots and the two weeks post-shot-2. These injections should have been laughed out of every regulating body. 🤡 Which begs the question: Why weren't they? I'd ask Bill Gates, who coincidentally invested BIG $$ into obscure BioNTec in September 2019. What incredible luck! 👿
This is a manufactured crisis, a manufactured panic. UK lists a total of covid deaths at 142556. Total. With a population of 67 million, that's about a 0.2% risk. The more important question is what are those 0.2% doing wrong, and the 99.8% doing right? Focusing on the tiny cohort of victims as if it can happen to anyone is clearly wrong. If it could happen to anyone, it would. But it hasn't.
Also consider the UK weekly all cause death report from uk.gov. They report for "week 27" that all cause deaths were 8690. That's a lot more than 142556 divided by however many weeks we've been terrorized by the covid clerics, 100 or so, call it 1500 per week covid deaths average. That's 7000 deaths per week they're not worried about. It's like airlines banning peanuts because one passenger per blue moon is allergic and might be too stupid to realize they shouldn't accept free snacks they're allergic to.
That report also states there is no statistically significant excess. That means those who die of covid were on track to be goners anyway.
We need to stop accommodating the arguments of pandemic porn without responding that it's not a problem at all for most of us, and easily correctable for the rest. We're being scammed by tyrants at many levels. It will continue, and probably accelerate, until we MAKE IT STOP.
Exactly! They're doing NOTHING wrong. Dying old is part of the deal of living. Around 8,000 people die every single day in the USA. And that's ok. If the sheep were better at math then nobody would be scared.
My wife and I are in your same age cohort, our friends are the same. You said, "The most obvious thing we have in common is that we don't go out to bars and clubs, and we don't go to restaurants often. We do all the other normal things, grocery, and other shopping, haircuts, etc."
We do both. I have been going to bars and restaurants every week for over a year. Why are we not dead? /s
I think everyone should give up on germ theory. It's obviously wrong and was probably invented in the service of eugenics. Now after 90 years of unchallenged germ theory (it was definitely challenged before that) we have both maliciousness and stupidity working on killing us.
"Table 1. Summary of evidence on vaccine effectiveness against different outcomes Delta" appears in every UK Health Security Agency COVID-19 vaccine surveillance report.
Other than a change in the pretty colors they use for background, this table has not changed from the week 39 report through the week 45 report. In that time, the crossover age cohort for a higher rate of infection in the fully vaxxed dropped from 40-49 to 30-39...and the fully vaxxed infection rates relative to the unvaxxed infection rates have only worsened. Seems like maybe Table 1 needs an update.
UK Health Security Agency Report, week 45...
Rate of infection in the fully vaxxed age 30 - 39 is 1.38 times that in the unvaxxed.
Rate of infection in the fully vaxxed age 40 - 49 is 2.26 times that in the unvaxxed.
Rate of infection in the fully vaxxed age 50 - 59 is 2.16 times that in the unvaxxed.
Rate of infection in the fully vaxxed age 60 - 69 is 2.20 times that in the unvaxxed.
Rate of infection in the fully vaxxed age 70 - 79 is 1.84 times that in the unvaxxed.
Rate of infection in the fully vaxxed age 80 and older is 1.09 times that in the unvaxxed.
79.7% of the deaths in the week 45 report were fully vaxxed.
17.1% of the deaths in that report were unvaxxed.
While the death rate may be lower in the fully vaxxed when normalized for population, 4 out of every 5 people who died were fully vaxxed.
Can you explain this to me, "While the death rate may be lower in the fully vaxxed when normalized for population, 4 out of every 5 people who died were fully vaxxed". I don't understand how the death rate is lower when normalized for population when more vaccinated people actually died.
I appreciate everyone's answers to help me understand this. Thinking of it in the extreme is really helpful, thank you.
So in the UKSA data, when they give a vaccinated death rate per 100k, is that 100,000 vaccinated people? (And when they give an unvaccinated death rate, is that per 100,000 unvaccinated people?).
Yes, I agree, that's how it should be. But I have a feeling that too get the vaccinated death rate, they are using 100k of the vaccinated population, and to get the unvaccinated death rate, they are using 100k of the unvaccinated population. I'm hoping someone can confirm that.
I could look at the data and see if I can find it myself, but I'm not sure I would recognize the wording that explains how they are calculating the rate.
I believe that it is 100,000 people of the category under analysis.
If you are looking deaths per vaccinated it is 100,000 vaccinated people
If it is deaths per unvaccinated it is 100,00 unvaccinated people.
Ultimatetly you want to get a sense of the rate in per people which is the 'generic' category
Its like how many apples go bad, vs how many peaches go bad, so you can go and tell your friend at the grocery which fruit gets worse. Fruit is the generic category
good to ask these questions. we want to spread the word. we are interested and trying. if we are unsure about what the data, the graphs, the charts are saying then how can we spread the word to our friends who're basically disinterested and not trying? we need something unequivocal that we understand intimately.
and as a response here shows we can have such an understanding even without in depth knowledge of formal statistics etc. there are valid, reasonable, comprehensible 'ordinary' explanations for all these things that we can comprehend.
ask the questions and they come up with them for us and boom: we all benefit and we can then spread the word.... help everyone....
Most age cohorts (except the very youngest) are heavily vaxxed. For example, age 50 and above is at least 85% double vaxxed (page 14). They normalize (divide) the fully vaxxed raw case number by the number of people in a given age cohort who are fully vaxxed in the population. The normalize (divide) the unvaxxed raw case number by the number of people in that age cohort who are unvaxxed in the population. Since there are many more fully vaxxed than unvaxxed people in the population, the rate for the fully vaxxed is lower (even though four out of every five people who died were fully vaxxed).
Reading through everyone's explanations a few times is helping me understand.
When the graph shows deaths per 100k, my first thought is this is a percentage of the entire population. But it seems like it's not, it's the percentage of the total vaccinated, and a percentage of the total unvaccinated populations.
To me this is less helpful than raw death numbers, or deaths per the total population because I'm interested in the effect of mass vaccination on the whole population of vaccinated and unvaccinated people. As a population reaches greater than 50% of the people vaccinated, using the raw death numbers month by month I can see if vaccinated deaths are reaching or exceeding the percentage of the population vaccinated.
When normalized by population (vaxx status and age), the jabs seem to provide protection against infection and deaths. Regardless, four out of five people who died were fully vaxxed per the latest report.
"the jabs seem to provide protection against infection and deaths" Really? As if time stands still. If they are working so good, why are they demanding more jabs to the already jabbed?
After a vulnerable period that people have in the weeks after taking the vaccine, it seems to provide some protection because of the antibodies created. Then it wears off, and people become vulnerable again, possibly more vulnerable than before the vaccine.
Why are they pushing the boosters? I think because the jabs fail to stop infection and transmission...the UK Health Security Agency has reported a higher rate of infection in the fully vaxxed age 30 and older for the last six weeks...and because they are concerned that many fully vaxxed people are going to die once the protection against severe disease disappears completely around 8-9 months after the second jab.
I'll try: if *say* 9 out of 10 people are vax'd, and one out of 100 people die regardless of cause, then if there are say 1000 people, 9 will die being vax'd and 1 will die being unvax'd. That help any? You can normalize for most anything that can be quantified: age, BMI, median number of co morbidities, household income.
Eugyppius knows stats, I don't, but have this 101 thing (I think)
"While the death rate may be lower in the fully vaxxed when normalized for population, 4 out of every 5 people who died were fully vaxxed."
For which we rely on official figures. No accounting for the % of people, whatever that is, who managed to bypass the system. Or for the illegals not counted or the exaggeration in the official figures.
couldn't edit. must write another to add. I've often thought maybe they're discovering 'infection' in the vaxxed because they're using this pcr test to look for viral fragments. for instance a spike protein fragment. well they're going to find that in the vaxxed aren't they? because that's what they're putting in them.
