Wait. Wait. The vaccine makes you MORE susceptible to C19?

originally posted by: Quintilian

If you think the *claimed* and rather modest 30% efficacy of the bivalent vaccines (against certain variants they were specifically designed for) was the only point of this study, I think you might be doing some cherry picking of your own.

Well, that is exactly what the study was for, so what cherry picking was I doing? The study basically says the boosters suck against Omicron so what else is there to read from it?

"The effect of multiple COVID-19 vaccine doses on future risk of COVID-19 needs further study.

Yes, so what? is that a point to debate here? I agree further study is good...

That the latest vaccines are crap, and more recently acquired natural immunity + vaccine is better than more distantly acquired natural immunity + vaccine, will have surprised very few. Though the effect of previous vaccination status was unexpected and very surprising even to the authors. They say as much and even go to some effort to pre-emptively counter various explanations. If you don't place any significance on this (for the vaccination program itself, and the possible effects of repeat vaccination on long term immunity), that's up to you.

I'm not sure your point here. There has been a flu shot since the 1940s and the purpose with that has always been to reduce the severity of the flu and not a full immunity.

According to a 1944 study of the new flu vaccine, it helped reduce illness that was accompanied by a temperature above 99 degrees Fahrenheit.

There is still 250,000 to 650,000 people die from the flu each year, but in 1918 the normal flu we see today killed 50 to 100 million in that pandemic. We also see that it is a hit or miss each year as to how effective the batch they mix up depending on their forecast as to what they think will be the major flu variant.

I don't think COVID boosters are not any different to what we have seen for many decades.

Others find it concerning and anyway, it doesn't seem unreasonable at all to highlight a surprise finding. I find the possibility of immune imprinting a concern. I know this was touted as a possibility by certain "nutters" (ie. highly qualified scientists) who have had a habit of eventually being right.

Did the study also address "Immune Imprinting"? People are diving so deep into the whole COVID vaccine now more than ever before compared to any other vaccines, I'm under the impression that whatever may be found with this vaccine will also be with other vaccines.

Also as a covid "vaccine" sceptic (they aren't really vaccines) who still believes in vaccination in general (for real vaccines that actually work) and is also fully vaccinated against covid, I can tell you exactly how I feel about your quote.

I'll ask you the same question I have asked to 3 or 4 vaccine hesitant ATSers here.

MOST vaccines are not pure, and that has to do with the virus more than anything else. DNA based viruses can be pure vaccines, RNA based viruses are not pure, but leaky. Many vaccines provide nether full immunity or stops people from infecting others once vaccinated.

So here is the question... drum roll please....

What did they call all of them for the last 100 years if they did not fit the "old" definition of vaccines as people suggest the COVID vaccine is like?

It does mention the original clinical studies. The Pfizer study was crap and along with a refusal by the FDA to supply the data, should have been rejected. Really this needs its own (very long) thread. There is some good critique but you'll have to look for it.

OK. but now we have 2 years and 13 billion shots given of information.

As to other statistical studies I can give you some of my reasons for scepticism. We know that in the early pandemic in the US about half of the people admitted to hospital with covid weren't covid patients (journalists had to find this out, not academics). They were given a pcr test while there for something else.

There have been long discussions in the past about the validity of many COVID deaths and why hospitals would label a COVID death when the person really died to something else but tested positive for COVID.

The last FOI request I looked at showed that about 3.5% of the claimed covid deaths in the UK, were clearly from covid. The official figures also claim 8% of the population is unvaccinated, when the real figure is likely to be 20-25%.

I disagree with everything above.

The CDC vaccination data was so bad that a lot of states stopped using it and reverted to their own.

The first year after the vaccine came out, I did a good number of posts on the two states I live and work in OR and WA. It was very consistent that the hospital rates for COVID is 95%+ unvacced.

I agree most responses around the world were total crap, but back to the OP...

Back to my point, the study has been used by a number of people to promote their narratives that takes a focused study down many rabbit holes that really has little to do with the study and totally contradicts this from the study they use.

The vaccines were amazingly effective in preventing COVID-19, saved a large number of lives, and changed the impact of the pandemic.

a reply to: Xtrozero

MOST vaccines are not pure, and that has to do with the virus more than anything else. DNA based viruses can be pure vaccines,
RNA based viruses are not pure, but leaky.

Do you have any links that refer to 'pure' vaccines?
I can't find anything about vaccines being 'pure' online.

