Coronavirus

Yale Medicine: Comparing the COVID-19 Vaccines: How Are They Different?

We all agree that Pfizer is the weakest against the variants. 6 months in, 97% efficacy against severe disease. Still 90% effective against the delta variant IN MOTHER SCRATCHING ISRAEL and 96% effective against hospitalization in THE UNITED KINGDOM.

I'd say your assertions are wildly inaccurate.
Pfizer:
How well it works: Experts continue to learn about Pfizer’s efficacy both in the laboratory and in the real world. Pfizer’s initial Phase 3 clinical data presented in December showed its vaccine to have 95% efficacy. In April, the company announced the vaccine had 91.3% efficacy against COVID-19, based on measuring how well it prevented symptomatic COVID-19 infection seven days through up to six months after the second dose. It also found it to be 100% effective in preventing severe disease as defined by the CDC, and 95.3% effective in preventing severe disease as defined by the FDA. Another study, not yet peer-reviewed, provided more new data that brought the efficacy number down to 84% after 6 months, although efficacy against severe disease was 97%.

In August, the CDC also published studies that showed mRNA vaccine protection against infection may be waning, although the vaccines were still highly effective against hospitalization. In one CDC study, data from the state of New York showed vaccine effectiveness dropping from 91.8 to 75% against infection.

How well it works on virus mutations: A number of studies have focused on the vaccine and the mutations. In early May, the Pfizer vaccine was found to be more than 95% effective against severe disease or death from the Alpha variant (first detected in the United Kingdom) and the Beta variant (first identified in South Africa) in two studies based on real-world vaccinations.

As far as the Delta variant, two studies reported by Public Health England that have not yet been peer reviewed showed that full vaccination after two doses is 88% effective against symptomatic disease and 96% effective against hospitalization. But Israel later reported the vaccine’s effectiveness to be 90% effective against severe disease, and 39% against infection in its population in late June and early July, based on an analysis of the country's national health statistics.
Click to expand...
 
OUBubba said:
I think the opposite is true. I see the vaccines being VERY successful at staving off hospitalization and death. Is that inaccurate?
Click to expand...
As relates to the sniffles, yes.

You asked a question earlier and were given an answer. You now want to play word games. The sniffles vaccine does not accomplish the stated goal. Further, in some cases, it appears to have the very real potential of hastening a demise.
 
mb227 said:
As relates to the sniffles, yes.

You asked a question earlier and were given an answer. You now want to play word games. The sniffles vaccine does not accomplish the stated goal. Further, in some cases, it appears to have the very real potential of hastening a demise.
Click to expand...
As it relates to HOSPITALIZATION and DEATH, it is very effective. As it relates to the sniffles and flu symptoms, not as effective. But, you know this and are just being contrarian. It's your nature. FREEDOM!!!!!
 
OUBubba said:
Yale Medicine: Comparing the COVID-19 Vaccines: How Are They Different?

We all agree that Pfizer is the weakest against the variants. 6 months in, 97% efficacy against severe disease. Still 90% effective against the delta variant IN MOTHER SCRATCHING ISRAEL and 96% effective against hospitalization in THE UNITED KINGDOM.

I'd say your assertions are wildly inaccurate.
Click to expand...

Hmm. With 50% of the ICUs in Israel being occupied by vaccinated folks I'll take that "90% against severe disease" number as being too high.
 
OUBubba said:
As it relates to HOSPITALIZATION and DEATH, it is very effective. As it relates to the sniffles and flu symptoms, not as effective. But, you know this and are just being contrarian. It's your nature. FREEDOM!!!!!
Click to expand...
In the short term - a few months - the shot does provide additional antibodies which helps protect against the virus; at least the Wuhan strain. But clearly the effect isn't long-lasting, hence the need for continual "boosters," and it doesn't do too much against mutated strains which will be ongoing.

