Covid-19 News

Quote from RobertBryant

Some poorer /smaller countries like Slovakia/Czechia

Thailand pop =60 million used Sinovac .. but there wasn't much around and they have low bargaining power with Pfizer ..

so they approved andrographis paniculata..or king of bitters, a plant remedy..

seems to have immunomodulatory effects..

My friend Don has a bottle made in Australia just in case..he gets Covid

He said the Thai government really had no choice at the time..

no good for prevention...since prolonged usage can harm the liver..

A promising development in the fight against Covid

After five days of treatment, more than 300 Covid-19 patients have been cured by fah talai jone (andrographis paniculata) or green chireta.

www.bangkokpost.com

BBC daily Covid stats shows vaccines working.

I thought this passage was very interesting.

"Recent data suggests that the vaccination programme has reduced hospital admissions and deaths, with a fewer than one in 1,000 infections now estimated to result in death - compared with one in 60 during last winter."

Nonetheless we still have 5,608 patients in hospital suffering from Covid.

Each death is a tragedy and we continue to see examples each day of deaths that need not have happened.

Chef loses parents and brother from Covid after jab refusal.

Lawyer in 50s dies from Covid after refusing vaccine

Quote from ZenoOfElea

"Recent data suggests that the vaccination programme has reduced hospital admissions and deaths, with a fewer than one in 1,000 infections now estimated to result in death - compared with one in 60 during last winter."

This is very different among countries. CoV-19 is a disease of the aged population. Younger healthy never had anything to fear as the CFR rate was far below (<0.001%) what is claimed above.

So if we talk about vaccine success then its only among the old and sick ones. Why do fat, diabetes II people still believe they are normal? This is how big pharma sells the drugs. With XXX you can live a normal live...

Vaccine damage among younger is gigantic so far already dozen of kids have been killed. The severe odd ratio for kids is at least 100x larger than for adults.

Worst. RNA vaccines make you the ideal asymptomatic super spreader - exactly what we wanted to have.

Fake news: Vaccines stop the pandemics

Fake news: Vaccines prevent an infection

Fake news: Vaccines are fully tested

Fake news: Vaccines are safe: So far > 500'000 serious adverse reactions > 50'000 deaths...

SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern have acquired mutations associated with an increased spike cleavage

SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern have acquired mutations associated with an increased spike cleavage

For efficient cell entry and membrane fusion, SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) protein needs to be cleaved at two different sites, S1/S2 and S2’ by different cellular…

www.biorxiv.org

Abstract

For efficient cell entry and membrane fusion, SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) protein needs to be cleaved at two different sites, S1/S2 and S2’ by different cellular proteases such as furin and TMPRSS2. Polymorphisms in the S protein can affect cleavage, viral transmission, and pathogenesis. Here, we investigated the role of arising S polymorphisms in vitro and in vivo to understand the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants. First, we showed that the S:655Y is selected after in vivo replication in the mink model. This mutation is present in the Gamma Variant Of Concern (VOC) but it also occurred sporadically in early SARS-CoV-2 human isolates. To better understand the impact of this polymorphism, we analyzed the in vitro properties of a panel of SARS-CoV-2 isolates containing S:655Y in different lineage backgrounds. Results demonstrated that this mutation enhances viral replication and spike protein cleavage. Viral competition experiments using hamsters infected with WA1 and WA1-655Y isolates showed that the variant with 655Y became dominant in both direct infected and direct contact animals. Finally, we investigated the cleavage efficiency and fusogenic properties of the spike protein of selected VOCs containing different mutations in their spike proteins. Results showed that all VOCs have evolved to acquire an increased spike cleavage and fusogenic capacity despite having different sets of mutations in the S protein. Our study demonstrates that the S:655Y is an important adaptative mutation that increases viral cell entry, transmission, and host susceptibility. Moreover, SARS-COV-2 VOCs showed a convergent evolution that promotes the S protein processing.

