Covid-19 News

  • W - I'd believe your assertions more if whenever I checked them they proved correct.

    The process to generate a flu vaccine is normed . Always known, old tested virus are used. Nothing new at all. Further always at least 3 strains are mixed not a single. May be you did look in a teaching textbook...Of course they can use the HxNy of the last season for a new vaccine as the difference from season to season is minimal and the process is always the same.

    A new vaccine is either based on a completely new technology or a new illness new strain of virus or a new carrier virus or a new method to immobilize the carrier. Even new adjuvant should be treated the same as new vaccines see Pandermix (swine flu) case.

    So none of the above is the case for flu vaccines. Always the same method same process since 50 years that's why these "your believed new vaccines" only need basic tests.

    The problem of CoV-19 vaccines is that all of the above is new except the carrier virus in vector vaccines. Nobody has 40 years experience how changes in the CoV-19 virus affect a "new" vaccine. The Pfizer vaccine is deadly crap and if you change untested crap it will remain untested crap.

    Just yesterday, CNBC reported people in the US have still died or been hospitalized from COVID-19, despite being fully vaccinated. CNBC also reported that 76% of hospitalizations from breakthrough cases occur in individuals over 65.

    We need more data about age and vaccine failure!!

  • Now let us look at the data from the Pfizer and Moderna trials. T

    Are you joking ??? These trials are mot since long as the control group got vaccinated what is a breach of protocol.

    Further Pfizer did fake his phase III study what is public knowledge since a long time.

    So basically we are on square one. Both Pfizer/Moderna have not as single study available to justify their vaccine should be used.

  • It does indeed. If you have already had COVID that is an even stronger reason to get vaccinated. It may prevent long-haul symptoms, which sometimes appear months after the patient recovers from the initial bout of the disease. It also strengthens immunity.

    If you were hospitalized with COVID, and you refuse a vaccination, you are playing Russian Roulette. 10% of patients who were hospitalized die within months of being discharged and going home.…-long-covid-b1804704.html

    This is a very important and grossly under-reported strand of COVID news. What are the long-term non-mortality outcomes?

    Well, these studies show that death is one of them (effectively bumping up the mortality rates by a bit). Patients alive and relased from hospital after COVID have multi-organ weaknesses and are vulnerable.

    More important, in my view, is the fact that younger patients can have significant long-term and serious side effects. I cannot easily find the papers refereed to in the independent report, or I'd link, but see below.

    The study warned: “Complications and worse functional outcomes in patients admitted to hospital with Covid-19 are high, even in young, previously healthy individuals.

    “Covid-19 complications are likely to cause significant strain on health and social care in the coming years.”

    It concluded: “Many of the complications identified are likely to have important long-term effects. Healthcare systems and policy makers should plan for increases in population morbidity arising from Covid-19 and its subsequent complications. As complications following Covid-19 are common across all age groups and comorbidities, public health messaging around the risk Covid-19 poses to younger otherwise healthy people should be considered alongside vaccine prioritisation.”

    Peter Openshaw, professor of experimental medicine at Imperial College London and one of the co-authors of the study, said: “Most planning with respect to Covid has focused on mortality, for example in setting the priority groups for vaccination.

    “We now show that there are other severe outcomes that need to be taken into account in estimating the impact of Covid-19; long-term complications are especially common in males, those aged 30 and over and in patients with comorbidities.”

    I found this study linked from science daily.

    I think it is one of the studies referred to.

    The results show that 26 percent of those who had COVID-19 previously, compared to 9 percent in the control group, had at least one moderate to severe symptom that lasted more than two months and that 11 percent, compared to 2 percent in the control group, had a minimum of one symptom with negative impact on work, social or home life that lasted at least eight months. The most common long-term symptoms were loss of smell and taste, fatigue, and respiratory problems.

