Wuhan Coronavirus: Megathread - Got too big

[Zbk3VmLfujjzjxBd43tL]

Got a company email with an external survey as to whether you're vaxxed and what you would do if mandated. I am WFH and answered I am not vaxxed and would be terminated before getting one. Hope others do the same.

Eta: they also asked about med/religious exemption and I answered none. My refusal is simply NO. Don't have to explain myself and won't. Reminder this is a company that had a data breach right before I started; I don't trust them with my medical info (should they press).

I got a "mandatory" survey the other month from my job about my vaxx status which I didn't answer because fuck you, it's my medical information and I'm not handing it over for free, like at least threaten me with my job. This month I have another one which I was supposed have finished by the 29th...didn't do it, I'll see how long it takes them to notice. If I get caught, I'll just "oh shit, I'm sorry, I forgot" and delay as long as I can, but should I have to do it then I'll just say fuck you, I'm unvaxxed and proud at least until the company hands down a mask mandate or vaxx mandate, then my fake vaxx card will come in handy.

Being forced to hand over medical information for such a non-necessary reason is absolutely bonkers.

The outside and nature belongs to the wealthy.

It always has. Most of the conservationists of the late 19th/early 20th century were at the very least upper middle class or otherwise outright wealthy. The environmentalist movement has always been full of wealthy people who are concerned about climate change because they don't want their second house on the beach getting washed away (they'll never admit that of course). The elite closed all the parks and/or forced you to wear face diapers to access them, while they can just go to their third house in the mountains to get outdoors with absolutely zero restrictions.

Go to look to see who "donated" the money to establish some of these parks too, it's always wealthy people. They don't want the ordinary middle-class person to be able to buy that land and use it for them and their buddies to go hiking, hunting, 4-wheeling, or whatever on, they want you to follow THEIR rules and SHARE it.

 

[ToroidalBoat]

Truth be told, I have fairly high hopes for the future!

I remember I pretty much lost hope and thought the "New Normal" would be around even 100 years from now.

100 years of wearing muzzles, "social distancing", and "temporary" closures? Do not want

But yeah, things do seem to be improving. Hopefully the tyrants who pushed coronapanic are voted out.

 

[ddw]

I remember I pretty much lost hope and thought the "New Normal" would be around even 100 years from now.

100 years of wearing muzzles, "social distancing", and "temporary" closures? Do not want

But yeah, things do seem to be improving. Hopefully the tyrants who pushed coronapanic are voted out.

i was telling you guys to chill last summer. wasn't 100% accurate on how fast it would take for things to get completely better worldwide but still, the time to think it was gonna be around a century from now was sometime before february

 

[Billy Beer]

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.

You can't draw any conclusions about the effectiveness/side effects of the jab, without knowing what other deaths are occuring between people who are jabbed/unjabbed.

For example, if 100 people die of a heart attack, and 99 of them have a jab, that's a big concern. But if 100 people die of pnuemonia, and none of them are jabbed, that paints a different picture.

For all we know, this jab could be saving people from other illnesses, by the thousands, or it could be killing people by the thousands. We have no idea without solid data.

 

[GAY Ted Wheeler]

You’re assuming you can trust any of this data which you can’t. Here in the colonies the lid is about to get blown off on how cooked all of these testing and case counts have been from the beginning. There has never been a reason to trust any of this data and anyone that does is a fool.

 

[aphelion]

Last night, I happened by a television with one of those faggy late night shows airing. Jimmy Kimmel was doing a monologue and announced that the fda approve the notvaxx for kids 5-11. The crowd erupted in cheers and thunderous applause.

 

[Escaped Abortion]

Last night, I happened by a television with one of those faggy late night shows airing. Jimmy Kimmel was doing a monologue and announced that the fda approve the notvaxx for kids 5-11. The crowd erupted in cheers and thunderous applause.View attachment 2671918

I don't feel bad for the parents whose children will die or be crippled by this shot, most likly at a much higher rate than they would have from covid (since covid's death rate amongst children is nothing. You willingly sacrificed them.

