Corona Virus Updates Part 6

a reply to: McGinty

May I ask why you decided to use a Chinese sounding antibody test kit that is used by Imperial College London who have a vested interest in the vaccine?
I paid £50 to Lloyds Pharmacy that runs both the iG tests done by an independent lab in London and intend doing it once a month for my own curiosity but also to have some re-assurance to my clients and students.

Rainbows
Jane

a reply to: angelchemuel

Sounds like i didn't do enough research. My brief googling led me to that questionable conclusion that this one tested both IGM and IGG. Now, i don't really have clue what that means, but i figured go for the most initials - must mean more coverage in the test. Their vested interests and corporate honesty aside is there a scientific reason for the lloyds antibody test to be more accurate?

a reply to: McGinty

www.confirmbiosciences.com...

a reply to: steaming
This from your link....

Both IgM and IgG are positive: The body has an active COVID-19 infection and is trying to build up protection against it.

That is not strictly correct. First, I didn't have any human contact for weeks leading up to my test at beginning of March (bar mask-wearing-social-distancing in small local shop where only 2 people are allowed in at any one time).
Second, once you have, particularly the iGg's, they have programmed your B cell's and are stored there so when you are/if re-infected the B cell's send out your antibodies to fight same and most likely variants of C19.

Quite happy to be corrected.

Rainbows
Jane

a reply to: MonkeyBalls2

Good to see you back! I was getting worried when you stopped posting. I'm glad you were able to take a break from all the physical and mental stress.

Thanks for the news from France. Here in Italy we are locked down again for two weeks. Like you, I've noticed only a small reduction in daily commuters; the trains are ok, but buses are a nightmare during peak times. At work, we're supposed to reduce by 50% physical presences; people are respecting distancing and mask wearing, so the spread seems to be contained. It's sad to read that it's exploded in your workplace... at least you can consider it an extension of your holidays.

100% agree on IBM keyboards for the win.

Take care

a reply to: Encia22

It's just been announced here that we are going to be 'curfew-ed' for the next 4 weeks or more in the Paris region (ile De France) all the way up north to Calais region.
Basically not really supposed to go more than 10km from your home, no travel between regions (ile de france is a region).
Not really enforceable except the inter-regional part.
And they've put the beginning of curfew back an hour to 7pm instead of 6pm, so more people can go outside.
In between that, 6am to 7pm, you can go outside for as long as you want in 10km radius.
You are encouraged to go outside, but not gather together, and not have barbecues, and social distance at all times.
None of this is really enforceable.
Schools are staying open.
You can go to work one day a week, if you like.
It wasn't enforced at the company where I work, and there certainly isn't any law enforcement stopping you from coming into work every day.
They strongly recommend a 4 day working week at home, and one day max in work.
It's still only a recommendation.

The company where i work shut down another site in Paris today, everyone working from home for the foreseeable future.
I'm working from home tomorrow, not sure what's going to be happening next week, furlough, or another site.

edit : They said today that the Paris region is at 446 cases / 100K now, and it has increased 23% in one week.
1200 ICU Beds taken, and very few left.

38K cases for the last 24h for the whole of France.
Nearly all of the new cases are of what they are calling the "British Variant".
90+% iirc of all new cases.

First MacOS update :






New Deaths :



New Cases :



And how to I do a Ctrl + V on a Mac ?
on the keyboard...?

otherwise, yay-ish.

a reply to: MonkeyBalls2

Good work! I believe the command key (looks like a 4 leafed clover) is equivalent to the Windows/Linux Ctrl key. So, command+c copies, command+v pastes.

Food for thought :/
Worth reading......
www.sciencemag.org...

Severe allergy-like reactions in at least eight people who received the COVID-19 vaccine produced by Pfizer and BioNTech over the past 2 weeks may be due to a compound in the packaging of the messenger RNA (mRNA) that forms the vaccine’s main ingredient, scientists say. A similar mRNA vaccine developed by Moderna, which was authorized for emergency use in the United States on Friday, also contains the compound, polyethylene glycol (PEG).