    "We investigated the presence of long-term symptoms after mild COVID-19 in a relatively young and healthy group of working individuals, and we found that the predominant long-term symptoms are loss of smell and taste. Fatigue and respiratory problems are also more common among participants who have had COVID-19 but do not occur to the same extent," says Charlotte Thålin, specialist physician, Ph.D. and lead researcher for the COMMUNITY study at Danderyd Hospital and Karolinska Institutet. "However, we do not see an increased prevalence of cognitive symptoms such as brain fatigue, memory and concentration problems or physical disorders such as muscle and joint pain, heart palpitations or long-term fever."

    "Despite the fact that the study participants had a mild COVID-19 infection, a relatively large proportion report long-term symptoms with an impact on quality of life. In light of this, we believe that young and healthy individuals, as well as other groups in society, should have great respect for the virus that seems to be able to significantly impair quality of life, even for a long time after the infection," says Sebastian Havervall, deputy chief physician at Danderyd Hospital and PhD student in the project at Karolinska Institutet.

    The COMMUNITY study will now continue, with the next follow-up taking place in May when a large proportion of study participants are expected to be vaccinated. In addition to monitoring immunity and the occurrence of re-infection, several projects regarding post- COVID are planned.

    "We will, among other things, be studying COVID-19-associated loss of smell and taste more closely, and investigate whether the immune system, including autoimmunity, plays a role in post-COVID," says Charlotte Thålin.

    These effects are much more common than death in younger people, and can be life-limiting. Though I note happily they are not saying brain fog is that common.

    An important strand of risk to put on one side of the scales for those reckoning they know better than local medical advice on taking vaccines.

    Unfortunately these early studies do not quantify things very well yet.

  • Quote from Wyttenbach

    "You know simply nothing. A flu vaccine is a cocktail of about 10 known and fully tested vaccines. Nothing new at all."

    4, not 10. Influenza strains are carefully collected and studied, and the vaccines against them are similar. So this is not as difficult as developing a novel vaccine for another virus.

    Key Facts About Seasonal Flu Vaccine
    An annual seasonal flu vaccine is the best way to help protect against flu. Learn more about seasonal flu vaccine.

    My contention that a new tweaked vaccine can be made, tested, agreed in 6 months, as long as similar to old ones:

    The mRNA vaccines are particularly easy to update or adjust for a new strain. They can be adjusted much faster than the older types of vaccine.

  • A heartbreaking story:

    ‘I’m sorry, but it’s too late’: Alabama doctor tells unvaccinated, dying COVID patients
    “And now all you really see is their fear and their regret. And even though I may walk into the room thinking, ‘Okay, this is your fault, you did this to…

    This began with a Facebook posting by this doctor. Quote:

    I've made a LOT of progress encouraging people to get vaccinated lately!!! Do you want to know how? I'm admitting young healthy people to the hospital with very serious COVID infections. One of the last things they do before they're intubated is beg me for the vaccine. I hold their hand and tell them that I'm sorry, but it's too late. A few days later when I call time of death, I hug their family members and I tell them the best way to honor their loved one is to go get vaccinated and encourage everyone they know to do the same. They cry. And they tell me they didn't know. They thought it was a hoax. They thought it was political. They thought because they had a certain blood type or a certain skin color they wouldn't get as sick. They thought it was 'just the flu'. But they were wrong. And they wish they could go back. But they can't. So they thank me and they go get the vaccine. And I go back to my office, write their death note, and say a small prayer that this loss will save more lives.

    As always, I am an open book. Please bring me your questions and I will tell you everything I know and everything I don't.

    It's not too late, but some day it might be.

    . . .

    Brytney Cobia, MD

    Quote from newspaper article:

    “You kind of go into it [the patient's bedside] thinking, ‘Okay, I’m not going to feel bad for this person, because they make their own choice [not getting vaccinated],’” Cobia said. “But then you actually see them, you see them face to face, and it really changes your whole perspective, because they’re still just a person that thinks that they made the best decision that they could with the information that they have, and all the misinformation that’s out there.

