COVID-19/corona virus mega thread/prepping thread

[zxcvbob]

So that would be no, no published study on the virology of covid suggesting we should not vaccinate large groups?

He's applying the same methodology to both groups, and the difference is insignificant. 

No study that suggests not to vaccinate will be published (perhaps none exists, how would we know) because it would be professional suicide for the writer and the publisher to publish such a paper in this environment even if the data was irrefutable.  Whenever someone even suggests that the vaccine might be riskier than the disease for certain age groups, they are shouted down by hoards of feces-throwing howler monkeys.  [not literal monkeys, but they might as well be]

[De Selby]

He's applying the same methodology to both groups, and the difference is insignificant. 

No study that suggests not to vaccinate will be published (perhaps none exists, how would we know) because it would be professional suicide for the writer and the publisher to publish such a paper in this environment even if the data was irrefutable.  Whenever someone even suggests that the vaccine might be riskier than the disease for certain age groups, they are shouted down by hoards of feces-throwing howler monkeys.  [not literal monkeys, but they might as well be]

That is not a methodology - and of course, assuming the science is all rigged by politics means you have no basis for making any judgments.

To discard scientific data and then substitute rhetorical/Facebook theories about virology is to do in real life what the fictional De Selby does in books, and those books are comedies.

[Bogie]

Non-vented respirator-style masks.  N95, KN95, PPF2, etc.

Vented masks seem to be pretty popular with covid dancers... They get irritated when you point out how that works to them when they tell you (and they'll always tell you...) that they're just doing this for YOUR safety...

[Bogie]

All too often, academic "science" is rigged by the academic bureaucracy...
 
I'm guessing that little pro-abortion research would be done in a catholic university, for example...

[De Selby]

None of the trials for the major vaccines tested effectiveness against death. Yet we are told the vaccines are the best way to save lives. None of the trials tested against severe disease or hospitalization either, yet we are told the vaccines are the best way to reduce hospitalizations.

They may or may not be effective against death or hospitalization but the fact is there have been no controlled trials to prove it, and it's obvious most people think there is and that public health officials let them believe it.

That is simply not true.


https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(21)00380-5/fulltext

We found a low risk of COVID-19 hospitalisations or deaths 14 days or more after the first vaccination dose, with less than 0·05% of individuals receiving at least one vaccination having a subsequent breakthrough event.

…

The rate of hospitalisation or death for COVID-19 related illness during the study period was 4·6 events per 1000 person-years (1196 events in total). Over the same period, we calculated the rate of hospitalisation or death from COVID-19 as 8·57 events per 1000 person-years (10 282 events in total) in the unvaccinated population in Scotland, despite the fact that this unvaccinated group was a much younger population who the JCVI had assessed to be at a substantially lower risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes.29

[zxcvbob]

That is not a methodology - and of course, assuming the science is all rigged by politics means you have no basis for making any judgments.

To discard scientific data and then substitute rhetorical/Facebook theories about virology is to do in real life what the fictional De Selby does in books, and those books are comedies.

No, this is more like "I accept your data, but your analysis of it is wrong"  I actually enjoy pointing out to people that their data is not normalized, and when adjusted for (for example) population size it clearing shows just the opposite of whatever point they were making.  That one always makes heads explode 

[Bogie]

I just keep looking at the willful idiocy of the belief system that must be adhered to...

[WLJ]

 

https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1470209341911232516

[zahc]

That is simply not true.


https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(21)00380-5/fulltext

I said none of the clinical trials for the vaccines, which trials were used to justify forcing the medicine on millions of people ("safe and effective!!"), None tested for death or severe illness. They only tested for reported symptomatic illness, with no quantification if the severity. Only AstraZeneca attempted to (poorly, inconclusively) measure viral loads or do any PCR testing. Thus when the vaccines were rolled out, the only thing we knew was they reduced rate of reported symptoms. It was, and is, entirely possible that transmissibility was unaffected or even boosted, or that death or hospitalization rates are unaffected or boosted. If people are still contagious but they have less symptoms, that's literally the opposite of effective for reducing spread, because sick people stay at home, but un-sick people go about their days. It would take an entire extra study to understand if the final result were actually effective in slowing or stopping the spread. Instead, they just barfed it out there. And then a month later told everyone to still wear masks. To date, vaccination seems to have practically no impact on spread of the pandemic. It's highly possible that vaccination has made spread worse.