I think you meant 'perfect'....... because you mentioned 'leaky' ........'imperfect' is another term for 'leaky' in regard to vaccines.

a reply to: Xtrozero

the vaccine covered like 20 variants where the natural is one at a time.

Is that why they brought out the new bivailant one.......for omicron?

I would think that natural immunity would cover more because the whole virus is in play.....and not just a spike.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

I think you meant 'perfect'....... because you mentioned 'leaky' ........'imperfect' is another term for 'leaky' in regard to vaccines.

Sure "perfect", same concept. When you look at smallpox it is DNA based and has only two variants for 1000s of years, that vaccine is perfect... Flu type viruses are RNA and create variants like crazy, so you are not going to have a perfect vaccine for them.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

Is that why they brought out the new bivailant one.......for omicron?

I would think that natural immunity would cover more because the whole virus is in play.....and not just a spike.

Omicron is a new variant, so the booster was focused on that, and it seems that omicron is massively more infectious than delta, but also less health risk too, so it seems like we are talking about a normal flu now. How is your natural immunity each year with the normal flu season?

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

I think you meant 'perfect'....... because you mentioned 'leaky' ........'imperfect' is another term for 'leaky' in regard to vaccines.

Sure "perfect", same concept.

Using the term 'pure' is misleading .....you claim to be, or have been, in the medical profession and you don't even use the correct term.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

Is that why they brought out the new bivailant one.......for omicron?

I would think that natural immunity would cover more because the whole virus is in play.....and not just a spike.

Omicron is a new variant, so the booster was focused on that, and it seems that omicron is massively more infectious than delta, but also less health risk too, so it seems like we are talking about a normal flu now. How is your natural immunity each year with the normal flu season?

That doesn't address the post you replied to....

You said that the vaccine covers 20 variants.
Why make a bivalent for omicron if the vaccine covers 20 variants?

Has there been 20 variants of covid?

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

You said that the vaccine covers 20 variants.
Why make a bivalent for omicron if the vaccine covers 20 variants?

Has there been 20 variants of covid?

I didn't say bivalent does. I read the initial vaccine works across 20 variants/descendant lineages and combining it with a natural immunity is the best protection. I'm just saying what been told about having the two combined. The bivalent vaccine includes a component of the original virus strain to provide broad protection against COVID-19 and a component of the omicron variant to provide better protection against COVID-19 caused by the omicron variant. It also seems to not work very well with Omicron, so yes, I agree it might not be that effective if that is your overall point here.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

Using the term 'pure' is misleading .....you claim to be, or have been, in the medical profession and you don't even use the correct term.

I never said I was... I don't think anyone on either side here on ATS is either. I think one is a nurse or something but that isn't really a point talking vaccines.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

Using the term 'pure' is misleading .....you claim to be, or have been, in the medical profession and you don't even use the correct term.

I never said I was... I don't think anyone on either side here on ATS is either. I think one is a nurse or something but that isn't really a point talking vaccines.

What??

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

What??

What?

a reply to: Xtrozero
Sorry.....just having trouble deciphering your post lol.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

Sorry.....just having trouble deciphering your post lol.

Sorry, you implied I may work in a field dealing with all this or that I suggested that I did, and in both cases that is incorrect.

originally posted by: [post=26853108]Xtrozero/post]

Well, that is exactly what the study was for, so what cherry picking was I doing? The study basically says the boosters suck against Omicron so what else is there to read from it?

The study wasn't designed to check "boosters". It was a study into efficiency of bivalent vaccines.

Obviously not everyone in the study was "boosted", for some it was their first dose.

The study showed that effectiveness of this bivalent "vaccine" was altered by previous infection status and number of previous vaccinations. This finding was central to their study and was adjusted for to give an overall efficiency. Their main findings are in the section devoted to "Results".

Risk of COVID-19 based on prior infection and vaccination history

The more recently in the pandemic someone had been infected, the more efficient the vaccine was against covid. The higher the number of previous vaccine doses, the lower the efficiency of the vaccine (by quite a margin, with 0 previous doses being optimal).

"Bivalent vaccine effectiveness"

-When adjusted for variables (such as age, sex, job, infection and or vaccine history) they found a 30% efficiency of the vaccine (20-39%).

I can only note your ability to steadfastly ignore study results. The biggest problem with such studies and covid data in general is the proxy they use for covid infection. It's unrealistic.

I'm not sure your point here. There has been a flu shot since the 1940s and the purpose with that has always been to reduce the severity of the flu and not a full immunity.