I'm making a comparison between the infection rates in the fully vaxxed and the unvaxxed. To be considered fully vaxxed, one must be 14 days post the second dose.
The mRNA jabs (Pfizer and Moderna) and the viral vector DNA jabs (AstraZeneca and J&J) do not contain spike protein. They contain the 'instructions" that the cells use to make the spike protein. I have wondered if the PCR tests are picking up vaxx mRNA or the antigen tests are picking up vaxx-encoded spike protein. The "experts" dismiss this possibility and assert that the vaccine cannot persist in the body for that long.
WRT to the PCR tests...the possibility of a false positive exists for the fully vaxxed and unvaxxed.
There are a few possible reasons for vaxx failure. First, the vaxxes do not create durable cellular immunity. When the antibodies drop, there are no B cells or T cells to boost immunity with exposure. Second, the vaxxes have a very narrow target (the spike protein). The virus has mutated, so the vaxx antibodies are no longer neutralizing. Some experts (Robert Malone) believe Original Antigenic Sin plays a role.
The UK has identified a new variant, delta plus, that has acquired two of the four mutations required to escape vaxx immunity entirely.
Yep, well that's what I was referring to: the vax gets the body to create the spike protein, that's the 'viral fragment' I've said the vax is 'putting in'.
And the experts dismiss the possibility on the grounds that the vaccine cannot persist for 'that long'.
What's that mean - 'that long' ? How long?
And that's not the point: the vaccine, the point is the 'fragments' it causes to be created. They certainly persist 'that long' - as Dr Malone has said a number of time in video interviews.
I haven't had a lot of confidence in infection and case rates because of PCR in accuracy (as you point out) and the number of vaccinated and unvaccinated people are being tested. So I've been looking more at hospitalization and death rates to assess vaccine efficacy and overall population immunity over time.
seems to me to be mixing apples and oranges. rate of infection is one thing. number of deaths quite another.
you'd expect more deaths from vaxxed because more people are vaxxed. (and it doesn't prevent deaths - though it may well lower the number, make it less likely)
But 'rate'. that's a different thing The rate of infection should be lower in the vaxxed without a doubt. That's the whole point of vaccines.
Mind you: must be taken into account what you call 'infection' because everyone, vaxxed or not, is expected to get infected. Simply the vaxxed are supposed to fight it off better. Recover quicker. That's the whole idea of a vaccination. To prime your Immune system to fight better, sooner. But get infected? Yes. Then your system swings into action.
So there's obviously a fudge factor here somewhere and I don't know what it is. Maybe 'showing signs and symptom' or a certain level of viral load or whatever. So we have to know that and put it to one side.
And that leaves us, surely, to where 'rate' should be lower in the vaxxed.
If your 'rate' figures are right then surely that's totally condemnatory of the vaccines?
The deaths figures are a different story, different discussion, different issue. Irrelevant here.
So are your rates correct? Backed up by other people?
They aren't my rates. They're the rates published in the UKHSA report for week 45 (Table 3, page 18). I just did the math (rate of infection fully vaxxed/ rate of infection in the unvaxxed).
Yes, the rate of infection should be lower in the fully vaxxed, but it's not for the fully vaxxed age 30 and older.
Yes, we would expect more deaths in the fully vaxxed since so many are vaxxed. The pushback against the inconvenient infection rate data in these reports is that the fully vaxxed have a lower rate of hospitalization and death.
In the actual data set, though, nearly four of every five deaths were fully vaxxed.
I think it’s interesting that the very elderly don’t see such a high rate vs unvaxxed as younger age cohorts do. Despite having been jabbed first.
This suggests it’s not just the waning effect that is producing this result, or you’d expect the elderly to have the greatest delta.
It could be some age specific factor in the denominator.
Or it could be that the vaccine enhanced infectivity is somehow related to ability to mount a solid immune response, and thus it’s greater in younger people as neutralising antibodies wane. Which would point to a form of ADE perhaps?
If it is OAS and these are reinfections, surely it would be a consistent delta across age groups?
Please see the CDC report: COVID-19 Vaccination and Non–COVID-19 Mortality Risk. Their goal is to prove the vaccines are safe by comparing non-covid mortality in the vaccinated to non-covid mortality in the unvaccinated. This report say’s nothing about the safety of the vaccines, but say’s a lot about the efficacy. 2 does vaccinated people are .34 less likely to die from non-covid deaths. This shows that vaccinated on average have much better health. Thus, in an observational data set of vaccine efficacy with respect to deaths, we should expect it to be about 64%, while assuming the vaccines are like a placebo. About what the UK surveillance report shows.
When do you think the UK will actually start achieving some population level immunity? There have been multiple waves, there have been officially 9.5mn infections (likely 3-4x more), at some point it has to end, right?
Had the government not done anything, it would be over already. And less people would have died - lots (most?) died due to the panic, not the virus. So when? It depends when they stop intervening in a system they don't understand. Which is never - because keeping it going is their aim.
I sub Alex as well (I found eugyppius through his stack). I don't think that the vaccines will prevent natural immunity - but the proof will be in the pudding. Which, in my estimation, will require another 9-12 months for strong data to be available on the "vaxx+Covid" cohort, assuming it doesn't get suppressed. My hope is that its as good as the "covid+vaxx" data (otherwise known as "Super Immunity") but who knows
The mechanism for hindering population level immunity is called original antigenetic sin. When some contracts a virus (or any pathogen) the naive immune system develops a response to that. There is a lifetime bias toward the same antibody response to any variant of the original virus. Ie the body opts for speed over precision in response. In natural infections this is a beneficial adaptation. In the case of MRNA “vaccines”, the naive immune system is presented an alpha version of the spike protein. Thus, the immune system is primed to respond with alpha antibodies against variants. This proves less effective against delta.
A naturally immune person recovered from covid has a broader set of immune responses to both S1 (spike) and S2 parts of the virus.
So, vaxing a population with alpha vaxes, impedes herd immunity.
And yet the unvaxx are blamed now for the pandemic as the vaxx and mandates are worshipped as the correct and ONLY response, ignoring the true science and labeling (and attacking) anyone who resists as ignorant (and worse).
This Era of truth inversion is far more frightening to me than the virus.
I have read literally the same explanation as a message of SUPPORT for not updating the mRNA vaccines with the latest spike variant - and even citing OAS. I don't have the background to understand it frankly... I guess whatever is going to happen is going to happen
I have the background in immunology, and if you read that the sequence for the S protein in the mRNA should not be updated, you would have read something that would make no sense.
Of course, I am also just only a guy on the internet.
But if you read any entry level textbook on immunology, you will have a basic understanding of the concepts, and will be able to understand most of the discussion. You would then also understand why it is Basic Immunology 101 that natural immunity is superior and broader to the vaccine.
PS: the tip to read a basic immunology book was not meant flippantly: immunology is fascinating and one of the main subjects in understanding your health.
The vaccine may not prevent natural immunity, but it very probably negatively influence, so that vacced people get more prone to come down with Covid from one of the future variants.
That is my sense too. There is a paper from May that shows that the vaccinated produce fewer (but not zero) nucleocapsid antibodies, which seem key to a durable and broad immune response. I will try and find it.
26% of post vaccine infected produced n-antibodies vs 82% unvaccinated infected. So it would appear the vaccines severely limit, but not guarantee failure, of the ability to amount a durable immune response.
And, to show real life examples, we have sports teams now in North America having breakouts. All players in leagues must be fully jabbed. Yet what do we see?
