FDA Knew and Hid Fact There'd Be Many COVID Cases in Fully "Vaccinated"

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: elementalgrove

The presence of variants is determined by genetic sequencing.

Variations in these genes identify Delta:

Spike Protein Substitutions: T19R, (V70F*), T95I, G142D, E156-, F157-, R158G, (A222V*), (W258L*), (K417N*), L452R, T478K, D614G, P681R, D950N

www.cdc.gov...

My Niece is sick with pneumonia, they told her at the hospital there is no test for delta strain.

originally posted by: Nexttimemaybe
The vaccine was always about the severity of the illness if you caught vivid.

Reducing how I'll and for how long. This helps reduce the spread if the catchee has a reduced active virus period.

So it's working as intended.

Very similar to flu shots, although almost double the effectiveness of the flu shot.

You mean today that is what the vaccine is always about. Not many months ago it was. You're safe from all variants.

a reply to: SeaWorthy

If that's what "they" said, "they" were wrong.

When someone tests positive for COVID there may or may not be a followup to determine the variant. If there is, it is not to determine a course of treatment. It is for surveillance purposes. Treatment is the same regardless of the variant.

originally posted by: SeaWorthy

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: elementalgrove

The presence of variants is determined by genetic sequencing.

Variations in these genes identify Delta:

Spike Protein Substitutions: T19R, (V70F*), T95I, G142D, E156-, F157-, R158G, (A222V*), (W258L*), (K417N*), L452R, T478K, D614G, P681R, D950N

www.cdc.gov...

My Niece is sick with pneumonia, they told her at the hospital there is no test for delta strain.

That seems to be the general consensus, I mean CDC admitted that the PCR test can not differentiate between the flu and the OG Covid. So how exactly are the proving the "surging" cases of delta???

Also why are they still using the PCR test at all, through December?

Good way to keep up the charade.

a reply to: Uknownparadox

Not many months ago it was. You're safe from all variants.

If by "safe" you mean at reduced risk of severe infection, that is still true. It was never claimed that the vaccines prevent infection entirely.

a reply to: elementalgrove

I mean CDC admitted that the PCR test can not differentiate between the flu and the OG Covid.

No. The CDC said that a test has been developed which can test for both at the same time. It used to be that if you had a test for COVID and it came up negative you would then have a test for flu.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: elementalgrove

I mean CDC admitted that the PCR test can not differentiate between the flu and the OG Covid.

No. The CDC said that a test has been developed which can test for both at the same time. It used to be that if you had a test for COVID and it came up negative you would then have a test for flu.

Is that why the flu vanished globally in 2020?

a reply to: Phage

So who are we supposed to believe?
We find out that the pcr can't differentiate between influenza.
Doctors like this one...
vid..vaxxers spreading vax

Too much disinfo on all sides

a reply to: elementalgrove

Is that why the flu vanished globally in 2020?

It didn't.

Globally, of the 3,311,831 samples of respiratory viruses collected during inpatient and outpatient surveillance between early November 2019 and the end of December 2020, 19% (614,907) were positive for influenza. Of these positive samples, 63% were subtyped as influenza A and 37% (229,639) as influenza B. In terms of specific A subtypes, 23% (86,778) were A(H1N1)pdm09, 17% (63,779) were influenza A(H3N2), and 61% (234,473) were not subtyped influenza A. For specific B lineages, 16.2%
(37,211) belonged to the B/Victoria lineage and 0.3 (730) to the B/Yamagata lineage; 83.5% (191,698) were not subtyped.

source

But it wouldn't be surprising that the mitigation measures taken against COVID would have an effect on influenza as well.

a reply to: Mandroid7

We find out that the pcr can't differentiate between influenza.

False.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: DAVID64

If they're that scared, they should just stay home and let the rest of us get on with life.

That's what the vaxxed have been trying to do for the best part of a year. But, you see, our system says that we can't discriminate against the unvaxed, so that when they get locked down the rest of us have to get locked down as well.

Your decision to remain unvaxxed is impacting the vaxxed due to "fairness", the solution to this is an unfair system where businesses are allowed to refuse you entry.

Nobody deserves coddled and catered to when they can lift their own fingers, least of all those who swear by medical science then refuse to make do with it instead of getting demanding (YOUR ilk)

Maybe it's a sign you're supposed to hop off the ride if you cannot hack DIY.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: elementalgrove

I mean CDC admitted that the PCR test can not differentiate between the flu and the OG Covid.

No. The CDC said that a test has been developed which can test for both at the same time. It used to be that if you had a test for COVID and it came up negative you would then have a test for flu.

Are you aware of who owns the company that is manufacturing the new test?

a reply to: Mandroid7

If it's a better test, who cares?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Mandroid7

We find out that the pcr can't differentiate between influenza.

False.

