• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
* * * * * 2 votes

Regarding the vaccines, I think this is a question we All should be asking as members of a longevity-promoting website.

coronavirus

  • Please log in to reply
405 replies to this topic

#61 Gal220

  • Guest
  • 833 posts
  • 423
  • Location:United States

Posted 22 October 2021 - 02:41 AM

https://alexberenson.substack.com/

 

URGENT: Covid vaccines will keep you from acquiring full immunity EVEN IF YOU ARE INFECTED AND RECOVER
  • Informative x 4
  • Dangerous, Irresponsible x 2

#62 geo12the

  • Guest
  • 651 posts
  • -167

Posted 22 October 2021 - 05:14 AM

 

Just because it's on the internet it must be true? LOL. The vaccines are safe and are saving people lives. I know of not a single person who had died or gotten seriously sick from the vaccines but I know lots who have died or gotten really sick from COVID. You are spreading information that promotes death and sickness.  I just can't comprehend the level of delusion and idiocy


  • Ill informed x 3
  • Dangerous, Irresponsible x 1
  • Unfriendly x 1
  • like x 1
  • Agree x 1

#63 Gal220

  • Guest
  • 833 posts
  • 423
  • Location:United States

Posted 22 October 2021 - 05:23 AM

Just because it's on the internet it must be true? LOL. The vaccines are safe and are saving people lives. I know of not a single person who had died or gotten seriously sick from the vaccines but I know lots who have died or gotten really sick from COVID. You are spreading information that promotes death and sickness.  I just can't comprehend the level of delusion and idiocy

 

He took it from a British govt report.  I know you may not believe this, but it is possible for medicine to have positive and negative side effects. 

 

Like many things in life, there are pros and cons.  You can read about the victims HERE if you want.


  • Good Point x 4
  • Dangerous, Irresponsible x 1

#64 DanCG

  • Guest
  • 204 posts
  • 129
  • Location:USA

Posted 22 October 2021 - 06:07 PM

He took it from a British govt report.  

The report is week 42 of an ongoing series. The week 39 edition was discussed earlier in this forum, posts 46 and 49. Some interesting differences can be seen in Table 2, the two columns farthest to the right. Vaccination is failing to protect against infection in 30+ age groups, but does seem to protect in younger people. Previously, it was the 40+ age group that was not protected from infection. In all age groups except <18, infection rates are declining among the unvaccinated and rising among the vaccinated. These are rates, i.e. cases per 100,000, not raw numbers.

 

Tables 3 and 4 still show that vaccination is associated with lower rates of hospital visits and death. But the rates of hospital visits and death are lower at week 42 than in week 39 among unvaccinated, whereas these rates held steady or only declined slightly among the vaccinated.

 

Turning to the quote that brought this report to this form, “N antibody levels appear to be lower in people who acquire infection following two doses of vaccination.” (Page 23 )” This was part of an attempt to explain why seropositivity estimates for N antibody will underestimate the proportion of the population previously infected. The full sentence is “recent observations from UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) surveillance data that N antibody levels appear to be lower in individuals who acquire infection following 2 doses of vaccination.” It is correct to say that this could mean that vaccination with spike impairs the ability to mount an antibody response against other parts of the virus. We don’t get to see the data upon which this is based. We will have to wait and see.


Edited by DanCG, 22 October 2021 - 06:16 PM.

  • Informative x 2
  • WellResearched x 1
  • like x 1

#65 Gal220

  • Guest
  • 833 posts
  • 423
  • Location:United States

Posted 22 October 2021 - 07:37 PM

We will have to wait and see.

 

Not for some on this board, question not...


  • Pointless, Timewasting x 2
  • Agree x 2
  • Enjoying the show x 1
  • Ill informed x 1
  • like x 1

#66 Hebbeh

  • Guest
  • 1,648 posts
  • 598

Posted 24 October 2021 - 04:49 PM

Wait but what about the VAERS claims???

 

People vaccinated against COVID-19 less likely to die of other causes - The Jerusalem Post (jpost.com)

 

People who received COVID-19 vaccines are less likely to die from other causes than those who are not vaccinated, according to a report published Friday by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
 
The study, led by Stanley Xu from Kaiser Permanente Southern California, took into account people who received the Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna or Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccines, finding that those who received multiple doses of any vaccine had lower mortality rates than those who received only one dose.
 
“A cohort study was conducted during December 2020–July 2021 among approximately 11 million persons enrolled in seven Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) sites,” the report said, referring to a joint project by the CDC and nine healthcare organizations that gather electronic data on vaccines for clinical studies. “After standardizing mortality rates by age and sex, this study found that COVID-19 vaccine recipients had lower non-COVID-19 mortality than did unvaccinated persons.”
 
Moreover, those who received mRNA vaccines such as the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna shots had lower mortality rates than people who were vaccinated with the Johnson & Johnson shot, a viral vector vaccine.
 
