COVID vaccination rates ‘alarmingly’ low among nursing home staff

originally posted by: Lazy88
a reply to: chr0naut

FDA allows drugs without proven clinical benefit to languish for years on accelerated pathway
Process plagued by missing efficacy data and questionable evidence
Some experts argue that FDA’s standards for evidence are too low

Since the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) established its accelerated approval pathway for drugs in 1992, nearly half (112) of the 253 drugs authorised have not been confirmed as clinically effective, an investigation by The BMJ has found.

Elisabeth Mahase, clinical reporter at The BMJ, carried out an in depth analysis of FDA data up to 31 December 2020 and found that of these 112 drugs approved in the last 28 years a fifth (24) have been on the market for more than five years and some have been on the market for more than two decades - often with a hefty price tag.

www.bmj.com...

. Funny the FDA that is supposedly the watchdog needs watchdogs.

Yeah, that's also the way it works.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Lazy88
a reply to: chr0naut

FDA allows drugs without proven clinical benefit to languish for years on accelerated pathway
Process plagued by missing efficacy data and questionable evidence
Some experts argue that FDA’s standards for evidence are too low

Since the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) established its accelerated approval pathway for drugs in 1992, nearly half (112) of the 253 drugs authorised have not been confirmed as clinically effective, an investigation by The BMJ has found.

Elisabeth Mahase, clinical reporter at The BMJ, carried out an in depth analysis of FDA data up to 31 December 2020 and found that of these 112 drugs approved in the last 28 years a fifth (24) have been on the market for more than five years and some have been on the market for more than two decades - often with a hefty price tag.

www.bmj.com...

. Funny the FDA that is supposedly the watchdog needs watchdogs.

Yeah, that's also the way it works.

No. The FDA is supposed to be the watch dog. It’s just another government agency sold out to big business.

Title of this thread..

“COVID vaccination rates ‘alarmingly’ low among nursing home staff”

So? Are the Covid rates abnormal high among that group? What is normal?

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: tanstaafl

You wrote: "From everything I've read, the natural immunity conferred is akin to the immunity received for those exposed to SARS-COV-1 - lifetime, or at least, a few decades." in this post. I have just asked you to provide a credible link to that

No, you asked me for evidence regarding Covid-19. SARS-Cov-1 is not Covid 19.

That said, I didn't save the link to the study in question that showed robust lasting immunity to SARS-Cov-1 about 20 years after exposure . It was leit, and I read the pertinent parts.

Oh - and I know you'll dismiss it because I didn't think to save the link for the last 3 years to be able to provide it to you now.

But someone who has the symptoms and tests positive, not once, but several times, for COVID-19 is really very likely to have COVID-19, and not something else.

Only if you drink their kool-aid.

They have done much more on immune response to SARS-COV-1 recently. They revisited it to compare with SARS-COV-2 immunity.

It does appear to last longer, but decades to lifetime from a single infection?

And I would still appreciate a link.

How can the jab provide immunity when it is designed to only respond after CV has already made into the blood stream?

The majority of your bodies natural immune system defense against air borne virus' happens in your sinus's before it ever gets into your blood stream and infects you.

originally posted by: navigator70

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: tanstaafl

You wrote: "From everything I've read, the natural immunity conferred is akin to the immunity received for those exposed to SARS-COV-1 - lifetime, or at least, a few decades." in this post. I have just asked you to provide a credible link to that

No, you asked me for evidence regarding Covid-19. SARS-Cov-1 is not Covid 19.

That said, I didn't save the link to the study in question that showed robust lasting immunity to SARS-Cov-1 about 20 years after exposure . It was leit, and I read the pertinent parts.

Oh - and I know you'll dismiss it because I didn't think to save the link for the last 3 years to be able to provide it to you now.

But someone who has the symptoms and tests positive, not once, but several times, for COVID-19 is really very likely to have COVID-19, and not something else.

Only if you drink their kool-aid.

They have done much more on immune response to SARS-COV-1 recently. They revisited it to compare with SARS-COV-2 immunity.

It does appear to last longer, but decades to lifetime from a single infection?

And I would still appreciate a link.

How can the jab provide immunity when it is designed to only respond after CV has already made into the blood stream?