    “And now all you really see is their fear and their regret. And even though I may walk into the room thinking, ‘Okay, this is your fault, you did this to yourself,’ when I leave the room, I just see a person that’s really suffering, and that is so regretful for the choice that they made.” . . .

  • We need more data about age and vaccine failure!!

    With not much respect, W, no that is the one thing we do not need. But I guess as anti-vaxx propaganda it sounds good.

    The vaccines vastly reduce personal risks. Whether to 20%, or 10%, or 5% or 1% of non-vaccine risk does not matter much in terms of personal decisions. Maybe it would help you to pick a more effective vaccine, but it is not relevant to the balance of vaccinate or do not vaccinate risk.

    And vaccine "failure" (in the sense of breakthrough infections) is not (for individuals) the most relevant thing. They care about risk of severe of illness and long-term effects, not risk of whether they actually get COVID. In this, a "failed" vaccine is nowhere near failed if it saves serious illness or death.

    For the development of the pandemic breakthrough infections do matter. It is pretty clear though from many countries that without very serious lockdowns the infectious delta variant will rise exponentially till everyone has been infected or vaccinated.

    Given that vaccines reduce hospitalisation, a lot, there will be no appetite in countries to do very serious lockdowns. That only happens when health systems are overwhelmed.

    So how much vaccines reduce R is not so important - it may alter the speed of development of the pandemic - and hence transient pressure on facilities. It will not affect outcomes overall.

    The US has been living in a false bubble imagining it can escape COVID. It can't. Those not vaccinated will nearly all get COVID. Many of those vaccinated will also get COVID, with much lower overall severity.

    And that is just delta...

    One snippet of information:

    in the UK antibodies (immunity - either vaccine or natural) to COVID are now very high except in younger groups. the exponential (60%/week) increase in infection, and very high rates, are driven by younger people and those with only one vaccine dose - not enough to provide much protection against delta - but enough to generate an antibody response.

  • Senator and Doctor..

    "You are being played"

    External Content
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

  • Uk's vaccination means super-high case rates do not translate into super-high deaths. We are doing 17X better than in second wave. Note the very high vaccination rates amongst those most at risk which drives this. Note also that I'm not certain the 17X figure is correct yet, for various reasons (note the sudden jump in cases day 30 second wave - maybe more lateral flow testing). Are thrird wave cases comparable with 2nd wave?

    Note that vaccination is mostly complete for 50+. The reduction in deaths now is probably driven by 16-49's where double-vaccination is not complete but progressing at quite a high rate. (you also need to go back [some time? How much] from vaccination to corresponding protected death, so 50-60 is less complete protection day 50 than it seems).

    US deaths now will alas be higher because of a less complete vaccination rate amongst more at risk groups. I notice a difference in political tone now, so maybe that and the stark evidence of people dying will encourage better vaccination compliance in everyone.

  • Nah the excess study was for the whole 2020. They normalized the age distribution and I guess essentially weight younger people more so that's why you could not translate the links excess death to the official statistic here. Now I kind of think that it is more fair to put the weights like that. But still England and Sweden is around 80-85 in mean age of covid death with basically the same population pyramid, so the big differences is indeed remarkable. Maybe younger people in England had more problems then in Sweden but they are so few compared to all the elderly that they did not contribute much to the mean age, but in stead showed up when you standardize against a different population pyramid.

  • With not much respect, W, no that is the one thing we do not need. But I guess as anti-vaxx propaganda it sounds good.

    Thanks for outing you again as a mafia support member. Only cheaters have no interest in real hard data as it makes cheating impossible.

    The study warned: “Complications and worse functional outcomes in patients admitted to hospital with Covid-19 are high, even in young, previously healthy individuals.

    If you end up in a FM/R/XXX/B mafia hospital then you are a victim anyway. These folks suck you and your family out down to the bones.

    Thus inform you about CoV-19 treatment and avoid intentional crippling by FM/R/XXX/B mafia doctors/hospitals.