But your focus, and the focus on the news, is on whether or not the shot is effective in fighting Covid. For. the sake of argument, let's say it is. What are you missing?

More than a few scientists are very concerned that the Spike proteins generated by your body as a result of the vaccination will have long term consequences including the weakening of your immune system as well as damage to various organs. In other words, you may not catch Covid - but you instead die of some other complication that your innate immune system would have easily handles (cancer, heart problems, clotting, etc.). Many highly vaccinated places are starting too show an excess amount of deaths from other causes. For example, you might expect 1000 heart failures in a month, but now there are 1,200. Is this tied to vaccinations? It's probably too early to tell. Until time passes and more data is unearthed, we don't know.

If you are "fully vaccinated" (no such thing since you have to keep pumping in booster shots to stay protected, even though you can still catch it), and you have no concerns, keep taking booster shots whenever Team Biden advises you. Me. No thank you.
 
Last edited:
Musburger1 said:
To stop or reverse the processes you referred to (fascism, erosion of property and personal rights) is going to require massive civil disobedience, strikes/work stoppage such as what appeared to happen with SW Airlines recently, or worse. Any happy thoughts that the justice system, Congress, or some institutional pillar will come rescue society is delusional. Social contracts are being dismantled at an accelerating pace. Chaos, anger, disillusionment, and disgust is becoming the norm. Apathy and compliance won’t last mush longer I suspect.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately I think you are right.

And if change is made, the whole idea of Social Contract needs to be thrown in the dustbin of history. A totally useless and meaningless doctrine that had lead to much suffering in the world.
 
Garmel said:
Hmm. With 50% of the ICU in Israel being occupied by vaccinated folks I'll take that "90% against severe disease" number as being too high
Click to expand...

The 90% against severe disease sounds good but isn't the human immune system at 95% without the vaccine? The hospitalization rate of unvaccinated is around 5%.
 
Monahorns said:
Either way the vaccine didn't "work" for Powell. It didn't work for my uncle. It doesn't work for many others. We don't know the real number because the NIH, CDC aren't interested in knowing.
Click to expand...

The CDC is clearly tracking the vaccinated death/sickness impact vs. unvaccinated. With VERS they've been public about monitoring any symptoms from vacc and with the FDA review of Booster shots they've clearly been monitoring efficacy and longevity of the antibodies for the vaccines.

To be sure, there is an army of people with actual medical degrees pouring over the data. I can only imagine that the amateur internet doctors looking over their shoulder and claiming they aren't interested in something they are clearly monitoring must be a bit grating for them.
 
Monahorns said:
Unfortunately I think you are right.

And if change is made, the whole idea of Social Contract needs to be thrown in the dustbin of history. A totally useless and meaningless doctrine that had lead to much suffering in the world.
Click to expand...
By social contract, I not only mean the ponzi schemes such as Social Security and Medicare, welfare, and so forth, but also the idea that if you work hard and follow the rules you will have a fair shot at upward mobility under the law. The former is unsustainable because its a math problem. The latter happens when corruption controls the rails of government. We are beginning to see both begin to converge in my opinion.
 
Seattle Husker said:
The CDC is clearly tracking the vaccinated death/sickness impact vs. unvaccinated. With VERS they've been public about monitoring any symptoms from vacc and with the FDA review of Booster shots they've clearly been monitoring efficacy and longevity of the antibodies for the vaccines.

To be sure, there is an army of people with actual medical degrees pouring over the data. I can only imagine that the amateur internet doctors looking over their shoulder and claiming they aren't interested in something they are clearly monitoring must be a bit grating for them.
Click to expand...
There are a great number of nurses and doctors who have stated that the ability to report under VAERS has been discouraged/suppressed. So don't trust every statistic since statistics are only as reliable as the data available for input.
 