In the NHL, the Pittsburgh Penguins and Ottawa Senators having massive breakouts. The USC college football team. This is just to name three. Minnesota Vikings NFL team is on alert, as one of their linemen is in ICU, double jabbed.
The shitstorm is just getting started.
Next up, with all the soccer players succumbing on the field in Europe, it’s just a matter of time before some NHL, NBA and NFL players start dropping dead too. This is a terrible outcome, but, maybe the Black Swan event required. All it will take is 1 or 2 major stars to die
The trouble with this is that the study was on health care workers -- so you also need to account for those who may have had a subclinical infection previously, and were thus included wrongly in the infection-naive group.
Sophocles - I love this avenue of thinking. Indeed, I was contemplating the WISDOM of the body in quickly turning down S - focused antibodies. Spike is the part that changes the most from year to year in many of these viruses (I think - correct me if I'm wrong), and N stays more the same year to year. Hence our immune system is designed to keep N antibodies and memories cells around longer than Spike specifically to ALLOW for a more durable response to a changing virus. Elegant. But not good when the vax uses the slippery spike! They probably did it on purpose, knowing how quickly we'd have to line up for boosters.
Bash - I think there could very well turn out to be a difference between whether you got COVID, then got vaxxed - compared with got vaxxed, then got COVID. In the first scenario, your initial response is a whole fleet of antibodies to different parts of nasty COVID. In the second, a purebred race of quickly-obsolete antibodies.
Also, getting vaxxed after having COVID appears to increase risk of adverse side effects. Not sure if that will continue to be the data we see, but for now, data appears to trend that way. I've read one idea that immune complexes (existing antibodies + spike protein) get clumped up and clog organs such as kidneys. This giant bolus of the spike from the vax is different than the slowly rising levels of spike that a person would naturally experience in an infection.
Additionally, what if a certain numer of people have natural immunity against alfa and that immunity works poorly against beta? And more, what if the people vaccinated against alfa cannot develop immunity against beta? So many questions that the science cannot answer at this point...
If it is natural immunity, they should be immune to all variants. The nucleocapsid protein does not vary/mutate much, while the spike proteins do. So if you have n-antibodies, you'll be immune regardless of spike - like the people with SARS1 are immune to SARS2, despite the spikes being quite a bit different, but the ball being essentially similar. I think, anyway.
Sweden is pretty much done with the virus. And other countries will eventually achieve herd immunity, despite their best efforts not to: the more lockdowns and other stupid measures, the flatter the curve. Vaccinations don't appear to do much, except delay the inevitable and cause lots of side effects.
Others have said it better than me: the worst casualties of this pandemic have been, not necessarily in order, civil liberties, economies, government budgets, squandered credibility of institutions and perhaps worst of all, the probable long-term consequences of a rushed, encouraged and sometimes forced injection of experimental treatments, by some reports already in the tens of thousands and perhaps into the millions in the future. It may, sadly be no exaggeration to rank this as the greatest medical fiasco of all time, with casualties possibly rivaling those of other man-made disasters like a major world war, Soviet or Chinese purges, etc.
Yep, I appreciate where you're coming from. Your anger and indignation perhaps. But we got to get it right sooner or later: it is all OUR fault. We've got these democracies. They are not supposed to be autocratic tyrannies. WE are supposed to know what's going on, be monitoring it all the time, no let fuckheads get into positions of power, quickly curtain them if they do.
But currently we are a rabble. Divided into two.
That's what we need to fix.
Not find another scapegoat and duck the issue by crucifying it.
Based on antibody testing of blood donors, 98.1% of the adult population now have antibodies
to COVID-19 from either infection or vaccination compared to 20.2% that have antibodies from
infection alone.
This is taken from page 4 of the UKSHA week 45 report- but, as mentioned in the Alex Berenson report below- there is evidence that the jab inhibits acquiring full natural immunity on infection, if post jabs.
Yes but antibodies wane over time, we already know this. In fact, natural infection generates lower antibody titers (generally) than vaccines do. Earlier on, this was heralded as a sign of how amazing the vaccines were. Now we know that it hardly makes a difference. Furthermore, just intuitively, I would think that unvaccinated & previously infected are FAR less likely to be donating blood for antibody tests (as a population cohort)
The immune system is much more than antibodies, and immunity can be gained with very little antibodies. There is another arm of acquired immunity, T-cell immunity, which already last year has been shown in Sweden to be much more important.
Not to even mention the non-adaptive immune system, which is usually totally ignored because there is no money in it. Yet, it is the most important part of our immune defense.
But we only look for antibodies, because it is a) easier to test for, and b) the vaccine only elicit antibodies.
Indeed, "immunity by the vaccines" is actually only the antibody titer you find in the lab. But this may have not much to do with real immunity.
In the clinical trials no vaccinated subject is challenged by the virus.
One of the interesting things you can witness in the Corona pandemic is how terminology is shifted subtly, until it means something else. Thus :
immunity meaning "being immune to a virus" --> is shifted to "having antibodies"
and the of course the biggie:
immunity meaning "being immune to a virus" --> is shifted to "being vaccinated"
Not only can you be immune without the vaccine, but we are currently finding out that with the vaccine you are not even immune.
T-cell immunity is the important thing, antibodies are there just to clean up the mess from our T-cell killing our infected cells (apoptosis), in other word is just correlate immunity,
I've been reading that the vaccine inhibits neutralizing antibodies, and we don't know how long this lasts yet. Is there any evidence that the vaccine inhibits B or T cells?
Blood donors provide a broad collection of samples but they are a poor sample of a general population. Although it's based mostly on the honor system, entire segments of the populace are denied the opportunity to donate blood. I mean, just because I was a gay prostitute in my youth to finance my heroin habit, why should that disqualify me? 🤡
It is entirely possible that some part of the apparent negative vaccine efficacy is due to the unvaxxed and not previously infected part of the population having shrunk to the extent that pseudo herd immunity is showing up there. It's mathematically inevitable at some point. Think about it in small numbers, 1000 people, 500 vaxxed, 500 unvaxxed but 400 of the unvaxxed have naturally acquired immunity; population adjusted infection rates would look about like they do now. Whether that's the case or not is anyone's guess though.
Natural immunity is still taboo in many circles though. The entire US govt medical establishment essentially assumes it doesnt exist. Most of Europe has a hard stop at 6 months. Then you have these bloody boosters which I for reasons I cannot articulate make me think we are pushing herd immunity further and further out.
Yes, I believe one of the factors in denying natural immunity is the simple logistics. As you say, you can show your vaccine card but you can't wave your T cell test, for some reason.
@bash, I don't think natural immunity is "taboo" as much as it is strenuously denied, despite decades of immunological experience. Public health officials tie themselves in knots "proving" vaccination is superior.
Though I think there is also evidence against this being this issue, partly that since the hospitalization and death stats use the same denominator as infections (vaxxed/unvaxxed population).. With some assumptions, you would expect them to follow the same trend over time as the vulnerable part of the unvaxxed population shrinks, I don't think they have.
This is what drives me crazy about statistics, and I am a math nerd. My experience is mostly in (mostly abysmal) nutritional studies, but it's not hard to see that statistics are most often used to mislead. "Relative risk", for instance, might have a very narrow usefulness, but the rest of the time it's simply a propaganda tool.
I'm 67 and got vaccinated seven months ago. I just want two simple numbers:
1. What percentage of people my age who got vaccinated seven months ago end up in the hospital with Covid?
2. What percentage of people my age who got vaccinated seven months ago die of Covid?
I have no interest in "cases" that aren't symptomatic, so I usually totally ignore case numbers.
It has always bothered me, when talking about efficacy vs hospitalization and death, that population adjusted rates are the norm. I'm just an average guy for the most part...but why would anyone care mathematically what happens to people who don't have covid when it comes to vaccine efficacy? For transmission, it makes more sense but for severe outcomes, no sense at all.
