Posted on 01/09/2022 4:09:53 PM PST by C210N
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., has tested positive for the coronavirus, according to a statement from her office on Sunday night.
According to a statement, the Congresswoman is recovering from the virus at home and is experiencing symptoms. Rep. Ocasio-Cortez received her booster shot in the fall, according to the statement.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
I hate her politics but I wish her a speedy recoveryWhy? She's not done with screwing you yet.
She got it at the airport bar.
I hope she loses her sense of smell, she’s already lost any sense of taste.
Ignorance on this forum about vaccine
The Covid injections are not vaccines. So of course they don’t work.
Although a different FReeper thread brings news from Texas Children’s Hospital and Baylor about a developed real vaccine.
“The Covid injections are not vaccines.”
Of course not. You can’t believe vaccine scientists and Trump was lying to us about Operation Warp Speed. He’s secretly Deep State.
These things are gene therapy poisons that alter DNA.
Please cite directly where the vaccine makers claimed vaccinations would cause a large reduction in total cases (essentially, a reduction in positive test results). Their tests VERY obviously did not even control for that sort of data.
OTOH, I do grant you that many sources (CDC, pols, media) promised protection of others if I got vaccinated. That was incompetent at best and IMO criminal regardless. It has caused thousands of COVID deaths...
As to your other point, I would note that flu is often spread by vaccinated persons who have mild cases and think it is just a cold or less. I had this happen in a work situation some years back in a job where I would often "camp out" at the workplace, in effect, for several days. That greatly limited my exposure, and the ONLY persons I was exposed to in the time frame my infection would have occurred in were vaccinated individuals (the company had a program to encourage and provide vacs to their regular employees.) "Of course", I was working insane hours and got run down and infected, developing a flu case that put me in bed for a couple days. Not life threatening, you understand, but enough of a case that once diagnosed my doctor ordered me to bed B4 I went and developed more serious pneumonia, or did more spreading of my own. It seemed a mystery to me, telling my doc "but no one I was around had flu" and "everyone was vaccinated 2 months ago." She straightened me out about partial protection, and said this sort of spread from mild / undiagnosed / sometimes vaccinated flu cases was common, although flu spread is usually greater with "sicker carriers" IF they don't isolate upon development of stronger symptoms.
Yet, no one I know of ever argued the flu vaccines were not vaccines because they often only reduce case severity for many people.
There have always been variances in different sources' definition of vaccines. What I recall from my college General Studies health class textbook (that's going back some years!) was that vaccines prime the immune system to react to better prevent DISEASE in an organism, and, (more current) the definition of "disease" is a pathogen or condition that includes (paraphrasing multiple sources) significant harm or negative effect to the diseased organism.
USUALLY in the case of pathogens, reduction of disease (and symptoms) reduces transmission. But, that's certainly not 100% for flu, and COVID is another animal entirely, hitting very high viral loads in nasal passages before the carrier feels sick enough to stay home.
If anything, the definition variant of "vaccine" that you and some others lock in to is simply inadequate to cover a pathogen like COVID. And, the argument is silly. The KEY characteristic of a vaccine is that in a significant % of recipients, the vaccine trains the recipient's immune system to recognize and attack a pathogen before significant harm to that recipient occurs. That training is the nub of it.
With stable pathogens like polio, this can work extremely well. Infections (your definition is fine with me) rarely progress to disease. With high variant-rate pathogens like flu, vaccination is less effective, but still quite useful to reduce cases of disease. Whether or not pathogen transmission is efficiently curtailed depends on details of the pathogen's course of development and shedding in individuals.
At least we agree, so far, the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are usually effective at serious disease prevention in infected persons. IMO they are probably better than some flu vaccines. Whether that will hold up after a few years of COVID mutations remains to be seen.
funny how they are all found in Florida. Horses get covid? nay nay!
gee missey, I sure hope it is uncomfortable as hell, Bitch.
Omicron can give you a mild cold, but with the 3 shots, you only get a mild cold. Plus, the numbers prove that if your fully shot, you won't get hit by a meteorite.