People who received two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine were 34% as likely to die of any non-COVID-19 cause as those who were not vaccinated, while people who received two doses of the Moderna vaccine were 31% as likely to die as those who were unvaccinated. In comparison, people who received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine were 54% as likely to die as unvaccinated people, CNN cited the study as saying.

 

 

 

 

 

 


  • Pointless, Timewasting x 1
  • Dangerous, Irresponsible x 1
  • Ill informed x 1
  • Informative x 1

#67 geo12the

  • Guest
  • 651 posts
  • -167

Posted 24 October 2021 - 05:10 PM

 

 

Turning to the quote that brought this report to this form, “N antibody levels appear to be lower in people who acquire infection following two doses of vaccination.” (Page 23 )” This was part of an attempt to explain why seropositivity estimates for N antibody will underestimate the proportion of the population previously infected. The full sentence is “recent observations from UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) surveillance data that N antibody levels appear to be lower in individuals who acquire infection following 2 doses of vaccination.” It is correct to say that this could mean that vaccination with spike impairs the ability to mount an antibody response against other parts of the virus. We don’t get to see the data upon which this is based. We will have to wait and see.

 

Let's think about this. We know that people who are vaccinated and then become infected are less likely to get sick and die. Why might that group have lower N antibody levels (make fewer antibodies against a specific part of the virus that is different than Spike)?  My guess is that because vaccine clears the virus out faster. Remember those folks are less likely to get sick.  IF their immunity to COVID was impaired they should be more likely to get sick. The low N anitibody levels are probably because the virus is not hanging around long enough for them to make antibodies against that epitope.


  • Ill informed x 3
  • Good Point x 2

#68 DanCG

  • Guest
  • 204 posts
  • 129
  • Location:USA

Posted 24 October 2021 - 05:52 PM

Let's think about this. We know that people who are vaccinated and then become infected are less likely to get sick and die. Why might that group have lower N antibody levels (make fewer antibodies against a specific part of the virus that is different than Spike)?  My guess is that because vaccine clears the virus out faster. Remember those folks are less likely to get sick.  IF their immunity to COVID was impaired they should be more likely to get sick. The low N anitibody levels are probably because the virus is not hanging around long enough for them to make antibodies against that epitope.

Fair enough. The question arises as to whether this is a good thing in the long run. In the short run, the vaccinated person is protected from severe disease and clears the virus, but does not gain as much new immunity to antigens other than spike. In the long run, this all-eggs-in-one-basket approach could lead to a constant need for new boosters and new vaccines as the spike protein evolves. Natural immunity, on the other hand, will provoke immunity to more viral antigens. Immune escape would require evolution of several proteins at once. Widespread natural immunity is more likely to bring the pandemic to an end than vaccines than contain only spike.


Edited by DanCG, 24 October 2021 - 05:55 PM.

  • Good Point x 5
  • Agree x 2
  • Disagree x 1
  • like x 1

#69 DanCG

  • Guest
  • 204 posts
  • 129
  • Location:USA

Posted 02 December 2021 - 03:44 AM

In post #64,(22 October) I discussed data published by the UK Health Security Agency. One point I mentioned was “Vaccination is failing to protect against infection in 30+ age groups, but does seem to protect in younger people. Previously, it was the 40+ age group that was not protected from infection. In all age groups, infection rates are declining among the unvaccinated and rising among the vaccinated. These are rates, i.e. cases per 100,000, not raw numbers.”

 

The same data, and the same conclusion has now been published in The Lancet on 19 November: “A similar situation was described for the UK. Between week 39 and 42, a total of 100.160 COVID-19 cases were reported among citizens of 60 years or older. 89.821 occurred among the fully vaccinated (89.7%), 3.395 among the unvaccinated (3.4%).. One week before, the COVID-19 case rate per 100.000 was higher among the subgroup of the vaccinated compared to the subgroup of the unvaccinated in all age groups of 30 years or more.”

 

I would add that the week 46 report from the UKHSA shows that there are higher rates of infection in the vaccinated vs unvaccinated in the 30-79 ages. The gap is widening compared to the earlier reports. So, vaccination is still failing to protect against infection in 30+ age groups (except now the >80 group, but still seems to protect in younger people. The vaccine advantage for 18-29 yo is diminishing.

 

The authors of the Lancet paper say this: “Many decisionmakers assume that the vaccinated can be excluded as a source of transmission. It appears to be grossly negligent to ignore the vaccinated population as a possible and relevant source of transmission when deciding about public health control measures.

 

In other words, stop blaming the continued spread of the disease on the unvaccinated. Or, if you do want to blame the unvaccinated, don’t say you are “following the science”.

