Covid-19 News

Quote from JedRothwell

Here is some good advice about the vaccine:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/0…ine-side-effects-faq.html

Is the Second Dose Bad? If I Feel OK, Is It Working? Can I Take Tylenol?

It's not exactly related . . . Okay, it isn't related at all . . . but now that we have answered those questions, you may have other questions about cicada brood X, now coming out of the ground. See:

https://www.washingtonpost.com…as-come-out-2021-brood-x/

Bonus question: Why do cicadas come out in prime numbers of years? Anyone??? (Answer: to avoid predators. Look it up.)

Life saving treatment sitting on shelf.

Quote from JedRothwell

to avoid predators.

Prime numbers don't protect against Massopora fungus. ..

Cicads may survive 17 years to lose their ass happily..its more fun than Covid..

https://www.livescience.com/65…party-drugs-then-die.html

An Avalanche of Misdirection

The World Health Organization’s report on Covid-19’s origins dances around the likely timing of the first outbreak

https://www.city-journal.org/w…avalanche-of-misdirection

The World Health Organization released its joint report on the origins of Covid-19 on Tuesday, but historians of science will study it for decades—if for no other reason than the obvious discomfort of its 34-author team. Even before the report’s publication, the origins of the virus were a matter of dispute among current and former political and public health figures. In time, these controversies will be lost to history. What will remain is the truth: the original Covid-19 outbreak in Wuhan occurred well before the disease rose to international awareness and lockdowns began—most likely in October 2019.

Everyone understands that the lit fuse of Covid-19 was smoldering for some time before governments confronted a blazing global epidemic. Yet the WHO joint report inferentially rejects, then resurrects by caveat, the possibility of an October origin dozens of times. On page 47, for example, the report describes how, in January of this year, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention representatives asked 233 Wuhan health institutions to survey potential early cases of Covid-19 in their records from December 2019. But when the joint team established its work plan later that month, “it was agreed . . . to modify and extend the period for case searching to . . . between 1 October and 10 December 2019.”

Moments like these exemplify the tensions within the team of authors, which consisted of 17 Chinese and 17 international members. Throughout its 313 pages, the WHO report compiles contradictory sentences and paragraphs, caveats, and conspicuous omissions, suggesting that its authors could reach agreement only by disclosing information selectively as part of a technocratic arm-wrestling match.

But the data and evidence speak for themselves.

First, consider the genetic sequencing of coronavirus mutants. With only slight uncertainty, we can quantify the rate at which SARS-CoV-2 changes, and therefore calculate backward to date the common ancestor for all studied variants. On page 60 of the WHO report, the team summarizes 16 estimates in ten published studies, mostly ranging from August 2019 to December of that year. Oddly, the authors do not cite the most-detailed phylogenetic study, from University College London, in which British and French geneticists filtered 7,666 virus genomes for the 198 mutation sites most appropriate for clock analysis. This research team backtracked the last common ancestor of all coronavirus variants to an early infection between October 6 and December 11, 2019.., 2019..

Quote from JedRothwell

This 100% pure, unadulterated bullshit

Jed your either are a professional XXXX or suffer from debility. You can choose. The data is from an official database. Also CDC shows some hundred US deaths for the Pfizer vaccine alone. So you have to complain at CDC.

Quote from JedRothwell

he correct number of people killed and seriously injured worldwide by the COVID-19 vaccines is: 0 (zero).

Quote from Toffoli

3,964 Dead 162,610 Injuries: European Database of Adverse Drug Reactions for COVID-19 “Vaccines”

https://www.globalresearch.ca/…covid-19-vaccines/5740942

Sounds like a CNN or Fox News headline.

Did the 3,964 dead all die from complications from the vaccine injection OR, were there other physical comorbidities that may have impacted their health?

We’re the 162,610 “ injuries” simply side effects that soon vanished?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Quote from Roseland67

Sounds like a CNN or Fox News headline.