    The results show that 26 percent of those who had COVID-19 previously, compared to 9 percent in the control group,

    Wow. But why don't you mention that this 26% relate to the subgroup of very rare people that have been sick for more than 20 days ?? And most of these were victims of doctors with no clue about how to treat CoV-19?

  • J&J and pharma traders agreed to pay 26 billion dollars for opioides victims/damages.

    Lets' wait what Pfizer once will pay for its' faked CoV-19 vaccine study and the cheating of FDA/CDC EUA by providing fake test results...

    Remark: All (FDA/CDC EUA) decisions have been made on a Rotary/Free masons round table, also for the flawed PCR test. There was never an official process/discussion - exchange of arguments with critical institutions.

    According sources the go for the PCR test came after about 2 hours = end of happy meal.

  • Fake Homeopathy COVID Scam
    The Department of Justice announced that it has arrested Juli A. Mazi, 41, of Napa for, "one count of wire fraud and one count of false statements related to…

    This is interesting because it shows what is and is not legal in the US

    The Department of Justice announced that it has arrested Juli A. Mazi, 41, of Napa for, “one count of wire fraud and one count of false statements related to health care matters”. While the arrest is encouraging, it also highlights the incongruous double standard that currently exists in medicine.

    Although this is not stated in the DoJ announcement, Mazi is a naturopath who practices as a primary care physician in California. Her practice includes “classic homeopathy”, which is something we have discussed at length on SBM. In short, homeopathic potions are made from fanciful ingredients but often diluted to such an extent that no original ingredients remain. They are therefore mostly just magic water, claimed to contain the “energy” of its previous contents. If that weren’t enough, extensive clinical trials have demonstrated that homeopathic magic water doesn’t work for any indication that has been tested.

    What caught the attention of the DoJ was a tip that Mazi was selling homeopathic pellets as a substitute for COVID vaccination. As the announcement states:


    This defendant allegedly defrauded and endangered the public by preying on fears and spreading misinformation about FDA-authorized vaccinations, while also peddling fake treatments that put people’s lives at risk. Even worse, the defendant allegedly created counterfeit COVID-19 vaccination cards and instructed her customers to falsely mark that they had received a vaccine, allowing them to circumvent efforts to contain the spread of the disease,

    First, she was spreading misinformation about the FDA-authorized COVID vaccines. Obviously, in the middle of a pandemic, especially when we are bumping up against vaccine misinformation in terms of the vaccination program, such actions are horrific. But of course, Mazi is not the only one spreading such misinformation. As we pointed out previously, it was found that 65% of misinformation on Facebook and Twitter is coming from just 12 individuals – the “Disinformation Dozen”. That, however, is apparently insufficient to garner the attention of the DoJ. I understand that the DoJ has no authority to do anything in these cases, because they have technically not broken any laws (and that, of course, is the problem).

    The DoJ statement also cited Mazi for “peddling fake treatments that put people’s lives at risk”. So – just like almost the entire alternative medicine industry and a huge part of the supplement industry. How is Mazi unlike any other naturopath? Anyone selling homeopathy, acupuncture, untested herbal remedies, energy medicine, or most things labeled “alternative” are “peddling fake treatments”.

    What really makes Mazi different is the next bit – giving counterfeit COVID-19 vaccinations cards to her customers. Tellingly, the DoJ considers this to be “even worse” that peddling fake treatments that risk people’s lives. But is it really? I would consider selling fake treatments to be at the top of my list. From the DoJ perspective, the counterfeit cards is what makes this a legal case at all. If Mazi had just skipped that part, she could have continued selling fake homeopathic pellets to her customers, risking their lives, without any legal entanglements. We know this is true because there are countless alternative practitioners doing that right now, just as there are others spreading misinformation about vaccines.

    There is also some concern about what is actually in those homeopathic pellets. Mazi claims they have a tiny part of the COVID-19. Hopefully, that’s a lie. If they were prepared from infected source material, that would be a legitimate concern (but this did not crack the DoJ’s top three). Homeopathic potions are not always harmless, sometimes they actually contain stuff. Let’s hope this is not one of those times.