 


  • Good Point x 2
  • Informative x 2
  • WellResearched x 2
  • Agree x 1

#70 lancebr

  • Guest
  • 439 posts
  • 193
  • Location:USA

Posted 02 December 2021 - 04:38 PM

Here is an interesting article about how "This is NOT a pandemic of the unvaccinated":

https://brownstone.o...e-unvaccinated/


  • like x 2
  • Cheerful x 1

#71 geo12the

  • Guest
  • 651 posts
  • -167

Posted 03 December 2021 - 03:15 PM

.

Edited by geo12the, 03 December 2021 - 03:33 PM.

  • Good Point x 1
  • like x 1

#72 geo12the

  • Guest
  • 651 posts
  • -167

Posted 03 December 2021 - 03:19 PM

[quote name="DanCG" post="911707"
In other words, stop blaming the continued spread of the disease on the unvaccinated. Or, if you do want to blame the unvaccinated, don’t say you are “following the science”.[/quote]

My understanding has always been that the vaccines keep people from getting sick and that is not unique to the COVID vaccines. I would add that the last TWIV podcast I listened to pointed out that studies suggest that only about 10% of people infected with COVID transmit the virus efficiently and that is what I have allays suspected. Those 10% produce high titers of the virus. If I had to bet 1 million $, vaccinated folks who get infected probably do not produce enough virus to efficiently transmit the virus to lots of folks. At the end of the day we knew the vaccines are not perfect but they are keeping people from the hospital. Who knows what will happen with the new variants emerging but at least we are trying unlike the folks on the sidelines cheering for the vaccines to fail.
  • Ill informed x 2
  • Unfriendly x 1

#73 Gal220

  • Guest
  • 833 posts
  • 423
  • Location:United States

Posted 04 December 2021 - 08:15 AM

 but at least we are trying unlike the folks on the sidelines cheering for the vaccines to fail.

 

As soon as the mandates started,the cheer-leading commenced.  But who could have imagined this level of denial?  link

Up to 300,000 people facing heart-related illnesses due to post-pandemic stress disorder, warn physicians

 

 

Dr.Urso sums it up best, but others have chimed in as well - link

Utterly ridiculous attempt to explain away the truth. No shame. Complete arrogance. This is not medically true.

 

 

Steve Kirsch puts it in perspective - link

Note that the more common affliction, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), doesn’t affect your heart at all.

 

 

Perhaps the strangest part of this is its an on label side effect. Yet still the lying to maintain the idea they are "rare" while at the same time tossing around a 3mo booster regimen.

Where will the public trust be if people snap out of the spell?


Edited by Gal220, 04 December 2021 - 08:18 AM.

  • Good Point x 2
  • Enjoying the show x 1

#74 Hip

  • Guest
  • 1,523 posts
  • -57
  • Location:UK

Posted 04 December 2021 - 12:47 PM

As soon as the mandates started,the cheer-leading commenced.  But who could have imagined this level of denial?  link

 

Things only get worse on Longevity.

 

Now you are promoting the much-maligned psychosomatic view of physical illness, citing ideas put forward by a psychiatrist. Psychiatrists who promote psychosomatic views are often dubious.

 

The increase in cardiovascular disorders during the pandemic is most likely a consequence of having had COVID. We know that SARS-CoV-2 has an ill effect on the heart, even in people who did not have heart symptoms during the acute COVID infection, and those who shunned the vaccine and caught COVID may pay the price for their decision years later. The virus may have caused silent damage during the acute COVID infection, which manifests as heart disease only years later.

 

Or possibly SARS-CoV-2 may stick around in the heart, causing trouble. Most viruses you catch never leave your body, but remain in your organs for the rest of your life, including your heart. These viruses hijack your cells, and insert their genetic material into your cells, using your cells as a foreign protein factory. This can later lead to chronic diseases and organ damage.

 

DNA viruses use a mechanism called latency to stick around in your body, RNA viruses can use other mechanisms, such as forming chronic low-level non-cytolytic intracellular infections consisting of naked viral RNA living in the cell.

 

 

 

This article says:

A growing number of studies suggest many COVID-19 survivors experience some type of heart damage, even if they didn't have underlying heart disease and weren't sick enough to be hospitalized. This latest twist has health care experts worried about a potential increase in heart failure.

  • Ill informed x 2
  • Unfriendly x 1
  • Agree x 1

#75 DanCG

  • Guest
  • 204 posts
  • 129
  • Location:USA

Posted 04 December 2021 - 02:34 PM

 Who knows what will happen with the new variants emerging but at least we are trying unlike the folks on the sidelines cheering for the vaccines to fail.

First, whether or not someone might be cheering for the vaccines to fail is irrelevant. The vaccines will fail or succeed regardless of our wishes. I personally don’t want the vaccines to fail—I am vaccinated myself (Pfizer). What we are discussing, I think, is the best way forward as public policy and as individuals.

 

The demonizing of the unvaccinated has got to stop. It is not supported by science. Those who have avoided the vaccines may have made the wiser choice.

 

As for vaccine mandates, the forced application of experimental treatments is a violation of the Nuremberg codes—it is a crime against humanity.