Deaths e.g. from Pfizer vaccine are always from complications. Same as death from corona. All people that die have comorbitivities like wrong genes... Not included are some 1000 Pfizer vaccine induced CoV-19 deaths that did get corona during the first 2 weeks after the jab where the immune system is very low..

Quote from Roseland67

We’re the 162,610 “ injuries” simply side effects that soon vanished?

This are severe side effects that did need some kind of medical treatment. Also people with live long damage are included.

With Ivermectin there would be 0 deaths and no live long damage. You can choose - as only idiots kill themselves.

Quote from Wyttenbach

With Ivermectin there would be 0 deaths and no live long damage.

More evidence from Argentina for Ivermectin

Prophylaxis

The EG received Ivermectin orally 2 tablets of 6 mg = 12 mg every 7 days, and Iota-Carrageenan 6 sprays per day for 4 weeks.

"The probability (Odds Ratio) of becoming ill with COVID-19 was significantly lower in EG(experimental group)

with values of 0.13, 95% 0.03 to 0.40; p-Value = 1.10⁻⁴,

this value indicates a protective effect of the IVER/IOTACRC in the EG

The number of subjects who were diagnosed with COVID-19 in EG was lower, only 4 of 117 (3.4%)

than subjects in CG: 25 of 117 (21.4%) (P-Value = 1.10⁻⁵).

Nineteen patients had mild symptoms, 4 were in EG whereas, 15 were in CG (control)(p-Value = 0.001).

Seven subjects were moderate, and 3 with severe diagnostics, all them in CG

Adverse effects??????

Regarding adverse effects, they were not reported in any case.

https://www.medrxiv.org/conten…03.26.21254398v1.full.pdf

"

Keep taking the ANTI-Bat until the pandemic disappears via herd immunity. Nothing further to say on the subject, It IS OVER.

AstraZeneca woes continue as the Netherlands halts vaccine

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/n…erna-uk-eu-144802736.html

The Netherlands announced that it will temporarily stop inoculating those under the age of 60 with the Oxford/AstraZeneca (AZN.L) vaccine, forcing the cancellation of 10,000 planned vaccinations.

Initially, announcing the news on Friday, the country said that it would temporarily halt vaccination until 7 Apri

However, on Saturday, it delivered another blow, announcing that it will pause all AstraZeneca jabs to avoid waste

The decision came after a woman died after receiving the jab, and amid fears over blood clotting issues, the country's health ministry said

The Dutch health ministry said that the country "must err on the side of caution" but that the vaccine was "safe" for use

"There should be no doubt whatsoever about the safety of vaccines. We must err on the side of caution, so it is wise to press the pause button now as a precaution," health minister, Hugo de Jonge, sai

The Netherlands reported five new cases of blood clotting in women aged between 25 and 65, while the UK's Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) identified 30 cases of rare blood clots events out of the 18.1 million doses administered up to 24 Marc

So far, seven people among the 30 cases have died in the UK. The cases include 22 reports of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) and eight other thrombosis events with low platelets

CVST clots stop blood draining from the brain properl

Despite the cases, the MHRA has said the benefits of the vaccine in preventing COVID-19 outweigh any risks and urged the public to continue coming forward for the ja

Similarly, the European Union's drug regulator declared the vaccine "safe and effective" for use. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) said the jab does not increase the overall incidence of blood clot

According to the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, the Netherlands administered just under 2.4 million doses by 28 March. This is only 12% of the adult population!s.b.y.. h.d.. . . l. s)% of the adult population

The vaccines target the s protein, the mutations of concern involve the n protein, oppppppppps

The Nucleocapsid protein triggers the main humoral immune response in COVID-19 patients

https://www.sciencedirect.com/…cle/pii/S0006291X21001248

Abstract

In order to control the COVID-19 pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection, serious progress has been made to identify infected patients and to detect patients with a positive immune response against the virus. Currently, attempts to generate a vaccine against the coronavirus are ongoing. To understand SARS-CoV-2 immunoreactivity, we compared the IgG antibody response against SARS-CoV-2 in infected versus control patients by dot blot using recombinant viral particle proteins: N (Nucleocapsid), M (Membrane) and S (Spike). In addition, we used different protein fragments of the N and S protein to map immune epitopes. Most of the COVID-19 patients presented a specific immune response against the full length and fragments of the N protein and, to lesser extent, against a fragment containing amino acids 300–685 of the S protein. In contrast, immunoreactivity against other S protein fragments or the M protein was low. This response is specific for COVID-19 patients as very few of the control patients displayed immunoreactivity, likely reflecting an immune response against other coronaviruses. Altogether, our results may help develop method(s) for measuring COVID-19 antibody response, selectivity of methods detecting such SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and vaccine development.

