Wuhan Coronavirus: Megathread - Got too big

[Richardface]

But that graph says it's "Unadjusted" for vaccination rates against the population, and considering said vaccination rates:View attachment 2670103
Doesn't that make a case for the vaccines actually working? Like how ~70 year olds are over 90% vaccinated but only have 2x as many cases. Even ~50 years old, with about 2.5x the cases on the vaccinated vs unvaccinated, with 80% vaccination rates. That still works out to positive defense.
...Unless I'm misinterpreting something?

The data tables in the report have rates per 100,000 which is your population-adjusted directly comparable number

 

[Fluoxetine Man]

Sinovax. For Goyim? Pfizer.

I wonder if these forced mandates are to stop us filthy Goymin from getting Sinovax in time?

 

[HTTP Error 404]

I wonder if these forced mandates are to stop us filthy Goymin from getting Sinovax in time?

Doubt it. Sinovax doesn't work either -- it just won't give you AIDS like the mRNA ones will.

 

[Protistology]

I wonder if these forced mandates are to stop us filthy Goymin from getting Sinovax in time?

Deactivated virus vaccines gives the same immunity as a natural infection. That's what it is, an infection with a safer version of the virus. It's like your immune system fighting the virus while the virus has its arms tied behind its back.

And we see from the UK data that the vaccines are preventing the production of nucleus antibodies that the naturally immune have. Since the vaxxed can only develop spike antibodies, their bodies responds incorrectly to variants. At best, Original Antigenic Sin (OAS) occurs and the vaxxed don't have and can't develop immunity against variants except with twice a year vaccines for life. At worst, Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE) occurs and the vaxxed get sicker than an unvaxxed person.

So yes to your question. Also, the Western companies would just have made their own deactivated vaccines.

 

[The Wicked Mitch]

Mongolian covid chart is the funniest thing I've ever seen. Muh covid taking off corresponds exactly with the start of "vaccination" efforts

If Mongolian covid cases were a stock I would bust a nut at the bullishness of this chart, just look at those perfectly clean higher lows.

 

[Protistology]

tfw the vaccinations were the disease all along.

 

[Lichen Bark]

Week 43 UK's Covid vaccination surveillance report has been released

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1029606/Vaccine-surveillance-report-week-43.pdf

They've changed the reporting format (can't think why) but the numbers are all there.

View attachment 2668809

Infection rates overall are up in adults, in particular vaccinated adults between the ages of 40-59. On average vaccinated adults are 2.5 times more likely to catch Covid than the non vaccinated.

Focusing on mortality rates in older demographics, the only people at any statistical risk of dying, we see that the vaccines seem to offer protection. However when we factor in the higher infection rates this protection all but disappears. The 60-69 demographic are 4 times less likely to die but 2.5 times more likely to catch the virus. In the 70-79 age group they are three times less likely to die but twice as likely to catch it. At the time of the report we can now say that the vaccines are increasing infectivity in the vaccinated, conferring some protection against severe disease on an individual basis but not on a population wide basis.

Why is this happening?

The report attempts to hand waive the efficacy data away by blaming changes to behaviour in the vaccinated. I assume on the basis that the vaxxed will be more likely to mix and engage in higher risk activities than the non vaxxed. This seems to me to be a cope. What's the real reason?

View attachment 2668819

Despite increasing infection rates in all adults N-antibody prevalence continues to flatline.

View attachment 2668821

The only demographics showing any increases in N-antibody prevalence are younger people with lower vaccination rates.




In the 3 oldest age groups spike antibody titres show a waning to seronegative, no surprise there. However despite waning/disappearing s-protein titres these age groups, with close to 100% vaccination rates, are not producing n-antibodies in response to infection.



They are outright admitting that OAS is occurring in the vaccinated.

To summarise the vaccinated are far more likely to become infected than the non vaccinated. The claim that the vaccines are reducing mortality overall is no longer sustainable. It's now confirmed that the vaccinated, at least in older age groups (and likely in all) are not able to mount a broad immune response when exposed to the virus. OAS is occurring and even worse the effects on innate immunity persist even when the vaccine derived antibodies wear off.

So now we know why they're so desperate to inject old people with third doses and boosters. Best hope they work.

That first chart hurts my eye's, super gay they are modifying things. The old one is still in the report, I prefer it personally.

Edit: I really like that little disclaimer thrown in at the bottom.

 

[jje100010001]

Which is the 'safest' of the vaccines, apart from no vaccines?

My opinions:

mRNA (Pfizer, Moderna)- Issue lies in the fact that the lipid molecule is extremely fat-soluble, and is easily absorbed by fat cells. So if you accidentally get jabbed in an vein, let's just hope that the lipids don't make it to your heart, since it's relatively close by and surrounded by a nice fatty padding around it- lest you want myocarditis or pericarditis. Secondly, it turns your body into a spike protein factory + the issues with the spike protein & OAS. Of these, Pfizer seems to be the 'safest'.

