Harris campaign now says VP ‘does not support’ electric vehicle mandate in latest flip-flop

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Humeral response? What does the humerus have to do with this (or eggs).

Vaccines prevent transmission in the same way if they do at all, but not having the vaccinated person develop a viral load in the transmission mechanism. Unexpectedly, the original mRNA vaccines did suppress the development of viruses in the upper respiratory system such that transmission of the original strain was suppressed. They also stopped other infections.

Humoral. Covid vaccines had a ton of breakthroughs. Immunity against COVID-19 was only 3-6 months, thus multiple boosters were needed.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Humoral.

You wrote "humeral", so I looked that up.

Covid vaccines had a ton of breakthroughs. Immunity against COVID-19 was only 3-6 months, thus multiple boosters were needed.

The duration of the protection from a single round of vaccinations does not determine effectiveness, only durability.

We are way off track now and this has nothing to do with the original off track vector (vaccine mandates).

 

[probinson]

Would you care to document that? It is my recollection that the initial COVID vaccine was quite effective against the original "Wuhan" strain of the virus. Nearly as good as the measles vaccine and better (as I recall) than the flu vaccines.

That's not even close to true.

(Data here)

43,448 people received injections in Pfizer's phase 3 clinical trial of their COVID vaccine. 21,720 received the vaccine, 21,728 received a placebo. 8 cases of COVID were reported in the vaccine group and 162 in the placebo group. This is where the much touted claim of 95% efficacy originated from, as 8 is 95% less than 162. But that doesn't tell the whole story. Remember, there were 43,448 people in the trial, which means that 43,278 people didn't get COVID regardless of their vaccination status. Thus, the reality is that 0.03683% of the vaccine group got COVID while 0.70875% of the control group got COVID, an absolute risk reduction of of less than 1% (0.70875%, to be exact).

Then to determine the NNV (number needed to vaccinate) to prevent a single infection, we simply take the ARR/RRR, and we get ~134. That means that ~134 people would need to be vaccinated to prevent a single COVID infection. That's not even remotely in the same ballpark as the MMR vaccine efficacy.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

The duration of the protection from a single round of vaccinations does not determine effectiveness, only durability.

Duration of immunity is not the same as effectiveness...

 

[Hans Blaster]

Duration of immunity is not the same as effectiveness...

I just said that. Now do you want to discuss the actual thread topic or not?

 

[mark46]

Most of us have annual flu shots, prepared each year against the strain that season. I'm not sure what effectiveness folks are looking for. Last season the effectiveness was about 60%. Folks are much better off having the shots, especially those in vulnerable groups.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

I just said that. Now do you want to discuss the actual thread topic or not?

yeah that was my point regarding the covid vaccine

 

[KCfromNC]

They're not so "isolated".

I mean, you do know that the original clinical trial data showed that more than 200 people had to be vaccinated to prevent a single infection, right?

Is there a particular paper you're referring to here?

 

[probinson]

Is there a particular paper you're referring to here?

Yes, it's linked in my post above. But I was mistaken. The NNV was actually 134, not over 200.

 

[probinson]

Most of us have annual flu shots, prepared each year against the strain that season.

I used to get my annual flu shot. Then I read the data. Any impact of flu shots in healthy adults is "modest".

Vaccines to prevent influenza in healthy adults | Cochrane

www.cochrane.org

I'm not sure what effectiveness folks are looking for. Last season the effectiveness was about 60%. Folks are much better off having the shots, especially those in vulnerable groups.

Well that depends. You're assuming there aren't any potential adverse events from vaccination and that it's all benefit. But that's not true. Regarding either flu or COVID, one must weigh the risk of contracting the disease to the risk of taking the vaccine.

Take young, healthy men as an example. It was known that there was an elevated risk of myocarditis in healthy, young men taking the COVID vaccines. The CDC and FDA downplayed this risk as "mild" and "transient". Yet a recent study in JAMA shows that these young men "may require medical management up to several months after hospital discharge". I don't know about you, but I don't classify conditions that require several months of post-hospitalization treatment "mild" and/or "transient".

Also, that paper revealed that the risk of myocarditis from vaccination vs. from COVID is cumulative. IOW, you increase your risk of having myocarditis by taking the vaccine if you are a young healthy male.

The raw numbers confirm this.

If the authors released the information by age group, it would be OBVIOUS that for young men, vaccination and boosting leads to WAY more myocarditis.​

​

A New JAMA paper shows: it is vaccine myocarditis PLUS covid myocarditis

Vaccine myocarditis happens and THEN you STILL get COVID myocarditis; Crazy numbers from France

www.drvinayprasad.com

​

On the other hand, when most young, healthy men contract COVID, it's usually nothing more than a cold for them. So why would these men inject themselves with something that elevates their risk of having medical problems?

This is the problem with mandates. An 80-year old woman with multiple medical issues has a FAR different risk profile than a 20-year old, healthy, fit, male athlete. Yet the government mandates treated everyone exactly the same, effectively mandating harms on people that didn't benefit from the vaccine at all while simultaneously increasing their risk for adverse events.

 

[KCfromNC]

Yes, it's linked in my post above. But I was mistaken. The NNV was actually 134, not over 200.

Are you talking about the actual results from the paper or your "analysis" of it?

Because the "analysis" looks pretty terrible. It would be like saying that I've never been in an accident, therefore seat belts don't help prevent injury for people who are in them.

 

[probinson]

Are you talking about the actual results from the paper or your "analysis" of it?

I'm talking about the actual data. Feel free to point out where I've made any errors. I'll post it again for easy reference.