this letter explains why the vaccines are less effective to the new Variants. Targeting the spike protein was a gamble and not a good one as these Vaccines will be useless n 6 months

https://jvi.asm.org/content/94/13/e00647-20

The Nucleocapsid Protein of SARS–CoV-2: a Target for Vaccine Development

LETTER

During the current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS–CoV-2), there has been an unprecedented level of global collaboration that has led to a rapid characterization of SARS–CoV-2 (1). Its sequence shares 79.6% identity to SARS–CoV (1, 2), the infectious virus that caused an epidemic in 2003 (2, 3). SARS–CoV-2 has a single-stranded, plus-sense, RNA genome of approximately 30 kb, which includes five major open reading frames encoding nonstructural replicase polyproteins and structural proteins (1), namely, spike (S) (4–6), envelope (E), membrane (M), and nucleocapsid (N) (7), and they are in the same order and of approximately the same sizes as those in SARS-CoV.

The SARS–CoV-2 S protein is being used as the leading target antigen in vaccine development (8, 9). However, the complex molecular details of viral entry may lead to complications with the vaccine response, similar to those seen with HIV type 1 (HIV-1) Env protein vaccine efforts (10). The SARS–CoV-2 S gene has 76% amino acid similarity to the SARS-CoV S gene (11), and nonsynonymous mutations developed in the S protein as the SARS-CoV epidemic progressed (12, 13). In contrast, the N gene is more conserved and stable, with 90% amino acid homology and fewer mutations over time (2, 3, 11, 14–16). N proteins of many coronaviruses are highly immunogenic and are expressed abundantly during infection (17). High levels of IgG antibodies against N have been detected in sera from SARS patients (18), and the N protein is a representative antigen for the T-cell response in a vaccine setting, inducing SARS-specific T-cell proliferation and cytotoxic activity (19, 20). We have already shown that the middle or C-terminal region of the SARS-CoV N protein is important for eliciting antibodies against SARS-CoV during the immune response (21–23).

New reports have additionally shown that the crystal structure of the SARS–CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein is similar to those of previously described coronavirus N proteins, but their surface electrostatic potential characteristics are distinct (7). Sheikh et al. studied the factors influencing N gene variations among 13 coronaviruses and how these affect virus-host relationships, reporting a high AT% and low GC% in the nucleotide contents of SARS coronavirus (24). In this issue, Cong et al. (17) used a mouse hepatitis virus (MHV) model to show that the viral nucleocapsid (N) protein contributes to forming helical ribonucleoproteins during the packaging of the RNA genome, regulating viral RNA synthesis during replication and transcription and modulating metabolism in infected subjects. This study complements others that have shown N to have multiple functions (25). It is becoming more evident just how critical this protein is for multiple steps of the viral life cycle. These reports offer important and timely insights relevant to the SARS–CoV-2 N protein, a vaccine target that has some distinct advantages over other potential SARS–CoV-2 antigens. Because of the conservation of the N protein sequence, the expanding knowledge of its genetics and biochemistry, and its strong immunogenicity, the N protein of SARS–CoV-2 should be strongly considered as a vaccine candidate for SARS–CoV-2.

Anti bat

As the world looks for an effective medicine against SARS-CoV-2, a herb widely used in Ayurveda provides an exciting new lead.

https://www.deccanherald.com/a…inst-covid-19-970441.html

As the world looks for an effective medicine against SARS-CoV-2, a herb widely used in Ayurveda provides an exciting new lead.Scientists at the National Brain Research Centre, Manesar have found that an ingredient in Mulethi (Yashthimadhu in Sanskrit) has the potential to emerge as a drug candidate against SARS-CoV-2 as it lowers the severity of the disease and brings down viral replication.

