Posted on 12/30/2021 3:49:58 PM PST by ransomnote
The Vaccine Efficacy (VE) against Omicron after the second dose is statistically equal to zero for AstraZeneca. Further, the average rate of infection for those getting a second shot of AstraZeneca at the 20+ week point is HIGHER than that for the unvaxxed., i.e. Negative VE.
The Omicron VE picture for Pfizer and Moderna is slightly better, though VE is negative after 20 weeks beyond the second shot.
Insofsr as approval was granted on the basis of these shots' PREVENTIVE capacity (at least that was the basis in the US), the approval should be reconsidered at a minimum, if not outright yanked.
If these numbers are correct, then the vaccinated are overwhelmingly more protected than the unvaccinated, and it isn't even close. These numbers are even stronger than one might have expected given the amount of time that has passed since the first doses and the fact later variants would have been more dominant in this time period. 54% of hospitalizations from a pool of 80% vaccinated vs. 46% of hospitalizations from a pool of 20% unvaccinated is an extraordinary difference in the protection for the vaccinated vs. unvaccinated. When you consider the fact most of the unvaccinated are the younger and more healthy portions of the population, the difference is even more staggering.
Thanks for the tidbit on the Constitution.
Need to pin this one somewhere.
75.8% of the population of UK is double or triple vaccinated.
80% of deaths are in the vaccinated population.
It sounds like the vaccines increase the risk of death.
That is correct - so this part of the article reveals something extraordinary: "This means the vaccinated population accounted for 54% of Covid-19 hospitalizations between November 22nd and December 19th, whilst the not-vaccinated accounted for just 46%." So 54% of hospitalizations from 80% of the populations vs. 46% of hospitalizations from 20% of the population means the vaccinated are overwhelmingly - not even close - more protected from hospitalization than the unvaccinated. The contrast is even greater when you consider it is the younger and healthier (and thus less susceptible to hospitalization and serious illness) that would account for most of the unvaccinated.
Nope..and neither could the creator of the virus as they both work together...../s
That is a very interesting graph. The media will not know how to interpret it! So baffling.
If it doesn’t keep you from getting the disease and dying, why do they continue to call it a “vaccine”?
It’s actually a gene therapy product, according to FDA documentation, but they decided to call it a ‘vaccine’ because it’s a bioweapon they want to force people to take, and because the EUA on the Covid ‘vaccines’ protects they from all liability. This way the CDC/FDA/NIH can kill as many people as possible and claim they didn’t know it was toxic, and point to the liability protection they’re hiding behind.
If the FDA approved these gene therapy shots they’re calling ‘vaccines’, the manufacturers could be sued for the damage they are intentionally doing.
The reason the CDC/FAUCI/Pharmas are desperate to ‘vaccinate’ children is to obtain a rubber stamped “Recommended for Children” from the FDA. Once they get ‘recommended for children’ awarded for these bioweapons, they can then 1) Have the FDA approve them 2) Mandate them and 3) escape all liability. There’s a loop hole. ‘Vaccines’ that are recommended for children and FDA approved are free of all liability - they can kill at will.
Thank you for this off-the-cuff analysis. It makes me feel better for my vaccinated kin. I'm still glad I got my immunity the "old fashioned way", though, and am simply uninterested in going through life taking frequent vaccinations.
That corresponds to over 70% of the population being vaxxed, but it does not make sense if the vaccine is as effective as promoted.
Fully vaxxed is 71% for the UK, but as I pointed out myself, the case and death rates among the vaxxed correspond to the high vax rate, but they do not correspond to the promises and claims made for vaccination effectiveness. And apart from being a infectious agent - most of which occurs by a few in "superspreader" events, almost all being in household-type settings - then since the CFR is very low for those under 65, and almost all are tied to obesity and typical related comorbidities, then vaccination should not be mandated for all. .
The most prevailing lethal "pandemic" is obesity, which over 42% of Americans are (and over 70% overweight), and is estimated to be responsible for 280,000 premature deaths each year, but dealing with this preventable but unprecedented and increasing level of an acquired condition of substantial lethality does not see a response that is anything close to that of Covid-19. And the all-ages and condition restrictions of which have their own negative effects, including increasing obesity. To impose long-term severe restrictions and requirements in the interest of saving lives due to an infectious somewhat preventable disease, while actually fostering the death of the most vulnerable who are safely “quarantined” in the womb og their mother, as well as doing comparatively little to combat the leading Covid-19 comorbidities, is irrationally inconsistent.
Pfizer did a study. Fast forward to 2:00, they discuss ARR vs. Relative Risk Reduction. ARR is not very high.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.