Viral Vector (J&J, AZ)- Issue lies in the fact that the rhesus adenoviruses are potentially more infectious than desired. So if you accidentally get jabbed in a vein, you may run the risk of the viruses infecting your blood vessels & damaging the lining, with the resultant scab creating blood clots throughout your body. Likewise, it has the same issue as the mRNA jabs in turning your body into a spike protein factory + the issues with the spike protein & OAS. Of these, J&J seems to be the 'safest', though it's fairly rarely used in North America so the numbers don't run up as much.

Protein Subunit (Novavax)- This vax sidesteps the whole issue with turning your body into an uncontrollable spike protein factory & the issues revolving around delivery by creating the spike protein outside the body, but still relies on the spike protein to generate antibodies, with potential issues with OAS. The problem is that it's not available yet, and so people who need to take a jab to keep their jobs now are out of luck.

Inactivated Viral- Rumors have it that the Chinese vaccines need to be higher in dosage to provide the desired results, meaning that the risk of side-effects is higher. Plus these vaccines are away quickly outclassed due to the fast evolutionary nature of coronaviruses. However, these are likely the 'safest' and most useless of the bunch as they rely on traditional vaccine technology. The issue with these jabs is that not all states or countries will recognize them, and so even if you get the shots, you may be forced to get a mRNA booster anyways.

Of course, there are plenty of other vaccines on the way, though I don't believe they'll be available in North America anytime soon due to Big Pharma; and ultimately Covid Zero is an impossible task anyways as the vaccines are really more of a therapeutic treatment. So if you must take a vaccine now, Pfizer would probably be the 'safest', though damage to the heart is a big risk. If you must take a jab but can wait, I would probably see if you can delay until Novavax is available.

One should always keep in mind that the corporations are not liable for any injuries you may sustain, and they're mandating just to comply with government demands and not out of the goodness of their hearts- they would gladly throw you aside like trash if you were injured and useless to them.

Edit: Based on the microscopy available, it also seems like quality control for the production of the vaxxes falls far short than what's advertised. There are some rumors that some batches are fine, and others have a far higher chance of sickening the jabbees.

 

[Mhallachd]

What's going on? Another piece of actual journalism? The end times are near

Vaccinated People Also Spread the Delta Variant, Yearlong Study Shows

People inoculated against Covid-19 are just as likely to spread the delta variant of the virus to contacts in their household as those who haven’t had shots, according to new research.

www.bloomberg.com

How Bad Is Delta Variant? Vaccinated, Unvaccinated People Can Spread …

archived 29 Oct 2021 17:11:07 UTC

archive.vn

See this is why I don't have a job despite years of experience in my field. Why I have to use a fake certificate to get a haircut and why I'll likely have to home school my kids. Anyone launching court action against mandates and passports here's the proof.

Read the piece, research linked in the article. "immunity" disappears completely after 3 fucking mounts! Remind me how long the vaccine trials were again?

I'll be honest and say I'm kind of shocked. I thought the vaccines did something, even if was just giving some protection to the old and deathfats. But no they're 100% useless.

They're now discussing 3 monthly boosters for everyone until the new generation of vaccines are rolled out. Fun times.

This is the best new narrative they could come up with? The vaccinated catch it, they spread it, they need boosters every three months, but you feel less sick and are less likely to end up in hospital. This new canon is lazy as fuck.

If the story has flipped and it's now "protect yourself" instead of "protect others" then why do we need to force it on people. Am I missing something or are they really saying the only reason they are making us get the jab is to save us from ourselves?

One of my close people isn't ok, and it's looking more and more like it's the vaccine what done it. This isn't even something I can have schadenfreude about since it's someone I love so much. I'll keep you guys posted and PL as little as possible, but in the meantime, to those of you who are thinking of giving in: Avoid Moderna, ok? At the very least.

I hope your close person can beat whatever they are dealing with. As stupid as a lot of our family and friends are I am going to go nuts if big pharma kills any of them. We have to pray that they get off this crazy train as soon as possible because a booster every three months can't be good for you.

 

[borsabil]

But that graph says it's "Unadjusted" for vaccination rates against the population, and considering said vaccination rates:View attachment 2670103
Doesn't that make a case for the vaccines actually working? Like how ~70 year olds are over 90% vaccinated but only have 2x as many cases. Even ~50 years old, with about 2.5x the cases on the vaccinated vs unvaccinated, with 80% vaccination rates. That still works out to positive defense.
...Unless I'm misinterpreting something?