More than 15 months after Covid-19 pandemic hit the world, scientists are still to discover a medicine to counter the rampaging virus though several vaccines have been rolled out.

The doctors currently manage patients with a handful of repurposed medicines with a varying degree of efficacy.With support from the Department of Biotechnology, the NBRC team last year began looking for a new therapeutic against Covid-19 in the middle of the lockdown period.

When the search was narrowed down to glycyrrhizin because of its wonderful anti-inflammatory properties, the researchers carried out a series of experiments to check its potential against SARS-CoV-2.

In the laboratory, the scientists expressed specific viral proteins in human lung epithelial cells. The viral proteins triggered inflammation in these cells, but treatment with glycyrrhizin clears the inflammation in such cells. The untreated cells succumbed to inflammation.

“By dampening cytokine storm (a severe immune reaction triggered by serious Covid-19 cases), glycyrrhizin can reduce the severity of the infection,” NBRC senior scientist Ellora Sen who led the team told DH.

Subsequently, when Sen with her fellow researchers Pruthvi Gowda, Shruti Patrick, Shanker Datt, Rajesh Joshi, and Kumar Kumawat analysed the molecule further, they found that besides inhibiting the cytokine storm, glycyrrhizin also reduces viral replication by 90%.

While Mulethi (Yashtimadhu) is widely prescribed for lung ailments, chronic fevers and respiratory tract inflammation in Ayurveda, glycyrrhizin is used in the treatment of chronic hepatitis B and C.

“Given its safety profile and tolerability, it might constitute a viable therapeutic option in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection,” she said. The team is now looking for partners to carry forward the research into the preclinical stage.

The study has been published in Cytokine, the official journal of the International Cytokine and Interferon Society

US Grant To Wuhan Lab To Enhance Bat-Based Coronaviruses Was Never Scrutinized By HHS Review Board, NIH Says

https://dailycaller.com/2021/0…i-review-board-wuhan-lab/

The National Institutes of Health has “systematically thwarted” government oversight of dangerous pathogen research, Rutgers University professor of chemical biology Richard H. Ebright told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

The P3CO Review Framework was created in 2017 after a three-year pause on government funding of research that intentionally makes pathogens more deadly or transmissible.

An NIH grant that involved the modification of bat-based coronaviruses and the transfer of $600,000 to the Wuhan Institute of Virology prior to the pandemic bypassed P3CO review because the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, led by Anthony Fauci, didn’t flag the project for review.

An oversight board created to scrutinize research that would enhance highly dangerous pathogens did not review a National Institutes of Health grant that funded a lab in Wuhan, China, to genetically modify bat-based coronaviruses

Experts say the NIH grant describes scientists conducting gain-of-function research, a risky area of study that, in this case, made SARS-like viruses even more contagious. Federal funding for gain-of-function research was temporarily suspended in 2014 due to widespread scientific concerns it risked leaking supercharged viruses into the human population.

Federal funding for gain-of-function research was resumed in late 2017 after the Potential Pandemic Pathogens Control and Oversight (P3CO) Framework was formed within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The review board is tasked with critically evaluating whether grants that involve enhancing dangerous pathogens, such as coronaviruses, are worth the risks and that proper safeguards are in place.

But the NIH subagency that awarded the grant to the nonprofit group EcoHealth Alliance to study Chinese bat coronaviruses opted against forwarding it to the P3CO committee, an NIH spokesperson told the Daily Caller News Foundation, meaning the research received federal funding without an independent review by the HHS board.

This is a systemic problem,” Rutgers University professor of chemical biology Richard H. Ebright told the DCNF, referring to the loophole in the review framework.

Ebright said the offices of the director for the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) — the subagency that funded EcoHealth — and the NIH have “systematically thwarted–indeed systematically nullified–the HHS P3CO Framework by declining to flag and forward proposals for review.”

