Posted on 06/17/2021 1:28:04 PM PDT by CondoleezzaProtege
June 16 (UPI) -- A single dose of one of the two-shot COVID-19 vaccines prevented an estimated 95% of new infections among healthcare workers two weeks after receiving the jab, a study published Wednesday by JAMA Network Open found.
(Excerpt) Read more at upi.com ...
Because they bought 2.
“Then why are we overloading low risk people and children with TWO?!”
********************************************************************
Well, for one thing, this study of working healthcare workers likely includes few, if any, elderly or folks with low functioning immune systems. The 95% efficacy rate, for two doses, found in the large mRNA vaccine trials included large numbers of those populations.
BTT
But your point is well taken for children and healthy young people. I think the federal bureaucracy gets confused when they move away from “one size fits all” approaches.
Vaccine effectivness most likely related to PCR testing no longer being valid.
Because we know that "scientists" and "journalists" are all as pure as the driven snow...
I mean, if you can't trust "scientists" and "journalists" who CAN you trust?
.
In other news, "Soviet Grain Harvest Smashes Record!"
(While millions starve to death)
See above.
This doesn’t sound right.
You can’t prove a negative.
Besides, out of 109 cases...whee=whooo big numbers...39[or whatever] got infected with 1 shot and the rest had no shot.
That is not 95%.
They are trying awful damn hard to push this crap...too hard.
How do they control for this study? Back in ye olden thymes if one kid got the mumps or measles they’d throw all the kids into the same room so everyone would catch it at the same time, and end the outbreak quickly.
That’s sort of the only way to prove it works. Put everyone into a room with infected people, see who fares better.
All the rest, many possible external uncontrolled biases. Maybe some actually built into the trial. Maybe a fair number kept lots of precautions. Lots of sanitization. Maybe segregated by clinic type where exposure for most health workers was minimal. Who was “locked down” more? Who just went to work where they sprayed and temperature checked all those who made contact (thus minimizing risk of exposure), and then back home and virtually nowhere else, thus avoiding infected people? How many were taking a drug/mineral cocktail in addition to the vaccine?
On the surface it seems to be helping but I consider myself science minded, and there are a lot of possible other reasons for these results.
Even Dr. Fauci said it put him out for at least 24 hours. Sounds like OD...
So a 5% infection rate? Isn’t that pretty much the same chance of getting COVID?
A point to consider: most healthcare workers already have strong immune systems because they come in contact with lots of patients.
Russia’s authorities were more than happy to say that one dose of Sputnik may be enough...Other countries, just out of pure necessity delayed the two doses of Pifzer/Modern by up to 12 weeks or more... And issued statements about Covid survivors either not needing the vaccine or only getting one dose.
Just our country is so...UGH juvenile about all this. Some of the risk is quite dangerous and cause long term harm especially for young’ins - to be recklessly and indiscriminately injected :(.
“That’s sort of the only way to prove it works. Put everyone into a room with infected people, see who fares better.“
Yep, and I will take that one step further. Some of the vaccinated in the room may have their innate immune system destroy covid before it even made it to the antibody level. So just being in the same room is not enough.
We need a vaccinated person to be purposely infected to see a true number. Any takers? BTW, this is how animal trials work, we do not guess on the effect, we purposely infect them. That way we know…..of course the trials ran aground when challenged with the real virus….but I digress.
Estimated 95%….lol and I estimate that I am actually under weight not over weight!
*snork* *guffaw!*
It’s a good point. I’ve repeated this data point but it’s interesting to me. The Red Cross tests donated blood for antibodies. They test vaccinated and unvaccinated people. Some 20% of unvaccinated people who donated blood showed presence of antibodies. So if that extrapolates out to the general population it suggests the actual infection rate is twice the official number.
Take that a little further, though, and probably front line people are a bit more likely to be blood donors. Which would suggest they were (also) more likely to be previously infected. Considering their occupation is literally walking around sick people and those who care for sick people for 12 hours a day it makes sense.
So, did they test for presence of natural antibodies before they allowed these people to be vaccinated? Because as you said, though they do try to control the arms of a trial, this study looked at health care workers. It makes some sense that a large number already had some form of immunity before the shot.
I recall early in the pandemic seeing interviews with various doctors, one in NYC stands out, he said it was his job so he was there to help, worn out, over worked, stressed, and overwhelmed and very sad - but that he was also taking some various medications in the hopes it would give him some protection. This was before HCQ and Ivermectin were really even in the news. I would wager a large number of HC workers were trying something, anything, to keep from an infection or to prevent serious disease progression from infection. Did they control for this in the trial? What good is a vaccine study if the participants are all taking a cocktail of drugs that more or less do the same thing as the vaccine? It would make the study worthless.
Without a booster your immune system will forget.
If your immune system only sees something once it will dismiss it as a one-off and forget about it after awhile.
If it sees something twice it will upgrade it to a danger to keep a permanent lookout for.
This is also why natural immunity may fade quickly.
“So a 5% infection rate? Isn’t that pretty much the same chance of getting COVID?”
No it reduces it by 95%. So if 1000 people in the control group got Covid only 50 did in the one that got the vaccine.
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.