COVID-19/corona virus mega thread/prepping thread

[RocketMan]

This is what I got out of it too, and what I have also read elsewhere. It is why I am currently sticking to "no vaccine" for myself. I see no need to be injected with something that would give me less robust antibodies than I already have, plus I already dealt/am dealing with covid/long haul covid, so  I don't want to add another variable.

If enough verifiable, different research comes out as time goes on, I will reevaluate as necessary.

That's pretty much where I am at the moment.  My wife and I are 99% sure we caught the beer virus from her son last Thanksgiving when he and his wife were over for dinner.  My father-in-law caught it then, too.  My stepson and his wife subsequently tested positive for Covid, and he had a rough time with it, having to be hospitalized for a few days.  He has a few complicating health factors that increased the severity of his case.
I will be making an appointment at a local CVS pharmacy that offers antibody testing.  According to their website, the test can determine if a person has had Covid-19 at some point in the past.  It will not tell if there is a current infection.  There is apparently a separate test for ongoing cases.
The cost is only $38, and they accept walk-ins.  I figure it will provide me with some documentation if it confirms that I did indeed have the beer virus last December (early December is when the symptoms began appearing).

[dogmush]

Vaccines have decreased the number of cases, but not the severity of breakthrough cases.  If you've got an actual study that shows otherwise please let me know.

I know lots of people are claiming that the vaccine cuts down on symptoms for breakthrough cases but I have yet to see any evidence of it.  The oft-cited Haas et al does not show it.

CDC Release: https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/p0607-mrna-reduce-risks.html

In the new analysis, 3,975 participants completed weekly SARS-CoV-2 testing for 17 consecutive weeks (from December 13, 2020 to April 10, 2021) in eight U.S. locations. Participants self-collected nasal swabs that were laboratory tested for SARS-CoV-2, which is the virus that causes COVID-19. If the tests came back positive, the specimens were further tested to determine the amount of detectable virus in the nose (i.e., viral load) and the number of days that participants tested positive (i.e., viral shedding). Participants were followed over time and the data were analyzed according to vaccination status. To evaluate vaccine benefits, the study investigators accounted for the circulation of SARS-CoV-2 viruses in the area and how consistently participants used personal protective equipment (PPE) at work and in the community. Once fully vaccinated, participants’ risk of infection was reduced by 91 percent. After partial vaccination, participants’ risk of infection was reduced by 81 percent. These estimates included symptomatic and asymptomatic infections.

To determine whether COVID-19 illness was milder, study participants who became infected with SARS-CoV-2 were combined into a single group and compared to unvaccinated, infected participants. Several findings indicated that those who became infected after being fully or partially vaccinated were more likely to have a milder and shorter illness compared to those who were unvaccinated. For example, fully or partially vaccinated people who developed COVID-19 spent on average six fewer total days sick and two fewer days sick in bed. They also had about a 60 percent lower risk of developing symptoms, like fever or chills, compared to those who were unvaccinated. Some study participants infected with SARS-CoV-2 did not develop symptoms.

Different study from NEJM: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2107058

RESULTS
SARS-CoV-2 was detected in 204 participants (5%), of whom 5 were fully vaccinated (≥14 days after dose 2), 11 partially vaccinated (≥14 days after dose 1 and <14 days after dose 2), and 156 unvaccinated; the 32 participants with indeterminate vaccination status (<14 days after dose 1) were excluded. Adjusted vaccine effectiveness was 91% (95% confidence interval [CI], 76 to 97) with full vaccination and 81% (95% CI, 64 to 90) with partial vaccination. Among participants with SARS-CoV-2 infection, the mean viral RNA load was 40% lower (95% CI, 16 to 57) in partially or fully vaccinated participants than in unvaccinated participants. In addition, the risk of febrile symptoms was 58% lower (relative risk, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.18 to 0.98) and the duration of illness was shorter, with 2.3 fewer days spent sick in bed (95% CI, 0.8 to 3.7).

Study on Health care workers, to be fair it does mention lingering symptoms: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2109072

RESULTS
Among 1497 fully vaccinated health care workers for whom RT-PCR data were available, 39 SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections were documented. Neutralizing antibody titers in case patients during the peri-infection period were lower than those in matched uninfected controls (case-to-control ratio, 0.361; 95% confidence interval, 0.165 to 0.787). Higher peri-infection neutralizing antibody titers were associated with lower infectivity (higher Ct values). Most breakthrough cases were mild or asymptomatic, although 19% had persistent symptoms (>6 weeks). The B.1.1.7 (alpha) variant was found in 85% of samples tested. A total of 74% of case patients had a high viral load (Ct value, <30) at some point during their infection; however, of these patients, only 17 (59%) had a positive result on concurrent Ag-RDT. No secondary infections were documented.