Discussion

Emerging SARS-CoV-2 VOCs contain novel spike polymorphisms with unclear functional consequences on epidemiology, viral fitness, and antigenicity. In this study, we evaluated the impact of different spike mutations on viral infection, pathogenicity, and in vivo transmission. We found that in the mink animal model the 655Y spike substitution is selected after infection with the WA1 isolate. Phylogenetic analysis of genome sequences collected worldwide showed an early sporadic appearance of S:655Y during the first pandemic wave in New York in March 2020, and the presence of this mutation in several posterior lineages, including SARS-CoV-2 Gamma variant, pointing to a potential role in adaptation and evolution. To better understand the impact of this polymorphism, we isolated and in vitro characterized a panel of SARS-CoV-2 viruses bearing the 655Y spike mutation. Our results demonstrated that S:655Y enhances the viral growth and the spike protein processing required for optimal cell entry and viral-host membrane fusion. In addition, we performed viral competition and transmission experiments in the hamster animal model and showed that S:655Y became predominant in both direct infected and direct contact animals. Finally, we showed that VOCs converge to gain spike cleavage efficiency and fusogenic potential.

Here, we demonstrate that viruses containing the H655Y polymorphism confer a growth advantage in both VeroE6 and human-like Vero-TMPRSS2 cells. Interestingly, the early human isolate NY7 harboring the 655Y mutation also showed higher replication in human Caco-2 cells. However, it is known that other mutations outside of the S gene could be impacting viral replication and infection (37, 38). Therefore, we confirmed the S:655Y mutation alone was responsible for the enhanced growth and spike cleavage phenotype when comparing WA1 wild type and WA1-655Y isolates. These variants have the same viral protein amino acid sequence except for the amino acid present at position 655 of the spike. Since most of the isolates used in this study contain a constellation of mutations across the genome that could increase viral fitness, comparison of both viruses in parallel allowed to detect differences in growth and spike cleavage that can be attributed only to 655Y polymorphism. S:655Y is present in the S1 spike domain outside of the RBD and has been associated with a decrease of the neutralizing activity when targeted by some monoclonal antibodies(26). However, H655Y has been also naturally selected in cats and mice suggesting a beneficial impact of this substitution in widen viral host range and susceptibility (27, 28). Our data further supports this argument because we also found that S:655Y is selected after replication in minks, a natural host for SARS-CoV-2. Besides, when we assessed the viral transmission efficiency of 655Y versus the ancestor 655H in competition experiments in the hamster model, we also found that 655Y becomes more prevalent, as the bulk of infectious viruses recovered from the infected animals harbored this mutation, except for one hamster. This indicates that S:655Y can overcome S:655H in vivo.

Intense worldwide surveillance has established that SARS-CoV-2 variants are constantly emerging. In particular, the spike protein has shown high plasticity (6). Most of the spike mutations associated with a decrease in neutralization by antibodies against earlier viruses are located in the RBD or N-terminal domain (NTD), which are critical for binding and interacting with the ACE2 cellular receptor. While mutations at these domains may impact SARS-CoV-2 vaccine efficacy, it is also vital to characterize other mutations that might explain the gain in transmissibility observed for the VOCs. Since the Gamma variant that emerged in November 2020 also harbors the 655Y polymorphism (Figure 5A), we decided to investigate its phenotype in vitro. Similar to the earlier S:655Y isolates, this variant also exhibited an increase in spike processing efficiency. More importantly, this phenotype was also confirmed in all emerging VOCs analyzed when infections were performed in the Vero-TMPRSS2 cells indicating that additional mutations within S confer this advantage. Most likely, the spike mutations P681H in Alpha variant-first identified in United Kingdom-and P681R harbored by Kappa and Delta variants-first emerged in India-allowed this enhanced S cleavage. Interestingly, for these variants, optimal cleavage appeared to be dependent on TMPRSS2 protease activity (Figure 5D).

To confirm the cleavage at the putative furin cleavage site, we determined the relative abundance of the furin cleaved peptide produced after the 685-terminal arginine. We observed higher amount of cleavage at this position as compared to the previous circulating viruses, although lower amounts were detected in Alpha, Kappa and Delta variants as compared to the viruses harboring the 655Y mutation. This suggests that a change in residue 681 may introduce an additional cleavage site, perhaps recognized by TMPRSS2 protease that enhances spike cleavage of these variants and produces an additional cleavage peptide different in size and amino acid sequences. Further research is needed to confirm the existence of a recognition site for additional proteases different than furin in the amino acid motif SH/RRRAR when the P681S/H mutation is present. In any case, all the VOCs analyzed proved to be strong syncytia inducers which could potentially indicate a role in pathogenesis and lung damage mediated by TMPRSS2 activity after infection in humans (39). On the other hand, the Beta variant, which was first identified in South Africa in October 2020, does not contain a change in the furin cleavage site or in the spike position 655, but instead a change in the residue found at position 701. Although this residue is found around 20 amino acids away from the furin cleavage motif, we found similar results when the extent of the spike processing was investigated (Figure 4A-E; 5D-G). It is important to note that the VOCs investigated in here independently acquired S mutations around the furin cleavage site that became epidemiologically more prevalent in humans. When we investigated the spatial distribution by superimposition of the crystal structure of the S protein, we found that these highly prevalent polymorphisms were all located in close proximity to the furin site loop (Figure 4A). Any substitution in this protein domain is likely to have an effect on the structural integrity and dynamics, potentially impacting the accessibility of the polybasic site to the relevant protease and likely facilitating the recognition by furin.