I do feel sorry for the kids who will have their whole lives stolen from them to try and keep a few more boomers from having a brush with death.

 

[mario if smoke weed]

My in-laws uninvited my husband and I to Thanksgiving for not being jabbed. And, apparently, some of my (now) ex-friends have been talking trash behind my back, too.

This entire plandemic has turned so many people into sanctimonious assholes. The funny part is that these assholes claim to "care" and claim to be "empaths" all the while they demonize people who don't fall in line with them 100%. Some of the people in my life have basically turned their love and affection into something that is very conditional, and it doesn't feel good at all. Not to PL too much, but some of my doctors have told me to my face that I shouldn't get the jab right now ... And despite me telling people that, these people are still treating my husband and I pretty horribly. So ~*empathetic*~ of them, am I right?

Anyway, I'm sorry that your partner's family is treating you like this. It's not fair and it's dehumanizing to say the least. There's unfortunately a lot of people in similar situations right now, and it's so, so wrong.

I'd argue these so-called "empaths" were sanctimonious assholes before the plandemic. It's times like these where most people's true colors show. By the way, anyone who feel the need to call themselves an "empath" is likely some form of an untrustworthy, egotistical douche. The truly good ones practice patience and understanding without autofellating themselves.

I'm sorry you have to deal with such bs from your in-laws and ex-friends. I hope you can look at the situation like a blessing in disguise - any friends who talk shit behind your back because of a harmless choice you made are not only not your friends, but are harmful to you. It's better to have no friends than a bunch of bad friends.

My partner's family are trying to bully me into being vaccinated before I fly south to their place for Christmas. It is not a requirement to travel domestically within New Zealand where I live. Apparently if I choose to not get it then I have to "talk it over" with his mother who is a nurse to justify my decision and his grandmother who paid for my plane ticket. It is important so I don't "accidentally spread covid to an untouched part of the country".

This shit is still in the third stage of trialing and I'm not comfortable with this kind of pressure to make a private medical decision on the incorrect basis that it stops the spread because it doesn't.

I'm considering just lying because I don't want to get into this with his family. "No" isn't an answer for them and it would create a massive divide as well as affect the dynamic between his family and I. My partner has already talked down to me a lot when I've displayed hesitancy.

I have nobody else to discuss this with at present so I guess I'm just leaving this here as documentation that social pressure for this is huge and I think it's wrong.

Third stage of trialing? Didn't know that, so I'm glad I saw this post. By the way, I'd have a talk with your partner if I were you. These are shit times and in shit times, the last thing you need is your partner talking down to you. You display solid reasoning as to why you're not taking the jab. He doesn't have to 100% agree with you, but he needs to at least understand where you're coming from and respect your decision. If he can't do that and continues to talk down to you, he's not your partner - he's your enemy. I hope things get better for you because damn that sucks.

 

[talk sh1t]

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?

It's not about saving you from yourself, it's about decreasing the pressure on hospitals. I've been told this since this summer, actually.

If you look at the chart that @borsabil posted for the UK, week 43 report, you'll actually see that the hospital admissions for vaccinated are about 20 to 45% of the admissions for unvaccinated people (depending on age range). So this actually makes the vaccines look good.

On the other hand, like borsabil says, you simultaneously have a much higher infection rate among the vaccinated. So even though their hospitalization and fatality rates are low, their higher infection rate plus the high vaccination rate (with 50 to 90% people in the UK being vaccinated at this point, depending on age range), this means that the absolute number of hospitalizations of vaccinated will probably go up, so the vaccinated will probably end up contributing to healthcare system pressure more than the unvaccinated.

 

[ddw]

It's not about saving you from yourself, it's about decreasing the pressure on hospitals. I've been told this since this summer, actually.

If you look at the chart that @borsabil posted for the UK, week 43 report, you'll actually see that the hospital admissions for vaccinated are about 20 to 45% of the admissions for unvaccinated people (depending on age range). So this actually makes the vaccines look good.