Eastend - tell me about it. I have this nasty bioweapon myself as I type. Day 8. So sick of this ridiculous virus and feeling horrible. Never had a flu that lasted like this. It really is horrible. But I had determined in spring that I wasn't getting this vax, first due to the fetal cell use, then after by learning about the side effects, etc. So I guess I'll be taking natural immunity with me. But that Daszak fellow sure cooked up a doozy of a virus. I'd like to punch him in the face, but I don't have the energy to yet.
So sorry to hear what you are going through. Hopefully, you are better soon. I share your anger and frustration. I got vaccinated/ drank the koolaid as we were hospicing 1 relative and taking care of 2 others during the 2020. I live in fear daily about it. I’m holding out on my 13 year old getting vaccinated and trying to educate myself daily. I minored in Bio as a BSE/MSE computer scientist and minor in statistics. I know many people that have been very sick from Covid. As an analyst, I research daily about what is the pattern here? I’m wondering are you doing the D3, Zinc, etc daily? Did you it previously ? Have you gotten monoclonal antibodies? I know a lot of people that were helped by that. I have been daily taking the vitamin cocktail and have dodged the Covid bullet quite a few times. But, i have no idea if this is the reason? I wish i could prove why. I hope you are under medical care if you have had it a while. I worry about catching Covid and who will take care of my 13 year old and my parents, god forbid we get it badly and we have no T cell memory. I believe in HCq early. I saw it work first hand on my Father. I don’t understand why there isn’t a global enthusiasm by the talking heads for therapeutics instead for the vaccines.
How old are you? I'm 48 and have HBP. My youngest daughter and I had it in early October. I had been taking the Zelenko protocol (Quercetin instead of ivermectin) a month prior to getting sick. My daughter's case was extremely mild (3 to 4 day cold) and mine was too. The fatigue was the hardest part by far but I started eating more and took a probiotic and once I did that, I went back to 100%. I never had respiratory issues other than my lungs feeling tight when I took a deep breath and deep breathing exercises made those go away after 2 days. FYI, worry and anxiety greatly affect your immune system. So does attitude.
"worry and anxiety greatly affect your immune system" The human mind is powerful and we are seeing some of that in the scare tactic of long covid. Increases in long covid may be related to the fear involved. Age may affect reporting in that seniors have just experienced more over time.
"This is a great introduction to "Original Antigenic Sin", which I referred to in my talk at the Florida COVID summit. What the author misses is that we all have pre-existing cross-reactive memory cell responses to beta coronaviruses.
By the way, this is yet another forbidden topic in some vaccinology circles, particularly with influenza vaccine developers. I got run out of two jobs in part because I spoke about these issues in the context of my job in clinical development.
Hey eugyppius. Is it possible you mixed up the legend in some of the graphs. I just had a look at the tables in the report and it looks as if most deaths are in the vaxxed. Am I missing something?
y-axis is scaled a little differently, death rate is a little lower than the hospitalisation rate, but not by much. if you‘re over 80 and end up in the hospital, chances that you die are pretty high.
The last 2 charts are labeled the same. They demonstrate widely different results. Can we please obtain further clarity on the penultimate chart "60-day death rates by vaccination status" and the ultimate chart "raw death numbers." Vielen Dank!
It's amazing that these numbers have been trending like this for about 3 months. And basicallly silence from anyone in the media or governments. So now the question has to be....are the vaccines actually causing the virus to continue to spread. There are studies that say the vaccine doesn't allow you to get full immunity when you get the virus. We might see that more going forward
Actually, the rate of infection in the fully vaxxed has been rising since June. The ratio of delta infections recorded in the Public Health England reports unvaxxed to fully vaxxed dropped from 7.4 in June to 1.6 in mid-September when they switched to the UKHSA reports. IMO, they thought normalizing by vaxx status and age would dilute the trend. It's only gotten worse in the last three months.
Public Health England reports:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/investigation-of-novel-sars-cov-2-variant-variant-of-concern-20201201
UK Health Security Agency reports:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-vaccine-weekly-surveillance-reports
Is it entirely die to increase in rate in vaxxed, or is there a decrease in the rate in vaxxed as well? (I'd check but on a phone)
The number of infections in the vaxxed and unvaxxed both increased with each PHE report over the summer, but the vaxxed increased faster. The vaxxed category includes (21 days post dose 1, ≥21 days post dose 1, Received 2 doses).
It's not clear where breakthrough infections post dose 2 but less than 14 days fit into the data.
The PHE reports contain cumulative data. The UKHSA reports contain data for the previous four weeks, so there is always a three week cross-over.
Not a question if looking infection stat jump at vax intro every time everywhere. Plus, good Denmark study (last year) detailed increase transmission rate post dose 1 especially. Course, with so many vaxed, they can not admit/see this info without causing widespread public panic. Thus, the adjustments.
Not only cause widespread panic but also when was the last time a politician admitted they were wrong?
Politicians COULD blame drug companies and their respective approving bodies for this fiasco. They merely trusted the "experts." Drug companies, particularly Pfizer, historically maximizes profits at the expense of patients. Why believe them? Objectively speaking, it's hard to keep a straight face when thinking of the approval process, which accepted the dissolution of the control group at three months, but removed almost HALF that period with time between shots and the two weeks post-shot-2. These injections should have been laughed out of every regulating body. 🤡 Which begs the question: Why weren't they? I'd ask Bill Gates, who coincidentally invested BIG $$ into obscure BioNTec in September 2019. What incredible luck! 👿
Therapeutics, therapeutics, therapeutics …
Yes. For one thing I have yet to see anything written in the mainstream media on any of these reports showing negative efficacy after about 9 months.
Robert Clark
Agreed. It would be useful to see data on “time elapsed since vaccination” on the positive cases that are vaccinated.
Sent a spam report. We shall see.
Great post. UKHSA is doing the impossible -- speaking the truth in the age of Covid.
I also wrote about week 41-44 and I debunked fact checker attacks on UKHSA statistics (involving outright lying, no less).
I also talk about OAS and link to your article about it.
We need to get our point across to people who never thought to doubt the official narrative.
https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/uk-death-protection-accelerates-downward
Is it just me or wasn't that 80+ cohort the exact crew we were supposed to be saving?🤔 You know, "flattern the curve to save grandma, etc"😐
#thanksforlockdowns #snafu #howtosuckatpublichealth
I love #howtosuckatpublichealth !
This is a manufactured crisis, a manufactured panic. UK lists a total of covid deaths at 142556. Total. With a population of 67 million, that's about a 0.2% risk. The more important question is what are those 0.2% doing wrong, and the 99.8% doing right? Focusing on the tiny cohort of victims as if it can happen to anyone is clearly wrong. If it could happen to anyone, it would. But it hasn't.
Also consider the UK weekly all cause death report from uk.gov. They report for "week 27" that all cause deaths were 8690. That's a lot more than 142556 divided by however many weeks we've been terrorized by the covid clerics, 100 or so, call it 1500 per week covid deaths average. That's 7000 deaths per week they're not worried about. It's like airlines banning peanuts because one passenger per blue moon is allergic and might be too stupid to realize they shouldn't accept free snacks they're allergic to.
That report also states there is no statistically significant excess. That means those who die of covid were on track to be goners anyway.
We need to stop accommodating the arguments of pandemic porn without responding that it's not a problem at all for most of us, and easily correctable for the rest. We're being scammed by tyrants at many levels. It will continue, and probably accelerate, until we MAKE IT STOP.
"The more important question is what are those 0.2% doing wrong, and the 99.8% doing right?"
For many of them, they made the mistake of not dying younger ;-).
