Of course, they haven't backshot anybody this week - that we know of... 
Posted on 12/29/2021 8:49:14 AM PST by DoodleBob
CLAIM: COVID-19 vaccines don’t provide protection against the new omicron variant of the coronavirus.
AP’S ASSESSMENT: Missing context. While it’s true that people who are vaccinated can still get infected with omicron, early research has shown that the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are effective at preventing severe disease, hospitalization and death stemming from the new variant.
THE FACTS: A video clip circulating on social media shows Dr. Robert Malone, a frequent critic of the COVID-19 vaccines who has researched mRNA vaccine technology, stating that the shots don’t protect people from omicron. The comments were made during a Dec. 17 interview with Laura Ingraham, a Fox News host, on her show the “The Ingraham Angle.”
“Omicron blows right through the vaccines and through the triple jabbed,” Malone said. “Omicron is very, very infectious and the data are already in that both the double and triple vaccination is not protecting you from omicron.”
...
But the claim is misleading, infectious disease experts say. Preliminary research has shown that while mRNA vaccines are less effective at preventing infection from the omicron variant, the shots are still very effective at preventing severe illness and death.
“It’s misleading. It implies that there is no benefit to boosting in the face of omicron and that is not true,” Chris Beyrer, a professor of epidemiology at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, told The Associated Press. “And it also implies that there is no benefit in the face of omicron to being vaccinated and that’s also not true.”
Beyrer said the evidence is “very clear” that vaccines, along with vaccine boosters, are “effective against omicron in preventing serious disease, hospitalization and death.”
(Excerpt) Read more at apnews.com ...
I don’t see any hint in the AP article that 100% VE is THE benchmark.
Of course, they haven't backshot anybody this week - that we know of...
I am unvaxxed.
I don’t and never have had Covid.
Therefore, being unvaxxed is 100% effective against Covid.
See how that works?
UK: Vaccine effectiveness ZERO for hospitalization
12/29/2021 | Igor Chudov
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/4025156/posts
So we know how it went, from “getting a vaccine means Covid stops with you”, down to “it protects you from getting sick”, down to “it mostly protects you from getting hospitalized”.
Well, the new data from the UK says: the “vax” does not reduce your chances of hospitalization at all.
Look at Page 2 of UK Daily Omicron report (to be soon discontinued due to Delta dying out).
The UK has 23% of vaccine-free persons. And of Omicron hospitalized, only 26% of persons are vax-free. In addition, Omicron has mostly been infecting younger persons as it did not spread to the older population as much. This will happen, of course, but as of now Omicron cases are mostly younger persons 20-49 years of age, who like to party and shop.
Their vaccination rate is around 60-70% (see page 21).
So we get: about 30-35% vaccine-free persons get about 26% hospitalizations for Omicron.
This means that the vaccine does ZIP for them: nada, nothing. It is possible that by breaking the data further you can find a small slice of people, such as the “boosted, but past 14 days, older persons who are less than 10 weeks away from booster” who get hospitalized less due to the short term effect of the booster. I wrote several articles about that. But the protection from boosters wanes very rapidly.
I love the smell of toasted vaxx cheerleaders in the morning (and the moanin').
Do you suppose they'll scurry away, or stand and fight?
I know a lot of people who have had Covid.
Without exception. 100%.
Knew where and when they got it.
Isn’t that kinda strange? During this time of year, in years past anyway, this was “cold and flu season”. Many got a “cold”(respiratory disease), Flu(respiratory) or upper respiratory infection and rarely, if ever, did they know where it came from. “Must have caught it at work” or something was the closest I ever heard.
But now, “I got it from my niece at a get together Saturday night”. Or much the same. So, what’s up with that?
Repeating lies only strengthens the lie.
Find a reliable source with a truthful headline that refutes the freaking Leftist media lies.
THAT is information dissemination and enhancing awareness.
bkmk
DoodleBob wrote: “I don’t see any hint in the AP article that 100% VE is THE benchmark.”