Garmel said:
Hmm. With 50% of the ICUs in Israel being occupied by vaccinated folks I'll take that "90% against severe disease" number as being too high.
Click to expand...
I'm sure Yale is inaccurate. I'd be interested in your link. Here's the closest I could find: Number of COVID patients on ventilators hits highest level since March

"The vast majority of both new infections and serious cases have been among those who are not vaccinated. According to the ministry, 493 of those in serious condition were unvaccinated, compared with 134 patients who were vaccinated with two doses, and 55 patients who received a third dose of the coronavirus vaccine."
 
Musburger1 said:
There are a great number of nurses and doctors who have stated that the ability to report under VAERS has been discouraged/suppressed. So don't trust every statistic since statistics are only as reliable as the data available for input.
Click to expand...
I'm in healthcare. Inputing VAERS data is actually the wild west. Anyone can do it. Due to that freedom it's not great data, is inaccurate, and is prone to overreporting. Our system has done about 20,000 doses and the only one that I thought we had we determined after the fact that she was trying to get out of work so it wasn't relevant. Unverified reports of vaccine side effects in VAERS aren't the smoking guns portrayed by right-wing media outlets – they can offer insight into vaccine hesitancy

Damn, the lamestream media thinks of everything.
 
OUBubba said:
I'm in healthcare. Inputing VAERS data is actually the wild west. Anyone can do it. Due to that freedom it's not great data, is inaccurate, and is prone to overreporting. Our system has done about 20,000 doses and the only one that I thought we had we determined after the fact that she was trying to get out of work so it wasn't relevant. Unverified reports of vaccine side effects in VAERS aren't the smoking guns portrayed by right-wing media outlets – they can offer insight into vaccine hesitancy

Damn, the lamestream media thinks of everything.
Click to expand...

So now you're down to posting medical links authored by Political Science "assistant professors". Hard to take you seriously
 
Horn2RunAgain said:
So now you're down to posting medical links authored by Political Science "assistant professors". Hard to take you seriously
Click to expand...
Even worse than that was the complete failure of the author of what amounts to an opinion piece to even consider WHY the 'mainstream' sites (which seem to be those with whom the author agrees) might have an agenda to suppress some bad information that ran contrary to the narrative being shoveled.
 
mb227 said:
Even worse than that was the complete failure of the author of what amounts to an opinion piece to even consider WHY the 'mainstream' sites (which seem to be those with whom the author agrees) might have an agenda to suppress some bad information that ran contrary to the narrative being shoveled.
Click to expand...
It actually discusses, from a social science point of view, that the simplistic nature of the VAERS data has been manipulated to create vaccine hesitancy. But, sure.
 
OUBubba said:
It actually discusses, from a social science point of view, that the simplistic nature of the VAERS data has been manipulated to create vaccine hesitancy. But, sure.
Click to expand...
opinion-man.gif
 
Monahorns said:
The Texas Constitution's Bill Of Rights denies politicians the ability to restrict assembly and private property rights. Abbott and the courts violated that right. And really no one said anything about it. I made a few comments on here and in other outlets, but no one really supported the statements.
Click to expand...

It protects the right to assemble and private property rights. However, a temporary restriction on a business from operating isn't going to be deemed a taking of property. (Is there a point at which it could be? I think the argument can certainly be made.) It's going to be a restriction on the time, place, and manner in which private property is used. We impose restrictions like that all the time. If we didn't, then there would be nothing such as zoning laws, noise ordinances, etc.

There can also be restrictions on the time, place, and manner in which people assemble. If you want to assemble 4,000 people in the gallery of the Texas House, you'll be stopped.

You're going to hate this, but no constitutional right is absolute and subject to no regulation. That sounds terrible, but it's true, and it has always been true.

Monahorns said:
IF, and this is a big if, a governor or a legislature wants to restrict assembly rights or access to businesses there is a comment that it is allowable through due process. There was no due process. There was authoritarian action that all Ds and most Rs supported. If there had been a discussion, a debate, then a vote either by the people or the representatives, then I would have no leg to stand on. But none of that happened. Ever. King Abbott took rights and gave them back, and the vast majority of Texans simply saluted. Eff that.
Click to expand...