On the other hand, like borsabil says, you simultaneously have a much higher infection rate among the vaccinated. So even though their hospitalization and fatality rates are low, their higher infection rate plus the high vaccination rate (with 50 to 90% people in the UK being vaccinated at this point, depending on age range), this means that the absolute number of hospitalizations of vaccinated will probably go up, so the vaccinated will probably end up contributing to healthcare system pressure more than the unvaccinated.

so you're saying public services come before individual rights

 

[borsabil]

You know how they've been saying that even though the vaccines are shit at stopping infection and transmission they're super good at preventing severe illness and death? Yeah about that.

Effectiveness of Covid-19 Vaccination Against Risk of Symptomatic Infection, Hospitalization, and Death Up to 9 Months: A Swedish Total-Population Cohort Study

Background: Whether vaccine effectiveness against Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) lasts longer than 6 months is unclear.<br><br>Methods: A retrospective coh

papers.ssrn.com

The effectiveness against severe illness seems to remain high through 9 months, although not for men, older frail individuals, and individuals with comorbidities. This strengthens the evidence-based rationale for administration of a third booster dose.

So the vaccines are good at preventing death among the young and healthy, they're useless at preventing death among the old and morbid. So the people at no risk of dying are protected from death while the people at risk of dying receive no benefit. But it's OK we just have to give moar booster.

Oh but it gets better

The charts in the report are poor;y formatted, nevertheless this table details vaccine effectiveness in preventing symptomatic illness after three months from the 2nd dose. Ignore the first four rows, these are raw unadjusted numbers. the 5th row lists the relative risk reduction for the vaccinated compared to the unvaxxed control group. For the 65-79 age group vaccine effectiveness declines to as low as 58% and for the over 80's to 30%. If we're going to give boosters to the old we're going to have to give them every 3 months.

But wait there's more

This table lists the relative risk reduction after 6 months and yes you're not seeing things. The vaccine effectiveness for anyone over the age of 50 has a negative in front of it. Older people, the ones who actually need protection, show a higher prevalence of symptomatic illness than the unvaccinated control group.

The authors insist that providing a 3 dose vaccination protocol for older men and the morbidly ill will give them better protection although there is no real world evidence that this will work. The authors also support a strict booster regime for everyone except young adults and middle aged women with no co-morbidities. I assume from looking at the data these boosters will be required between 3-6 months after the 2nd dose.

I had wondered why the sudden rush to provide 3rd doses for the elderly and 'immunocompromised" 28 days after the 2nd. The official line is that the vaccines are working great at preventing severe illness in everyone, but we just have to be extra cautious due to declining antibody titres allowing transmission, we can now be fairly certain that the official line is complete horse shit. They're rushing out 3rd doses and boosters because if they don't there will be a significant die off in the elderly and morbid vaccinated populations, which at this point in time is almost all of them.

So it turns out 4chan was right (again). Conspiracy theory becomes fact. The vaccine makers now have their captive market dependent on a lifetime of never ending vaccination. They must be deliriously happy with this data, think of all that recurrent revenue. It's like that Netflix subscription you always meant to cancel but never seem to get round to, except instead of not wanting to watch season 3 of Stranger Things you don't get to die. Fun times.

 

[The Wicked Mitch]

You know how they've been saying that even though the vaccines are shit at stopping infection and transmission they're super good at preventing severe illness and death? Yeah about that.

Effectiveness of Covid-19 Vaccination Against Risk of Symptomatic Infection, Hospitalization, and Death Up to 9 Months: A Swedish Total-Population Cohort Study

Background: Whether vaccine effectiveness against Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) lasts longer than 6 months is unclear.<br><br>Methods: A retrospective coh

papers.ssrn.com

So the vaccines are good at preventing death among the young and healthy, they're useless at preventing death among the old and morbid. So the people at no risk of dying are protected from death while the people at risk of dying receive no benefit. But it's OK we just have to give moar booster.

Oh but it gets better

View attachment 2672053
The charts in the report are poor;y formatted, nevertheless this table details vaccine effectiveness in preventing symptomatic illness after three months from the 2nd dose. Ignore the first four rows, these are raw unadjusted numbers. the 5th row lists the relative risk reduction for the vaccinated compared to the unvaxxed control group. For the 65-79 age group vaccine effectiveness declines to as low as 58% and for the over 80's to 30%. If we're going to give boosters to the old we're going to have to give them every 3 months.