    From my POV, homeopathy practitioners who honestly understand that the treatment itself is nothing but a psychological talking therapy with a very effective placebo, and therefore carefully refer patients always to real treatments when they exist, are fine, if a bit weird.

    Those who counsel against real treatments claiming they have something better should not be allowed to practice.

  • Review: is Ivermectin an effective therapy for COVID?

    My understanding is that there have been LOTS of RCTs, and that they have overall negative results. Not because of lack of power, but because the results do not show up. My most recent comprehensive meta-analyses would be:

    Bryant et al

    That two of the authors, Bryant and Laurie, are associated with FLCC and BIRD respectively, pro-ivermectin advocacy groups, means that cannot be viewed as a biassed negative meta-study. But, when Elgazzar (fraudulent data, and even without that so lacking in details that it must be rated high bias) and Noie (similar) are removed, their own methodology shows no positive signal for Ivermectin.

    There are other meta-analyses coming up with similar negative (or at least non-positive) results.

    Now, these results from RCT meta-analysis do not prove that ivermectin has no effectiveness. They do prove that it is not clearly effective (nothing would do more than that) , and mean that it is most likely ineffective.

    Against this there are many on this site who seem to be convinced ivermectin is effective. Since it is pretty safe, as with homeopathy, i don't muhc mind that. As long as a conviction it is effective is not represented as a way not to need other known effective treatments against COVID - specifically vaccines?

    Would anyone here like to put forward evidence - new or old - that contradicts this view? Is there any new information? This thread still seems to have a default view that ivermectin is "probably effective". there will be more RCT evidence coming in, e.g. from PRINCIPLE. Maybe there is a view somewhere that all of teh RCTs are missing the correct treatment?


  • CDC Shares VAERS for COVID-19 Vaccines: 12,313 Reports of Deaths but No Causal Link According to Agency

    CDC Shares VAERS for COVID-19 Vaccines: 12,313 Reports of Deaths but No Causal Link According to Agency
    Recently, the chatter online about deaths associated with COVID-19 vaccines was confirmed by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)

    Recently, the chatter online about deaths associated with COVID-19 vaccines was confirmed by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) between the dates of December 14, 2020, through July 19, 2021, based on entries into the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). Apparently, the CDC has shared publicly that the federal health agency has received 12,313 individual reports of actual death among those who have received one of the COVID-19 vaccines—that is, one of the vaccines under Food and Drug Administration (FDA) emergency use authorization (EUA). That’s overall a small number when accounting for the 338 million doses of the vaccines administered across America, representing a death rate of only 0.0036%. On the other hand, this is an unprecedented number of fatalities when compared to any other vaccination initiative over the past few decades given it’s only been available for just over half a year.

    A system to track safety reports, the cases are open to the public. However, TrialSite has published that about 60% of the VAERS cases are submitted by health care professionals. But it is an open system that is overseen by the CDC in conjunction with the FDA. TrialSite encourages transparency and open dialogue, including scientific debate and a number of OpEd articles questioning the number of deaths associated with the current batch of COVID-19 vaccines.

    Interestingly, the website was updated to include 12,313 deaths as is depicted in the image below. A recent visit to the website now declares 6,207 deaths.

    Result from Google Search 3 days ago:

    Selected Adverse Events Reported after COVID-19 … › 2019-ncov › vaccines › safety3 days ago — During this time, VAERS received 12,313 reports of death (0.0036%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine.

    CDC: No Causal Link

    The CDC has stated that based on a review of the relevant information, including the death certificates, medical records, etc., the agency has declared that there are no causal links between the reports and the vaccine. Hence the federal government is on record that there are no direct ties between the events.

    Timing of Deaths

    Independent analyses have demonstrated that a sizable number of the total reported deaths have occurred within 36 hours of the administration of the vaccine. However, the government won’t acknowledge any correlation—that’s the formal declaration for now. Suffice to say, there are many questions; a more detailed analysis of the government’s findings would be a positive disclosure. Transparency, particularly with novel drugs and cutting-edge vaccines still under investigational classification (e.g. emergency use authorization), is a sound policy following good ethical practices.

