More than Half the Current Cases and Two-Thirds of Patients in serious condition fully vaxxed

www.jpost.com...

As the title says:

More than half of the current cases and two-thirds of patients in serious condition were fully vaccinated, the Health Ministry reported.

Yet despite this fact, the article goes on to claim that

Pfizer’s coronavirus vaccine remains 91% effective against developing serious cases of the disease, while its effectiveness at stopping infection declined from between 90%-95% to 39%, the Health Ministry reported.
The vaccine was found to be 40% effective against symptomatic COVID-19 and 88% effective against hospitalization, it said.

Now, why do I feel like there is some tomfoolery afoot when they claim such high effectiveness against serious cases when they admit that 2/3 of all serious cases are fully vaccinated.

And then you look at the vaccine rate in Israel - 61.3%, according to ourworldindata - and the numbers stop adding up.

Now I'd like to touch on some conspiratorial things I've noticed happen over the last few days:

1) When I Google "Israel Vaccination Rate," it did NOT show me a chart at the top of Google like it does with literally all other countries. I'll show you in pictures:

Israel vaccine rate



South Korea vaccine rate



US vaccine rate



England vaccine rate



Peru vaccine rate



Malta vaccine rate



Now, am I the only one that finds it fishy that Google has stopped putting the "our world in data" data at the top of the search engine results page (SERP) as it does with literally every other country that I've Googled for the six months or so?

Probably not surprising when you realize Israel's data has become a hot topic and fact checkers are now scrambling like mad men to explain it away and continue trying to blame "anti-vaxxers" for "misinformation" like this WaPo article here: "Vaccine doubters' strange fixation with Israel"

This article was written 6 days ago, and here's a gem for you all:

The country shot to the lead of the pack with an aggressive vaccination campaign, but its results weren’t as instantaneous as these critics suggested they should have been. Cases in Israel kept rising for a little while! So they pitched Israel as evidence that maybe the vaccines didn’t really work that well.

But then the vaccination effort actually took hold. Israel dropped from a high of around 10,000 new daily cases in January to a seven-day average of as low as 10 last month. It began logging some days with zero deaths in April, and has recorded about 100 confirmed deaths in the last three months. If there is one country that reinforced the efficacy of the vaccines, it became Israel.

Ahh, so Aaron Blake appears to believe Israel was the epitome of vaxcess!

Oh wait, hold the phone:

But old habits apparently die hard. A vaccine skeptic community that often focuses on unverified data, innuendo and false and misleading comparisons is suddenly pointing to Israel again. The reason: The country is suddenly seeing an uptick in cases, and most of them are among vaccinated people.

Oh, snap. Sorry Blake. Darn those pesky numbers! You almost had us there! Oh but don't you worry your little vax-heads ... Blake has the new talking point for easy regurgitation ready for you to ... well ... regurgitate:

While cases are indeed rising significantly in Israel because of the more vaccine-resistant delta variant, that’s from a very low baseline. The country remains at a fraction of its former case numbers. The seven-day average is at about 800 new daily cases, or less than one-tenth of the January peak.

Goalpost relocation initiated ...

Beep ...

Boop ...

Goalpost relocation completed ...

Well there you have it. Despite over half of cases in vaccinated people, and despite over 2/3 of serious cases in vaccinated people, the truth is that you can't trust those data because, well, it's LOWER than it was in January.

Despite the same lull in cases & mortality during Summer months last year (where many thought the pandemic was over), you mustn't concern yourself with that because WaPo tells you that "but the goalpos....err....baseline is so low"

And don't worry, Blake slyly admits (ya' know, for the sake of journalistic integrity) that most cases are coming from the vaccinated community, but according to him, that's only because the vaccinated community is so large!

It’s true that most new cases are coming from the vaccinated community, but that’s in large part because of how relatively big that community is in Israel. The latest numbers show that 85 percent of Israeli adults are vaccinated, meaning there are more than five times as many of them as unvaccinated people.

Then he goes on to quote Katelyn Jetelina:

The more vaccinated a population, the more we’ll hear of the vaccinated getting infected. For example, say there’s a community that’s 100% vaccinated. If there’s transmission, we know breakthrough cases will happen. So, by definition, 100% of outbreak cases will be among the vaccinated. It will just be 100% out of a smaller number.