According to a 1944 study of the new flu vaccine, it helped reduce illness that was accompanied by a temperature above 99 degrees Fahrenheit.

There is still 250,000 to 650,000 people die from the flu each year, but in 1918 the normal flu we see today killed 50 to 100 million in that pandemic. We also see that it is a hit or miss each year as to how effective the batch they mix up depending on their forecast as to what they think will be the major flu variant.

I don't think COVID boosters are not any different to what we have seen for many decades.

Are there studies indicating higher the number of previous flu shots = lower efficiency of vaccination? If not, then your thoughts here are irrelevant.

Yes, so what? is that a point to debate here? I agree further study is good...

Did the study also address "Immune Imprinting"? People are diving so deep into the whole COVID vaccine now more than ever before compared to any other vaccines, I'm under the impression that whatever may be found with this vaccine will also be with other vaccines.

The authors called for further study because this one was neither designed, nor was it within it's scope to find out why previous vaccination had such an effect. Simply trying to replicate results would be a good idea too (used to be a thing once in science).

Looks like we are getting such studies. Surely no one would have any objections with a mouse model, given Pfizers infamous "a whole 8 mice developed antibodies" study (and they also got covid afaik lol).

I'll ask you the same question I have asked to 3 or 4 vaccine hesitant ATSers here.

I'm not vaccine hesitant. I am fully "vaccinated" for covid.

MOST vaccines are not pure, and that has to do with the virus more than anything else. DNA based viruses can be pure vaccines, RNA based viruses are not pure, but leaky. Many vaccines provide nether full immunity or stops people from infecting others once vaccinated.

So here is the question... drum roll please....

What did they call all of them for the last 100 years if they did not fit the "old" definition of vaccines as people suggest the COVID vaccine is like?

With respect, this is waffle. Something is either a vaccine or it isn't. The mRNA gene therapeutics are drugs, not vaccines.

OK. but now we have 2 years and 13 billion shots given of information.

Yes, and most reasonable people are asking why worldwide covid deaths were so much higher in "the year of the vaccine" to those in 2020. Given the variants were far less lethal and the vulnerable had already been decimated. Also probably looking at central African countries.

There is also that unprecedented and disproportionate number of AE's the CDC were refusing to look at for the first 15 months or so.

I disagree with everything above.

Of course you do. Yet it is (unless it's been censored) on the UK govt website where it documents FOI requests and has its own official ref number. Almost 2 years into the pandemic around 137,000 covid deaths were claimed, yet death certificate data indicated around 6,000 of them were definitely due to covid (that's around 4.4% not the 3.5% I claimed from memory). For the under 20 yrs group there were 3 fatalities at this point.

As to undercounting the unvaccinated population. The UK govt statistics regulator has now agreed with this and also agrees that any claims of vaccine effectiveness and death by vaccination status based on ONS data will be wrong. In response to queries from a Ph.D Mathematician and expert in risk management.

The first year after the vaccine came out, I did a good number of posts on the two states I live and work in OR and WA. It was very consistent that the hospital rates for COVID is 95%+ unvacced.

Would be interesting to see where you got the base data. How you analysed it and what adjustments you made for any bias in collection methods, whether you looked for and adjusted for confounders. Also the definitions, what constitutes a covid case or what proxy was used, how many amplification cycles, if PCR. Of course this will have quite an effect on number of false positives.

Lot of work to do there.

Back to my point, the study has been used by a number of people to promote their narratives that takes a focused study down many rabbit holes that really has little to do with the study and totally contradicts this from the study they use.

The vaccines were amazingly effective in preventing COVID-19, saved a large number of lives, and changed the impact of the pandemic.

Not at all. People are simply speculating as to why cumulative "vaccination" has the effect noticed in this study.

originally posted by: Quintilian

-When adjusted for variables (such as age, sex, job, infection and or vaccine history) they found a 30% efficiency of the vaccine (20-39%).

What else is there here. It seems they missed the mark with the current variant Omicron. As I said, it seems the bivalent vaccine sucks against it, not much more take from it all.

Would be interesting to see where you got the base data. How you analysed it and what adjustments you made for any bias in collection methods, whether you looked for and adjusted for confounders. Also the definitions, what constitutes a covid case or what proxy was used, how many amplification cycles, if PCR. Of course this will have quite an effect on number of false positives.

I wasn't running a scientific study Mr. confounding/false positives... lol I was reporting what the hospitals were reporting as to who were sick enough to go to the hospitals with COVID.