43,448 people received injections in Pfizer's phase 3 clinical trial of their COVID vaccine. 21,720 received the vaccine, 21,728 received a placebo. 8 cases of COVID were reported in the vaccine group and 162 in the placebo group. This is where the much touted claim of 95% efficacy originated from, as 8 is 95% less than 162. But that doesn't tell the whole story. Remember, there were 43,448 people in the trial, which means that 43,278 people didn't get COVID regardless of their vaccination status. Thus, the reality is that 0.03683% of the vaccine group got COVID while 0.70875% of the control group got COVID, an absolute risk reduction of of less than 1% (0.70875%, to be exact).​

​

Then to determine the NNV (number needed to vaccinate) to prevent a single infection, we simply take the ARR/RRR, and we get ~134. That means that ~134 people would need to be vaccinated to prevent a single COVID infection.​

It would be like saying that I've never been in an accident, therefore seat belts don't help prevent injury for people who are in them.

It would be nothing at all like that. Talk about a terrible analogy...

 

[KCfromNC]

I'm talking about the actual data. Feel free to point out where I've made any errors.

I mentioned it before - you're trying to measure how effective a vaccine is by looking at how it didn't do anything in cases where people weren't exposed to the disease in question. Like I said, it's like saying seat belts aren't effective because they didn't prevent injuries in people who weren't in accidents.

 

[probinson]

I mentioned it before - you're trying to measure how effective a vaccine is by looking at how it didn't do anything in cases where people weren't exposed to the disease in question. Like I said, it's like saying seat belts aren't effective because they didn't prevent injuries in people who weren't in accidents.

No, I'm, pointing out that the data shows that 133 of 134 people who get the COVID vaccine will still get COVID anyway. Only one of those lucky people will actually be prevented from becoming sick. The claims that the vaccines prevent the disease and stop transmission have always been, shall we say, exaggerated.

Also, I'm not sure why you're pretending like those who didn't get sick weren't exposed to the disease. The study doesn't say that. It doesn't even imply that. It's entirely possible to be exposed to a disease and not get sick, with or without a vaccine.

 

[KCfromNC]

No, I'm, pointing out that the data shows that 133 of 134 people who get the COVID vaccine will still get COVID anyway.

The data you quoted shows 8 out of ~21,000 vaccinated people got COVID. Don't confuse the actual facts with whatever analysis you think you're doing.

 

[probinson]

The data you quoted shows 8 out of ~21,000 vaccinated people got COVID. Don't confuse the actual facts with whatever analysis you think you're doing.

The data I quoted also shows that 43,278 people out of 43,448 people (99.6% of study participants) didn't get COVID regardless of their vaccination status.

I know you'd like to pretend that this other data isn't important, but ARR and RRR are well-established metrics for helping to determine efficacy of a vaccine (or any medical treatment). Absolute and relative risk reductions are both important factors in determining the efficacy of any treatment. The actual fact is the absolute risk reduction of the COVID vaccine is less than 1% according to Pfizer's own clinical trial data.

 

[KathrynAragon]

I got three COVID shots because I was traveling a lot. They were all Pfizer shots. Interestingly enough, to me anyway, it was the THIRD shot that gave me symptoms (headache that lasted four days, higher blood pressure that has remained higher, and I got COVID a few months later). Ironically, there were many people who told me that the vaccine probably saved my life, actually they said it DID save my life. Sorry, but I don't call anything that has to be regiven every few months a VACCINE. (And I haven't gotten one since for the record.) The only person I know personally who died of COVID had had five, FIVE shots against getting COVID. She still got it. Meanwhile, I know many people who got COVID before any shots became available. and not a single person died or had a long term reaction to it. So there's that. I'd be an idiot not to pay some attention to personal experience in this.

Oh, and when I got COVID, I was immediately prescribed something that Biden took. I don't know the name because I didn't take more than one dose of it. For starters, it had all the same symptoms as COVID supposedly did, and it also nearly guaranteed a "relapse" which I did not want either, and I felt so good that I didn't take it. All that it entailed was a low fever and a cough for a few days and then I was completely over it. Oh, while I had the fever, I felt like I always feel with a low grade fever - I had no energy. This was for about three days. I only tested because everyone was testing. I was shocked that I even had COVID.

 

[probinson]

Oh, and when I got COVID, I was immediately prescribed something that Biden took. I don't know the name because I didn't take more than one dose of it. For starters, it had all the same symptoms as COVID supposedly did, and it also nearly guaranteed a "relapse" which I did not want either, and I felt so good that I didn't take it.

That was almost certainly Paxlovid. Here's an article you might find interesting about Paxlovid.

The key thing to know is that Paxlovid’s blockbuster effect was found in people who had neither been infected with SARS-CoV-2 nor vaccinated. But by the time it actually reached the open market, the vast majority of the high-risk US population had already been infected or vaccinated. That immunity provides substantial long-term protection from severe Covid-19 when future infections occur, a fact which should not be minimized.​

​

https://insidemedicine.substack.com/p/new-paxlovid-trial-flops​

 

[KathrynAragon]

That was almost certainly Paxlovid. Here's an article you might find interesting about Paxlovid.

The key thing to know is that Paxlovid’s blockbuster effect was found in people who had neither been infected with SARS-CoV-2 nor vaccinated. But by the time it actually reached the open market, the vast majority of the high-risk US population had already been infected or vaccinated. That immunity provides substantial long-term protection from severe Covid-19 when future infections occur, a fact which should not be minimized.​

​

https://insidemedicine.substack.com/p/new-paxlovid-trial-flops​

Yes, it was Paxlovid. I absolutely hated the side effects which were exactly the same as COVID and all it seemed to do was make everything worse, so after 1 dose I didn't take any more and I was FINE.