Data gathered since mass vaccination is not placebo controlled and can be flawed in many impossible to correct for ways, especially selection bias. I do appreciate that people are trying but the methods being used now are terrible at assessing a treatment, and would never pass muster in any other context. Now it is very hard to assess if the vaccines are working, this is made doubly so by the incredibly incompetent job the CDC is doing at tracking vaccine effectiveness, with failing to competently monitor side effects and breakthrough rates, basically they are acting as if they specifically don't want to know, or maybe they do know but don't want it to be provable. The push for universal vaccination is part of this, it is basically a cover-up.

Much of this applies to other countries as well. Europe is showering booster shots on everyone trying to reduce their hospitalization rates all while their first wave of vaccination did nothing for viral spread or cases. I just took a Pfizer booster because it's required after January 15th and I don't really have a choice. I don't like being sick and I think the booster might help with that but it's probably doing nothing for the pandemic.

[MechAg94]

[MechAg94]

[Bogie]

If people are still contagious but they have less symptoms, that's literally the opposite of effective for reducing spread, because sick people stay at home, but un-sick people go about their days.

And woefully inadequate masks with the primary function of signaling virtue will do little to stop actual emission of viral particles...
 
Right now, someone is sitting on a bus or airplane right next to a masked spreader of the bug.
 
Good thing is that they'll probably not even notice that their immune system is doing what evolution designed it to do.

Prediction: They start pushing fear of "the asymptomatic" and go for more lockdowns, which won't actually be lockdowns... Or... would they actually go for several weeks of nothing, which won't do a whole lot anyway?

How long until we see police in NYC welding closed the doors of a nursing home?

[RoadKingLarry]

[De Selby]

If people are still contagious but they have less symptoms, that's literally the opposite of effective for reducing spread, because sick people stay at home, but un-sick people go about their days. It would take an entire extra study to understand if the final result were actually effective in slowing or stopping the spread. Instead, they just barfed it out there. And then a month later told everyone to still wear masks. To date, vaccination seems to have practically no impact on spread of the pandemic. It's highly possible that vaccination has made spread worse.

Again, there is data out there on the spread of the disease and on the outcomes for severity with vaccination. This assertion is false - there is no data showing vaccination makes spread worse. I’m fact, the study I posted along with many others show that vaccination measurably reduces the spread of the disease.

If you have any data showing that vaccination does not impact or in fact enhances the spread of covid, please post it.

Data gathered since mass vaccination is not placebo controlled and can be flawed in many impossible to correct for ways, especially selection bias. I do appreciate that people are trying but the methods being used now are terrible at assessing a treatment, and would never pass muster in any other context. Now it is very hard to assess if the vaccines are working, this is made doubly so by the incredibly incompetent job the CDC is doing at tracking vaccine effectiveness, with failing to competently monitor side effects and breakthrough rates, basically they are acting as if they specifically don't want to know, or maybe they do know but don't want it to be provable. The push for universal vaccination is part of this, it is basically a cover-up.

Much of this applies to other countries as well. Europe is showering booster shots on everyone trying to reduce their hospitalization rates all while their first wave of vaccination did nothing for viral spread or cases. I just took a Pfizer booster because it's required after January 15th and I don't really have a choice. I don't like being sick and I think the booster might help with that but it's probably doing nothing for the pandemic.

Again, the assertion that the first wave of vaccination did nothing is demonstrably false. There are studies showing how that impact wanes over time, and might be restored with a booster.

The issues with data you raised are explicitly canvased in the study I posted. What about their statistical methods is wrong?

[Bogie]

If you don't like data, and ignore it, is that still science?
 
If you call anecdotes data, and praise it, is that now science?

[Perd Hapley]

Admiral Doubtfire!

[zahc]

The issues with data you raised are explicitly canvased in the study I posted. What about their statistical methods is wrong?

From the study:

A limitation of this study is that we were unable to report on risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and less severe COVID-19 outcomes

They only looked at hospitalisation. Not spread within the population. Didn't even consider it in the study.

Our analysis was performed during a period where there was a high background incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection and a national lockdown in place in Scotland (and across the UK), so these findings must be interpreted within this context.