  • CD8 coreceptor-mediated focusing can reorder the agonist hierarchy of peptide ligands recognized via the T cell receptor

    CD8 coreceptor-mediated focusing can reorder the agonist hierarchy of peptide ligands recognized via the T cell receptor
    Sufficient immune coverage of the peptide universe within a finite host requires highly degenerate T cell receptors (TCRs). However, this inherent need for…


    Sufficient immune coverage of the peptide universe within a finite host requires highly degenerate T cell receptors (TCRs). However, this inherent need for antigen cross-recognition is associated with a high risk of autoimmunity, which can only be mitigated by a process of adaptable specificity. We describe a mechanism that resolves this conundrum by allowing individual clonotypes to focus on specific peptide ligands without alterations to the structure of the TCR.


    CD8+ T cells are inherently cross-reactive and recognize numerous peptide antigens in the context of a given major histocompatibility complex class I (MHCI) molecule via the clonotypically expressed T cell receptor (TCR). The lineally expressed coreceptor CD8 interacts coordinately with MHCI at a distinct and largely invariant site to slow the TCR/peptide-MHCI (pMHCI) dissociation rate and enhance antigen sensitivity. However, this biological effect is not necessarily uniform, and theoretical models suggest that antigen sensitivity can be modulated in a differential manner by CD8. We used two intrinsically controlled systems to determine how the relationship between the TCR/pMHCI interaction and the pMHCI/CD8 interaction affects the functional sensitivity of antigen recognition. Our data show that modulation of the pMHCI/CD8 interaction can reorder the agonist hierarchy of peptide ligands across a spectrum of affinities for the TCR.


    CD8+ T cells are inherently promiscuous and can recognize more than a million different peptide ligands via the TCR (23⇓⇓–26). It is well established that CD8 can enhance the functional sensitivity of antigen recognition, but in any given monoclonal system, it does not necessarily follow that CD8 will affect the agonist potency of every cognate ligand in a similar manner. Indeed, theoretical studies have suggested that the agonist hierarchy of peptide ligands can be modified or even reversed across a range of pMHCI/CD8 affinities, such that a differential focusing effect acts to optimize the recognition of particular ligands in the context of an individual TCR (9, 10, 15). Our data provide experimental confirmation of these predictions.

    The biological relevance of differential focusing remains unknown, but hypothetical considerations suggest that such an effect may be advantageous in vivo, especially if accompanied by feedback mechanisms that enable the process of specificity adjustment to converge on a foreign antigen. Optimal recognition of a particular agonist in this manner would maximize immune efficacy during the process of clonal expansion and simultaneously minimize the risk of autoimmunity. Affinity maturation subserves an equivalent function in B cells. In more general terms, differential focusing also provides a solution to the “Mason paradox,” allowing a high degree of immune specificity alongside sufficient coverage of the peptide universe within a relatively small naive repertoire via the incorporation of degenerate TCRs (17).

    Although it remains to be determined how differential focusing could operate in vivo and to what extent this might occur throughout the lifespan of any given clonotype, elegant studies have already provided important mechanistic clues. For example, double-positive thymocytes can transcriptionally down-regulate CD8 (27), and antigen encounters in the periphery can dynamically modulate clonal responsiveness via the selective internalization of CD8 (28). In addition, coreceptor use can be switched between the functionally distinct isoforms CD8-αα and CD8-αβ (29), which are further modifiable via glycosylation (30⇓–32), and cytokine signals can transcriptionally alter the expression of CD8 (33). All of these processes affect the signaling threshold for activation via the TCR in a manner akin to affinity variation in the pMHCI/CD8 interaction (12, 34). Accordingly, functional sensitivity depends on the kinetics of signalosome development (9, 10), which is determined by agonist potency and regulated by CD8 (35).