 

I think continued boosting with same vaccines that we have now will be a big mistake. The rates of infection among vaccinated people were already higher in the vaccinated vs unvaccinated before omicron came along. It is true that the vaccinated have been faring better than unvaccinated in terms of serious illness (from COVID; maybe not from all causes). But how long will this last in the face of the high rates of infection among the vaccinated? The possibility that these vaccines will impair one’s ability to develop broad-acting immunity to subsequent infections (original antigenic sin) is very real. If antibody-dependent enhancement of infection is already occurring, then how long before antibody-dependent enhancement of pathogenicity?

There are better options for vaccine design available. There are early treatment options that are underutilized. Natural immunity from previous infection is being ignored. The natural evolution of the virus toward higher infectivity but lower pathogenicity is changing the risk/benefit ratio.


  • Ill informed x 2
  • Good Point x 2
  • Well Written x 1
  • Informative x 1

#76 Hip

  • Guest
  • 1,523 posts
  • -57
  • Location:UK

Posted 04 December 2021 - 05:38 PM

As for vaccine mandates, the forced application of experimental treatments is a violation of the Nuremberg codes—it is a crime against humanity.

 
The COVID vaccines are not experimental. They have gone through the same phase I, II and III clinical safety and efficacy trials as other licensed vaccines and medicines. Just conducted at a fast speed. The global scientific community's creation of these highly effective vaccines with such remarkable rapidity has been likened to the Apollo project of placing man on the moon, it was an outstanding achievement that all who are not Luddites celebrate.
 
I believe in the US, the Pfizer vaccine now has full FDA approval (versus the previous emergency use approval). I am not sure if other vaccines also have full approval.
 
mRNA vaccines have been used in humans for 10 years without any problems, and are a great technology for creating future vaccines to protect us from disease causing viruses and bacteria.

 

Natural immunity from previous infection is being ignored.

 
Those with natural immunity due to previous COVID infection 5.5 times more likely to be hospitalized than fully vaccinated people. Refs: here and here.
 
Natural immunity is nowhere near as effective as the immunity provided by the COVID vaccines.
 
 

The natural evolution of the virus toward higher infectivity but lower pathogenicity is changing the risk/benefit ratio.

 
Yes, this is true: in places with high population density, viruses naturally evolve into more benign forms over time (though in very sparse population density areas, the reverse can happen).
 
The work of Prof Paul Ewald on viral evolution talks about this: he says it is in the interests of a virus to become more benign, because the fundamental goal of a virus is to spread to more hosts, and a virus cannot spread if it kills or incapacitates the host. In crowded places where there are lots of humans about, a virus spreads more effectively if the host only has a very mild illness, and so still goes to work and continues to socialize with people — that then provides the virus with many more opportunities to spread.
 
 
So the hope is that SARS-CoV-2 will evolve into a more benign form, which has a much lower rate of hospitalization and death, and that will signal the end of the pandemic.
 
There is already some evidence that the omicron variant is more benign, and if so, this could result in the pandemic effectively coming to and end when omicron becomes the predominant variant in about 6 months time. We can keep our fingers crossed on that.
 
 
 

The demonizing of the unvaccinated has got to stop.

 
So the hundreds of thousands of deaths that the antivaxxers caused should be ignored, you are saying? 
 
Antivaxxers have caused deaths by:

  • Killing themselves from COVID
  • Spreading the antivax message which results in other people shunning the vaccine and then dying of COVID
  • Spreading SARS-CoV-2 to others, which results in many more deaths

 
And if you want to argue that the vaccinated spread COVID just as much as the unvaccinated, you might like to read this article: No, Vaccinated People Are Not ‘Just as Likely’ to Spread the Coronavirus as Unvaccinated People
 
The article says: "the United States, where more than half of the population is fully vaccinated, the unvaccinated are responsible for the overwhelming majority of transmission."
 
 
Of course, the unvaccinated can themselves be seen as victims, gullible victims of the organized antivax groups such as the one run by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr, who has been banned from various social media platforms because of his antivax message of death.
 
The ringleaders of the antivax movement I hope will face the full force of the law after the pandemic is over. 
 
I believe in freedom of choice and freedom of speech, but not the freedom to kill others.


Edited by Hip, 04 December 2021 - 05:43 PM.

  • Dangerous, Irresponsible x 2
  • Unfriendly x 1
  • Agree x 1

#77 DanCG

  • Guest
  • 204 posts
  • 129
  • Location:USA

Posted 04 December 2021 - 07:07 PM

 
 

 
And if you want to argue that the vaccinated spread COVID just as much as the unvaccinated, you might like to read this article: No, Vaccinated People Are Not ‘Just as Likely’ to Spread the Coronavirus as Unvaccinated People
 
 

The linked Atlantic article bases its thesis on this: “To spread the coronavirus, you have to have the coronavirus. And vaccinated people are far less likely to have the coronavirus—period.”