In summary, our study demonstrates that the 655Y spike polymorphism, present in the Gamma VOC, is a key determinant of SARS-CoV-2 infection and transmission. The selection and increasing frequency of S:655Y in the human population and following SARS-CoV-2 infection of different animal models such as cats, mice and minks suggests this mutation is associated with an improvement of viral fitness and adaptation to diverse hosts through an increased cleavage of the spike protein. Additionally, we provide evidence of adaptative mutations that SARS-CoV-2 VOCs have been acquired and are associated with an increased spike protein processing. This has significant implications in the understanding of the viral determinants that can impact viral transmissibility, viral evolution, and possibly SARS-CoV-2 antigenicity and pathogenicity.

I can't cope with multiple inputs': Qualitative study of the lived experiences of 'brain fog' after Covid-19

Abstract

Objective To explore the lived experience of brain fog i.e the wide variety of neurocognitive symptoms that can follow Covid-19. Design and setting UK wide longitudinal qualitative study comprising online interviews and focus groups with email follow-up. Method 50 participants were recruited from a previous qualitative study of the lived experience of long Covid (n = 23) and online support groups for people with persistent neurological problems following Covid-19 (n = 27). In remotely held focus groups, participants were invited to describe their cognitive symptoms and comment on others accounts. Individuals were followed up by email 4-6 months later. Data were audiotaped, transcribed, anonymised and coded in NVIVO. They were analysed by an interdisciplinary team with expertise in general practice, clinical neuroscience, the sociology of chronic illness and service delivery, and checked by three people with lived experience of brain fog. Results 84% of participants were female and 60% were White British ethnicity. Most had never been hospitalised for Covid-19. Qualitative analysis revealed the following themes: mixed views on the appropriateness of the term brain fog; rich descriptions of the experience of neurocognitive impairments (especially executive function, attention, memory and language), accounts of how the illness fluctuated, and in some but not all cases, resolved, over time; the profound psychosocial impact of the condition on relationships, personal and professional identity; self-perceptions of guilt, shame and stigma; strategies used for self-management; challenges accessing and navigating the healthcare system; and participants search for physical mechanisms to explain their symptoms. Conclusion These qualitative findings complement research into the epidemiology and underlying pathophysiological mechanisms for neurological symptoms after Covid-19. Services for such patients should include: an ongoing therapeutic relationship with a clinician who engages with the illness in its personal, social and occupational context as well as specialist services that are accessible, easily navigable, comprehensive, and interdisciplinary.

PDF available

We should not dismiss the possibility of eradicating COVID-19: comparisons with smallpox and polio

Summary box

With the success of public health and social measures (PHSMs) at eliminating COVID-19 in several jurisdictions, combined with the arrival of safe and highly effective vaccines, the question is raised: is global eradication of COVID-19 feasible?

Our scoring for eradicability suggests that COVID-19 eradication might be slightly more feasible than for polio (although only two of three serotypes eradicated to date), but much less so than smallpox.

The main challenges are probably around achieving high vaccination coverage and the potential need to update vaccine designs. Yet an advantage for COVID-19 eradication, over that for smallpox and polio, is that PHSMs can complement vaccination. There is also very high global interest in COVID-19 control due to the massive scale of the health, social and economic burden.

There is a need for a more formal expert review of the feasibility and desirability of attempting COVID-19 eradication by the WHO or coalitions of national health agencies.