    In line with earlier theoretical predictions, the data presented here show that agonist potency, quantified in terms of functional sensitivity, can be differentially modulated across a range of TCR/pMHCI affinities by CD8. If this phenomenon occurs in vivo, as suggested by previous mechanistic studies, then immune reactivity could be focused on individual peptide ligands in the context of antigen-driven clonal expansions. On the basis of these collective observations, we propose that specificity adjustment operates at the level of individual clonotypes to safeguard the host in the face of an ongoing immune response, simultaneously facilitating the targeted delivery of effector functions and mitigating the risk of bystander damage, which can be triggered by inherently degenerate and therefore potentially autoreactive TCRs.

  • Fact checker needs to be fact checker himself. This was posted 24 hours ago

    Ivermectin has not been approved as a Covid-19 treatment in South Africa

    Ivermectin has not been approved as a Covid-19 treatment in South Africa
    A screenshot of a tweet stating that the South African Health Products Regulatory Authority (SAHPRA) has approved ivermectin for use to treat Covid-19 patients…

    And let's check

    South Africa Allows Use of Parasite Drug in Covid Patients

    By Janice Kew

    January 27, 2021, 11:53 AM EST Updated on January 28, 2021, 8:42 AM EST

    Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

  • (FM1 quoting someone else)

    Apparently, the CDC has shared publicly that the federal health agency has received 12,313 individual reports of actual death among those who have received one of the COVID-19 vaccines

    They always shared that publicly. The database has been open to the public since it was established. As I recall, there are various tools that let you extract the data to reach conclusions such as that one. HOWEVER, amateurs should not try to do this. Almost inevitably they will reach incorrect conclusions, because they do not understand the fundamentals of statistics. Such as the need for a control group. You have to compare those 12,313 deaths to a similar group of people in an ordinary year who were not vaccinated. That is complicated because it is not easy to define what a "similar group" consists of -- what ages, income levels, health stats, etc. -- and it is not easy to assemble data for that group.

    I do understand the fundamentals of statistics. I understand them well enough that I would not attempt a do-it-yourself analysis with this database. It is a lot harder than it looks. All of the anti-vaxx conclusions about this database that have been posted in articles on the internet and here are wrong.

  • it seems severe has two meanings, one for unvaccinated and another for vaccinated.

    Israeli study claims major drop in vaccine protection; experts don’t believe it

    Report says protection against serious COVID-19 illness fell to 80%, or 50% for over-60s; government adviser, physician and health statistics expert all criticize research

    Israeli study claims major drop in vaccine protection; experts don’t believe it | The Times of Israel

    Vaccine effectiveness in preventing serious COVID-19 infection among the elderly has fallen to 50 percent, according to new Israeli figures, but some prominent experts are saying the data shouldn’t be taken seriously.

    The Pfizer-BioNTech coronavirus vaccines were wowing Israelis with sky-high effectiveness rates until the rise of the Delta variant. But according to data recently raised at a top-level Health Ministry meeting, the immunization’s effectiveness in preventing serious illness is now at 80% for the general population and 50% for the elderly.

    Israel’s national research body for epidemiology, the Gertner Institute, conducted the research, and Dr. Amit Huppert from its bio-statistical unit told The Times of Israel that policymakers should pay attention.

    The government “should not be panicked but should take the data seriously, as it’s a warning that should not be ignored,” he said. “Most of us did not believe a month ago we could be in this situation.”

    He added that policymakers didn’t pay enough attention to data on the Alpha variant which arose in Britain and spread quickly in Israel in early 2021.

    But as the numbers ignite concern among Israelis, even the government’s top expert adviser on coronavirus questioned their integrity. The approach taken could result in a “horribly skewed” outcome, argued Prof. Ran Balicer, chairman of Israel’s national expert panel on COVID-19.

    Any attempt to deduce severe illness vaccine effectiveness from semi-crude illness rates among the yes or no vaccinated is very, very risky,” he maintained

    Infectious diseases doctor Yael Paran told The Times of Israel that she can’t reconcile the figures on serious illness with the much more rosy reality she sees.