Systemic review of vaccines among healthcare workers: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8284046/

These interim results of a living systematic review show that after completed course the EMA-approved COVID-19 vaccines have a VE of 80% to 90% in preventing SARS-CoV2 infections, including asymptomatic ones. We found some indication that VE estimates are not reduced in cases infected with variant of concern (VOC) Alpha (Phylogenetic Assignment of Named Global Outbreak (Pango) lineage designation B.1.1.7), however these results should be interpreted with caution. VE against infection can also be regarded as an indicator of how well a vaccine prevents transmission. In addition, studies suggest that persons who become SARS-CoV-2-positive despite vaccination had a shorter duration of virus shedding and lower viral load [8].

Effectiveness of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccines on covid-19 related symptoms, hospital admissions, and mortality in older adults in England: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33985964/

Results: Participants aged 80 years and older vaccinated with BNT162b2 before 4 January 2021 had a higher odds of testing positive for covid-19 in the first nine days after vaccination (odds ratio up to 1.48, 95% confidence interval 1.23 to 1.77), indicating that those initially targeted had a higher underlying risk of infection. Vaccine effectiveness was therefore compared with the baseline post-vaccination period. Vaccine effects were noted 10 to 13 days after vaccination, reaching a vaccine effectiveness of 70% (95% confidence interval 59% to 78%), then plateauing. From 14 days after the second dose a vaccination effectiveness of 89% (85% to 93%) was found compared with the increased baseline risk. Participants aged 70 years and older vaccinated from 4 January (when ChAdOx1-S delivery commenced) had a similar underlying risk of covid-19 to unvaccinated individuals. With BNT162b2, vaccine effectiveness reached 61% (51% to 69%) from 28 to 34 days after vaccination, then plateaued. With ChAdOx1-S, effects were seen from 14 to 20 days after vaccination, reaching an effectiveness of 60% (41% to 73%) from 28 to 34 days, increasing to 73% (27% to 90%) from day 35 onwards. On top of the protection against symptomatic disease, a further 43% (33% to 52%) reduced risk of emergency hospital admission and 51% (37% to 62%) reduced risk of death was observed in those who had received one dose of BNT162b2. Participants who had received one dose of ChAdOx1-S had a further 37% (3% to 59%) reduced risk of emergency hospital admission. Follow-up was insufficient to assess the effect of ChAdOx1-S on mortality. Combined with the effect against symptomatic disease, a single dose of either vaccine was about 80% effective at preventing admission to hospital with covid-19 and a single dose of BNT162b2 was 85% effective at preventing death with covid-19.

There are more.  Several of these, and more are in the sources section of this brief: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/fully-vaccinated-people.html

Also, while anecdotes are not data, I can confirm that at our local hospitals breakthrough cases require in patient care at a much lower rete.  Currently something like 9% of the in-patient cases at Mrs. Mush's hospital are breakthrough cases, which would lend credence to the idea that they are less severe.  Hillsborough county is currently 46.8% vaccinated.

[dogmush]

And this is the point - that vaccines are meant to prevent disease, not "lessen the severity".
For the last 70 years, the vaccines that I took as a child were meant to prevent.  Those include both the Salk (killed injectable) and Sabin (live oral) polio vaccines, tuberculosis, smallpox, the "D/P/T" (diphtheria/pertussis/tetanus), and the one I never took as it was developed much later, the "MMR" (measles/mumps/rubella) vaccine.  These all were designed to prevent all infection from these viruses, something this mRNA farce is incapable of doing.

No they weren't.  That's not how vaccines work.

Polio: 90% at two doses and 99% at three.

Tuberculosis: 20% effective

Smallpox: 95% effective

D/P/T: Diphtheria 95%, Whooping Cough 98% dropping to 70% in 5 years or 70% dropping to 40% in 10 years, depending on which variety, Tetanus 95%

MMR: Measles 93%, Mumps 78%, and Rubella 97%.  You can get Measles up to 97% and Mumps up to 88% with a booster.

Ironically the only reason that people think those vaccines are so effective is that pretty much everyone gets them, in some cases because they are mandatory. 

[dogmush]

On the disease severity question:  In general vaccines give your immune system a head start on fighting off the virus.  They don't keep viral particles from entering your body, or attacking your cells, they just make it so your immune system stops more of them.  you get "the disease" when the viral particles wreak enough damage to your cells to give you symptoms.  Unchecked by your immune system this can run wild and you can die. (see: hemorrhagic fevers).  Mostly held in check by your immune system you get the sniffles. (see: Corona version that gives you a cold).  There is a spectrum in between those extremes, where your immune system (vaccine enhanced or not) blocks some but not all of the viral particles from destroying cells and reproducing.  The vaccines lower the amount of viral particles that make it to your cells and reproduce, which results in less cell destruction, less symptoms, and a quicker overall course before you defeat the disease.  That's true of pretty much any vaccine, not just COVID's.