 

This may have been true at one time, and it may be still holding true in some places, depending, maybe, on which variant is prevalent, which vaccine is prevalent, and who knows what else. But it is not true now in at least one place with high early vaccine uptake.  Again I refer to the week 46 report from the UKHSA, Table 6, which clearly shows that there are higher rates of infection in the vaccinated vs unvaccinated in the 30-79 ages. If you compare these numbers to earlier reports, you can see that the gap is widening.

 

The authors of The Lancet paper had this to say:

 

 Recent data, however, indicate that the epidemiological relevance of COVID-19 vaccinated individuals is increasing. In the UK it was described that secondary attack rates among household contacts exposed to fully vaccinated index cases was similar to household contacts exposed to unvaccinated index cases (25% for vaccinated vs 23% for unvaccinated). 12 of 31 infections in fully vaccinated household contacts (39%) arose from fully vaccinated epidemiologically linked index cases. Peak viral load did not differ by vaccination status or variant type [[1]In Germany, the rate of symptomatic COVID-19 cases among the fully vaccinated (“breakthrough infections”) is reported weekly since 21. July 2021 and was 16.9% at that time among patients of 60 years and older  [2]


 

So the situation is changing with time. The Atlantic’s cocksure pronouncement about infection among the vaccinated (“--period’) is not justified, and it amounts to disinformation.


  • Good Point x 3
  • Well Written x 1
  • Informative x 1

#78 Gal220

  • Guest
  • 833 posts
  • 423
  • Location:United States

Posted 04 December 2021 - 08:13 PM

More heart injury insanity - Link

 

Researchers Warn Cold Weather Can Cause Blood Clots & Heart Attacks

Edited by Gal220, 04 December 2021 - 08:14 PM.

  • Ill informed x 1
  • Good Point x 1
  • Informative x 1

#79 Gal220

  • Guest
  • 833 posts
  • 423
  • Location:United States

Posted 05 December 2021 - 06:20 AM

The increase in cardiovascular disorders during the pandemic is most likely a consequence of having had COVID.

 

The shot myocarditis is far more severe, virus myocarditis only seen in the ICU with elevated treponin levels - link

 

 

Or possibly SARS-CoV-2 may stick around in the heart, causing trouble.

 

The heart doesnt heal, it scars - link

 

"there is no such thing as “mild” myocarditis in children. Myocarditis causes heart damage. Heart damage is for life - the heart does not heal by replacing damaged cells. It scars. Scars in the heart can lead to changes in electrical conduction in heart muscle, which in turn can result in “sudden death” due to changes in heart beat regularity and muscular contraction of the heart. These events may happen at any time, particularly when the heart is stressed in some way."

 

We are watching it lived out right before our eyes as EU soccer players pass out(sometimes dying) on the field.  However they arent the only ones - video

 

Close your eyes if you want.


  • Informative x 3
  • Ill informed x 1
  • Cheerful x 1
  • Agree x 1

#80 Hip

  • Guest
  • 1,523 posts
  • -57
  • Location:UK

Posted 05 December 2021 - 02:33 PM

Gal220, if we are taking about closed eyes:

 

 

 

Are you aware that around 1 in 100 people who get COVID go on to develop long COVID? Including young people.

 

Please read that figure again: one in a hundred get long COVID.

 

Half of long COVID cases involve ongoing issues with the heart and lungs, which is not too good. The other half of long COVID is much, much worse, with people developing the awful disease myalgic encephalomyelitis / chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS).

 

ME/CFS is a disease worse than death: it is currently incurable, there are no approved medications which can help, and it usually lasts the rest of your life, decade after decade of total misery and hell.

 

The symptoms of ME/CFS include constant bone-crushing fatigue which is not relieved by sleep, cognitive dysfunction (brain fog) which makes clear thinking impossible, gut issues like constant diarrhea or IBS, widespread pain in the muscles and joins needing pain medications, recurrent headaches and sometimes migraines, hyper sensitivity to light and sound, so that some need to live in dim and very quiet rooms, because even the sound of conversation can be too much, increased allergies and food intolerances, intolerance of any alcohol, chronic insomnia and very poor shallow sleep, plus the neurological effects of ME/CFS often cause a range of mental health symptoms like chronic depression, anxiety, very often emotional sensitivity and stress sensitivity, blunted and numb emotions, and other nasty mental symptoms. Every day is like being in hell, in Dante's Inferno. 

 

This is what long COVID has in store for you, if you catch it. See long COVID symptoms.

 

Long COVID is not age dependent, it can hit at any age. So young people who think they are immune to the effects of SARS-CoV-2 had better think again.

 

 

 

If it was your child, would you as a parent take the 1 in 100 risk of allowing you child to develop long COVID and ME/CFS from SARS-CoV-2?  

 

That's not a rhetorical question; I am specifically asking you what action you would take for your children, balancing out all the risks. I'd like to hear your reasoning on this issue.