The problem? They don't have a 100% vaccination rate and the claim is that the vaccines work against serious illness and also symptomatic illness in general. Don't forget - they stopped claiming that vaccines would reduce transmission because it was demonstrably false - so now it's that it reduces severity and mortality.

Yet for some strange reason, the majority of people are vaccinated, whereas if you were dealing with something that worked, the majority of them would STILL be unvaccinated, no matter what less-than-100-percent existed, right? Apparently that only pertains to every other country BUT Israel:

"Over 99% Hospitalized 2021 COVID Patients Unvaccinated"

So again, they scream this at the top of their lungs to "prove" that vaccines work, but when Israel's data doesn't support that claim, they initiate the relocation of all goalposts and still declare anti-vaxxers bio-terrorists.

Please don't pay attention to the fact that Google is now trying to scrub Israeli vaccination rate from its pages while retaining immediate vax rates for all other countries. Don't pay attention to the fact that 1/2 of their cases and 2/3 of serious cases are from FULLY VACCINATED PEOPLE ... no, you're silly if you cared about that, because it comes from "a very low baseline."

In countries where 99% of hospitalized people are "unvaccinated," (or so the claim says), that's proof of it working. In countries where 2/3 of serious COVID patients are fully vaxxed? That's proof that vaccines work.

Ya' know -- "follow the science" and make things up when it doesn't agree.

Impressive and very convincing research OP! Too bad analyses like yours never reach the masses.

Like I said either this no about covid, or big pharma just wants to have a steady influx of more profits for life with their crappy shot.


But at the end the truth will always comes out.

I will not be a milking cow.

a reply to: BatSars
40% of the breakthrough cases in Israel were found to be with people who are immunocompromised and a majority of the rest had comorbidities. Not saying the vaccines are good. Just adding those two facts to the thread.

originally posted by: marg6043
Like I said either this no about covid, or big pharma just wants to have a steady influx of more profits for life with their crappy shot.


But at the end the truth will always comes out.

I will not be a milking cow.

Cue demands for 3rd shot in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...

The greed is astounding, my friend.

originally posted by: Avardan
Impressive and very convincing research OP! Too bad analyses like yours never reach the masses.

Thank you for that. It is sad that the only real way this information gets out there is through direct sharing given that Google has essentially censored all of it from its SERP.

What a crazy, Orwellian nightmare we're living in.

My daughter was going to get the second vaccination .
I asked her to research first (no , I never tell anyone to get or not get a vaccination)
"Oh , dad , the first one was no problem ."
She took the vaccination , feeling great , and 2 hours later had to be admitted to the hospital for observation .
They kept her overnight and most of the next day .

I am not saying this to sway anyone for or against anyone getting vaxxed .
I am "on the fence" about it myself .
But with the research I have done , the outlook is not good for the pro side.
And it doesn't help to have a background in Probability and Statistics .
With a probability of < 0.02% of catching COVID-19 and passing from it , I think I will "play the odds" ,
I am unable to formulate the probability of the vax causing adverse reactions as it is very difficult to find consistent numbers .
If that probability falls below 0.02% , then I most likely will .

a reply to: BatSars

Great post.

Variants, ADE, pathogenic priming=the 4th wave

Coming soon to a country near you. These shots are worse than worthless for anything beyond a few months...maybe.

a reply to: BatSars

That is the end goal, even if the shot does not works once the people get the first two shot is fair game for a steady influx of yearly income as people will come back for more.

Is deceiving and dangerous.

a reply to: BatSars

Google has essentially censored all of it from its SERP.

I get my news from the MSN aggregator and I started seeing news about this a month ago. It's in the MSM.

originally posted by: tamusan
a reply to: BatSars
40% of the breakthrough cases in Israel were found to be with people who are immunocompromised and a majority of the rest had comorbidities. Not saying the vaccines are good. Just adding those two facts to the thread.

It is a good point.
Most of the serious cases and deaths have been people with comorbidities.... since the virus appeared.

a reply to: butcherguy

Those are really the only people that need protected from covid. That's why I think the vaccines are not really all that helpful.

a reply to: butcherguy

That is the way it has been for ever, viruses will always put the vulnerable at risk no matter what, then why healthy people have to be submitted to a dangerous shot that now is proving to be no working.