But wait there's more


View attachment 2672045

This table lists the relative risk reduction after 6 months and yes you're not seeing things. The vaccine effectiveness for anyone over the age of 50 has a negative in front of it. Older people, the ones who actually need protection, show a higher prevalence of symptomatic illness than the unvaccinated control group.

The authors insist that providing a 3 dose vaccination protocol for older men and the morbidly ill will give them better protection although there is no real world evidence that this will work. The authors also support a strict booster regime for everyone except young adults and middle aged women with no co-morbidities. I assume from looking at the data these boosters will be required between 3-6 months after the 2nd dose.

I had wondered why the sudden rush to provide 3rd doses for the elderly and 'immunocompromised" 28 days after the 2nd. The official line is that the vaccines are working great at preventing severe illness in everyone, but we just have to be extra cautious due to declining antibody titres allowing transmission, we can now be fairly certain that the official line is complete horse shit. They're rushing out 3rd doses and boosters because if they don't there will be a significant die off in the elderly and morbid vaccinated populations, which at this point in time is almost all of them.

So it turns out 4chan was right (again). Conspiracy theory becomes fact. The vaccine makers now have their captive market dependent on a lifetime of never ending vaccination. They must be deliriously happy with this data, think of all that recurrent revenue. It's like that Netflix subscription you always meant to cancel but never seem to get round to, except instead of not wanting to watch season 3 of Stranger Things you don't get to die. Fun times.

I could open it in my browser 15 minutes ago, now I get a login prompt.

Good thing I saved this bitch.

PS: Get fucked femoids

 

[Fanatical Pragmatist]

Remember when the young used to rebel against authority? I remember...
Remember when the young didn't believe everything the experts said? I remember...

Yes Ivy League schools have always been known for anti-establishment youth who rebel against authority, and not cock-guzzling suck-ups who want to become the next generation of authority.

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:



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 0.42x greater and from 49-64 your odds are 4.65x greater.
View attachment 2671266

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.

*

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. ​

I was just about to post this.

My favorite take-aways are this:

These findings are consistent with evidence that neutralizing antibody titers after receipt of 2 doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine are high (5,6); however, these findings differ from those of a retrospective records-based cohort study in Israel,†† which did not find higher protection for vaccinated adults compared with those with previous infection during a period of Delta variant circulation. This variation is possibly related to differences in the outcome of interest and restrictions on the timing of vaccination. The Israeli cohort study assessed any positive SARS-CoV-2 test result, whereas this study examined laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 among hospitalized patients. The Israeli cohort study also only examined vaccinations that had occurred 6 months earlier, so the benefit of more recent vaccination was not examined. This report focused on the early protection from infection-induced and vaccine-induced immunity, though it is possible that estimates could be affected by time. Understanding infection-induced and vaccine-induced immunity over time is important, particularly for future studies to consider.

The CDC came a few steps shy of going full Raymond Hoser slander, but certainly crossed the hazy grey line into "DEBOONKED!" territory.
For them to even include this snippet makes me wonder how many feathers were ruffled at the CDC by the Israeli study.

From a scientific standpoint, its also worth pointing out that the CDC never actually justified why or how their methodology was better and what the advantage of it being different is, just that it's different.

This:

Fifth, these results might not be generalizable to nonhospitalized patients who have different access to medical care or different health care–seeking behaviors, particularly outside of the nine states covered

Wait, what?
So there is a chance this whole thing isn't applicable to people in places (outside of mostly blue states) who don't go to the hospital for COVID?
So this whole thing isn't applicable to all the asymptomatic & mild cases?

So what you have proven is that if I go to a hospital in a blue state with COVID-like illness I am more likely to be reported as a COVID case to the CDC. Shocking, I tell you.

And lastly this valuable gem:

P-value from assessment of effect modification by mRNA product was 0.02.
P-value for interaction term for exposure group by age group was 0.05.