PEG has never been used before in an approved vaccine, but it is found in many drugs that have occasionally triggered anaphylaxis—a potentially life-threatening reaction that can cause rashes, a plummeting blood pressure, shortness of breath, and a fast heartbeat. Some allergists and immunologists believe a small number of people previously exposed to PEG may have high levels of antibodies against PEG, putting them at risk of an anaphylactic reaction to the vaccine.

a reply to: DontTreadOnMe

I wonder if ethylene oxide is used for the PEG in vaccine?

The primary concern with PEG compounds is that ethylene oxide is used in their production in a process called ethoxylation. This process can cause contamination with ethylene oxide, a chemical associated with multiple kinds of cancer. Additionally, ethoxylated ingredients can also be contaminated with 1,4-dioxane, which is also a carcinogen. Neither ethylene oxide nor 1,4-dioxane are intentionally added ingredients, which means that neither will be listed on ingredient labels, but could still be present in the product.

www.madesafe.org...

Hopefully not!

EDIT: Yep, it's in there, by the sounds of it...

The raw materials used to produce polyethylene glycol are by-products from petroleum refining and can also be derived from natural gas or coal. These are non-renewable sources. Synthesizing PEG compounds can follow multiple different routes, depending on the desired end-product. However, the process always involves ethylene oxide.

WTF! Are they really vaccinating us with a carcinogen? I have no clue about pharma ingredients and standard practice - is it common to pump such things into us?

a reply to: McGinty

Have you only just found out about the 'ingredients'? These are one messed up 'fruit cake'.

Rainbows
Jane

Just a quick question guys. Have you, or anyone you know have tattoo's and had the vaccine? Have you/they experienced discomfort after the vax around your/their tattoo's?

Been getting reports here in UK from various sources. It is connected maybe to a reaction between the chemicals in the vax and in the tattoo's. So still on topic

Rainbows
Jane

Here are the figures for just one week for adverse reactions to the Pfeizer jab as published by the UK government..

Ignore the 'general disorders' in the list as this we can assume will be 'redness/swelling' at the site of the jab as that is not clearly stated.
What I find interesting is the next largest figure is for nervous system reactions.
For those who remember, I have also said, and hold the belief, that the virus if you have caught it, 'hides' in the nervous system.

Rainbows
Jane

a reply to: angelchemuel

Thanks for posting these shocking stats.

I’m guessing there’s an embargo/handshake agreement between government, the opposition and the MSM not to mention these stats for fear of scaring people away from having the vaccines, for surely they are news worthy. I guess it can be argued either way that the public should know this. I know it’s in the public domain, but a tiny, minuscule percentage of the public will bother seeking it out and reading. It makes an impossible decision - to vax or not - that much harder - a dilemma I can currently relate to.

Even with these numbers I guess if the gov’s intel says virus deaths will out way them, then they’ll believe this sacrifice is for the greater good. But real world cynicism tells me that the people making such choices will usually deem themselves and their families exempt from such risk. Hence I’d bet that the ‘thumbs up’ photo-ops, such as Bojo getting his AstraZeneca jab yesterday are bogus... B-12 probably.

But if so, that wouldn’t prove the jabs are an evil ploy to eradicate, but simply that those with intel and options don’t want to risk being a stat. Who would?



Do we know how many Pfizer vaccines were given that week? According to the BBC there’s an average 421,315 given p/week, but it doesn’t break it down into brands. Instead that’s a grand weekly total for all vaccine brands. Scary to think that the stats you posted only represent one brand.

Looking at AstraZeneca on the same source...

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk...

It’s a LOT of stats, but at a (long) glance AstraZeneca seems far worse than Pfizer.

AZ has 228,337 reactions, with 289 fatal.

Pfizer has 100,809 reactions, with 237 fatal.

And remember, Pfizer has been used almost a month longer (starting early December, whereas AstraZeneca began roll out early January. That time difference makes these stats reads very, very badly for AZ. It’s now abundantly clear why many EU countries suspended it.

Other brands = 917 reactions, with 8 fatal.