Dr. Anthony Fauci leads the NIAID and Dr. Francis S. Collins heads the NIH.

An NIH spokesperson said its subagency did not flag the EcoHealth grant for independent review by the HHS review committee.

“After careful review of the grant, NIAID determined research in the grant was not gain-of-function research because it did not involve the enhancement of the pathogenicity or transmissibility of the viruses studied,” the spokesperson told the DCNF.We would not submit research proposals that did not meet the definition, because otherwise we would need to submit everything,” the spokesperson said.

How Federal Oversight Of Gain-Of-Function Research Is Bypassed

The Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) is at the center of widespread speculation that COVID-19 could have accidentally leaked from a lab into the human population. EcoHealth’s grant to study bat-based coronaviruses in China included the transfer of $600,000 to the WIV.

Had EcoHealth’s grant been subjected to P3CO review, an HHS panel would have independently evaluated the grant and, if necessary, recommended additional biocontainment measures to prevent potential lab leaks — or even recommended that the grant be denied entirely.

The WIV is a biosafety level 4 laboratory, the highest level biocontainment certification, but U.S. Embassy officials issued two diplomatic cables warning about inadequate safety at the lab after a visit in 2018. One of the cables warned that the lab’s work on bat-based coronaviruses represented the risk of a new SARS-like pandemic, according to The Washington Post.

An annex to the World Health Organization’s COVID-19 origin report released Tuesday describes the WIV’s work using “recombinant viruses” in tests involving bat coronaviruses, which Ebright said are descriptions of gain-of-function research.

The U.S. government paused funding of gain-of-function research in 2014 after lab workers were accidentally exposed to anthrax by the Centers for Disease Control, according to The New York Times. The incident came on the heels of widespread scientific outcry in 2011 when it was revealed that laboratories in Wisconsin and the Netherlands were intentionally modifying the H5N1 bird flu virus so it could more effectively jump between ferrets.

Federally funded gain-of-function research resumed in 2017 after new oversight procedures were implemented. The review framework split oversight responsibilities between two groups — the funding agency (the NIAID in the case of the EcoHealth grant) and the P3CO Review Committee, an interdisciplinary group convened by HHS.

The committee is responsible for recommending whether a research grant involving gain-of-function needs to include any additional risk mitigation measures, an HHS spokesperson told the DCNF. But the committee is kept in the dark on any grant until the funding agency flags one for its review.

The P3CO Framework doesn’t require the HHS review committee to take a second look at the NIAID’s determination following its review that the EcoHealth grant did not involve gain-of-function research.

The NIH spokesperson said it would be “misleading and inaccurate” to suggest NIAID was required to notify the HHS review committee of its determination.

An HHS spokesperson confirmed that the department’s P3CO Review Committee only reviews research grants that are flagged for additional review by funding agencies such as NIAID. The spokesperson did not answer when asked if the review committee had knowledge of the EcoHealth grant.

Ecohealth has a history of manipulating bat-based coronaviruses. The group’s president, Peter Daszak, said as much during a podcast interview filmed in Singapore just weeks before the first reported cases of COVID-19 in Wuhan in December 2019.

“You can manipulate them in the lab pretty easily,” Daszak said. “Spike protein drives a lot of what happens with the coronavirus. Zoonotic risk. So you can get the sequence, you can build the protein — and we work with Ralph Baric at [the University of North Carolina] to do this — and insert the backbone of another virus and do some work in the lab.”

Ebright told the DCNF that NIAID was wrong to determine that the EcoHealth grant did not involve enhancing the transmissibility of Chinese bat-based coronaviruses. He said the project’s abstract for the 2019 fiscal year, which referenced “in vitro and in vivo infection experiments” on coronaviruses, “*unequivocally* required risk-benefit review under the HHS P3CO Framework.”

Other scientists have said EcoHealth’s NIH-funded work in China involved gain-of-function research on bat-based coronaviruses.