Exactly! They're doing NOTHING wrong. Dying old is part of the deal of living. Around 8,000 people die every single day in the USA. And that's ok. If the sheep were better at math then nobody would be scared.
My wife and I are in your same age cohort, our friends are the same. You said, "The most obvious thing we have in common is that we don't go out to bars and clubs, and we don't go to restaurants often. We do all the other normal things, grocery, and other shopping, haircuts, etc."
We do both. I have been going to bars and restaurants every week for over a year. Why are we not dead? /s
It's like if you jump on Twitter and see all these people pretending that they still believe.
I think the rate of believing in Covid-19 is probably strongly correlated with your level of PC.
I think everyone should give up on germ theory. It's obviously wrong and was probably invented in the service of eugenics. Now after 90 years of unchallenged germ theory (it was definitely challenged before that) we have both maliciousness and stupidity working on killing us.
"Table 1. Summary of evidence on vaccine effectiveness against different outcomes Delta" appears in every UK Health Security Agency COVID-19 vaccine surveillance report.
Other than a change in the pretty colors they use for background, this table has not changed from the week 39 report through the week 45 report. In that time, the crossover age cohort for a higher rate of infection in the fully vaxxed dropped from 40-49 to 30-39...and the fully vaxxed infection rates relative to the unvaxxed infection rates have only worsened. Seems like maybe Table 1 needs an update.
UK Health Security Agency Report, week 45...
Rate of infection in the fully vaxxed age 30 - 39 is 1.38 times that in the unvaxxed.
Rate of infection in the fully vaxxed age 40 - 49 is 2.26 times that in the unvaxxed.
Rate of infection in the fully vaxxed age 50 - 59 is 2.16 times that in the unvaxxed.
Rate of infection in the fully vaxxed age 60 - 69 is 2.20 times that in the unvaxxed.
Rate of infection in the fully vaxxed age 70 - 79 is 1.84 times that in the unvaxxed.
Rate of infection in the fully vaxxed age 80 and older is 1.09 times that in the unvaxxed.
79.7% of the deaths in the week 45 report were fully vaxxed.
17.1% of the deaths in that report were unvaxxed.
While the death rate may be lower in the fully vaxxed when normalized for population, 4 out of every 5 people who died were fully vaxxed.
So much for safe and effective.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-vaccine-weekly-surveillance-reports
Can you explain this to me, "While the death rate may be lower in the fully vaxxed when normalized for population, 4 out of every 5 people who died were fully vaxxed". I don't understand how the death rate is lower when normalized for population when more vaccinated people actually died.
This is the issue with statistics being counterintuitives but the 'trick' is to thing 'extreme' hypothetical scenarios to get it.
Lets say there were only 100 people in the UK
99 were vaxxed
1 was unvaxxed
Lets imagine now that ...
10 of the vaxxed would die -> that makes the vaxxed fatality rate ... 10% (10 die out of the 99 vaxxed = 0.10)
1 of the unvaxxed would die -> The unvaxxed fatality rate would be ... 100% (1 dies out of the only 1 unvaxxed = 1)
Still out of 11 people that died 10 would be vaxxed.
It is because there are very few that are not vaxxed that skews the perception of the rate.
But in reality the UK seems to have underreport the number of the unvaxxed that puts that rate of the unvaxxed quite lower
i think that's happening everywhere. A combination of 'Soviet Factory Reports to the Dear Leader' and avoidance in those targeted.
See, this is why people hate statistics.
I appreciate everyone's answers to help me understand this. Thinking of it in the extreme is really helpful, thank you.
So in the UKSA data, when they give a vaccinated death rate per 100k, is that 100,000 vaccinated people? (And when they give an unvaccinated death rate, is that per 100,000 unvaccinated people?).
That is a great follow-up question! Looking for that answer too.
To have any meaning, it should be 100,000 per all people. Am I right?
Yes, I agree, that's how it should be. But I have a feeling that too get the vaccinated death rate, they are using 100k of the vaccinated population, and to get the unvaccinated death rate, they are using 100k of the unvaccinated population. I'm hoping someone can confirm that.
I could look at the data and see if I can find it myself, but I'm not sure I would recognize the wording that explains how they are calculating the rate.
I believe that it is 100,000 people of the category under analysis.
If you are looking deaths per vaccinated it is 100,000 vaccinated people
If it is deaths per unvaccinated it is 100,00 unvaccinated people.
Ultimatetly you want to get a sense of the rate in per people which is the 'generic' category
Its like how many apples go bad, vs how many peaches go bad, so you can go and tell your friend at the grocery which fruit gets worse. Fruit is the generic category
good to ask these questions. we want to spread the word. we are interested and trying. if we are unsure about what the data, the graphs, the charts are saying then how can we spread the word to our friends who're basically disinterested and not trying? we need something unequivocal that we understand intimately.
and as a response here shows we can have such an understanding even without in depth knowledge of formal statistics etc. there are valid, reasonable, comprehensible 'ordinary' explanations for all these things that we can comprehend.
ask the questions and they come up with them for us and boom: we all benefit and we can then spread the word.... help everyone....
Most age cohorts (except the very youngest) are heavily vaxxed. For example, age 50 and above is at least 85% double vaxxed (page 14). They normalize (divide) the fully vaxxed raw case number by the number of people in a given age cohort who are fully vaxxed in the population. The normalize (divide) the unvaxxed raw case number by the number of people in that age cohort who are unvaxxed in the population. Since there are many more fully vaxxed than unvaxxed people in the population, the rate for the fully vaxxed is lower (even though four out of every five people who died were fully vaxxed).
Reading through everyone's explanations a few times is helping me understand.
When the graph shows deaths per 100k, my first thought is this is a percentage of the entire population. But it seems like it's not, it's the percentage of the total vaccinated, and a percentage of the total unvaccinated populations.
To me this is less helpful than raw death numbers, or deaths per the total population because I'm interested in the effect of mass vaccination on the whole population of vaccinated and unvaccinated people. As a population reaches greater than 50% of the people vaccinated, using the raw death numbers month by month I can see if vaccinated deaths are reaching or exceeding the percentage of the population vaccinated.
The UK is way past 50% vaxxed in all age cohorts but the very youngest.
Page 14...
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1032859/Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_45.pdf
When normalized by population (vaxx status and age), the jabs seem to provide protection against infection and deaths. Regardless, four out of five people who died were fully vaxxed per the latest report.
"the jabs seem to provide protection against infection and deaths" Really? As if time stands still. If they are working so good, why are they demanding more jabs to the already jabbed?
After a vulnerable period that people have in the weeks after taking the vaccine, it seems to provide some protection because of the antibodies created. Then it wears off, and people become vulnerable again, possibly more vulnerable than before the vaccine.
When you normalize the deaths by population of fully vaxxed and unvaxxed by age cohort, the jabs show protection against severe disease and death.
But, as I said above, nearly four out five of those who died (week 45 report) were fully vaxxed.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1032859/Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_45.pdf
Why are they pushing the boosters? I think because the jabs fail to stop infection and transmission...the UK Health Security Agency has reported a higher rate of infection in the fully vaxxed age 30 and older for the last six weeks...and because they are concerned that many fully vaxxed people are going to die once the protection against severe disease disappears completely around 8-9 months after the second jab.
I'll try: if *say* 9 out of 10 people are vax'd, and one out of 100 people die regardless of cause, then if there are say 1000 people, 9 will die being vax'd and 1 will die being unvax'd. That help any? You can normalize for most anything that can be quantified: age, BMI, median number of co morbidities, household income.
Eugyppius knows stats, I don't, but have this 101 thing (I think)
Yes, everyone's comments are helping me. I'm getting it! 👍🏼😄
Because the vast majority of the population is vaccinated especially at high-risk age groups
"While the death rate may be lower in the fully vaxxed when normalized for population, 4 out of every 5 people who died were fully vaxxed."