[cordex]

Thanks dogmush.  I retract my objections.

CDC Release: https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/p0607-mrna-reduce-risks.html

Different study from NEJM: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2107058

Pretty sure these are actually the same study.  At least when HEROES/RECOVER is mentioned they reference Thompson et al.

They based their findings from 5 fully vaccinated and 11 partially vaccinated cases compared to 156 unvaccinated cases?  Pretty slim numbers, but the viral load measurements are a great indicator.

Systemic review of vaccines among healthcare workers: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8284046/

That references this study:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673621006280
This does show a reduced viral load but I think this is comparing the effectiveness of one type of vaccine to another as it relates to a particular variant.  Also not sure what the control vaccine was.

Effectiveness of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccines on covid-19 related symptoms, hospital admissions, and mortality in older adults in England: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33985964/

As I read this, this is just comparing the effectiveness of two vaccines on a variant, not exploring whether breakthrough infections are less severe.

Even so, some good information and all indicating reduced viral load for vaccine breakthrough cases.

[Bogie]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2021/05/10/flu-cases-historically-low-during-covid-what-expect-fall/7088318002/

Was it due to masking? Was it due to isolation? Or... was it just called 'Rona?

[French G.]

I want to know what is happening in China. You don’t lock a city down over 70 cases.

[RocketMan]

I want to know what is happening in China. You don’t lock a city down over 70 cases.

You do if you want to encourage panic around the world.

[Bogie]

That's the thing - they started the kerfuffle as a cover for cremation of their Hong Kong protesters (which the left won't talk about, and the media ignores), and when they saw that the US actually believed it, and that it was turning into a perfect storm of propaganda, they cranked it up. The media pushed safety - perfect safety - as the goal, and portrayed a bug that mostly killed people with one foot already in the grave as being deadly to everyone. Because, gee... it was the perfect chance to get at Orange Man, who had to rely upon... bureaucrats.... Who saw their chance for even more power at the same time. The push for perfect safety allowed cover for massive alterations of the voting process, and quite likely some serious fraud. Nothing with central planning - just a bunch of people who thought, thanks to media, that they were Doing The Right Thing.

[dogmush]

That's the thing - they started the kerfuffle as a cover for cremation of their Hong Kong protesters (which the left won't talk about, and the media ignores), and when they saw that the US actually believed it, and that it was turning into a perfect storm of propaganda, they cranked it up. The media pushed safety - perfect safety - as the goal, and portrayed a bug that mostly killed people with one foot already in the grave as being deadly to everyone. Because, gee... it was the perfect chance to get at Orange Man, who had to rely upon... bureaucrats.... Who saw their chance for even more power at the same time. The push for perfect safety allowed cover for massive alterations of the voting process, and quite likely some serious fraud. Nothing with central planning - just a bunch of people who thought, thanks to media, that they were Doing The Right Thing.

Ignoring the rest of this ramble, the part I bolded is a verifiably untrue statement.

[Bogie]

Okay... When they put down the protests, and carted the folks off... any idea of what happened to them? I sincerely doubt that they'll be back.
 
It was a perfect storm of propaganda. And our media took it and ran...

[dogmush]

You do realize it was like 8 months between SARS-COV-2 getting out and the protest crackdown, right?  And the CCP has never bothered to cover up any other mass arrest and disappearing of dissidents?

So the CCP started a global pandemic "kerflufle" let it burn through several mainland cities, and waited 8 months before grabbing a couple hundred Hong Kongers in April?

That's categorically not what happened, and doesn't even pass the most basic common sense test.

[Bogie]

Uh... Maybe I need to hop in the wayback machine... I remember seeing the protests, and Hong Kong folks getting herded out afterward... And then a bit after that, China was releasing video of folks in moon suits scraping people off the streets and welding apartment buildings closed...

[De Selby]

I want to know what is happening in China. You don’t lock a city down over 70 cases.

Locking down when there are 70 makes a whole lot more sense than waiting for the inevitable 70,000 if you do not lock down.

[De Selby]

Uh... Maybe I need to hop in the wayback machine... I remember seeing the protests, and Hong Kong folks getting herded out afterward... And then a bit after that, China was releasing video of folks in moon suits scraping people off the streets and welding apartment buildings closed...

Did the Chinese Communist Party also infiltrate St Louis and fake its hospitalisation and death data? And have Chinese factories been busy making fake bodies to ship around the world to clog up morgues and funeral homes?