Without the .gov.U.K. website breaking down how many doses of each brand were given it’s impossible to do any math on the individual brand weekly odds for bad reactions. That seems quite convenient, considering the U.K.s own AstraZeneca seems to be more that twice the number overall. Is that on purpose, or is the info there and I simply missed it (not at all unlikely)?

The anomaly in the data is that while AZ has over twice as many bad reactions, the fatalities are almost the same, 289 vs. 237 (how many miles is it to the Moon, again!?! )

That’s surely a conundrum (not the Moon, the fatalities)

I’ll attempt the general overall odds...

Total U.K. reactions to all vaccines 330,143

With the BBC reporting 26,000,000 having had their vaccine (of whatever brand) so far. So I THINK that’s a 1 in 78 chance, or 1.2% chance of having a reaction of any kind.

.... ....Please, correct me if I’m wrong, my math teacher was an alcoholic gambler who spent every lesson hidden behind the sports pages, smoking like a chimney and sipping from the half bottle of whiskey in his draw (Is that why the brand’s named Teachers?)

On to deaths... With a total of 535 deaths from all brands, that’s a 1 in 48,598, or a 0.002% chance of dying.

So by the BBC’s average of 421,315 being vaccinated p/wk, that’s around 8 and half people dying p/wk from the vaccines.



Of course there’s many listed reactions that sound almost as bad as death, so the high-risk % is higher, but it’s too lengthy a process to break that down.



One of the deaths is listed under the reaction ‘Headache’... I think that suggests that these gov.uk stats may not be entirely reliable, as I imagine the headache was a symptom rather than the cause of whatever killed this poor individual. Or can a headache itself be fatal?

Is it safe to also assume that like ‘general’ reactions, the very high number of ‘muscle tissue’ reactions are most likely also associated with the vaccination site, as opposed to a more general, insidious side effect?

I wonder why the ‘gastro intestinal’ reactions are so high? Is it simply due to how symbiotic the gut and its bacteria is with our overall health, or is there a more specific relationship between gut, vaccine and virus?



In summation...

If I put the anomaly of the ratio between reactions and deaths being a-symmetric between brands to one side (because I don’t understand it), then as disturbing as the Pfizer reaction data is, the AstraZeneca is far worse. The EUs doubts over it now make sense and in my heart of hearts I’d be surprised if that really was the AZ vaccine that Bojo was jabbed with yesterday.

Caveat: of course I wait the far more knowable contribs, here to explain that ratio a-symmetry and why AZ is no more, no less risky than Pfizer.


EDIT: Just noticed something on those gov.uk stats... In the top headings for each brand it has an ‘Earliest Reaction Date’

Pfizer says: ‘Earliest Reaction Date: 03-Apr-1990’

AZ: ‘Earliest Reaction Date: 03-Feb-1921’

Other brands (unspecified): ‘Earliest Reaction Date: 06-Feb-2020’


What do these dates represent? It reads like these were the first instances of these vaccines being used, but I was under the impression that there were all novel - new vaccines. So are they saying that Pfizer and AZ were used 100 years and 31 years ago respectively?

I imagine I’m merely demonstrating my ignorance, as usual!

a reply to: McGinty

We also have the issue that these figures are submitted by the public on their 'yellow card' that they get when jabbed. So it also beggars the question....would you be arsed reporting the death of a relative because of the jab when you are grieving?
Thank you for the AZ link btw. Appreciated.
Rainbows
Jane

PS meant to post this Forbes link where in US they are experiencing spikes in infections and deaths in States where the roll out of the vaccine are the highest.
Forbes

originally posted by: McGinty
a reply to: angelchemuel
...
Total U.K. reactions to all vaccines 330,143

With the BBC reporting 26,000,000 having had their vaccine (of whatever brand) so far. So I THINK that’s a 1 in 78 chance, or 1.2% chance of having a reaction of any kind.

The term "a reaction of any kind" would include any kind of reaction that cannot be observed by the one vaccinated. Like a lowered blood platelet count (the subject of ITP also comes into play, an auto immune disease that makes your body seek out and destroy its own platelets).

Question: How does someone vaccinated report a reaction of a lowered blood platelet count if he/she has no way of knowing on their yellow card, and if no one will test for it?