Introduction

Elimination and eradication of disease are among the ultimate goals of public health1 (for definitions see box 1). Vaccination has globally eradicated smallpox, rinderpest (a cattle disease that caused famines2) and two of the three serotypes of poliovirus.3 Three other vaccine-preventable diseases are eradicable globally with current technology,4 with measles the leading contender and with MMR vaccination potentially eradicating mumps and rubella at the same time. Some other diseases are close to being eradicated but without use of vaccines such as with the Guinea Worm Eradication Programme.5 Similarly, China has recently eliminated malaria with a range of non-vaccination tools, to become the 40th country to be certified malaria-free.6

Box 1 Definitions of key disease control terms from the Dahlem Workshop19

Control: The reduction of disease incidence, prevalence, morbidity or mortality to a locally acceptable level as a result of deliberate efforts; continued intervention measures are required to maintain the reduction. Example: diarrhoeal diseases.

Elimination of disease: Reduction to zero of the incidence of a specified disease in a defined geographical area as a result of deliberate efforts; continued intervention measures are required. Example: neonatal tetanus.

Elimination of infections: Reduction to zero of the incidence of infection caused by a specific agent in a defined geographical area as a result of deliberate efforts; continued measures to prevent re-establishment of transmission are required. Example: measles, poliomyelitis.

Eradication: Permanent reduction to zero of the worldwide incidence of infection caused by a specific agent as a result of deliberate efforts; intervention measures are no longer needed. Example: smallpox.

Extinction: The specific infectious agent no longer exists in nature or in the laboratory. Example: none.

Is COVID-19 also potentially eradicable? Or is it inevitably endemic having established itself across the world? Commentators have focused on the challenges of reaching population (herd) immunity,7 yet population immunity is not essential and was not achieved for smallpox, which was eradicated through ring vaccination.

As proof of concept for COVID-19 eradication, several countries and jurisdictions have achieved elimination without vaccination, using new and established public health and social measures (PHSMs) (eg, border control, physical distancing, mask wearing, testing and contact tracing supported by genome sequencing).8 Successful jurisdictions have included those with vast land borders such as China, high population densities such as Hong Kong,9 but also island nations such as Iceland and New Zealand, although with occasional outbreaks from border control failures that have been brought under control.10

Comparisons with smallpox and polio for eradicability

To make comparisons between smallpox, polio, and COVID-19, we consider established technical factors that favour the eradicability of vaccine-preventable diseases, published in 19994 (table 1). To this list we added additional technical, socio-political, and economic factors that are likely to favour achieving eradication. On our scoring for eradicability using a three-point relative scale across 17 variables, the mean (total) scores were smallpox at 2.7 (43/48), then COVID-19 at 1.6 (28/51), and finally polio at 1.5 (26/51) (table 1). While our analysis is a preliminary effort with various subjective components, it does seem to put COVID-19 eradicability into the realms of being possible, especially in terms of technical feasibility.

VIEW INLINE VIEW POPUP

Table 1

Factors favouring the eradicability of vaccine-preventable diseases with comparisons between smallpox, polio and COVID-19 (graded for the relative strength of favourability in supporting eradication*)

The technical challenges of COVID-19 eradicability (relative to smallpox and polio) include poor vaccine acceptance, and the emergence of more variants that may be more transmissible or have greater immuno-evasion, potentially allowing vaccine escape so they can outrun global vaccination programmes.11 Nevertheless, there are of course limits to viral evolution, so we can expect the virus to eventually reach peak fitness12 and new vaccines can be formulated.

Other challenges would be the high upfront costs (for vaccination and upgrading health systems), and achieving the necessary international cooperation in the face of ‘vaccine nationalism’ and government-mediated ‘antiscience aggression’.13

Another concern is the risk of the persistence of the pandemic virus in non-human animal reservoirs. However, wild animal infections with SARS-CoV-2 appear to be fairly rare to date,14 and when companion animals become infected they do not appear to re-infect humans.15 Infections among farmed animals could potentially be controlled by quarantining and culling. Furthermore, COVID-19 vaccines for domestic animals are being developed (as they were for the eradication of rinderpest2) and oral vaccine in bait has effected successful regional elimination of rabies in wild foxes.16 Furthermore, the problem of Guinea worm infection in domestic dogs has not stopped the global eradication efforts for that disease,5 since various non-vaccination control measures can be successfully used in dogs.

