SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus (COVID-19)

'moderna ceo admits long term effects of vaccines will not be known for a long time.

 

"Coronavirus could have been spreading in US as early as mid-December 2019, study suggests
From CNN Health’s Amanda Sealy

The novel coronavirus may have infected people in the United States as early as Dec. 13, 2019, according to a study published Monday in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases.

The study, which was conducted by scientists at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, analyzed blood donations collected by the American Red Cross from Dec. 13, 2019 through Jan. 17, 2020.

The 7,389 samples, collected from nine states, were tested for SARS-CoV-2 reactive antibodies. ...

Of the samples tested, at least 106 were found to have antibodies for SARS-CoV-2, including ones collected from California, Oregon and Washington from Dec. 13 through Dec. 16, 2019."

That Dec 13-16 timeframe, in Washington, is just right to explain the weird illness that hit the spouse, then me.

Early in the publicized outbreak, symptom descriptions made us wonder if we already had it back in December, but none of the previous studies were able to detect it that far back. And the Seattle Flu Study, which had archived nasal samples that could explore it, was ordered to halt its retrospective testing because the patient consents didn't cover it. This now gives us reason to possibly go find an antibody test. Though not all circumstances support this possibility, e.g. I somehow didn't pass whatever it was on to my very-high-risk dad.

 

Interesting JH new letter:
A closer look at U.S. deaths due to COVID-19 - The Johns Hopkins News-Letter
What many were saying all along.

 

That link doesn't cover the subsequent update. Try this link to get the update from the same archive:
A closer look at U.S. deaths due to COVID-19 - The Johns Hopkins News-Letter

"Editor’s Note: After The News-Letter published this article on Nov. 22, it was brought to our attention that our coverage of Genevieve Briand’s presentation “COVID-19 Deaths: A Look at U.S. Data” has been used to support dangerous inaccuracies that minimize the impact of the pandemic.

We decided on Nov. 26 to retract this article to stop the spread of misinformation, as we noted on social media. However, it is our responsibility as journalists to provide a historical record. We have chosen to take down the article from our website, but it is available here as a PDF.
...
Briand was quoted in the article as saying, “All of this points to no evidence that COVID-19 created any excess deaths. Total death numbers are not above normal death numbers.” This claim is incorrect and does not take into account the spike in raw death count from all causes compared to previous years. According to the CDC, there have been almost 300,000 excess deaths due to COVID-19. Additionally, Briand presented data of total U.S. deaths in comparison to COVID-19-related deaths as a proportion percentage, which trivializes the repercussions of the pandemic. This evidence does not disprove the severity of COVID-19; an increase in excess deaths is not represented in these proportionalities because they are offered as percentages, not raw numbers.
...
Because of these inaccuracies and our failure to provide additional information about the effects of COVID-19, The News-Letter decided to retract this article. It is our duty as a publication to combat the spread of misinformation and to enhance our fact-checking process. We apologize to our readers."
[emphasis added]

One of those links points to this chart (consider bookmarking it to follow in the future):

 

What I find valuable on this website is the opportunity to compare and contrast my experiences with what is happening elsewhere in the world. This applies as much to cars as it does to Covid. Despite different regulations, in essence we are interconnected and what matters to you matters to me.

I have not poured in detail over those CDC figures, but they do not fit with the experience in the UK or for that matter elsewhere in the world.

Here in the UK, one off the most objective measures comes from our Office for National Statistics (ONS) and below is a graph they published in April for the deaths recorded in the first 16 weeks of this year.

The top two lines show the weekly deaths recorded for ‘all causes’ compared to the mean of the previous 5 years.

There is a small rise in both lines for Weeks 1 - 3 which is attributed to our seasonal ‘flu, that hits us most severely in January.

I don’t think anyone can doubt that something significant started causing a rise in death rates in early April.

It is also true that there has been a fall in deaths from non-Covid causes (the three lines at the bottom). But I think the scaling of this is easier to appreciate when the data is presented this way.

‘Buyer beware’ if you believe that the US Covid figures are being manipulated or false. One of the fortunate consequences of the UK’s nationalised healthcare system is that we who work in healthcare here can’t be accused of profiteering from this. I get the same fixed salary whether I see 1 case or 1,000 cases!

 

No problem. I'll take your dose and let you know how it works out 'long term.'

Hummmmm, maybe we can talk up the vaccine risks and make more doses available for the rest of us. <GRINS>

Bob Wilson

 

same with us. but we tested negative. just ask your doc for one, shouldn't be a problem.

 

you are welcome to it. since i am retired and isolating, vaccine will be unnecessary until fully available. i don't mind being last.

 

too little, too late. the non believers have already locked this into memory and action. unfortunately, too many careless things have been said and printed all along this journey by responsible authorities who should know better.

 

and yet, you have the same amount of scoffers as we do.

 

Too right!
And so many of them actually work in healthcare

My understanding of the current situation following vaccination is that those vaccinated still need to follow Covid restriction rules until they are lifted.

I believe this is because the vaccines have only been evaluated to show protection from illness (about 5-10% of those vaccinated may still fall ill). There is not enough evidence gathered to show that viral transmission will be reduced.

So the same situation applies as after catching the virus, asymptomatic or not, and with vaccination - *nothing changes* (apart from some psychological relief you might be in a safer place than others who have yet to be exposed).

 

Are you really saying that if you somehow prevent 90% of the infections, then the "viral transmission" will NOT be reduced ?

Not only is there ample evidence to contradict that ridiculous assertion that has been gathered in other epidemics, just simple common sense should be enough for most people.

The mask rules will stay in place for EVERYBODY because at least half of the people are too stupid to realize that un-vaccinated
people don't immediately have the same "right" to not wear one as those who ARE vaccinated.

 

Here is a much more recent graph from your ONS (scroll down to Figure 3):



At least your total death rate dropped to something resembling a normal year from June through September. That didn't happen in the U.S.

 

Not sure if any of these fast tracked "products" will actually prevent "viral transmission" in the traditional way that some think of, though maybe if you're not dry coughing or spreading drippy/runny nose juices all over yourself and the surrounding environment, then that could reduce "transmission" to some degree.

It is my understanding that the current offering of "vaccines" may only prevent some of the known "symptoms".

"The primary endpoint is to prevent clinical disease, to prevent symptomatic disease, not necessarily to prevent infection," Dr. Fauci said in the interview. "The primary thing you want to do is, if people get infected, prevent them from getting sick. And if you prevent them from getting sick you will ultimately prevent them from getting seriously ill, so that's what we want to do."
...
"If the vaccine also allows you to prevent initial infection that would be great," he said. "But what I would settle for, and all my colleagues would settle for, is the primary endpoint, which is to prevent clinically recognizable disease. That's what we hope happens." And if that does happen, "that will go a long way to diffusing this very difficult crisis that we're in," Dr. Fauci said. Not only would a vaccine like this prevent people from developing complications and needing to be hospitalized, but it could also help prevent the spread of COVID-19 because people with symptoms—particularly coughing and sneezing—spread respiratory droplets containing the virus.
​

Odd that the "Doctor" mentions 'sneezing' as a covid19 symptom, have any "official" symptom lists mentioned that one before ?

 

We know the short term effects include death and organ problems.
What 10 or 30 year down the road problem is worse than this?

Mike

 

I have not read about such problems with most of the current on-track vaccines? If true, it will never pass the phase 1 trial which will prevent such dangerous vaccines to be released to the market, I hope.

 

these rates have nothing to do with behavior