From the article: “THE FACTS: A video clip circulating on social media shows Dr. Robert Malone, a frequent critic of the COVID-19 vaccines who has researched mRNA vaccine technology, stating that the shots don’t protect people from omicron. The comments were made during a Dec. 17 interview with Laura Ingraham, a Fox News host, on her show the “The Ingraham Angle.””
The 100% benchmark VE is implied. The claim is often made that vaccines must protect you from the illness to be considered a vaccine. There are breakthrough infections, therefore these vaccines do not protect you, therefore, they cannot be vaccines. This statement by Malone is just one of many of this type.
Conditioning.
Contact tracing became a household word last year. As a government tool, many of us found it detestable...a Stasi-like guilt-seeking technique, under the guise of "stay safe and heathy."
It would appear, many of us have adopted it personally. Maybe it's because we NEED to know how we got this thing, maybe it's because we want to assign blame, maybe it's because of something else.
Regardless, I doubt we'd do it had the govt got us thinking/conditioned that way.
saleman wrote:
“I am unvaxxed.”
“I don’t and never have had Covid.”
“Therefore, being unvaxxed is 100% effective against Covid.”
“See how that works?”
DugwayDuke writes:
I have been vaccinated.
I don’t and never have had Covid.
Therefore, being vaccinated is 100% effective against Covid.
See how that works?
Despite the propaganda from the anti-vaxxer crowd, the majority of illness, hospitalizations, and deaths are unvaccinated.
Here’s one study:
Summary
Unvaccinated 12-34 year-olds in Washington are
• 3 times more likely to get COVID-19 compared with fully vaccinated 12-34 year-olds.
• 12 times more likely to be hospitalized with COVID-19 compared with fully vaccinated 12-34
year-olds.
Unvaccinated 35-64 year-olds are
• 4 times more likely to get COVID-19 compared with fully vaccinated 35-64 year-olds.
• 18 times more likely to be hospitalized with COVID-19 compared with fully vaccinated 35-64
year-olds.
Unvaccinated 65+ year-olds are
• 7 times more likely to get COVID-19 compared with fully vaccinated 65+ year-olds.
• 13 times more likely to be hospitalized with COVID-19 compared with fully vaccinated 65+ yearolds.
• 15 times more likely to die of COVID-19 compared with fully vaccinated 65+ year-olds
Repeating lies only strengthens the lie.
Only if you give the lie credence and authority.
FR allows for commentary, feedback, pros and cons, and all that good stuff. The act of posting articles on FR is coupled with challenge, research, ridicule, and an assortment of other refinement mechanisms whereby any lie, is laid bare.
Furthermore, unless you're perfect/God, there is a great opportunity for learning in this back-and-forth. FReepers are some of the smartest people around. I almost always learn something here...either a fact, a refutation I wouldn't have consdiered on my own, or an excellent way of seeing something anew.
Besides, in any battle, knowing what the enemy thinks is an important ingredient in success. Echo chambers are so boring. And, for what it's worth, out of the box I challenged the article.
There was a recent post on social sciences, that featured this brilliant give and take involving a Harvard faculty member critical of Charles Murray from the original article, that is worth reprinting. While the thrust of the back and forth is with regard to the "certainty of SCIENCE," it is also about the importance of assiduous disputation, which invariably arises from information dissemination and awareness enhancement:
"so why should we let someone teach social science that we know to be wrong in our social science courses?"
Because it is possible that you are wrong.
Science is not mathematics. Newtonian physics was wrong. And social science is a further three rungs down in certainty from science.
Your level of certainty and arrogance about what can be said, and probably thought, smacks of religion, and not science. This is a political religion that permeates academia at the moment. And which I am fairly sure you will swear does not infect you, while the rest of us can see the symptoms quite plainly.
Only religions ban heretics from speaking because of the wrong-think they might cause. Real science loves a good heretic. In fact, honestly, the entire goal of science is to be a heretic. To have an idea that no other person ever had. Science is the pretty much the antithesis of your thought-police approach.
And most of academia used to be the antithesis of your thought police approach as well, until the religion of leftism took it over, with the direct help of people like you.
Well, if and when you can, try to find reliable sources with truthful headlines that refutes the lies.