    “What we see in our hospital and around the world don’t support this,” she said. “I think the figures are exaggerated.”

    Huppert acknowledged that the statistics have their limitations. “These are early estimations based on small numbers, and there are all kinds of biases in the numbers,” he said. But he insisted that despite the caveats, they still have great relevance.

    But Paran, a senior physician at Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, argued that the problem with them runs deep, and the definition of “serious illness” has become misleading. It is used for patients whose oxygen saturation drops, which was a good indicator pre-vaccination as it signaled deterioration. But for vaccine-protected patients it is often a brief state that doesn’t signal significant deterioration, she said.

    “Take a patient who is in my hospital now as an example,” she said. “He is in his 80s and classed as severe, but only because he had a mild drop in saturation. It was something that any other disease would cause, and which we’re treating well with steroids, but he is classed as a serious case.”

    Dr. Dvir Aran, an expert in health statistics from the Technion – Israel Institute of Technology, said he is concerned the Health Ministry is using “bad research” and allowing it to be presented without context.

    “The problems aren’t with the vaccine, they are with the data,” he said, branding as “false” the conclusions in the latest data and other research on how well the vaccine prevents infection.

    The research process “skews the results to make the vaccine seem less effective than it is,” he told The Times of Israel.

    Health Ministry data released in early July said the vaccine’s effectiveness in preventing infection, which was over 90% pre-Delta, is now at 64%.

    Such numbers are crunched by comparing infection rates and illness rates in vaccinated and unvaccinated people, to measure the vaccines’ protection.

    However, Aran said that people who decline to get vaccinated are, in disproportionately high numbers, people who are skeptical about the existence or danger of COVID-19, distrustful of health services, and overall relatively unlikely to get tested.

    We are probably only finding, through testing, a minority of instances when unvaccinated people get the coronavirus — and as the statistics rely on a comparison this makes effectiveness for the vaccinated seem much lower,” Aran said.

    When it comes to the latest data on serious illness, Aran said the number of people factored into the calculations is so small that small margins of error can cause a major impact on the bottom line. The research process is not conducive to accurate conclusions, he argues. The overall number of seriously ill in Israel is 63. The slice of the adult population that is unvaccinated is small, and for those over 60, who generate the most troubling statistic, it is tiny.

    “The number of unvaccinated over-60s is actually smaller than we think. Some who appear to be unvaccinated are actually dead, as it can take time to record deaths; others are protected by recovery from the illness,” commented Aran.

    He believes that statistics falsely pointing to poor vaccine performance are harmful, because they make people more reluctant to take the shots.

    “This hurts compliance of people with vaccinations,” he said. “If you’re saying to the public that vaccines work less, it hurts enthusiasm for them.”

  • There is an especially chilling note of horror in this quote from the doctor:

    I'm admitting young healthy people to the hospital with very serious COVID infections. One of the last things they do before they're intubated is beg me for the vaccine. I hold their hand and tell them that I'm sorry, but it's too late. A few days later when I call time of death,

    The Death Cult fanatics here, at Fox News, and elsewhere often say "do your own research." They are telling their victims -- the young healthy people they are trying to kill off -- that they should decide for themselves whether to be vaccinated. Here we see that the victims are often so ignorant they do not even realize that a vaccine does not work once you are infected. It is too late. These victims are so ill educated they do not understand things I was taught in grade school. How can they "do their own research"!?! Telling them to figure this out for themselves is like handing a loaded gun to a small child.

    These people also say things like: "Why should I get a shot? I am perfectly healthy." This is even more mind boggling. It is not just ignorant; it is stupid. It is like drinking sewage.

    When someone is so ignorant they do not even understand how vaccines work, you should not tell them "do your own research." Tell them to do what mainstream doctors and public health authorities urge them to do. Tell them to follow instructions.

  • Another abuse of statistics! This resembles the absurd "conclusions" reached by amateurs who poke around the VAERS database. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.