Question: Do you really think the 1.2% number is an accurate reflection of the reality of the matter concerning "a reaction of any kind" (since that is how you phrased it)? Do you think the 330,143 reported reactions of any kind through this one method of collecting data (patient-provided) is anywhere near an accurate reflection of the actual number of reactions of any kind, reported or not (since that is how you phrased it, as if that's the actual number rather than merely the number for those reactions reported via the yellow card collection method)?

Bonus question: Do they use multiple choice options on the yellow card for reactions? That for example do not include the well-known but always trivialized lowering of blood platelet count, specifically around the injection site causing the coloration, pain and hemorrhaging issues; which in some cases is known to extend to the entire bloodstream* at which point considerations concerning the subject of ITP can come into play if it causes severe hemorrhaging issues (see the thread about ITP for details called "Dozens develop serious blood disorder after getting Covid vaccine"). *: talking about a lower blood platelet count, which happens a lot more after vaccination than the chronical drop associated with ITP. It's still a reaction, but if it doesn't cause a chronical issue, it won't be reported by anyone until something life-threatening happens. But what about the cumulative effect if you catch the Corona virus when your blood platelet count is still low shortly after vaccination? Since the vaccination is less effective in preventing you from catching the Corona virus so shortly after vaccination.

a reply to: whereislogic

Steady on, buckaroo! Don't shoot the messenger. Just doing some amateur math from the stats on the gov.uk site. Don't believe i jumped to any judgements about those calculated odds, except that they show the AZ vaccine having more reactions than Pfizer and that imo Bojo didn't have the AZ jab yesterday.

I use the phrase 'reaction of any kind' because there are hundreds listed. But, sure, being user generated indeed negates the whole point. So you're basically saying i wasted my morning doing math on BS numbers.

Thanks and good day to you too, sir

a reply to: McGinty

No worries, I was just curious because of the way you phrased it. The 1.2% was a bit of a dead give-away that that number in no way reflects the reality of what actual "reactions of any kind" occur after vaccination. And I was also wondering if you noticed that cause you didn't point that out, instead you stated it as if that was the actual chance of a "reaction of any kind" after vaccination. Actually, the number of personal testimonies that I've heard or read who have not mentioned a "reaction of any kind" to a full vaccination including a 2nd shot (including the very mild ones like a sore shoulder), might be zero (can't really think of any one in particular off the top of my head).

Which might indicate that the number is closer to 100% than to 1.2% chance of a "reaction of any kind". And that therefore the total number of actual reactions might be underreported (by the yellow-card collection method) by a factor of nearly 83,33. I.e. perhaps the actual number of reactions that occurred is near 26 million (the number you used for number of people "having had their vaccine", a phrase that implies the inclusion of a 2nd shot, the main culprit for most noticeable reactions) rather than the 330,143 reported reactions number you used. I know, I'm exaggerating a bit in my math here to make a point. That point being that even if this is not the case, and it's quite a bit lower, more like 50% chance of a "reaction of any kind", that would still be a far more realistic suggestion than 1.2%; which is a big clue that a lot of reactions are not reported via the 'yellow card' data-collection method (if you consider personal testimony as I did).

a reply to: whereislogic

Your figures could well be true. I just played the team that was in front of me

a reply to: McGinty

So I take it that your answer to the 2nd line of questioning (2 questions related to one another in essence, one number being a derivative of the other), is "no"? And would you go as far as saying that those numbers based on what's reported are not even close to the actual number of "reactions of any kind" and thus the actual "chance of having a reaction of any kind." As you described your suggestion of 1.2% (which wasn't really phrased as merely a suggested number or estimate, but whatever, not my main point here; common sense tells me it's not even close if you include sore shoulders, coloration around the injection site, mild temperature elevation that isn't interpreted as fever, mild fatigue that isn't interpreted as fatigue if they even bother to list that one in multiple-choices on the 'yellow card', if they use those, etc. "any kind" of reaction basically, no matter how innocuous or hardly noticeable or noteworthy, or deemed that way like the blood platelet issue I talked about; the reason why they don't test for it after vaccination, and why it therefore won't be reported as a reaction or side effect, even when it is).