You are false and lazy. Show some work other than your boomer skills of lapping up msm talking points that don't add up and lame, blunt responses.
Your not too cool to back your responses.

Do I need to post the link to the cdc memo stating THIs new test needs to be able to differentiate from influenza?
I did a whole thread in it the other day.

a reply to: Mandroid7

Do I need to post the link to the cdc memo stating THIs new test needs to be able to differentiate from influenza?

Yes, the new test can look for both at the same time. Much better than requiring two separate tests.

What you "need" to post is something which shows the old test can't tell the difference between SARS-COV-2 and influenza.

a reply to: Xtrozero

So when they say 95% effective, or 72% effective with Delta just what does that mean?

So I've actually found a study that the 95% might come from: www.medrxiv.org...

and here is a link to some supplementary material, tables of the study results:
www.medrxiv.org...


This is a 6 month clinical trial on the Pfizer shot. My understanding is that it is the largest, most thorough study on one of these vaccines that we have yet. If you look at the supplementary PDF, on page 15, you will find a table on "Vaccine Efficacy against Severe COVID-19 Occurrence after Dose 1". This is where the relative risk of the vaccinated portion was 96.7% lower than the unvaccinated. For the actual numbers, there was 1 case out of 22,505 vaccinated. There were 30 cases out of 22,435 unvaccinated.

There's an important distinction here between relative and absolute risk. The relative risk is how much a treatment (vaccination) helped compared a different treatment (placebo). The absolute risk is how much a treatment lowers your risk of an ailment at all. So time for some math.

With a Placebo, you had a 30/22445 chance of getting severe covid. 0.134%
With a Vaccine, you had a 1/22505 chance of getting severe covid. 0.004%.
If you take the difference you have the Absolute Risk Reduction. So according to this (pre delta, 6 month trial) you have a 0.130% less chance of getting severe covid if you take the vaccine. One important note is that we aren't actually told what "severe covid" means here. It could mean hospitalization, intubation, something else; we don't know.

If you look higher on page 13 you'll find the statistics for getting covid at all (severe and not). Above that on page 12 is the table for deaths during the study. Above that on page 11 is the table of Adverse events. there were over 5000 vaccine related adverse events for the vaccinated, but also over 1300 for the placebo group. I'm honestly not sure what they could be measuring to find so many reactions to a placebo, but I'm not a medical professional so I could just be missing something simple.

Still from a few tables we can say that the vaccine is 96% more effective at stopping severe covid than not getting it. We can say the vaccine lowers severe covid risk by 0.130%. Both are true. Statistics can be easily manipulated to imply just about anything you want. Yuck.

Anyway, the relative risk reduction RRR, and the absolute risk reduction ARR, are the things used to measure vaccine efficacy. If you see a statistic in the news or anywhere else, it's probably one of these two coming from some vaccine trial somewhere. To know what it actually means, a person probably has to just go start reading these trials. There's so much bias everywhere and it's easy to push one side or the other. I doubt I've avoided that in this post.

a reply to: Phage

Your source did not open for me, here is one that seems to disagree with your assessment.

Flu disappeared for more than a year!?

As Scientific American reported in November 2020, the drop-off in flu numbers following COVID’s arrival was swift and global. Since then, cases have stayed remarkably low. “There’s just no flu circulating,” says Greg Poland, who has studied the disease at the Mayo Clinic for decades. The U.S. saw about 700 deaths from influenza during the 2020–2021 season. In comparison, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates there were approximately 22,000 U.S. deaths in the prior season and 34,000 deaths two seasons ago.

But it wouldn't be surprising that the mitigation measures taken against COVID would have an effect on influenza as well.

How do you explain the mitigation not extending to the super scary rona and its new terrifying variants?

And let me get this straight, on one hand you say it did not drop, than on the other you say it dropped because of the draconian covid restrictions??

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Uknownparadox

Not many months ago it was. You're safe from all variants.

If by "safe" you mean at reduced risk of severe infection, that is still true. It was never claimed that the vaccines prevent infection entirely.

Yes reduced

A Southwest Airlines flight attendant based in Las Vegas died Tuesday from COVID-19, according to his family and co-workers

Shepperson, 36, was fully vaccinated, his mother and Hildreth said. He loved to fly and took every precaution, wearing a mask, constantly washing his hands, sanitizing surfaces and wiping everything down in hotel rooms, Hildreth said.

It really reduced all the people like this guy

www.usatoday.com...

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Mandroid7

If it's a better test, who cares?

Anyone with a functional brain.
Literally Gates and Soros.

The societal changes have been unprecedented behind this fake medical takeover

a reply to: elementalgrove

How do you explain the mitigation not extending to the super scary rona and its new terrifying variants?

The mitigation measures seem to have worked pretty well against COVID, actually. While they lasted.

And let me get this straight, on one hand you say it did not drop, than on the other you say it dropped because of the draconian covid restrictions??

I did not say that it did not drop.