On the other hand, the massive scale of the health, social and economic burden from COVID-19 in most of the world means that there is unprecedented global interest in disease control and massive investment in vaccination against the pandemic. There is also the advantage for COVID-19 eradication over these other diseases in that PHSMs can be highly effective and can complement vaccination. The upgrading of health systems to facilitate COVID-19 eradication could also have large co-benefits for controlling other diseases (and indeed eradicating measles as well). Collectively these factors might mean that an ‘expected value’ analysis could ultimately estimate that the benefits outweigh the costs, even if eradication takes many years and has a significant risk of failure.

Potential next steps

The preliminary assessment we have performed indicates the value of further work on the potential for the eradication of COVID-19. This work would ideally be done by the WHO, but failing that it could be done by coalitions of national-level agencies working collaboratively. Any expert review needs to consider two main questions: (1) Could sustained COVID-19 eradication be technically feasible with currently available technologies? (2) Should eradication be attempted based on its desirability in terms of benefits versus costs (which provides the context of opportunity cost) and the risk of failure? It should also take a more sophisticated approach than we have by giving the different categories weights and also by making comparisons with measles, where elimination has been achieved at times for large regions (eg, the Americas17) and which is potentially eradicable.5 Modelling work that integrates both the health and economic aspects of COVID-19 control (as per recent work in Australia18) should also inform the decision-making processes.

Conclusions

In this very preliminary analysis, COVID-19 eradication seems slightly more feasible than for polio, but much less so than for smallpox. There is a need for a more formal expert review of the feasibility and desirability of attempting COVID-19 eradication by the WHO or other agencies.

Delta+

Quote from Fm1

With the success of public health and social measures (PHSMs) at eliminating COVID-19 in several jurisdictions, combined with the arrival of safe and highly effective vaccines, the question is raised: is global eradication of COVID-19 feasible?

Our scoring for eradicability suggests that COVID-19 eradication might be slightly more feasible than for polio (although only two of three serotypes eradicated to date), but much less so than smallpox.

The main challenges are probably around achieving high vaccination coverage and the potential need to update vaccine designs.

This is plain FUD. Vaccines as shown everywhere in the world do not stop the pandemic!

But giving Ivermectin to all contacts of a PCR+ did show fantastic success in Uttar Pradesh with cutting down positives 100...1000x more than with vaccines. This gives people also a natural protection that is 6..100x (age) better than from vaccines.

Strange things happen here....

Covid-⁠19 Schweiz | Coronavirus | Dashboard

Covid-⁠19 Pandemie Schweiz und Liechtenstein: Fallzahlen, Virusvarianten, Hospitalisationen, Re-⁠Wert, Spitalkapazitäten, internationale Lage, Zahlen zu Tests,…

www.covid19.admin.ch

I mentioned it already some pages ago. On weekends Swiss ICU!! load goes down. Last weekend Friday--> Saturady it went dramatically down from 55 to 24, 30(sunday). Monday it goes up again. To a new peak of 72...

It looks like hospitals try to fill budget holes from missing pandemic patients. Such fluctuations simply are insane...At least patients on ventilators are constant (+-1)over the last week...

Looks like CoV-19 now is a mental illness also among doctors...

New serious data from Israel:

The vaccine benefit (serious illness) for age <60 is a factor 3 above 60 about a factor 6. Of course we would like to have more categories (50,40,30 ...) . The other problem is that vaccination of younger is more recent than for older. We know that Pfizer degrades at least 6%/month. Younger also produce more antibodies.

So a factor 3 is not much. Compared to Ivermectin or early HCQ+ its in fact nothing. Thus the result of a dangerous gen therapy - for younger - simply is pitiable.

Among older Israelis, serious COVID rate six times as high if unvaccinated

As government desperately tries to galvanize 1.1 million who are spurning vaccine, data shows that severe cases also far higher among younger people if they…

www.timesofisrael.com

For every 100,000 people under 60 who are not vaccinated, 1.6 are in serious condition with the coronavirus. Among the fully vaccinated the figure is 0.5.

Health Ministry data shows that among Israelis aged 60-plus, there are 16.6 people per 100,000 in serious condition. Among the unvaccinated the figure is 98.5.

At the end there was a disclaimer:.....

The number of seriously ill for people under 60 are too small to allow an accurate analysis, though generally, the unvaccinated and partly vaccinated have been more likely to be in serious condition than the fully vaccinated.

Serious data?!