Further, many of us (present company included) are busy, have jobs, families, etc and don't see it all. Many FReepers call out posters who post an article that was obtainable via search. I'm not such a policeman, because, again, I don't see it all.
Finally, this AP article caught my eye, because a) I've been all over the PREVENTION basis of EUA and b) have seen the shifting narrative toward Severity, in the face of declining Vaccine Efficacy. So, I posted the article with my refutation.
50+ posts later, here we are.
Thanks for listening.
Not that you need/want to troll through my history, but I've thrown the flag when people say the shots are ineffective or have zero efficacy. That's factually untrue, especially over the short timeframes about which we are talking, i.e. a few months. Concurrently, assuming that VE should be 100% or no shot should be approved is ridiculous.
That said, the shots were granted EUA and the only approved vaccine in the US (Comirnaty) were authorized for PREVENTION. NOT for lessened severity, etc. Maybe they lessen severity, but that's not the basis of approval. If that basis erodes, revoking approval should be on the table.
DoodleBob wrote: “That said, the shots were granted EUA and the only approved vaccine in the US (Comirnaty) were authorized for PREVENTION. NOT for lessened severity, etc. Maybe they lessen severity, but that’s not the basis of approval. If that basis erodes, revoking approval should be on the table.”
I appreciate your throwing the flags as appropriate.
Suppose you’re correct. Don’t you agree that ‘lessened severity, etc.,’ are good things? Why would we revoke approval even if that’s all they accomplish? Doesn’t ‘lessened severity’ also include saving lives?
Here’s one study that says the vaccines do more than lessen severity:
Summary
Unvaccinated 12-34 year-olds in Washington are
• 3 times more likely to get COVID-19 compared with fully vaccinated 12-34 year-olds.
• 12 times more likely to be hospitalized with COVID-19 compared with fully vaccinated 12-34
year-olds.
Unvaccinated 35-64 year-olds are
• 4 times more likely to get COVID-19 compared with fully vaccinated 35-64 year-olds.
• 18 times more likely to be hospitalized with COVID-19 compared with fully vaccinated 35-64
year-olds.
Unvaccinated 65+ year-olds are
• 7 times more likely to get COVID-19 compared with fully vaccinated 65+ year-olds.
• 13 times more likely to be hospitalized with COVID-19 compared with fully vaccinated 65+ yearolds.
• 15 times more likely to die of COVID-19 compared with fully vaccinated 65+ year-olds
They’re for prevention? Isn’t 98% of the NFL players fully vaxxed, but now there’s almost 200 of them coming down with it. Pretty strong evidence that it doesn’t prevent contracting the virus.
For the sake of discussion, lets assume the shots really DO keep people out of the ER and morgue vs the control group. However, if the VE has decayed below the designated threshold (50%), I would STILL consider yanking the EUAs.
The reason is principle. The whole basis of approval was PREVENTION. Indeed, I would go further and suggest that the shots themselves were DEVELOPED to PREVENT. If they don't prevent, then a) they're not performing to spec, and b) that basis of approval is gone. It doesn't matter if they do other wonderful things. Those wonderful things are happy accidents...they may even be hopeful occurrences. But that doesn't change the fact that the drugs are failing in their prime directive.
Am I being pedantic? You bet. Because drug approvals are one place where I want the rules to be followed. More broadly, these approvals have driven government and employer mandates that have caused massive employment dislocations, Constitutional issues about executive power AND "who's body is this?" and a fraying of the fabric of society.
So if these things don't work according to specifications, they should absolutely be yanked.
Gravity side-notes:
Sometimes I wonder, that we actually are traveling thru time.
I wonder, that a “black hole” out in space, is actually the tailpipe of the path/vector that an object took while leaving our time reference (aka time frame reference?).
And lately, I have wondered if gravity is actually compressed time, or a concentration of time.
Yet I marvel at the probability that heaven is where there is no time; and “the end of time” is not some kind of nothing, but in fact, again, heaven where there is no time nor need of time.
And, here, I am wondering what you might think of such ramblings . . . if you have the time? (Yes, all off topic.)
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.