This seems eerily similar to the way election result came down in the U.S. about a year ago: Simply proclaim the outcome that TPTB desire, then stay up all night manufacturing supporting details. Vaxx-dissidents should now refuse vaxx simply on a basis of knowing that it is all agitprop now. "If it was such a great plan, why do governments insist upon lying, lies upon lies?" Indeed, it is this growing understanding within the population that may be driving vaxx-refusal. I very much hope so.
This CDC study (as well as the Kentucky study) are disturbing presentations of cherry-picked random data with no explanation, written incoherently, and makes my brain hurt. They should have better data than this. I still need to read through it several more times just to understand what they did because it's so oddly constructed. One thing I did come across was the glaring conflicts of interest mentioned in the beginning (Pfizer, and other Pharmeceutical companies). This is unacceptable. Are these studies peer reviewed? I can't tell. Either way; < 10 studies vs >90 studies on the Vax immunity vs N.I battle= Still a landslide in the N.I direction with more convincing data. And by the looks of it, this study also points me in that direction with the huge difference in vaxxed population numbers.
Check out Dr Shane Huntington's twitter account, the most enthusiastic Pfizer shill of them all. But it's OK, his son now is safe from covid, just has a little case of "rare and manageable" cardiac problem. It really is a cult for these nutcases
Had a bout of curiosity and got S-antibody tested at labcorp yesterday. 595 U/mL, 10 months after covid. No PCR test at the time, just told by a friend that they tested positive as we were starting to get mildly sick. No known exposure since. Screw the Vax.
What I want to know is, how does this compare to unvaccinated? They are simply claiming success in boosting the efficacy of the vaccine when comparing 2 jabs to 3 jabs. Care to pull it apart Igor? I am thinking the results don't look so great if compared with those who never had any jab at all....
Do you have a PubPeer account? If not consider making one and offering these same opinions there where they will have to be dealt with as a matter of public record (unless PubPeer has brainwashed jannies now, hopefully not).
By February 1, only 1.81% of people were fully vaccinated, and even by March 4 (the fully vaxxed date needed to be eligible for the June numbers) it's only 8.47%. (https://usafacts.org/visualizations/covid-vaccine-tracker-states/). Interestingly, this is about the time when the fully vaxxed numbers and official case counts are about the same (27~ million vs 29~ million).
Therefore, the only reason I can see to include January-May in the study is to skew the results.
Hah! That lil' CDC post is so full o' shi*t. Virtually ALL of the "infected" unvaxxed can be explained by the crappy, crappy PCR test and the now standard cycle threshold of 35 and higher for unvaxxed and only 28 for the vaxxed. As y'all remember, more cycles, WAY higher false positives. As Igor points out, look at the bottom line #'s for who is hospitalized. Vaxxed lose.
Actually you skimmed by the bit about the breakdown by age, however look at the numbers again and you will see that the for the unvaccinated, previously infected the numbers decrease as you go up each age cohort. So 313 persons aged 18-49, 243 aged 50-64 etc until you get to aged 85+ with 80 persons. On the other hand the vaccinated naïve show the opposite trend from the youngest cohort to the second oldest, with the trend only reversing for the 85+ vaccinated naïve. Someone would have to do an analysis to see if this pattern is statistically significant but just eyeballing it, what it says to me is that older vaccinated naïve individuals are even more likely to end up in the hospital than their previously infected unvaccinated counterparts.
How much of this is due to the fact that this might reflect the fact that perhaps many of their unvaccinated and previously infected counterparts age 60+ had actually died (thus only leaving those few to be counted anyway) and how much might be due other factors (perhaps vaccine fade and interactions with other illnesses in the 5-6 months after vaccination), who knows?
What is "Covid-Like Illness"? To see what other bugs are out there besides Covid19, https://syndromictrends.com/ From a maker of a kit that can diagnose multiple bugs at the same time. USA only. On the right side, you can click on specific names, so you can compare Covid19 (SARS-CoV-2) versus four other Coronaviruses (and not just their sum total as shown in their default graph). Just before Delta hit the USA, there was a lull in Covid19, late spring and early summer, that was partly replaced by two waves of two completely different Coronaviruses (not Covid19 variants), and then Delta hit and the other two mostly vanished. Remember a few months ago, the children in the southern states were hit hard by Delta (according to the news media) and they said that the hospitals were overflowing? Maybe a lot of that was Respiratory Syncytial Virus. Maybe Covid19 and RSV can tolerate each other but Covid19 and Influenza seem to exhibit "viral interference" against each other. The same may be true for Parainfluenza. I just noticed a very recent and very slight uptick in Influenza A, which was mostly missing during the Covid19 pandemic.
This seems eerily similar to the way election result came down in the U.S. about a year ago: Simply proclaim the outcome that TPTB desire, then stay up all night manufacturing supporting details. Vaxx-dissidents should now refuse vaxx simply on a basis of knowing that it is all agitprop now. "If it was such a great plan, why do governments insist upon lying, lies upon lies?" Indeed, it is this growing understanding within the population that may be driving vaxx-refusal. I very much hope so.
