Posted on 01/26/2023 5:29:16 AM PST by blueplum
In a peer-reviewed study on the real-world effectiveness of updated bivalent mRNA vaccines, researchers at the University of North Carolina's Gillings School of Global Public Health found that bivalent boosters are more effective than original monovalent boosters at preventing COVID-19 hospitalization and death. The study was published today in The New England Journal of Medicine....
...Researchers at the Gillings School compared the incidence of severe Omicron infection resulting in hospitalization or death for individuals 12 years of age or older who received a monovalent or bivalent booster dose to those who did not. The study analyzed vaccination and infection data of more than six million North Carolina residents from May to December of 2022, during which the Omicron variant's BA.4.6/BA.5 and BQ.1/BQ.1.1 strains were predominant in the United States. Both the Pfizer and Moderna bivalent vaccines were included in the study, which also considered different age groups, previous infection status, and the number of booster doses already received.
Booster effectiveness peaked at approximately four weeks after receipt of booster and waned afterward. Average effectiveness against severe infection resulting in hospitalization or death over a three-month period was 25% for one monovalent booster dose and 62% for one bivalent booster dose....
(Excerpt) Read more at medicalxpress.com ...
Please, do us a favor and get your clot-shot boosters.
From the post just before this one:
“MAJORITY of Americans vaccinated with bivalent Covid shot are NOT protected against falling ill, CDC report into new XBB.1.5 variant suggests — despite US paying $5bn for updated vaccines”
What information published any more can be trusted ... especially that from CDC or NIH?
North Carolina is a red state - the study was statewide not just Chapel Hill residents
I’m not seeing the citing of “The Conversation” that you refer to. Can you provide a link?
That is bogus. It can’t possibly make a coronavirus and it can’t make a bacteria either.
Scroll to the bottom of the page and there is a listing
Funding Partners
logos shown
they both say the same thing: “ The CDC highlighted that the main purpose of the vaccines is to prevent hospitalization and death rather than transmission,”
the reason the discription of the vaccine has been modifed is because the virus keeps mutating immunity evasion. That goes for vaccine immunity and for acquired immunity. Surely you’ve heard of unvaccinated folks saying they’ve caught covid more than once, with the second time being worse.
What is cheeky about the DM article is, it implies ‘americans’ when the same bivalent is administered in the UK, too. Not sure what the UK paid, tho.
“Jan 11, 2023 · In the UK these bivalent vaccines began to be administered to clinically vulnerable people and adults over 50 in the autumn of 2022 .”
https://theconversation.com/us
Scroll to the very bottom of the page.
It’s not who votes...it’s who counts the votes study.
Or who writes/programs the machine has become very
important. jmo
So they are saying, once you are vaccinated, you need to get your boosters.
Why didn’t they compare those that are unvaccinated to those vaccinated?
Probably because the unvaccinated didn’t need to go doctor or hospital.
I had covid. My husband had covid. At least that’s what the test said.We are both unvaccinated and old. Mine lasted 2 days. His a little longer with coughing. Used prophylactics.
My vaccinated children had covid. It lasted longer. No prophylactics.
Especially UNC, where the original gain of function research was done, before moving it to Wuhan.
Did you lose your sense of taste and smell when you had COVID?
Focusing on the highlighted phrase above, this is the antithesis of my comment. My comment was specifically that the mRNA companies and the CDC/FDA are pushing "updated bivalent mRNA vaccines....
Not changing descriptions. Changing "vaccines." When did the phase three clinical trials end? When did the data become released from these trials? What are the "updates?"
When one changes a product, a formulation, a recipe, a plan, the changes are most obviously CHANGES. And therefore not identical with the unchanged or non-updated products.
Since when did any "updated" drug not require trials and review? Changing a description is merely changing -- or "modifying" -- the marketing.
If one believes that the ‘study’ is factual (I don’t), all it shows is that vaccine survivors have a reduced probability of death from COVID compared with those who weren’t vaccinated. It’s certainly possible that the vaccine simply weeds out the weak ones.
I’m afraid there is build in bias on every level.
The devil is in the details.
When I am aware of the vested interests involved & their track history I am very skeptical. It’s like walking among conmen & gambling that you can spot the con.
[[Average effectiveness against severe infection resulting in hospitalization or death over a three-month period was 25% for one monovalent booster dose and 62% for one bivalent booster dose....]]
Being g generous, and giving them a hypothetical chance it “could be true”, it means what? Surviving covid’s mutatuo s now have an al out 100% chance of survival without any vaccine. Let’s say it is 99.6% chance of surviving-
So, If you are only going to have an “increased 62% chance of surviving “ thst means what? I am not good at math, so I don’t know what that would increase the overall chance of surviving to? Would it be 62% divided by 99.6%? Or times that %? What would the result be then? 99.7?? 99.8%? I’m just guessing, but the tiny possible increase %-wise doesn’t compute when co pared to the negative results,of the vsccines.
Then you have to factor in the risks of the vaccines, and take into account the fact that noone knows what the long term effects of the vaccine are going to be. There seems to be a not so Insignificant increase in sudden deaths after vaccinations. We don’t even know yet what % of people will die from sudden death due to vaccines, not to mention. That we don’t know what these vaccines are doing to the bodies of those that too, it.
“: blueplum
Protection offered to the elderly by bivalents at around 40% isn’t bad but it’s not great and bivalents will have to improve to gain widespread acceptance of an annual vaccine for that age group, which the below article strongly hints at being in the works”
And here I thought even to get EUA you had to show at least 50% efficacy. This fails even that. As for milder symptoms, the “vax” has nothing to do with that, Omnicron et. al. IS milder for everyone, the non vax has nothing to do with that and further implicates it as worthless
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.