To the extent that their data shows the cases and hospitalisation rates dropping after and during the vaccination campaign, was it the vaccines or the lockdowns? Or natural course of the disease, the weather, or some other (or hundreds of other) factor? Without a controlled trial, knowing is impossible. And as they mentioned above, they didn't even consider community spread, just hospitalisation and death rates, which could also be impacted by changing admission policy and improved treatments, which they also admitted in the study itself.

If you have any data showing that vaccination does not impact or in fact enhances the spread of covid, please post it.

Look at figures from the US or any other country, showing the disease continues to spread and outbreaks continue to occur and the fact that these countries went from 0% to in some cases 80Plus% vaccinated didn't do a damn thing, not even make a noticeable blip in the charts.

I don't have better data than that, because it isn't being gathered. There is nobody doing serious trials on vaccination impact on community spread. It's clear that they don't want to.

I remember I was in TX summer of this year when I saw the chart of US vaccinations climbing like crazy up to 40%, 50,60%, overlayed on the case rates... and not any discernable impact whatsoever. If you gave people both charts and said "show me the before and after mass vaccination", you couldn't do it. Not. A. Damn. Thing. And I thought...Oh *expletive deleted*it, the vaccines aren't going to work... what's the government response going to be now that everyone can see the vaccines aren't going to stop COVID?


Here's some numbers for you... evolution of the 5th wave in France. Remember they require a health pass to go anywhere and now you have to have a booster to get a health pass. Can you tell the point where they went from 0% vaccinated to nearly 100%? Neither can I.



https://www.francetvinfo.fr/sante/maladie/coronavirus/infographies-covid-19-morts-hospitalisations-age-malades-l-evolution-de-l-epidemie-en-france-et-dans-le-monde-en-cartes-et-graphiques.html

[Bogie]

The screechers only want to look at cases and presented patients... so they produce press releases that confirm the covid dancers' worst fears.

When you only look at people who are sick enough to go to a doctor, instead of stay home and sniffle, or go to work with a box of kleenex, then you get a seriously exaggerated picture.

[MillCreek]

https://www.azfamily.com/news/us_world_news/final-data-on-pills-to-treat-covid-19-holds-strong-against-hospitalization-and-death-pfizer/article_561667ff-6cfd-55e9-b122-75b3a89db672.html?block_id=997200

The Pfizer oral treatment is showing more promise than the Merck oral treatment.

[Ben]

The Pfizer oral treatment is showing more promise than the Merck oral treatment.

Thaaaaat's what she said.

[MechAg94]

Virginia Hospital Found In Contempt Of Court, Subject To $10k Per Day Fines After Denying Patient Ivermectin
https://www.dailywire.com/news/virginia-hospital-found-in-contempt-of-court-subject-to-10k-per-day-fines-after-denying-patient-ivermectin?utm_campaign=dw_newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_source=housefile&utm_content=non_member

On Monday, December 13, Virginia’s 20th Judicial Court found Fauquier Health in contempt of court after refusing to comply with previous orders and ruled that by 9:00 p.m. Eastern time tonight, Kathy Davies must be given the dose of Ivermectin as prescribed by a doctor retained by the Davies family. Additionally — if the hospital did not comply — the state had the right to fine the hospital $10,000 per day. That order would have been applied retroactively from December 9 onwards. The court also ordered that the Davies family be given police escort if necessary to administer the drug to their mother.

Looks like the family got their doctor to prescribe ivermectin, but the hospital threw up road blocks to prevent it from being administered.  This article didn't really talk about what treatment the hospital was doing. 

[Ron]

Overview of a Lancet article at zerohedge.

Read below:

In the USA and Germany, high-level officials have used the term pandemic of the unvaccinated, suggesting that people who have been vaccinated are not relevant in the epidemiology of COVID-19. Officials’ use of this phrase might have encouraged one scientist to claim that “the unvaccinated threaten the vaccinated for COVID-19”. But this view is far too simple.

There is increasing evidence that vaccinated individuals continue to have a relevant role in transmission. In Massachusetts, USA, a total of 469 new COVID-19 cases were detected during various events in July, 2021, and 346 (74%) of these cases were in people who were fully or partly vaccinated, 274 (79%) of whom were symptomatic. Cycle threshold values were similarly low between people who were fully vaccinated (median 22·8) and people who were unvaccinated, not fully vaccinated, or whose vaccination status was unknown (median 21·5), indicating a high viral load even among people who were fully vaccinated.