 

 

The myocarditis that in rare cases can occur with the vaccine does not destroy lives, or lead to a lifelong illness. Whereas long COVID is a hideous lifelong sentence to a burning hell.

 

I know, because I have ME/CFS (only moderate to mild ME/CFS), and it is so miserable that I'd be happy if a lightning stroke hit me and dispatched me to the next world. Unless you have have had a disease as bad as ME/CFS, you simply have no idea about how terrible human life can be.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Edited by Hip, 05 December 2021 - 03:00 PM.

  • Ill informed x 3
  • dislike x 1
  • Agree x 1

#81 Hip

  • Guest
  • 1,523 posts
  • -57
  • Location:UK

Posted 05 December 2021 - 04:10 PM

Waiting to hear your answer Gal220.

 

And the same question applies to others here (especially the ones too shy to comment, and who just press the red buttons — speak up!). 

 

Let me hear everyone's reasoning, based on statistics and probabilities, and the principle doing the least harm, of what you would do if you had a teenager at school, who potentially could get long COVID for the rest of their lives after catching coronavirus.

 

The vaccine unfortunately does not reduce the risk of long COVID much, only by a factor of 2. But widespread vaccination in schools will help prevent other children from passing the virus to your child. 

 

So you have the data, now you just need to do the arithmetic, and present your case.

 

 


Edited by Hip, 05 December 2021 - 04:12 PM.

  • Ill informed x 2
  • Unfriendly x 1
  • like x 1

#82 Gal220

  • Guest
  • 833 posts
  • 423
  • Location:United States

Posted 06 December 2021 - 06:02 PM

Are you aware that around 1 in 100 people who get COVID go on to develop long COVID? Including young people.

 

Interesting anyone claims to have such precise data, which would be great if our health agencies would start releasing it.   FDA tried to tie up the Pfizer data for 55 years , why do you suppose that is?

 

Amazing you think this is remotely accurate, some estimates put natural immunity at 42 percent for children, how can they possibly know who has and hasnt had the virus?

 

 

From the BBC on long covid

 
"What raises the risk?
"Having more than five different symptoms in the first week was one of the key risk factors," Dr Claire Steves, from Kings College London, told BBC News.
 
Covid-19 is more than just a cough - and the virus that causes it can affect organs throughout the body.
 
Somebody who had a cough, fatigue, headache and diarrhoea, and lost their sense of smell - which are all potential symptoms - would be at higher risk than somebody who had a cough alone.
 
The risk also rises with age - particularly over 50 - as did being female."
 
 
Bruce Patterson has already cracked long covid
 
Personally I am doing the antiseptic protocol with Xlear and Scope to cut down on viral load.

  • Good Point x 1

#83 Hip

  • Guest
  • 1,523 posts
  • -57
  • Location:UK

Posted 06 December 2021 - 07:07 PM

What, is nobody able to provide their line of reasoning for whether or not they would vaccinate their teenager at school (hypothetically, assuming one were a parent of a teenager)?

 

It's a pretty simple question, for anyone here who thinks they are on top of pandemic issues — and most people here seem to think they know it all.   

 

 

 

In terms of calculating the risk of getting long COVID, that's quite straightforward, using the figures we have available. I shall demonstrate here that if you catch coronavirus, your chances of getting long COVID chronic fatigue syndrome is about 1 in 100.

 

In the UK in June 2021, there were around 400,000 cases of long COVID which had lasted for more than a year. Ref: here. This is our starting point.

 

There are actually a lot more long COVID cases in the UK, something like 2 million cases in June 2021, but most of those clear up after 6 months or so. It's the ones that do not clear up which will be myalgic encephalomyelitis / chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), a disease which usually lasts a whole lifetime.

 

So in June 2021, how many people had caught coronavirus in the UK?

 

 

Well in June 2021, the UK worldometer shows there were a cumulative total of about 5 million recorded cases of COVID. But that's just the cases which were recorded.

 

Now it's reckoned that for every recorded case of COVID, there are 3 coronavirus infections which go unrecorded. So to get the total number of COVID infections, you need to multiply by 4, so we get a total of 20 million people infected by COVID by June 2021.

 

So from those two figures, you can work out that about 2.5% of people who catch coronavirus go on to get a form of long COVID which has not cleared up after a year.

 

 

Having studied ME/CFS medical science for 15 years, I know that sometimes people who have had ME/CFS for about a year will become cured after 2 years. So this calculation of 2.5% may be slightly high, as after around 2 years, some of the long COVID patients may get better (but many will remain ill for the rest of their lives). So for a more conservative estimate, we can assume that around 1% of those who catch coronavirus will get a form of long COVID which remains as a lifelong highly debilitating disease. 

 

 

 

 

By the way, the male to female ratio of long COVID is 1:4, that is to say, 4 times as many females get long COVID compared to males. This was discovered by a survey of long haul COVID patients. This makes sense, because it is well-known that the male to female ratio of ME/CFS is 1:4. So this is more evidence that long COVID is the same as ME/CFS.