“It is hard to overemphasize that the central logic of this grant was to test the pandemic potential of SARS-related bat coronaviruses by making ones with pandemic potential, either through genetic engineering or passaging, or both,” Drs. Jonathan Latham and Allison Wilson wrote in June.

The NIH terminated the EcoHealth grant in April 2020. NIH deputy director for extramural research, Michael Lauer, told the group in a letter that the agency “does not believe that the current project outcomes align with the program goals and agency priorities.”

Fauci said during a hearing before the House Energy & Commerce Committee in June that the EcoHealth grant was canceled “because the NIH was told to cancel it.”

“I don’t know the reason, but we were told to cancel it,” Fauci said.

Fauci told Politico following the hearing that former President Donald Trump’s White House ordered the NIH to cancel the grant.

HHS Official Acknowledged Government Oversight Of GOF Research Is Flawed

The only known member of the HHS P3CO Review Committee is its chairman, Chris Hassell, the senior science advisor for the HHS Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response. He disclosed his involvement in a January 2020 talk before the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity.

Hassell said during the talk that the current definition for a potential pandemic pathogen is “very narrow … which has resulted in only getting a few influenza-related proposals” for the committee’s review.

“I’ll just probably be more frank than maybe appropriate — I think that’s too narrow,” said Hassell, who then suggested that the government could be funding gain-of-function research that his committee hasn’t vetted.

“I think that could be revisited, and again there could be some definition issues,” Hassell said.

When gain-of-function funding was paused in 2014, 21 research projects were halted. But the NIH created exceptions for 10 of those, according to The New York Times.

After the funding continued in 2017, only two projects have been approved in accordance with the P3CO Framework. Both projects deal with the influenza virus, according to the NIH.

It’s unclear how many research grants have been reviewed under the framework. An NIH spokesperson said they don’t comment or discuss unfunded grant applications.

It’s also unclear who else serves on the HHS P3CO Review Committee. Hassell said in January 2020 that the committee is comprised only of federal employees, but said it could be detrimental to their work to release their names.

“As much as it would be good to publicize the individual names, which has been suggested, if that chills anyone being willing to serve on that committee, that would be detrimental,” Hassell said.

An HHS spokesperson said Hassell was unavailable for comment

Across Asia-Pacific and Europe, Covid-19 has thrown up another risk – an addiction to lockdowns

Experts say the normalisation of extraordinary Covid-19 regulations raises questions about how readily authorities may embrace illiberal responses to future crises

From Singapore to Australia, governments have also been criticised for using the pandemic to tackle issues not related to public health

https://www.scmp.com/week-asia…urope-covid-19-has-thrown

During the early days of the Covid-19 pandemic, authorities around the world asked people to put their lives on hold for a period of days or weeks to “flatten the curve” and save lives.More than a year into the global crisis, governments continue to enforce lockdowns and other restrictions in response to Covid-19, while sluggish vaccine roll-outs cloud expectations for a swift return to normal. For public health and civil liberties experts, the normalisation of extraordinary pandemic regulations – after the first lockdowns in Wuhan, China, initially sparked international alarm – raises questions about how readily authorities may embrace illiberal responses to future crises, amid shifting public perceptions of the trade-offs between safety and freedom.

Philippines’ renewed coronavirus lockdown in Manila likely to sharpen criticism of government’s response to pandemic

“Populations have changed their views of the role of government and people’s freedoms,” said Lawrence Gostin, director of the O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law at Georgetown University in Washington.“The pandemic has made them more accepting of harsh crackdowns that they previously would have resisted. I think this could be a long-term problem as political leaders gain power and infringe on human rights in the guise of an emergency. What is at stake is not only freedom, but also accountability and the rule of law.”

Nearly a third of the experts surveyed said that we have 9 months or less before the current vaccines are rendered ineffective.

https://www.healthline.com/hea…ooster-shot-in-the-future

Why Experts Think You’ll Need a COVID-19 Booster Shot in the Future

A recent survey of epidemiologists, virologists, and infectious disease specialists found that many worry new mutations of the coronavirus could render current vaccines useless within a year.