No read the report

Adjustments doesn’t mean vaccination rates per population size this is already accounted for. Here's what they mean by adjustment

The case rates in the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations are unadjusted crude rates that do not take into account underlying statistical biases in the data. There are likely to be systematic differences in who chooses to be tested and the COVID risk of people who are vaccinated. For example: • people who are fully vaccinated may be more health conscious and therefore more likely to get tested for COVID-19 • people who are fully vaccinated may engage in more social interactions because of their vaccination status, and therefore may have greater exposure to circulating COVID-19 infection • people who are unvaccinated may have had past COVID-19 infection prior to the 4-week reporting period in the tables above, thereby artificially reducing the COVID-19 case rate in this population group, and making comparisons between the 2 groups less valid

- The vaccinated are more 'health conscious' so are more like to be tested
- Unvaccinated have higher rates of natural immunity
- The vaccinated are more likely to engage in higher risk behaviour

They've changed the reporting format and put in the disclaimer as a cope.

 

[The Wicked Mitch]

That first chart hurts my eye's, super gay they are modifying things. The old one is still in the report, I prefer it personally.
View attachment 2671103
Edit: I really like that little disclaimer thrown in at the bottom.

They just can't stop mainstreaming far right extremist conspiracy theories. When we use the same logic regarding the mostly geriatric, mostly already very sick dying with muh coof instead of from it we're mentally ill "science" deniers.

 

[borsabil]

This is the best new narrative they could come up with? The vaccinated catch it, they spread it, they need boosters every three months, but you feel less sick and are less likely to end up in hospital.

If the story has flipped and it's now "protect yourself" instead of "protect others" then why do we need to force it on people. Am I missing something or are they really saying the only reason they are making us get the jab is to save us from ourselves?


I hope your close person can beat whatever they are dealing with. As stupid as a lot of our family and friends are I am going to go nuts if big pharma kills any of them. We have to pray that they get off this crazy train as soon as possible because a booster every three months can't be good for you.

Yes there's been a marked narrative shift in the past few weeks. Before it was argued that we needed passports and mandates to protect the vaccinated from interacting with plague rats who were spreading the virus. The data clearly shows the opposite is true so they've shifted the argument. Now the unvaccinated need to be protected from the vaxxed as they are more likely to suffer serious illness if they catch it. Seriously what kind of 'vaccine' makes you more prone to catching a virus?

It's now clear that vaccine enhanced infection is effecting the vaccinated. They're far more likely to catch Covid than purebloods. It's also becoming increasingly evident that the vaccinated are not responding to Covid with a proper and robust immune response. They are not able to produce n-antibodies when challenged by the virus, original antigenic sin, which is really, really bad as they will be fucked sideways when a true vaccine resistant variant emerges. The only peg they're left clinging to is the claim of reduction in severe illness, which is the easiest data set to game. Simply issue instructions to receiving hospitals that all unvaccinated patients need to be tested for Covid and you can massively skew the numbers. It makes no sense that a population that is more prone to infection and is not displaying a proper immune response when infected would have lower death rates. On top of all that antibody titres go to seronegative levels far quicker than previously thought, 3 months instead of 6, which will mean a far more frequent booster program if they want to prevent further massive outbreaks.

People need to think long and hard whether or not they want to embark on a lifetime of non stop injections, perhaps 4 or more a year, for a virus that's nothing more than a cold to the vast majority of people who catch it.

 

[The Ultimate Ramotith]

Excuse me, but I wan to vent here.
Reading all of the websites and social media talking about cases, hospitalisations, number of deaths, rates of deaths, deaths per capita, and s on gave me so much conflicting information; I have trouble sorting out all of that. In all, those in support of the anti-flu regulations giv evidence on how the numbers in general are higher in states and countries that a relatively free, whereas those opposing the anti-flu regulations giv evidence on how the numbers in general are higher in states and countries that have high restrictions and mandatory restrictions. The same pattern applies to those in suppor and opposition to the injections. One classic example is that Sverige, despite having low restrictions, had fewer deaths than many countries, but Norge, New Zealand, and Australia had very heavy restrictions, lots of vaccinations and even fewer deaths than Sverige.

An example would be this thread:

Ian Miller (@ianmSC)

Cases in the South are now down 81% since Fauci said he didn’t think it was smart to have full college football stadiums, proving once again that we should always listen to The Experts™ because they know best

nitter.eu

IM (@ianmSC): "Cases in the South are now down 81% since Fauci said h…

archived 30 Oct 2021 02:51:02 UTC

archive.fo

 

[Protistology]

Simply issue instructions to receiving hospitals that all unvaccinated patients need to be tested for Covid and you can massively skew the numbers.

Spoiler: PL

They already are. I went to urgent care two weeks ago with stomach pains. When they discovered I was unvaxxed, they had me sit in the Colored Waiting Room a separate area while they ran my PCR.

 

[NoReturn]

Spoiler: PL

They already are. I went to urgent care two weeks ago with stomach pains. When they discovered I was unvaxxed, they had me sit in the Colored Waiting Room a separate area while they ran my PCR.