Some of the stuff that gets said here rivals the conspiracy theories out of less developed parts of the world that get lampooned here. I reckon there are some shamans out there in the worlds jungles making more sense of Corona than this.

[Bogie]

Here's the St. Louis City covid data page.
 
0.171% fatalities WITH the bug in the City since it started.
 
https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/covid-19/data/index.cfm

I also found it interesting there were no "under age 40" victims listed until the new activist mayor got in office...
 

[Bogie]

This is from May of last  year... Easy fast search tho...
 
Saw one report that was putting the St. Louis area at over 50%...
 
https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2020/05/26/nursing-homes-assisted-living-facilities-0-6-of-the-u-s-population-43-of-u-s-covid-19-deaths/?sh=3df336a674cd
 
Gotta count the SNFs, hospices, and all the folks with DNR orders... Because it's a PANDEMIC!

[De Selby]

Here's the St. Louis City covid data page.
 
0.171% fatalities WITH the bug in the City since it started.
 
https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/covid-19/data/index.cfm

I also found it interesting there were no "under age 40" victims listed until the new activist mayor got in office...

Not sure about your math there - that website says 24174 cases, and 546 deaths. How’d you get 0.171 percent?

[Bogie]

Overall population - after all this _is_ a very infectious bug, with somewhere around 90% of the people who contract it not displaying symptoms... I also know people who tested positive, multiple times, and kept going back, because they needed a negative for work... Along with the people who thought that getting tested was protective. STL City is a very urban area, and more than a few of the residents avail themselves of any free service at the drop of a hat.
 
When you look at a statistic that is based only upon people presenting for treatment/testing displaying enough symptoms to warrant the attention, then you have a VERY skewed final product. And there is a huge bias in how the data is accepted... For example, the Seattle-area nursing home where it first got noticed had 30% fatalities among the residents - one helluva headline, right? But they ignored that none of the 47 workers at the facility died... And were, in fact, also working at other facilities.

[dogmush]

Uh... Maybe I need to hop in the wayback machine... I remember seeing the protests, and Hong Kong folks getting herded out afterward... And then a bit after that, China was releasing video of folks in moon suits scraping people off the streets and welding apartment buildings closed...

The bug got out in late Sep, early Oct 2019. Wuhan and nearby cities were locked down in late Jan 2020. That's the welded up apartments you remember seeing. CCP cracked down and disappeared the protesters in late April-early May of 2020.

[WLJ]

Disappearing unwanted persons is nothing new in China or in any other past or present communist country and they're experts at playing mind games with it. On the one hand they deny it ever happened and on the other they want people to know it happened so that they know what will happen to them if they dare question and/or embarrass the party. They have no need of a virus to cover it up.

[De Selby]

Overall population - after all this _is_ a very infectious bug, with somewhere around 90% of the people who contract it not displaying symptoms... I also know people who tested positive, multiple times, and kept going back, because they needed a negative for work... Along with the people who thought that getting tested was protective. STL City is a very urban area, and more than a few of the residents avail themselves of any free service at the drop of a hat.
 
When you look at a statistic that is based only upon people presenting for treatment/testing displaying enough symptoms to warrant the attention, then you have a VERY skewed final product. And there is a huge bias in how the data is accepted... For example, the Seattle-area nursing home where it first got noticed had 30% fatalities among the residents - one helluva headline, right? But they ignored that none of the 47 workers at the facility died... And were, in fact, also working at other facilities.

Still not seeing how you got .171 percent there? Especially when the official figures are pretty much consistent with the whole worlds death rate?

Can you just break down the math from the St. Louis figures that gets you to .171?

[WLJ]

Okay, apparently some people got it in their head that a treatment for horse worms will cure COVID

Doctor warns Ivermectin animal paste is dangerous for humans & doesn’t help COVID-19
https://www.wave3.com/2021/08/05/doctor-warns-ivermectin-animal-paste-is-dangerous-humans-doesnt-help-covid-19/

[MechAg94]

Still not seeing how you got .171 percent there? Especially when the official figures are pretty much consistent with the whole worlds death rate?

Can you just break down the math from the St. Louis figures that gets you to .171?

Google says the total population is around 308,000.  549 is in the ballpark of 0.18% of that total.  Not sure what numbers Bogie used. 

[TommyGunn]

Okay, apparently some people got it in their head that a treatment for horse worms will cure COVID

Doctor warns Ivermectin animal paste is dangerous for humans & doesn’t help COVID-19
https://www.wave3.com/2021/08/05/doctor-warns-ivermectin-animal-paste-is-dangerous-humans-doesnt-help-covid-19/

Treatments for horse worms might be a step up from fishtank cleaners ......