“you’re”
Many reports on the vaxed getting covid. If that is what they got.
https://twitter.com/CalebJHull/status/1480327372519968769?s=20
Caleb Hull
AOC tested positive for COVID-19 because the virus just wants to sleep with her
5:55 PM · Jan 9, 2022·Twitter
I think you have been mislead if you believe "all I ever heard or read was that the vaccine makers reported that their vaccines greatly reduced the number of serious cases and fatalities". That is simply untrue. Everyone, from Pfizer to the FDA to Dr. Fauci to media outlets first said that the vaccines would prevent COVID cases and then the public messaging changed. You can find montages of public figures including Dr. Fauci repeating the statement that the vaccines prevent COVID cases by a simple search.
As to your request, here is what Pfizer represented to the FDA. If you read it you will see that they represented to the FDA that their study showed the vaccine prevented COVID cases, as measured by a "positive SARS-CoV-2 NAAT within 4 days of the symptom period". See page 14 in the document. Their primary endpoint was cases, not hospitalizations or deaths.
Their evidence for the efficacy of their vaccine was the number of cases it prevented. See pages 24 to 30.
Pfizer also collected data regarding a secondary endpoint of serious illness or death. The results of that are on page 31 . Notice that in Table 11 their results for the primary group indicated that the vaccinated group did better than the placebo group, but the effect was not sufficient to meet their predefined success criterion. So their data from the primary groups failed to show that the vaccine prevented severe COVID-19 cases.
When Pfizer ran the analysis for severe cases after the first dose of the vaccine they did see some efficacy in protecting from severe illness. See table 12 on page 31.
But that wasn't what the FDA relied upon, since Pfizer correctly noted that two doses were what they were seeking approval for. The FDA approved the Pfizer EUA based on the reported 95% vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 infection, not because of the vaccine's effect on reducing death or severe illness. At the point in time when the FDA approved the vaccines Pfizer was showing data to the FDA that the vaccine did not meet the test criterion for protection from severe illness based on the data they had.
Of course we now know that the vaccines seem to reduce hospitalizations and deaths based on data collected since the vaccines were approved. But don't be fooled by the more recent spin on the story. The vaccines were shown to have a 95% effectiveness in preventing infection by COVID-19 when they were tested. That no longer seems to be true, either due to evolution of the virus or a rapidly waning protective effect from the vaccine.
You have no clue what is a vaccine.
Perfectly normal and expected. If exposed to covid virus, the vaccine never built a virus proof filter in nose, and you will get infected.
Only purpose of vaccine is to kill the virus AFTER infection, by using the extra anti-bodies created by vaccine. That reduces your chances of ending up in a hospital ventilator.
Based on my professional degree, and four decades plus of practice, I should beg to differ. But like wrestling with a pig in mud, arguing with a fool would only, well, if you don’t already know the rest, I won’t cloud your mind.
You have a nice day.
I was VACCINATED with the most successful vaccine, which eradicated the entire disease from earth. That was around my 1st grade. 2 or 3 years later I came down with smallpox!
That blows your theory out of water! Keep in mind smallpox has 30%+ mortality rate. I was a 8 or 9 year old youngster, a skinny little runt. Pox broke out on my entire skinny body. Fevers of 102-103 daily for several days. I have to believe being vaccinated, I had some anti-bodies for smallpox floating around in my blood, and may be why I recovered.
Now 72 years later, I still have marks on my face left behind by the smallpox.
Why don’t you just state YOUR definition of what a vaccine is instead of posting a snarky and boastful post?
Mt definition of vaccine is straight forward. Any fluid when injected in blood stream causes creation of anti-bodies for the particular virus signature, satisfies definition of a vaccine.
It matters little if the fluid was derived from weakened form of virus using eggs to grow the weakened virus, or mRNA technology which can be developed 5 to 6 times faster than the old fashioned method.
Any Merriam’s dictionary pre2019 definition of vaccine will do.
But c’mon man, your definition is malarkey. By your definition, none of the intranasal vaccines, none of the oral vaccines count. BTW, NO vaccines, real or imagined get injected into vein or artery, so that’s bogus.
By your definition of “any fluid when injected in blood stream” would include spit in saline as a vaccine, because that would get a reaction.
When real people, regular people, are told that they are getting a ‘vaccine’, they understand common historical usage. The mRNA injections are more similar to gene therapy, targeting a specific body response, Not antibody production. If regular people would given that information, likely few would willingly bare their arms for an intramuscular injection.
Someone might have read your definition and misunderstood. I don’t expect to change your mind.
Snarky is a Karen word.
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.