Why'd you go? Illness or physical ailment? I'd imagine it doesn't really matter to the drones, but I'm curious how it's affecting triage.

 

[borsabil]

Spoiler: PL

They already are. I went to urgent care two weeks ago with stomach pains. When they discovered I was unvaxxed, they had me sit in the Colored Waiting Room a separate area while they ran my PCR.

I assume this is happening everywhere. The reported numbers make no sense when looking at the age profile and vaccination rates. If 99% of boomers are vaccinated, like they are here, then it's impossible that 96% of hospitalisations are from the non jabbed.

If every unvaxxed patient is being screened for Covid and if every positive test is listed as a 'Covid hospitalisation' there will be no need to outright lie they can just list every single patient who goes to hospital with a kidney stone, chest pain or bad back, and shows a positive PCR, as a severe Covid case.

Look at the UK report, one of their copes in accounting for lower infection rates in the unvaxxed is due to them having far higher rates of natural immunity. Which means they're admitting that natural immunity is superior but doesn't explain why the unvaxxed are apparently suffering more severe illness. You can't have it both ways.

 

[Derka Derka]

We really need to find a more up to date version of this, as it's over a year old.

Maybe using Ioannidis data he published for the WHO

 

[Protistology]

Why'd you go? Illness or physical ailment? I'd imagine it doesn't really matter to the drones, but I'm curious how it's affecting triage.

Ulcer.

 

[LaxerBRO]

So the CDC has published a study on those with natural immunity from previous infection and those that have gotten the vaccine. The GENERAL finding is that:

Among COVID-19–like illness hospitalizations among adults aged ≥18 years whose previous infection or vaccination occurred 90–179 days earlier, the adjusted odds of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 among unvaccinated adults with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection were 5.49-fold higher than the odds among fully vaccinated recipients of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine who had no previous documented infection (95% confidence interval = 2.75–10.99).

That is those with previous COVID infections are 5.49 times more likely than those that got the mrna vaccine. to get COVID again and require to be hospitalized.

A Few Caveats Though:

• The age demographics played a huge role.
  • Similarly, the interaction term for exposure group by age indicated that the aOR was higher for patients aged ≥65 years (aOR = 19.57) than for those aged 18–64 years (aOR = 2.57) (interaction term, p = 0.05).
• The study does not account for behavior.
  • Fourth, residual confounding might exist because the study did not measure or adjust for behavioral differences between the comparison groups that could modify the risk of the outcome.

Conclusion

While I think this study is insightful, I think that behavior is largely the cause of the difference. An analysis* of UK data supports my assertation. I am not a BritBong but to the best of my knowledge when the UK locked down, the measures were much more stringent than in the US where most things were open after the 15 days to flatten the curve. Hence with more venues open, even in states with stricter rules, the ability of people in Burgerland to get the virus again is greater opposed to a more or less nationwide lockdown in the UK.

Additionally, when you look at age, those that are younger than 64 the risks become more clear based on age. I believe the study measured 18-49 and 50-64 to reach the aforementioned 2.57x greater odds. Of those 18-49, I believe the odds are 1.42x greater and from 49-64 your odds are 4.65x greater.

Such, combined with more of an ability to take risks, I believe that for younger people under 49 the protection provided by natural immunity is basically the same as the vaccine. The protection from natural immunity might go down if you are 50-63. With persons 64+ having little to no protection from natural infection. I am still in the younger age group and will not be getting vaccinated as I have COVID acquired immunity. For those that are older, it might be a good idea as the older you get the more shit your immune system is.

*

Two doses of either Pfizer-BioNTech or Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccines provided a similar level of protection to prior natural infection when the Delta variant was dominant.

I am NOT a doctor. I am some rando on the interwebs just interpreting the CDC data I see. Do not take this post as medical advice. ​

 

[Richardface]

I assume this is happening everywhere. The reported numbers make no sense when looking at the age profile and vaccination rates. If 99% of boomers are vaccinated, like they are here, then it's impossible that 96% of hospitalisations are from the non jabbed.

If every unvaxxed patient is being screened for Covid and if every positive test is listed as a 'Covid hospitalisation' there will be no need to outright lie they can just list every single patient who goes to hospital with a kidney stone, chest pain or bad back, and shows a positive PCR, as a severe Covid case.

Look at the UK report, one of their copes in accounting for lower infection rates in the unvaxxed is due to them having far higher rates of natural immunity. Which means they're admitting that natural immunity is superior but doesn't explain why the unvaxxed are apparently suffering more severe illness. You can't have it both ways.

Also ignores that you would expect a significant fraction of the vaxxed in the UK would have pre-existing natural immunity (which the vaccines appear to be overwriting)

Was fun dropping these monitoring reports on my doctor, he had no idea