Quote from Fm1

TrialSite took an independent look at the data and can verify that the opposite of what was to be expected is now occurring in most cases: heavily vaccinated nations experience considerable waves of SARS-CoV-2 infection growth. This clearly evidences mass breakthrough infections.

(1) TSN has clearly been a bit out of touch if they do not expect lots of breakthrough infections with delta. UK has known this for a long time.

(2) TSN is also naive if they don't understand why COVID rates are higher in many vaccinated countries. No country will lock down etc more than is absolutely necessary. High vaccination rates mean that lockdowns are not necessary because few people die.

(3)

As so often from TSN - the straw man arguments and fake surprise are highly political anti-establishment. I wish the US did not mix up politics and medicine so much.: it is harming their recovery.

Quote from Wyttenbach

New serious data from Israel:

The vaccine benefit (serious illness) for age <60 is a factor 3 above 60 about a factor 6. Of course we would like to have more categories (50,40,30 ...) . The other problem is that vaccination of younger is more recent than for older. We know that Pfizer degrades at least 6%/month. Younger also produce more antibodies.

So a factor 3 is not much. Compared to Ivermectin or early HCQ+ its in fact nothing. Thus the result of a dangerous gen therapy - for younger - simply is pitiable.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/…s-higher-if-unvaccinated/

For every 100,000 people under 60 who are not vaccinated, 1.6 are in serious condition with the coronavirus. Among the fully vaccinated the figure is 0.5.

Health Ministry data shows that among Israelis aged 60-plus, there are 16.6 people per 100,000 in serious condition. Among the unvaccinated the figure is 98.5.

At the end there was a disclaimer:.....

The number of seriously ill for people under 60 are too small to allow an accurate analysis, though generally, the unvaccinated and partly vaccinated have been more likely to be in serious condition than the fully vaccinated.

Serious data?!

Display More

If we ignore W's wrong statements.

Why is this comparison rate (6X) so low? Answer - for any age range, those vaccinated will be disproportionately those at higher risk. Thus, for example, comparison of serious illness for > 60 years unvaccinated and vaccinated will be comparing a younger unvaccinated group with an older vaccinated group.

There's lies, damned lies - and statistics.

On the other side the wonderful US 99.99% of vaccinated people have not gotten seriously ill is a really opaque figure, and not very helpful. Almost as bad as some of the TSN figures. Not quite as bad, it is at least true.

THH

Will FDA mRNA Vaccine Approval Ignore the “Elephant (not) in the Room”: Ultra-Low Absolute Risk Reductions?

Will FDA mRNA Vaccine Approval Ignore the “Elephant (not) in the Room”: Ultra-Low Absolute Risk Reductions?

Note that views expressed in this opinion article are the writer’s personal views and not necessarily those of TrialSite. Dr. Ron Brown – Opinion

trialsitenews.com

Note that views expressed in this opinion article are the writer’s personal views and not necessarily those of TrialSite.

Dr. Ron Brown – Opinion Editorial

August 10, 2021

When the FDA authorized the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines for emergency use, the FDA did not notify the public of both the vaccines’ relative risk reduction measures (vaccine efficacy of approximately 95%) and absolute risk reduction measures (approximately 1%). Medicina | Free Full-Text | Outcome Reporting Bias in COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Clinical Trials (mdpi.com). The FDA’s failure to report the vaccines’ absolute risk reductions violates the FDA’s own guidelines for communicating evidence-based risks and benefits to the public. Communicating Risks and Benefits: An Evidence-Based User’s Guide | FDA. The FDA advises authorities to “Provide absolute risks, not just relative risks. Patients are unduly influenced when risk information is presented using a relative risk approach; this can result in suboptimal decisions. Thus, an absolute risk format should be used.”

Acknowledged by the Lancet Microbe, failure to address this issue of unreported absolute risk reduction measures is the “elephant (not) in the room” in the FDA’s emergency use authorization (EUA) of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and effectiveness—the elephant (not) in the room – The Lancet Microbe.