For which we rely on official figures. No accounting for the % of people, whatever that is, who managed to bypass the system. Or for the illegals not counted or the exaggeration in the official figures.
couldn't edit. must write another to add. I've often thought maybe they're discovering 'infection' in the vaxxed because they're using this pcr test to look for viral fragments. for instance a spike protein fragment. well they're going to find that in the vaxxed aren't they? because that's what they're putting in them.
I'm making a comparison between the infection rates in the fully vaxxed and the unvaxxed. To be considered fully vaxxed, one must be 14 days post the second dose.
The mRNA jabs (Pfizer and Moderna) and the viral vector DNA jabs (AstraZeneca and J&J) do not contain spike protein. They contain the 'instructions" that the cells use to make the spike protein. I have wondered if the PCR tests are picking up vaxx mRNA or the antigen tests are picking up vaxx-encoded spike protein. The "experts" dismiss this possibility and assert that the vaccine cannot persist in the body for that long.
WRT to the PCR tests...the possibility of a false positive exists for the fully vaxxed and unvaxxed.
There are a few possible reasons for vaxx failure. First, the vaxxes do not create durable cellular immunity. When the antibodies drop, there are no B cells or T cells to boost immunity with exposure. Second, the vaxxes have a very narrow target (the spike protein). The virus has mutated, so the vaxx antibodies are no longer neutralizing. Some experts (Robert Malone) believe Original Antigenic Sin plays a role.
The UK has identified a new variant, delta plus, that has acquired two of the four mutations required to escape vaxx immunity entirely.
Yep, well that's what I was referring to: the vax gets the body to create the spike protein, that's the 'viral fragment' I've said the vax is 'putting in'.
And the experts dismiss the possibility on the grounds that the vaccine cannot persist for 'that long'.
What's that mean - 'that long' ? How long?
And that's not the point: the vaccine, the point is the 'fragments' it causes to be created. They certainly persist 'that long' - as Dr Malone has said a number of time in video interviews.
I haven't had a lot of confidence in infection and case rates because of PCR in accuracy (as you point out) and the number of vaccinated and unvaccinated people are being tested. So I've been looking more at hospitalization and death rates to assess vaccine efficacy and overall population immunity over time.
seems to me to be mixing apples and oranges. rate of infection is one thing. number of deaths quite another.
you'd expect more deaths from vaxxed because more people are vaxxed. (and it doesn't prevent deaths - though it may well lower the number, make it less likely)
But 'rate'. that's a different thing The rate of infection should be lower in the vaxxed without a doubt. That's the whole point of vaccines.
Mind you: must be taken into account what you call 'infection' because everyone, vaxxed or not, is expected to get infected. Simply the vaxxed are supposed to fight it off better. Recover quicker. That's the whole idea of a vaccination. To prime your Immune system to fight better, sooner. But get infected? Yes. Then your system swings into action.
So there's obviously a fudge factor here somewhere and I don't know what it is. Maybe 'showing signs and symptom' or a certain level of viral load or whatever. So we have to know that and put it to one side.
And that leaves us, surely, to where 'rate' should be lower in the vaxxed.
If your 'rate' figures are right then surely that's totally condemnatory of the vaccines?
The deaths figures are a different story, different discussion, different issue. Irrelevant here.
So are your rates correct? Backed up by other people?
All we need to know if so.
They aren't my rates. They're the rates published in the UKHSA report for week 45 (Table 3, page 18). I just did the math (rate of infection fully vaxxed/ rate of infection in the unvaxxed).
Yes, the rate of infection should be lower in the fully vaxxed, but it's not for the fully vaxxed age 30 and older.
Yes, we would expect more deaths in the fully vaxxed since so many are vaxxed. The pushback against the inconvenient infection rate data in these reports is that the fully vaxxed have a lower rate of hospitalization and death.
In the actual data set, though, nearly four of every five deaths were fully vaxxed.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-vaccine-weekly-surveillance-reports
I think it’s interesting that the very elderly don’t see such a high rate vs unvaxxed as younger age cohorts do. Despite having been jabbed first.
This suggests it’s not just the waning effect that is producing this result, or you’d expect the elderly to have the greatest delta.
It could be some age specific factor in the denominator.
Or it could be that the vaccine enhanced infectivity is somehow related to ability to mount a solid immune response, and thus it’s greater in younger people as neutralising antibodies wane. Which would point to a form of ADE perhaps?
If it is OAS and these are reinfections, surely it would be a consistent delta across age groups?
Those 13% unvaccinated deaths are crushing the health care system! Not the lack of early treatment.
Please see the CDC report: COVID-19 Vaccination and Non–COVID-19 Mortality Risk. Their goal is to prove the vaccines are safe by comparing non-covid mortality in the vaccinated to non-covid mortality in the unvaccinated. This report say’s nothing about the safety of the vaccines, but say’s a lot about the efficacy. 2 does vaccinated people are .34 less likely to die from non-covid deaths. This shows that vaccinated on average have much better health. Thus, in an observational data set of vaccine efficacy with respect to deaths, we should expect it to be about 64%, while assuming the vaccines are like a placebo. About what the UK surveillance report shows.
JohnS - great comment, thank you.
“the fully vaccinated may be more health conscious” LOL
When do you think the UK will actually start achieving some population level immunity? There have been multiple waves, there have been officially 9.5mn infections (likely 3-4x more), at some point it has to end, right?
Had the government not done anything, it would be over already. And less people would have died - lots (most?) died due to the panic, not the virus. So when? It depends when they stop intervening in a system they don't understand. Which is never - because keeping it going is their aim.
What if vaccines prevent the creation of natural immunity when someone gets infected:
https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/do-mrna-covid-vaccines-interfere
I sub Alex as well (I found eugyppius through his stack). I don't think that the vaccines will prevent natural immunity - but the proof will be in the pudding. Which, in my estimation, will require another 9-12 months for strong data to be available on the "vaxx+Covid" cohort, assuming it doesn't get suppressed. My hope is that its as good as the "covid+vaxx" data (otherwise known as "Super Immunity") but who knows
The mechanism for hindering population level immunity is called original antigenetic sin. When some contracts a virus (or any pathogen) the naive immune system develops a response to that. There is a lifetime bias toward the same antibody response to any variant of the original virus. Ie the body opts for speed over precision in response. In natural infections this is a beneficial adaptation. In the case of MRNA “vaccines”, the naive immune system is presented an alpha version of the spike protein. Thus, the immune system is primed to respond with alpha antibodies against variants. This proves less effective against delta.
A naturally immune person recovered from covid has a broader set of immune responses to both S1 (spike) and S2 parts of the virus.
So, vaxing a population with alpha vaxes, impedes herd immunity.
And yet the unvaxx are blamed now for the pandemic as the vaxx and mandates are worshipped as the correct and ONLY response, ignoring the true science and labeling (and attacking) anyone who resists as ignorant (and worse).
This Era of truth inversion is far more frightening to me than the virus.
Agree 100%.
I have read literally the same explanation as a message of SUPPORT for not updating the mRNA vaccines with the latest spike variant - and even citing OAS. I don't have the background to understand it frankly... I guess whatever is going to happen is going to happen
I have the background in immunology, and if you read that the sequence for the S protein in the mRNA should not be updated, you would have read something that would make no sense.
Of course, I am also just only a guy on the internet.
But if you read any entry level textbook on immunology, you will have a basic understanding of the concepts, and will be able to understand most of the discussion. You would then also understand why it is Basic Immunology 101 that natural immunity is superior and broader to the vaccine.
PS: the tip to read a basic immunology book was not meant flippantly: immunology is fascinating and one of the main subjects in understanding your health.