 

If you want more info about long COVID, there are many support groups which have sprung up:

 

Body Politic COVID-19 Support Group 

https://www.wearebod...tic.com/covid19 —  Communicate via team chat app Slack  

 

Long Covid Support Group 

https://www.longcovid.org

https://www.facebook...roups/longcovid

 

Long Haul COVID Fighters 

https://www.facebook...50553172199572/

 

Covid-19 Support & Recovery 

https://www.facebook...19supportgroup/

 

Survivor Corps

https://www.facebook...9survivorcorps/

 

COVID-19 Longhauler Advocacy Project 

https://www.facebook...AdvocacyProject

 

Young Covid Survivors (Under 35) 

https://www.facebook...24088031126789/

 

Reddit COVID19positive 

https://www.reddit.c...OVID19positive/

 

Reddit COVID long-haulers:

https://www.reddit.c...vidlonghaulers/

 

 

 

 


  • Needs references x 1
  • WellResearched x 1

#84 Hip

  • Guest
  • 1,523 posts
  • -57
  • Location:UK

Posted 07 December 2021 - 03:30 AM

Bruce Patterson has already cracked long covid

 

Cracked long COVID? Where is the evidence that his protocol is effective? No studies on the efficacy of his protocol as far I am aware.

 

I've heard some long haul COVID patients say his treatment helps, but others say it does not work.


  • Agree x 1

#85 geo12the

  • Guest
  • 651 posts
  • -167

Posted 07 December 2021 - 05:46 PM

First, whether or not someone might be cheering for the vaccines to fail is irrelevant. The vaccines will fail or succeed regardless of our wishes. I personally don’t want the vaccines to fail—I am vaccinated myself (Pfizer). What we are discussing, I think, is the best way forward as public policy and as individuals.

 

The demonizing of the unvaccinated has got to stop. It is not supported by science. Those who have avoided the vaccines may have made the wiser choice.

 

As for vaccine mandates, the forced application of experimental treatments is a violation of the Nuremberg codes—it is a crime against humanity.

 

I think continued boosting with same vaccines that we have now will be a big mistake. The rates of infection among vaccinated people were already higher in the vaccinated vs unvaccinated before omicron came along. It is true that the vaccinated have been faring better than unvaccinated in terms of serious illness (from COVID; maybe not from all causes). But how long will this last in the face of the high rates of infection among the vaccinated? The possibility that these vaccines will impair one’s ability to develop broad-acting immunity to subsequent infections (original antigenic sin) is very real. If antibody-dependent enhancement of infection is already occurring, then how long before antibody-dependent enhancement of pathogenicity?

There are better options for vaccine design available. There are early treatment options that are underutilized. Natural immunity from previous infection is being ignored. The natural evolution of the virus toward higher infectivity but lower pathogenicity is changing the risk/benefit ratio.

 

Look people will cherry pick the scientific studies to find data that supports their view and people like Gal will wait until treatments are given the green light by their favorite internet gurus.  Fact is there is lots of bad COVID science. They discuss the problem in a really good Science magazine podcast which I HIGHLY recommend:

 

https://podcasts.app...i=1000543768858

 

I don't agree with you about antibody mediated enhancement but we can agree to disagree.

 

At the end of the day the pandemic is over. I predict there will be a surge this winter that will effect mostly the unvaccinated. But the scary thing about COVID when it first started was that we had not been exposed to it. Now most of have been exposed, either by vaccine or infection. The virus has evolved and will continue to evolve, as all viruses do.  The panic about variants is misguided. It's not really in the best interest of the virus to evolve into being more deadly at this point. It will spread faster if it makes people less sick: If it makes people severely ill, it's hosts (us humans) can't spread itself as effectively as if it makes us less ill and we can get out of our homes to spread it. Does that make sense? The "terrifying" new highly mutated Omega variant spreads easier but makes people less sick than previous versions, something I sort of expected to hear before it made news. Now the political right is still dragging out the silly Nazi comparisons to rile up it's base but the worst is over. Time for everyone to chill out.  The unvaccinated will be hit hard this winter but that is to be expected.  If they are unlucky enough to get COVID hopefully they will get the less severe variants.


Edited by geo12the, 07 December 2021 - 05:48 PM.

  • Dangerous, Irresponsible x 1
  • Ill informed x 1
  • like x 1

#86 geo12the

  • Guest
  • 651 posts
  • -167

Posted 10 December 2021 - 06:20 PM

 

 

The demonizing of the unvaccinated has got to stop. It is not supported by science. 