Pharma manufacturers are currently in the process of developing booster shots to address specific variants.

As of April 5, 167 million vaccine doses have been administered in the United States.

As COVID-19 vaccinations increase drastically in the United States, experts are keeping a wary eye on the rising number of coronavirus variants.

A recent survey of epidemiologists, virologists, and infectious disease specialists found that many worry new mutations of the coronavirus could render current vaccines useless within a year.

The survey was conducted by the People’s Vaccine Alliance. It polled 77 experts from top academic institutions from 28 countries.

Nearly a third of the experts surveyed said that we have 9 months or less before the current vaccines are rendered ineffective.

Fewer than 1 in 8 said the vaccines would remain effective, despite mutations.

And 88 percent said that low vaccine coverage in many countries increases the chances for vaccine-resistant mutations to occur.

“This is a big concern, especially since we are still behind on our vaccine efforts,” said Dr. Purvi Parikh, an allergist and immunologist at NYU Langone Health. “We need there to be 70 to 80 percent of the population vaccinated before we can let our guard down with variants emerging. The virus can still replicate and mutate.”

As of April 5, 167 million vaccine doses have been administered in the United States, which translates to 32 percent of the population.

“The concept of COVID-19 ‘booster shots’ after initial vaccination is a reality we should accept,” added Dr. Robert Glatter, emergency physician at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York.

“With the inevitable rise of variants, we will need to continually update COVID vaccinations such that an annual booster shot will be required in the foreseeable future,” he said.

Are COVID-19 booster shots in development?

Yes. Pharma manufacturers are currently in the process of developing booster shots to address specific variants, like the variants first detected in the United Kingdom (B.1.1.7), South Africa (B. 1.351), and Brazil (P.1).

Like other viruses, the coronavirus undergoes mutations over timeTrusted Source, causing concern about the effectiveness of vaccines against these variants.

When the virus replicates it may change slightly, resulting in a mutation. Not all mutations are bad or have any effect on transmissibility or disease severity.

However, sometimes these mutations can allow the virus to evade certain types of antibodies.

“The B. 1.1.7 is the most concerning of all the variants circulating in the U.S. at the time,” Glatter said. “It is not only more transmissible but also more [deadly] and represents at least a third of all current cases in the U.S.”

According to a studyTrusted Source published in Nature, this variant is associated with a 55 percent greater risk of death compared with other variants.

“COVID vaccine development continues to progress,” said Dr. Miriam Smith, chief of infectious disease at Long Island Jewish Forest Hills in New York. “The evolution of virus mutations in a population at risk for infection is being addressed with reformulated or additional dosing of vaccines to enhance the host immune response.”

New COVID variants have changed the game, and vaccines will not be enough. We need global 'maximum suppression'

https://theconversation.com/am…aximum-suppression-157870

At the end of 2020, there was a strong hope that high levels of vaccination would see humanity finally gain the upper hand over SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. In an ideal scenario, the virus would then be contained at very low levels without further societal disruption or significant numbers of deaths.

But since then, new “variants of concern” have emerged and spread worldwide, putting current pandemic control efforts, including vaccination, at risk of being derailed.

Put simply, the game has changed, and a successful global rollout of current vaccines by itself is no longer a guarantee of victory.

No one is truly safe from COVID-19 until everyone is safe. We are in a race against time to get global transmission rates low enough to prevent the emergence and spread of new variants. The danger is that variants will arise that can overcome the immunity conferred by vaccinations or prior infection.

What’s more, many countries lack the capacity to track emerging variants via genomic surveillance. This means the situation may be even more serious than it appears.

Quote from Fm1

Nearly a third of the experts surveyed said that we have 9 months or less before the current vaccines are rendered ineffective.

Pfizer soon is ready with the 3 vaccination all will need. Now in phase II trial.

But this only happens because criminals (FM/R/J mafia) did take over the government and the institutions (CDC,FDA,WHO). Normally you fight a virus by drugs - to prevent mutations - and when the story is over you start vaccination among a healthy population!!!

Stop bribing governments and allow Ivermectin.