So statically speaking effect by age cohort is a more likely hypothesis than effect by mRNA vaccines?

 

[Info Player Start]

I can't believe we are still taking about this shit

 

[borsabil]

Fanatical Pragmatist​

​

statistical model incorporated the use of a weighted propensity score method which is subject to biases in estimates or standard errors if the propensity score model is misspecified.

Garbage in garbage out. Take shit data sets run them through an equation that uses a numerator that deviates so far from mean that it's unable to provide any useful conclusion. Result 'get the vaxx'.

The first time in the history of virology or immunology that natural immunity is 5 times less effective than a leaky narrow vaccine. The human immune system is responding to the spike protein by giving more robust immunity that when being exposed to the actual fucking virus? This is the medical equivalent of flat Earthers, only even more exceptional. The 'research' was wholly aimed at providing a MSM headline to encourage more retards to get the jab.

I wasn't going to respond to the OP but just to say I agree with you.

 

[The Ultimate Ramotith]

Last night, I happened by a television with one of those faggy late night shows airing. Jimmy Kimmel was doing a monologue and announced that the fda approve the notvaxx for kids 5-11. The crowd erupted in cheers and thunderous applause.View attachment 2671918

...unrelated, but I feed odd... and oddly pleased... that someone other than a Jew or a Christian did that Moloch analogy.

 

[Super-Chevy454]

Here why the FDA allow the use of pzifer-chan for kids. The more you know.

FDA Committee Members Reviewing Pfizer Vaccine For Children Have Worked For Pfizer, Have Big Pfizer Connections | ZeroHedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

Authored by Patrick Howley via National File,

The FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee is holding a virtual meeting Tuesday October 26 to discuss authorizing a Pfizer-BioNTech Coronavirus vaccine for children between the ages of 5 to 11 years old.


This committee has a lot of sway with the FDA and their findings will be relevant, considering the Biden administration is getting ready to ship vaccines to elementary schools and California has already mandated the vaccine for schoolchildren pending federal authorization.

But the meeting roster shows that numerous members of the committee and temporary voting members have worked for Pfizer or have major connections to Pfizer.

Members include a former vice president of Pfizer Vaccines, a recent Pfizer consultant, a recent Pfizer research grant recipient, a man who mentored a current top Pfizer vaccine executive, a man who runs a center that gives out Pfizer vaccines, the chair of a Pfizer data group, a guy who was proudly photographed taking a Pfizer vaccine, and numerous people who are already on the record supporting Coronavirus vaccines for children. Meanwhile, recent FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb is on Pfizer’s board of directors.

HERE’S THE MEETING ROSTER: Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee October 26, 2021 Meeting Draft Roster.

Acting Chair Arnold S. Monto was a paid Pfizer consultant as recently as 2018.

Steven Pergam got the Pfizer vaccine: Building trust in safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines (fredhutch.org)

Committee member Archana Chatterjee worked on a research project related to vaccines for infants between 2018-2020, and the research project was sponsored by Pfizer.



Myron Levine has mentored some U.S. post-doctoral fellows, and one of his proteges happens to be Raphael Simon, the senior director of vaccine research and development at Pfizer.

 

[NoReturn]

PS: Get fucked femoids

Good lord. Fuck that.

 

[Nom Carver]

I remember I pretty much lost hope and thought the "New Normal" would be around even 100 years from now.

100 years of wearing muzzles, "social distancing", and "temporary" closures? Do not want

But yeah, things do seem to be improving. Hopefully the tyrants who pushed coronapanic are voted out.

The new normal will forever be the "new normal". It's not normal. And will inevitably end as soon as it can.

 

[Zbk3VmLfujjzjxBd43tL]

Here why the FDA allow the use of pzifer-chan for kids. The more you know.

FDA Committee Members Reviewing Pfizer Vaccine For Children Have Worked For Pfizer, Have Big Pfizer Connections | ZeroHedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

The FDA, brought to you by, Pfizer!

So who there DOESN'T have any connections to Pfizer? This is like the perfect illustration of what they mean by "regulatory capture."