I don't necessarily disagree. I think Abbott should have called the Legislature into session before imposing lockdowns to clarify his authority on the matter, but the laws on point are loose by design.

However, I also understand the other side of things. It would have taken a lot of time to convene the Legislature and pass a new statute, and he didn't act in clear and direct conflict with it. Furthermore, at the time we weren't totally sure what we were dealing with. Fortunately, we now know a lot more about how to deal with Covid, but at the time, we didn't. If he hadn't acted and the virus had been what we feared it was and thousands of children had died, Abbott's balls would have been in a sling.
 
The most high profile termination to date for choosing to not get vaccinated? Kyrie Irving may be giving Rolo a run for his money.

Washington State football coach Nick Rolovich fired: How it happened, what comes next and more

Dude walked away from a $3.2M/yr contract. 4 assistants were also let go.

He seemed like a nice enough guy. He was the only P12 head coach not to be vaccinated. He applied for a Religious exemption, no word yet on whether that was accepted/rejected. That's not a guarantee though because accommodations still need to be made to not be in close proximity to the public. That's not possible with an HC. Empathetic to the players and the remaining coaches that chose to get vaccinated but will likely lose their jobs under a new staff. Rolo...not so much. As the highest paid State of Washington employee there is an inherent expectation that you lead. The direction he's leading goes against the social contract. Buh bye.
 
Last edited:
Rolovich is going to be fine, as will the assistants who follow him to a private school that will open their checkbook to the group. And so will the players who head to the portal, given the number of players that typically choose programs based upon who the coaches are...

Ironically, looking at football, Arizona Cardinals just single-teamedly showed how useless mandates are given that the head coach, GM, and several players were unavailable last week due to...'rona -team is fully vaxxed.
 
OUBubba said:
I'm sure Yale is inaccurate. I'd be interested in your link. Here's the closest I could find: Number of COVID patients on ventilators hits highest level since March

"The vast majority of both new infections and serious cases have been among those who are not vaccinated. According to the ministry, 493 of those in serious condition were unvaccinated, compared with 134 patients who were vaccinated with two doses, and 55 patients who received a third dose of the coronavirus vaccine."
Click to expand...

From a few months ago.
 
Mr. Deez said:
You're going to hate this, but no constitutional right is absolute and subject to no regulation. That sounds terrible, but it's true, and it has always been true.
Click to expand...

We are not talking about constitutional rights. We are talking about natural, God-given, inalienable rights. The fact that governments give reasons why they can violate them doesn't justify the violations. It shows how bad governments are and how well brain washed our citizenry is to allow it.
 
Last edited:
The elephant in the room is the fact that the shot neither prevents you from being infected nor from spreading the infection. Everyone is expected to ignore that.
 
mb227 said:
A recent obit from Oregon actually cited the vaccine induced thrombosis...

Jessica Berg Wilson Obituary (1983 - 2021) The Oregonian
Click to expand...

If you care about the incidence of VITT, it's occurrence in vaccine recipients this is a good article from the American College of Cardiology.

The incidence of VITT is not certain, but it appears to be extremely rare. A recent report in JACC found that cerebral vein thrombosis occurred in 3.6 per million people after the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine and 0.9 per million people after Johnson & Johnson vaccine. For comparison, the rate of cerebral vein thrombosis is estimated at 207 per million in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 and 2.4 per million in the general population. The risk of death and serious outcomes of COVID-19 (including thrombosis) far outweigh the small risk of VITT.
Click to expand...

Note that VITT has only been tied to AstraZeneca and J&J. As of early September ~14M had received the J&J vaccine in the US. That would equate to ~13 people having this issue and it isn't always always fatal. Of course, VITT occurs at a much greater rate for those hospitalized with Covid-19.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top