Right, "high-risk".
He's "high-risk" & only has a 94% chance of survival because the same government that created the disease & covered it, created the "vaccine" 4 years earlier & covered it up, is covering up & refusing treatment that would change those statistics to 99.9% survival.
And your advice is take what they're giving you, with indemnification.
You have a career in politics.
LoL @ that shitty "This media is presented out of context" warning...
Meanwhile this straight up bullshit has received no consequences...
View: https://twitter.com/MarinaMedvin/status/1480686949816016896
"Two doses of the vaccine offers very limited protection, if any.”
View: https://mobile.twitter.com/OliL73/status/1481030392698359809
View: https://mobile.twitter.com/OliL73/status/1481030392698359809
He's still high risk.
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
This is fake news, bruv. They're relocating them, not just tossing them out in the street.
Good news
That organization helped my Brother and his family for a full year. I couldn’t imagine them doing this to them when my niece was fighting for her life.
Last edited:
According to authorities in Canada it's more like a 25% reduction if you're vaccinated.
Remembering that they're basically owned by McDonald's. I was like "There's no way they'd think "Yeah, this will go over well." I had to leave Google and go to DuckDuckGo to find it in the news. But apparently they're relocating, not just evicting.
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
Link me. I've only seen the UK data as something that looks comparable to our health care system.
I'll see if I can find it. Over the last few weeks data has become very difficult to find.
I'll do you one better @Splinty
www.theguardian.com
and that would be Delta and not Omicron because it's form October.
Jabs do not reduce risk of passing Covid within household, study suggests
Research reveals fully vaccinated people are just as likely to pass virus on to others in their household
www.theguardian.com
and that would be Delta and not Omicron because it's form October.
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
I'll do you one better @Splinty
Jabs do not reduce risk of passing Covid within household, study suggests
Research reveals fully vaccinated people are just as likely to pass virus on to others in their household
and that would be Delta and not Omicron because it's form October.
But that's not the topic. The topic is on effectiveness against infection. We have known that you can transmit the virus while vaccinated ever since Delta. That's why mask went away and came back. No one is disputing that. It's worth noting that you shed virus for a shorter period of time when vaccinated. It's worth noting that you are less likely to get infected in the first place if vaccinated.
But let's stay focused on the topic...
In a population that is vaccinated would you have a lower number of cases? Even if transmissibility is the same, which is not by several data points, lowering that number of active infections in the population in the first place stops your ability of transmit. It. Have to get infected before you can transmit.
The only thing I can find from a Canadian source on the subject is this pre-print:
Effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines against Omicron or Delta infection
Background The incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection, including among those who have received 2 doses of COVID-19 vaccines, has increased substantially since Omicron was first identified in the province of Ontario, Canada. Methods Applying the test-negative design to linked provincial data, we...
Their methods aren't clear but they are doing a regression analysis based on samples. The UK numbers were based on symptomatic disease. They weren't testing people with no symptoms.
In this case, the estimate 37% decrease in number of cases in a vaccinated and boosted population against omicron.
Depending on their methods of samples, this may be explained as a lower number because of running PCR test on asymptomatic people or it could be that this population is different than the UK or this could be another data point suggesting that it's lower than the UK studies. But the UK data is bigger, broader and more complete and so that last part seems a bit unlikely to hang your hat on as a pre-print.
Hold the phone, Jerome. If the U.K. data isn't testing everyone that makes it largely useless. According to Dr Truth Science, you start spreading 2 days before showing symptoms. That's also ignoring that if the vaccine is reducing severity of infection, that would mean that vaccinated people are more likely to be asymptomatic carriers.But that's not the topic. The topic is on effectiveness against infection. We have known that you can transmit the virus while vaccinated ever since Delta. That's why mask went away and came back. No one is disputing that. It's worth noting that you shed virus for a shorter period of time when vaccinated. It's worth noting that you are less likely to get infected in the first place if vaccinated.
But let's stay focused on the topic...
In a population that is vaccinated would you have a lower number of cases? Even if transmissibility is the same, which is not by several data points, lowering that number of active infections in the population in the first place stops your ability of transmit. It. Have to get infected before you can transmit.
The only thing I can find from a Canadian source on the subject is this pre-print:
Effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines against Omicron or Delta infection
Background The incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection, including among those who have received 2 doses of COVID-19 vaccines, has increased substantially since Omicron was first identified in the province of Ontario, Canada. Methods Applying the test-negative design to linked provincial data, we...www.medrxiv.org
Their methods aren't clear but they are doing a regression analysis based on samples. The UK numbers were based on symptomatic disease. They weren't testing people with no symptoms.
In this case, the estimate 37% decrease in number of cases in a vaccinated and boosted population against omicron.
Depending on their methods of samples, this may be explained as a lower number because of running PCR test on asymptomatic people or it could be that this population is different than the UK or this could be another data point suggesting that it's lower than the UK studies. But the UK data is bigger, broader and more complete and so that last part seems a bit unlikely to hang your hat on as a pre-print.
The following is obviously anecdotal, but we have a staggeringly high vaccination rate here (80% total population, 86% first dose) If we only count eligible people that number jumps to 84% and 91% first dose and we're seeing more infection here than at any other point in the pandemic, and like by a country mile. If I remember right we were seeing 1500 new cases a day in a city of a million people before we stopped testing which was way, way higher than our peak of delta. In a controlled setting there might be some reduction in transmission, but it's kind of hard to believe it provides great protection when we're seeing our highest rates of infection during a time almost everyone is vaccinated. Our local public health authority used to have a thing on their data tracker that said "Unvaccinated people are 11 times more likely to catch covid" It had gotten down to "2 times" before they finally pulled it.
I also might just be rambling, it's been a long day.
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
I'm just pointing out the ranges of known data. The South Africa Data falls between the Canadian and inside the range of the UK (50% effectiveness with booster) , but I have a hard time understanding their system to know what to apply. They are data points each with pros and cons. A swab test could be picking up old virus. Need to know the selection of patients.
Two shots on a good day give you 10% lower cases against omicron in a population that's vaccinated vs unvaccinated after a few months. It'll still be a much higher number than delta on both sides as omicron is much higher transmission than Delta.
Being vaxxed and not boosted for omicron is almost nill after short order. 10% or 0% depending on study. Vax only lowers hospitalization and death. Boost lowers cases some time to be determined.
What's your boosted population? That's the only ones putting any significant selective pressure on omicron case infection.
A quick google....
78% vaccinated no boost = 0-10% depending on time since vaccination on case reduction. Let's call it zero since it looks like most started that series in April or May. Vaccines are doing shit there for cases. Only stopping hospitalization and death.
26% booster. 10 million boosters.
So you've got ~25% of the population that will have 37-50% lower omicron cases inside of that. If even distribution of cases throughout the population, your vaccinations are only saving you 8-12% of cases vs an unvaccinated population.
You are referencing incoming omicron cases vs previous delta. It'll be higher.
The question for the Ronald McDonald house is if you vax and boost do you have fewer cases than if you are unvaccinated? Yes you will.
Still comparing delta to omicron.
Focus is omicron vax vs not vax.
Focus is still on primary infection in the first place. Not reduction in transmission per case.
Most of us aren't 6 months from second dose. You also need to keep in mind that in the article RMHC isn't asking for boosters. They're only even asking for single dose. So they aren't making a great scientific case for the move.
Does the medical community realize that if they fired Fauci and stopped calling it "The Jab" we'd be done the pandemic by Valentine's Day?