A quick read on what you just said - on a far less charged subject - seems to confirm. One of the reasons of the low efficacy of flu vaccines is OAS
Thanks for the comment, I will add to my reading list.
Thank you. This is exactly what I’m looking for.
That's the best simple explanation of OAS that I've seen, thank you.
The vaccine may not prevent natural immunity, but it very probably negatively influence, so that vacced people get more prone to come down with Covid from one of the future variants.
See a past article about that:
https://eugyppius.substack.com/p/more-on-original-antigenic-sin-and
That is my sense too. There is a paper from May that shows that the vaccinated produce fewer (but not zero) nucleocapsid antibodies, which seem key to a durable and broad immune response. I will try and find it.
I found this instead:
https://www.journalofinfection.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0163-4453%2821%2900394-7
26% of post vaccine infected produced n-antibodies vs 82% unvaccinated infected. So it would appear the vaccines severely limit, but not guarantee failure, of the ability to amount a durable immune response.
And, to show real life examples, we have sports teams now in North America having breakouts. All players in leagues must be fully jabbed. Yet what do we see?
In the NHL, the Pittsburgh Penguins and Ottawa Senators having massive breakouts. The USC college football team. This is just to name three. Minnesota Vikings NFL team is on alert, as one of their linemen is in ICU, double jabbed.
The shitstorm is just getting started.
Next up, with all the soccer players succumbing on the field in Europe, it’s just a matter of time before some NHL, NBA and NFL players start dropping dead too. This is a terrible outcome, but, maybe the Black Swan event required. All it will take is 1 or 2 major stars to die
The trouble with this is that the study was on health care workers -- so you also need to account for those who may have had a subclinical infection previously, and were thus included wrongly in the infection-naive group.
Sophocles - I love this avenue of thinking. Indeed, I was contemplating the WISDOM of the body in quickly turning down S - focused antibodies. Spike is the part that changes the most from year to year in many of these viruses (I think - correct me if I'm wrong), and N stays more the same year to year. Hence our immune system is designed to keep N antibodies and memories cells around longer than Spike specifically to ALLOW for a more durable response to a changing virus. Elegant. But not good when the vax uses the slippery spike! They probably did it on purpose, knowing how quickly we'd have to line up for boosters.
You may be right
https://www.sfchronicle.com/health/article/Should-you-take-the-first-coronavirus-vaccine-15671358.php
Back during Trump times, when media was vaccine-cautious because it was politically expedient
Bash - I think there could very well turn out to be a difference between whether you got COVID, then got vaxxed - compared with got vaxxed, then got COVID. In the first scenario, your initial response is a whole fleet of antibodies to different parts of nasty COVID. In the second, a purebred race of quickly-obsolete antibodies.
Also, getting vaxxed after having COVID appears to increase risk of adverse side effects. Not sure if that will continue to be the data we see, but for now, data appears to trend that way. I've read one idea that immune complexes (existing antibodies + spike protein) get clumped up and clog organs such as kidneys. This giant bolus of the spike from the vax is different than the slowly rising levels of spike that a person would naturally experience in an infection.
Get the epi pen and the dialysis machine.
Me too, I came here from Alex.
Additionally, what if a certain numer of people have natural immunity against alfa and that immunity works poorly against beta? And more, what if the people vaccinated against alfa cannot develop immunity against beta? So many questions that the science cannot answer at this point...
If it is natural immunity, they should be immune to all variants. The nucleocapsid protein does not vary/mutate much, while the spike proteins do. So if you have n-antibodies, you'll be immune regardless of spike - like the people with SARS1 are immune to SARS2, despite the spikes being quite a bit different, but the ball being essentially similar. I think, anyway.
So far, people with natural immunity from alpha ARE immune to the other variants.
I believe Dr Ryan Cole tackles that in the q&a after his presentation here https://drtrozzi.org/2021/11/09/dr-cole-covid-complete-from-the-cutting-edge
Well worth the 45mins and very interesting, particularly the q&a
Sweden is pretty much done with the virus. And other countries will eventually achieve herd immunity, despite their best efforts not to: the more lockdowns and other stupid measures, the flatter the curve. Vaccinations don't appear to do much, except delay the inevitable and cause lots of side effects.
Others have said it better than me: the worst casualties of this pandemic have been, not necessarily in order, civil liberties, economies, government budgets, squandered credibility of institutions and perhaps worst of all, the probable long-term consequences of a rushed, encouraged and sometimes forced injection of experimental treatments, by some reports already in the tens of thousands and perhaps into the millions in the future. It may, sadly be no exaggeration to rank this as the greatest medical fiasco of all time, with casualties possibly rivaling those of other man-made disasters like a major world war, Soviet or Chinese purges, etc.
Yes. Just thinking I'd include 'health' in your list of 'worst casualties' and I don't mean covid caused.
You could say it another way: 'Covid? The least of our problems..'
One day perhaps, Fauci will be a curse word. Mass hysteria on a global scale.
Yep, I appreciate where you're coming from. Your anger and indignation perhaps. But we got to get it right sooner or later: it is all OUR fault. We've got these democracies. They are not supposed to be autocratic tyrannies. WE are supposed to know what's going on, be monitoring it all the time, no let fuckheads get into positions of power, quickly curtain them if they do.
But currently we are a rabble. Divided into two.
That's what we need to fix.
Not find another scapegoat and duck the issue by crucifying it.
Only time improves the situation as belief systems crumble with evidence. There is some evidence the public (both tribes) are beginning to see failures of policy. Can't believe https://www.newsweek.com/america-has-moved-covid-why-cant-biden-opinion-1648792 got published.
well there's a bit of hope there.... :)
I hope you're right. The winter will tell.
Based on antibody testing of blood donors, 98.1% of the adult population now have antibodies
to COVID-19 from either infection or vaccination compared to 20.2% that have antibodies from
infection alone.
This is taken from page 4 of the UKSHA week 45 report- but, as mentioned in the Alex Berenson report below- there is evidence that the jab inhibits acquiring full natural immunity on infection, if post jabs.
Yes but antibodies wane over time, we already know this. In fact, natural infection generates lower antibody titers (generally) than vaccines do. Earlier on, this was heralded as a sign of how amazing the vaccines were. Now we know that it hardly makes a difference. Furthermore, just intuitively, I would think that unvaccinated & previously infected are FAR less likely to be donating blood for antibody tests (as a population cohort)
The immune system is much more than antibodies, and immunity can be gained with very little antibodies. There is another arm of acquired immunity, T-cell immunity, which already last year has been shown in Sweden to be much more important.
Not to even mention the non-adaptive immune system, which is usually totally ignored because there is no money in it. Yet, it is the most important part of our immune defense.
But we only look for antibodies, because it is a) easier to test for, and b) the vaccine only elicit antibodies.
Indeed, "immunity by the vaccines" is actually only the antibody titer you find in the lab. But this may have not much to do with real immunity.
In the clinical trials no vaccinated subject is challenged by the virus.
One of the interesting things you can witness in the Corona pandemic is how terminology is shifted subtly, until it means something else. Thus :
immunity meaning "being immune to a virus" --> is shifted to "having antibodies"
and the of course the biggie:
immunity meaning "being immune to a virus" --> is shifted to "being vaccinated"
Not only can you be immune without the vaccine, but we are currently finding out that with the vaccine you are not even immune.
THIS ^
T-cell immunity is the important thing, antibodies are there just to clean up the mess from our T-cell killing our infected cells (apoptosis), in other word is just correlate immunity,
Please WATCH this https://www.twitch.tv/videos/1202821404?t=00h54m40s (corona immunology 101) !!
Great video, thank you!
Thanks for your posts on this subject, they are much appreciated.