In the USA, a total of 10 262 COVID-19 cases were reported in vaccinated people by April 30, 2021, of whom 2725 (26·6%) were asymptomatic, 995 (9·7%) were hospitalised, and 160 (1·6%) died.

In Germany, 55·4% of symptomatic COVID-19 cases in patients aged 60 years or older were in fully vaccinated individuals, and this proportion is increasing each week. In Münster, Germany, new cases of COVID-19 occurred in at least 85 (22%) of 380 people who were fully vaccinated or who had recovered from COVID-19 and who attended a nightclub.

People who are vaccinated have a lower risk of severe disease but are still a relevant part of the pandemic. It is therefore wrong and dangerous to speak of a pandemic of the unvaccinated. Historically, both the USA and Germany have engendered negative experiences by stigmatising parts of the population for their skin colour or religion. I call on high-level officials and scientists to stop the inappropriate stigmatisation of unvaccinated people, who include our patients, colleagues, and other fellow citizens, and to put extra effort into bringing society together.

https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/lancet-scolds-those-claiming-pandemic-unvaccinated

[Ron]

Interesting blurb from a 3/2020 video of Zuck and Fauci discussing the mRNA treatment. The lower video is slightly longer.


https://twitter.com/i/status/1470469062698414090

[MechAg94]

Interesting blurb from a 3/2020 video of Zuck and Fauci discussing the mRNA treatment. The lower video is slightly longer.


https://twitter.com/i/status/1470469062698414090

Do you know when this interview was done? 

I would have thought they would not publicly discuss this unless they were already concerned this was a possibility and were looking into it. 

And why can't Zuckerberg get his lighting right? 

[De Selby]

From the study:

They only looked at hospitalisation. Not spread within the population. Didn't even consider it in the study.

To the extent that their data shows the cases and hospitalisation rates dropping after and during the vaccination campaign, was it the vaccines or the lockdowns? Or natural course of the disease, the weather, or some other (or hundreds of other) factor? Without a controlled trial, knowing is impossible. And as they mentioned above, they didn't even consider community spread, just hospitalisation and death rates, which could also be impacted by changing admission policy and improved treatments, which they also admitted in the study itself.

Look at figures from the US or any other country, showing the disease continues to spread and outbreaks continue to occur and the fact that these countries went from 0% to in some cases 80Plus% vaccinated didn't do a damn thing, not even make a noticeable blip in the charts.

I don't have better data than that, because it isn't being gathered. There is nobody doing serious trials on vaccination impact on community spread. It's clear that they don't want to.

I remember I was in TX summer of this year when I saw the chart of US vaccinations climbing like crazy up to 40%, 50,60%, overlayed on the case rates... and not any discernable impact whatsoever. If you gave people both charts and said "show me the before and after mass vaccination", you couldn't do it. Not. A. Damn. Thing. And I thought...Oh *expletive deleted*it, the vaccines aren't going to work... what's the government response going to be now that everyone can see the vaccines aren't going to stop COVID?


Here's some numbers for you... evolution of the 5th wave in France. Remember they require a health pass to go anywhere and now you have to have a booster to get a health pass. Can you tell the point where they went from 0% vaccinated to nearly 100%? Neither can I.



https://www.francetvinfo.fr/sante/maladie/coronavirus/infographies-covid-19-morts-hospitalisations-age-malades-l-evolution-de-l-epidemie-en-france-et-dans-le-monde-en-cartes-et-graphiques.html

There are numerous studies that focus on transmission. I posted that one because you claimed there was no data on how highly effective vaccines are at preventing hospitalisation and death. In addition to the studies, the graph you posted shows several peaks and troughs - that sure seems to imply something is happening with infection rates over time.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7709178/

Vaccination reduced the overall attack rate to 4.6% (95% CrI: 4.3% – 5.0%) from 9.0% (95% CrI: 8.4% – 9.4%) without vaccination, over 300 days. The highest relative reduction (54–62%) was observed among individuals aged 65 and older. Vaccination markedly reduced adverse outcomes, with non-ICU hospitalizations, ICU hospitalizations, and deaths decreasing by 63.5% (95% CrI: 60.3% – 66.7%), 65.6% (95% CrI: 62.2% – 68.6%), and 69.3% (95% CrI: 65.5% – 73.1%), respectively, across the same period.