 

I don't agree with demonizing the unvaxed but the reality is that it's now a pandemic of the unvaccinated who are filling up hospital beds and sucking up medical resources. These graphs are data from the CDC site this morning. What they show is that the pandemic now is mostly a pandemic of the un-vaccinated. This winter is going to be ugly for the unvaxed. The rest of us can take a breath and relax a bit. Let's see how many "Dangerous and Irresponsible!!!" I can wrack up with this one LOL! Wacky questionable COVID information from internet gurus- "Well researched". Truth and reality- "Dangerous and Irresponsible!!!" Welcome to 2021.

 

Attached File  Covid1.jpg   45.48KB   0 downloadsAttached File  covid2.jpg   34.16KB   0 downloads


Edited by geo12the, 10 December 2021 - 06:35 PM.

  • Dangerous, Irresponsible x 1
  • dislike x 1
  • like x 1
  • Agree x 1

#87 Hip

  • Guest
  • 1,523 posts
  • -57
  • Location:UK

Posted 10 December 2021 - 06:42 PM

The people who press the red buttons on posts which simply provide scientific facts are those who have had a science lobotomy. These people would be better off joining quack-fest forums such as www.godlikeproductions.com.

 

If you wanted to conduct some research on mental health problems which predispose towards paranoia and belief in conspiracy theories, then Godlike Productions provides an amazing vista on such people.

 

 


Edited by Hip, 10 December 2021 - 06:49 PM.

  • Unfriendly x 2
  • Pointless, Timewasting x 1
  • like x 1

#88 DanCG

  • Guest
  • 204 posts
  • 129
  • Location:USA

Posted 11 December 2021 - 03:37 PM

I don't agree with demonizing the unvaxed but the reality is that it's now a pandemic of the unvaccinated who are filling up hospital beds and sucking up medical resources. These graphs are data from the CDC site this morning. What they show is that the pandemic now is mostly a pandemic of the un-vaccinated. This winter is going to be ugly for the unvaxed. The rest of us can take a breath and relax a bit. Let's see how many "Dangerous and Irresponsible!!!" I can wrack up with this one LOL! Wacky questionable COVID information from internet gurus- "Well researched". Truth and reality- "Dangerous and Irresponsible!!!" Welcome to 2021.

 

attachicon.gif Covid1.jpgattachicon.gif covid2.jpg

I checked to see how the graphs compare with the UK’s Health Security Agency data. There is general agreement regarding hospitalization and death. The week 48 report, like the earlier reports, shows that hospitalization and death rates are still higher among the unvaccinated, all ages. (Table 11, p. 34). So, you may be right about your prediction of rough times ahead for the unvaccinated. It would not have to be that way, though. Vaccination is not the only variable at work. Infection and death rates are remaining low in certain parts of the world where vaccine uptake is still low, India, for example.

 

In the UK, infection rates are higher among the vaccinated vs unvaccinated, ages 30-69, also like the earlier reports (Table 11, p. 34). It still looks like antibody-dependent enhancement of infection but not antibody-dependent enhancement of pathogenicity (yet). With respect to avoiding infection and guarding one’s own health, it seems that the unvaccinated have more to fear from the vaccinated than the other way around. There is no justification for any lockdown measures directed only at the unvaccinated, or for mandatory vaccination.

 

PS--I don't think that anyone can seriously consider your post to be dangerous and irresponsible. I suspect an attempt at ironic humor.


  • like x 1

#89 Gal220

  • Guest
  • 833 posts
  • 423
  • Location:United States

Posted 11 December 2021 - 05:10 PM

Cracked long COVID? Where is the evidence that his protocol is effective? No studies on the efficacy of his protocol as far I am aware.

 

I've heard some long haul COVID patients say his treatment helps, but others say it does not work.

 

Deep dive on Bruce Patterson's Long Covid protocol with Dr. Drew.

Skip to 1:02:06 for their critique of the Covid response. Biggest shock of the Pandemic, not allowed to innovate

Patterson prefers alternatives to steroids in normal covid - 46:25

 

https://rumble.com/v...chronic-co.html


Edited by Gal220, 11 December 2021 - 05:40 PM.


#90 DanCG

  • Guest
  • 204 posts
  • 129
  • Location:USA

Posted 11 December 2021 - 06:39 PM

 

 

At the end of the day the pandemic is over. I predict there will be a surge this winter that will effect mostly the unvaccinated....  The panic about variants is misguided.... The "terrifying" new highly mutated Omega [sic] variant spreads easier but makes people less sick than previous versions, ... Now the political right is still dragging out the silly Nazi comparisons to rile up it's base but the worst is over. Time for everyone to chill out.  

I agree that there is good reason to believe that the worst is over. The problem is, people are not chilling out. We still have people who believe that failure to wear a mask or failure to get vaccinated or boosted is equivalent to murder. We have governments that are eager to impose draconian measures before they know anything about the newer variants. The Nazi comparisons are not silly when we have governments implementing policies that will force people to get vaccinated in order to to participate in the economy and enjoy basic freedoms of movement, association, and personal autonomy. The pandemic at its worse was never bad enough to justify these measures.’


  • Good Point x 2





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: coronavirus

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users