I've been reading that the vaccine inhibits neutralizing antibodies, and we don't know how long this lasts yet. Is there any evidence that the vaccine inhibits B or T cells?
I believe Dr. Couey covers this in his video above in twitch. That CD8+ T-cells get reduced after vaccination. For how long we dont know.
Okay thanks for letting me know, I haven't finished it. When I first opened it it started in the middle, and I went to the beginning.
Excellent.
Excellent, excellent comment. Even Miriam-Webster changed the dictionary definition of "vaccine" in the last year.
Covid-19 rather quickly went from being a public health issue to a political football.
yes, terminological shift. Now 'vaccine' means 'virus destroyer' rather than 'immune system provoker'.
Which is like calling the alarm bell the fire brigade.
Blood donors provide a broad collection of samples but they are a poor sample of a general population. Although it's based mostly on the honor system, entire segments of the populace are denied the opportunity to donate blood. I mean, just because I was a gay prostitute in my youth to finance my heroin habit, why should that disqualify me? 🤡
It is entirely possible that some part of the apparent negative vaccine efficacy is due to the unvaxxed and not previously infected part of the population having shrunk to the extent that pseudo herd immunity is showing up there. It's mathematically inevitable at some point. Think about it in small numbers, 1000 people, 500 vaxxed, 500 unvaxxed but 400 of the unvaxxed have naturally acquired immunity; population adjusted infection rates would look about like they do now. Whether that's the case or not is anyone's guess though.
Natural immunity is still taboo in many circles though. The entire US govt medical establishment essentially assumes it doesnt exist. Most of Europe has a hard stop at 6 months. Then you have these bloody boosters which I for reasons I cannot articulate make me think we are pushing herd immunity further and further out.
Yes, I believe one of the factors in denying natural immunity is the simple logistics. As you say, you can show your vaccine card but you can't wave your T cell test, for some reason.
@bash, I don't think natural immunity is "taboo" as much as it is strenuously denied, despite decades of immunological experience. Public health officials tie themselves in knots "proving" vaccination is superior.
Though I think there is also evidence against this being this issue, partly that since the hospitalization and death stats use the same denominator as infections (vaxxed/unvaxxed population).. With some assumptions, you would expect them to follow the same trend over time as the vulnerable part of the unvaxxed population shrinks, I don't think they have.
This is what drives me crazy about statistics, and I am a math nerd. My experience is mostly in (mostly abysmal) nutritional studies, but it's not hard to see that statistics are most often used to mislead. "Relative risk", for instance, might have a very narrow usefulness, but the rest of the time it's simply a propaganda tool.
I'm 67 and got vaccinated seven months ago. I just want two simple numbers:
1. What percentage of people my age who got vaccinated seven months ago end up in the hospital with Covid?
2. What percentage of people my age who got vaccinated seven months ago die of Covid?
I have no interest in "cases" that aren't symptomatic, so I usually totally ignore case numbers.
It has always bothered me, when talking about efficacy vs hospitalization and death, that population adjusted rates are the norm. I'm just an average guy for the most part...but why would anyone care mathematically what happens to people who don't have covid when it comes to vaccine efficacy? For transmission, it makes more sense but for severe outcomes, no sense at all.
You can’t fight Mother Nature and you definitely can’t fight Gain of Function fortified Mother Nature.
Hopefully we are not headed towards the Marek effect rabbit hole - as Eugypius enlightened us about.
Eastend - tell me about it. I have this nasty bioweapon myself as I type. Day 8. So sick of this ridiculous virus and feeling horrible. Never had a flu that lasted like this. It really is horrible. But I had determined in spring that I wasn't getting this vax, first due to the fetal cell use, then after by learning about the side effects, etc. So I guess I'll be taking natural immunity with me. But that Daszak fellow sure cooked up a doozy of a virus. I'd like to punch him in the face, but I don't have the energy to yet.
So sorry to hear what you are going through. Hopefully, you are better soon. I share your anger and frustration. I got vaccinated/ drank the koolaid as we were hospicing 1 relative and taking care of 2 others during the 2020. I live in fear daily about it. I’m holding out on my 13 year old getting vaccinated and trying to educate myself daily. I minored in Bio as a BSE/MSE computer scientist and minor in statistics. I know many people that have been very sick from Covid. As an analyst, I research daily about what is the pattern here? I’m wondering are you doing the D3, Zinc, etc daily? Did you it previously ? Have you gotten monoclonal antibodies? I know a lot of people that were helped by that. I have been daily taking the vitamin cocktail and have dodged the Covid bullet quite a few times. But, i have no idea if this is the reason? I wish i could prove why. I hope you are under medical care if you have had it a while. I worry about catching Covid and who will take care of my 13 year old and my parents, god forbid we get it badly and we have no T cell memory. I believe in HCq early. I saw it work first hand on my Father. I don’t understand why there isn’t a global enthusiasm by the talking heads for therapeutics instead for the vaccines.
How old are you? I'm 48 and have HBP. My youngest daughter and I had it in early October. I had been taking the Zelenko protocol (Quercetin instead of ivermectin) a month prior to getting sick. My daughter's case was extremely mild (3 to 4 day cold) and mine was too. The fatigue was the hardest part by far but I started eating more and took a probiotic and once I did that, I went back to 100%. I never had respiratory issues other than my lungs feeling tight when I took a deep breath and deep breathing exercises made those go away after 2 days. FYI, worry and anxiety greatly affect your immune system. So does attitude.
Thanks for the Zelenko protocol, I always felt that IVM was an overkill for heatlhy people like us.
-> https://vladimirzelenkomd.com/treatment-protocol/
"worry and anxiety greatly affect your immune system" The human mind is powerful and we are seeing some of that in the scare tactic of long covid. Increases in long covid may be related to the fear involved. Age may affect reporting in that seniors have just experienced more over time.
All in all, it took me about two weeks to get back to 100%. Probably sooner if I hadn't stopped eating and drinking due to lack of taste and smell.
" I don’t understand why there isn’t a global enthusiasm by the talking heads for therapeutics instead for the vaccines. "
Answer: $$$
Don’t forget the aspirin too
In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies.
Winston Churchill
You've just been knighted, eugyppius.
"This is a great introduction to "Original Antigenic Sin", which I referred to in my talk at the Florida COVID summit. What the author misses is that we all have pre-existing cross-reactive memory cell responses to beta coronaviruses.
https://eugyppius.substack.com/p/more-on-original-antigenic-sin-and
...
By the way, this is yet another forbidden topic in some vaccinology circles, particularly with influenza vaccine developers. I got run out of two jobs in part because I spoke about these issues in the context of my job in clinical development.
📌 Follow and Share👇🏻
@RWMaloneMD"
Hey eugyppius. Is it possible you mixed up the legend in some of the graphs. I just had a look at the tables in the report and it looks as if most deaths are in the vaxxed. Am I missing something?
the last graph shows this - 2nd to last graph is rates per 100k, could be labelled more clearly i agree
I mean the legend. It say novaxx for the higher rates per 100k but the report says more vaxxed die.
that's right: the unvaccinated have a higher death rate per 100k, but the vast majority of deaths are in the fully vaccinated.
Ah thanks for the clarification! I misread the column headings.
Just eyeballing it, but is the death rate in over 80s higher than the hospitalization rate?
y-axis is scaled a little differently, death rate is a little lower than the hospitalisation rate, but not by much. if you‘re over 80 and end up in the hospital, chances that you die are pretty high.
The last 2 charts are labeled the same. They demonstrate widely different results. Can we please obtain further clarity on the penultimate chart "60-day death rates by vaccination status" and the ultimate chart "raw death numbers." Vielen Dank!
legend on the left: "rate per 100k" vs. "number"
Thank you!