For a full explanation of the relative and absolute risk reductions in the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, see my video: Dr. Ron Brown Discusses Outcome Reporting Bias in COVID-19 mRNA Clinical Trials | Interview – YouTube

Currently, EUA rules do not allow authorized vaccines to be mandated. Employers can’t require Covid-19 vaccination under an EUA – STAT (statnews.com). Now the pressure is on for the COVID-19 vaccines to be licensed and approved by the FDA. Much of the motivation behind this rush forward is driven by demand for vaccine mandates by businesses, governments, schools, universities, and the military, with Dr. Fauci leading the cries from the Peanut Gallery. Fauci expects ‘flood’ of vaccine mandates once FDA gives jabs full approval | The Independent

“This is a dystopian world we’re living in,” cried Dr Fauci. Yes, Dr. Fauci, and you helped create it when you mixed up case fatality rates and infection fatality rates and misled U.S. Congress in March 2020 by claiming the coronavirus is 10 times more deadly than seasonal influenza. Public Health Lessons Learned From Biases in Coronavirus Mortality Overestimation (cambridge.org).

And the FDA will no doubt continue to ignore the elephant (not) in the room as it continues to mislead the public about the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines’ almost non-existent clinical efficacy.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Why is this comparison rate (6X) so low?

You are XXXX like a stone. The question is why is it that high! And among younger that low 3.. ! Here we would expect a much larger difference....

So may be once you should agree that the protection from vaccines - just factor of 3 - among age <60 is far far below expectation...

Quote from Wyttenbach

…

Vaccine damage among younger is gigantic so far already dozen of kids have been killed.

…

Didn’t the official Swiss numbers say that more than 30 (!) dozens of kids have been killed by Covid-19, vs ca. one dozen by vaccinations? Not sure how many of them could still be alive if being vaccinated… in case they were vulnerable or at high(er) risk?

Quote from zorud

dirty ?! 30 (!) dozens

You are a genius! Did you get the bottle already?

Quote from Wyttenbach

You are a genius! Did you get the bottle already?

Agreed… 😁 it was just the number severely suffering from Long Covid …

Quote from Wyttenbach

You are dumb like a stone. The question is why is it that high! And among younger that low 3.. ! Here we would expect a much larger difference....

So may be once you should agree that the protection from vaccines - just factor of 3 - among age <60 is far far below expectation...

You saying things does not make them true. Your link gives a ratio of 1/6 the rate of serious disease per 100,000 for vaccinated versus unvaccinated.

I pointed out the consistent bias - unvaccinated people with age > 60 are much more likely to be younger, vaccinated people with age > 60 are much more likely to be older, which means that the personal risk reduction is be more than this, making this figure consistent with the 1/10 or 1/20 figure quoted elsewhere for personal vaccine benefit.

I also pointed out that the 99.99% protection figure currently being used in the US by the CDC is rather unhelpful - it does not correspond to the real level of risk reduction and cannot easily be compared with anything since the equivalent figure for unvaccinated risk is not given. I did that (it is a point not favourable to vaccination) because I am interested in accuracy, not spin. I criticise the anti-vaxx fellow travellers like Don Browne for spin, so I would be hypocritical if I did not point it out on the other side as well.

I hope you can understand and acknowledge that. If not we could go back to some simple probability theory, with some examples, like we did to show that an increasing fraction over time of COVID hospital patients vaccinated in Israel did not mean, as you claimed, that the vaccine was becoming less effective. Rather it meant that an increasing fraction of the at risk population were vaccinated over time. Of course the vaccines will probably become less effective over time, as will natural immunity, which is why many countries are thinking about booster shots. But that was not the main factor in the numbers you posted, and cannot be calculated from them.

The effect of bias in vaccination fraction with age is another statistical effect that I thought I should mention, since you also seem not to be taking it into account.

For the rest of your post - I would like to know in detail what is your evidence for a risk reduction of 1/3 taking the vaccine for patients younger than 60.

Under 60s are feeling the benefit of vaccines in avoiding serious illness, as are those above that age. For every 100,000 people under 60 who are not vaccinated, 1.6 are in serious condition with the coronavirus. Among the fully vaccinated the figure is 0.5.

The same statistical bias applies to any large age range. The unvaccinated will be clustered at lower ages, the vaccinated at higher ages. I have given the detailed graphs available from the UK (we have a lot of accurate data here) that show this age bias in who gets vaccinated in the UK, but it is pretty obvious why it happens. therefore you cannot obtain a 0.5/1.6 (1/3) figure for reduction in risk from these overall age band figures.

There are lies, damn lies, statistics, and Wyttenfacts. Don't let them get to you!

We are making progress - W it is nice to see you understanding that vaccinated people have lower risk than unvaccinated!

THH