It makes no sense.

1.5 m people died from cancer and hart disease in the US yearly, why is not a shot for that, what that group of people dying is unimportant? they get milked by useless medications and still died.

Is joke, big pharma is a darn big joke.

a reply to: BatSars

More than half of the current cases and two-thirds of patients in serious condition were fully vaccinated, the Health Ministry reported.

Don't you think it might be worth mentioning that this↑ is actually only referring to about 100 elderly/senior citizens?

Now, why do I feel like there is some tomfoolery afoot when they claim such high effectiveness against serious cases when they admit that 2/3 of all serious cases are fully vaccinated.

.....Today, with more than 13,000 active cases, 145 patients are in serious condition.

Health officials and experts are concerned that the protection granted to the most vulnerable sectors of the population who were vaccinated first has been waning. Most of the vaccinated people in serious condition today are elderly.

same link as OP

originally posted by: BrokenCircles

Don't you think it might be worth mentioning that this↑ is actually only referring to about 100 elderly/senior citizens?

Given that 95% of COVID deaths occurred in elderly people, no (65+ account. The rush for vaccines was to save grandma. They aren't necessarily saving Gma. She's still getting sick; she's still going to the hospital.

Why would I need to cite a statistic that has been true since the beginning of the pandemic and continues being true today?

The goal was to save grandma. Grandma still is dying. Yet I'm being asked to qualify hospitalizations and 'serious COVID' with "but they're old people" as if that wasn't the entire point of locking down, masking, etc. etc. in the first place.

www.kff.org...

Hospitalizations w/COVID have also always been with elderly people: gis.cdc.gov...

70%+ of hospitalizations were always 50+, nearly half of hospitalized were 65+. Always has been true, so why do I need to qualify this?

originally posted by: BatSars

Why would I need to cite a statistic that has been true since the beginning of the pandemic and continues being true today?

Because it's relevant, and because all the other numbers you post show total amounts, but you skip that particular detail, and instead say "2/3 of all"


...and also, that one line is what you built the thread around.
The rest of the OP is intended to dispute that claim.

a reply to: BatSars

I guess getting healthy people sick and dying from side effects of this crap is also a priority, soo deceiving.

originally posted by: BrokenCircles

originally posted by: BatSars

Why would I need to cite a statistic that has been true since the beginning of the pandemic and continues being true today?

Because it's relevant, and because all the other numbers you post show total numbers, but you skip that particularly detail, and instead say "2/3 of all"

It's irrelevant when the entire point was to save elderly people from hospitalization and death. Not only that, but the source I cited shared that information with you, but you're triggered because I didn't quote that?

Should I have just Ctrl+A, Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V that entire article for you? Would that have prevented you being triggered? Sorry, but your attempt to obfuscate the facts is failing. Try another tactic.

I want to quote, again, from the very article I cited:

More than half of the current cases and two-thirds of patients in serious condition were fully vaccinated

They said that too. "two-thirds of patients ... were fully vaccinated" -- now where in that quote, from the article, does it qualify the type of patients.

Also, why are you not bringing up that they also mostly suffer from comorbidities, just like 90% of COVID hospitalizations did throughout the entire pandemic.

Why would you not quote that? My goodness, are you trying to .... MISLEAD?

a reply to: BatSars

in case you missed the edit:


...and also, that one line is what you built the thread around.
The rest of the OP is intended to dispute that claim.


I'm not the one using tactics here. I'm simply saying you should have included this one specific detail, since it is the base of your topic.


ETA:

Why would you not quote that? My goodness, are you trying to .... MISLEAD?

lol, because you already made that part clear.

originally posted by: BrokenCircles
a reply to: BatSars

in case you missed the edit:


...and also, that one line is what you built the thread around.
The rest of the OP is intended to dispute that claim.


I'm not the one using tactics here. I'm simply saying you should have included this one specific detail, since it is the base of your topic.

That is NOT the base of my topic. The PREMISE of the article is that vaccines in Israel are not working as they were intended to work and Google et al are trying to scrub this information from the internet.

I wrote the article - I think I know what my premise is and it had nothing to do with elderly people.