This CDC study (as well as the Kentucky study) are disturbing presentations of cherry-picked random data with no explanation, written incoherently, and makes my brain hurt. They should have better data than this. I still need to read through it several more times just to understand what they did because it's so oddly constructed. One thing I did come across was the glaring conflicts of interest mentioned in the beginning (Pfizer, and other Pharmeceutical companies). This is unacceptable. Are these studies peer reviewed? I can't tell. Either way; < 10 studies vs >90 studies on the Vax immunity vs N.I battle= Still a landslide in the N.I direction with more convincing data. And by the looks of it, this study also points me in that direction with the huge difference in vaxxed population numbers.
truly insane and proof "intelligence" and common sense don't always go hand in hand:
https://twitter.com/wakeupfromcovid/status/1454163506777968644/photo/1
Check out Dr Shane Huntington's twitter account, the most enthusiastic Pfizer shill of them all. But it's OK, his son now is safe from covid, just has a little case of "rare and manageable" cardiac problem. It really is a cult for these nutcases
Had a bout of curiosity and got S-antibody tested at labcorp yesterday. 595 U/mL, 10 months after covid. No PCR test at the time, just told by a friend that they tested positive as we were starting to get mildly sick. No known exposure since. Screw the Vax.
wow! shocking...
This Israeli / US study published Oct 29 claims that a third booster jab is 93% effective in reducing hospitalisation compared to those with only 2 jabs: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)02249-2/fulltext?rss%3Dyes
What I want to know is, how does this compare to unvaccinated? They are simply claiming success in boosting the efficacy of the vaccine when comparing 2 jabs to 3 jabs. Care to pull it apart Igor? I am thinking the results don't look so great if compared with those who never had any jab at all....
Do you have a PubPeer account? If not consider making one and offering these same opinions there where they will have to be dealt with as a matter of public record (unless PubPeer has brainwashed jannies now, hopefully not).
Why the switch to “Covid-like illness”? To confuse? It seems the U.S. heath departments no longer have anything to do with health.
The US vaccine roll out began mid-December, 2020 (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55305720), so NO ONE except for trial participants would have been in the 90-179 post-vax window this study is using until mid-February. And yet, the study covers January-September (https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7044e1.htm?s_cid=mm7044e1_w, search for Month of index test date to see breakdown by month).
By February 1, only 1.81% of people were fully vaccinated, and even by March 4 (the fully vaxxed date needed to be eligible for the June numbers) it's only 8.47%. (https://usafacts.org/visualizations/covid-vaccine-tracker-states/). Interestingly, this is about the time when the fully vaxxed numbers and official case counts are about the same (27~ million vs 29~ million).
Therefore, the only reason I can see to include January-May in the study is to skew the results.
Hah! That lil' CDC post is so full o' shi*t. Virtually ALL of the "infected" unvaxxed can be explained by the crappy, crappy PCR test and the now standard cycle threshold of 35 and higher for unvaxxed and only 28 for the vaxxed. As y'all remember, more cycles, WAY higher false positives. As Igor points out, look at the bottom line #'s for who is hospitalized. Vaxxed lose.
Actually you skimmed by the bit about the breakdown by age, however look at the numbers again and you will see that the for the unvaccinated, previously infected the numbers decrease as you go up each age cohort. So 313 persons aged 18-49, 243 aged 50-64 etc until you get to aged 85+ with 80 persons. On the other hand the vaccinated naïve show the opposite trend from the youngest cohort to the second oldest, with the trend only reversing for the 85+ vaccinated naïve. Someone would have to do an analysis to see if this pattern is statistically significant but just eyeballing it, what it says to me is that older vaccinated naïve individuals are even more likely to end up in the hospital than their previously infected unvaccinated counterparts.
How much of this is due to the fact that this might reflect the fact that perhaps many of their unvaccinated and previously infected counterparts age 60+ had actually died (thus only leaving those few to be counted anyway) and how much might be due other factors (perhaps vaccine fade and interactions with other illnesses in the 5-6 months after vaccination), who knows?
How were 7,348 subjects selected? Was it a random draw from a set of hospitalized patients, or have they oversampled vaccinated group?
What is "Covid-Like Illness"? To see what other bugs are out there besides Covid19, https://syndromictrends.com/ From a maker of a kit that can diagnose multiple bugs at the same time. USA only. On the right side, you can click on specific names, so you can compare Covid19 (SARS-CoV-2) versus four other Coronaviruses (and not just their sum total as shown in their default graph). Just before Delta hit the USA, there was a lull in Covid19, late spring and early summer, that was partly replaced by two waves of two completely different Coronaviruses (not Covid19 variants), and then Delta hit and the other two mostly vanished. Remember a few months ago, the children in the southern states were hit hard by Delta (according to the news media) and they said that the hospitals were overflowing? Maybe a lot of that was Respiratory Syncytial Virus. Maybe Covid19 and RSV can tolerate each other but Covid19 and Influenza seem to exhibit "viral interference" against each other. The same may be true for Parainfluenza. I just noticed a very recent and very slight uptick in Influenza A, which was mostly missing during the Covid19 pandemic.