The immune system extends beyond the bloodstream (and lymphatic system). There is such a thing as tissue immunity and there are antigenic pathways to, and through, these tissue cells:

The Whole Body as the System in Systems Immunology

The majority of your bodies natural immune system defense against air borne virus' happens in your sinus's before it ever gets into your blood stream and infects you.

Most cells in the body require nutrients and oxygen for metabolic function and so are 'fed' by the bloodstream. Of course there are cells designed as barriers against the external world (like skin and mucous) that have no close connection to bloodstream that die and and ablate over time.

Inflammatory response, where supply of blood to affected regions is increased, is a clear indicator that bloodstream is important in immunity and the body is highly dynamic, functionally.

originally posted by: Lazy88

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Lazy88
a reply to: chr0naut

FDA allows drugs without proven clinical benefit to languish for years on accelerated pathway
Process plagued by missing efficacy data and questionable evidence
Some experts argue that FDA’s standards for evidence are too low

Since the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) established its accelerated approval pathway for drugs in 1992, nearly half (112) of the 253 drugs authorised have not been confirmed as clinically effective, an investigation by The BMJ has found.

Elisabeth Mahase, clinical reporter at The BMJ, carried out an in depth analysis of FDA data up to 31 December 2020 and found that of these 112 drugs approved in the last 28 years a fifth (24) have been on the market for more than five years and some have been on the market for more than two decades - often with a hefty price tag.

www.bmj.com...

. Funny the FDA that is supposedly the watchdog needs watchdogs.

Yeah, that's also the way it works.

No. The FDA is supposed to be the watch dog. It’s just another government agency sold out to big business.

Just because there is a watchdog over food and drugs, does not preclude public, academic, scientific, fiscal, or political oversight (all of which are in place and happening).

Title of this thread..

“COVID vaccination rates ‘alarmingly’ low among nursing home staff”

So? Are the Covid rates abnormal high among that group? What is normal?

The immunity of medical staff is vital to good community health. If workers are spreading infection, or if they themselves are absent due to illness, then the community they serve suffers. So the highest rates of immunity that we can achieve, are fairly mandatory for health workers.

However, having had COVID-19 boosts immunity just like boosting via a jab, and medical staff are aware of that. The current recommendation is that if you have had a bout of COVID-19, you don't have to boost for at least 3 months.

The other thing is that each time you boost, the effect is likely to last longer. This has been established with numerous other common immunizations where a course of shots usually imparts lifetime immunity.

Someone just looking at the number and frequency of jabs, and not considering the other factors involved, (such as in this report) might well assume that they aren't getting enough of them.

a reply to: chr0naut

That doesnt explain how the jab can provide immunity when its designed to train the immune system to attack the spike protein, which can only happen after youre already infected.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Lazy88

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Lazy88
a reply to: chr0naut

FDA allows drugs without proven clinical benefit to languish for years on accelerated pathway
Process plagued by missing efficacy data and questionable evidence
Some experts argue that FDA’s standards for evidence are too low

Since the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) established its accelerated approval pathway for drugs in 1992, nearly half (112) of the 253 drugs authorised have not been confirmed as clinically effective, an investigation by The BMJ has found.

Elisabeth Mahase, clinical reporter at The BMJ, carried out an in depth analysis of FDA data up to 31 December 2020 and found that of these 112 drugs approved in the last 28 years a fifth (24) have been on the market for more than five years and some have been on the market for more than two decades - often with a hefty price tag.

www.bmj.com...

. Funny the FDA that is supposedly the watchdog needs watchdogs.

Yeah, that's also the way it works.

No. The FDA is supposed to be the watch dog. It’s just another government agency sold out to big business.

Just because there is a watchdog over food and drugs, does not preclude public, academic, scientific, fiscal, or political oversight (all of which are in place and happening).

Title of this thread..

“COVID vaccination rates ‘alarmingly’ low among nursing home staff”

So? Are the Covid rates abnormal high among that group? What is normal?

The immunity of medical staff is vital to good community health. If workers are spreading infection, or if they themselves are absent due to illness, then the community they serve suffers. So the highest rates of immunity that we can achieve, are fairly mandatory for health workers.

However, having had COVID-19 boosts immunity just like boosting via a jab, and medical staff are aware of that. The current recommendation is that if you have had a bout of COVID-19, you don't have to boost for at least 3 months.

The other thing is that each time you boost, the effect is likely to last longer. This has been established with numerous other common immunizations where a course of shots usually imparts lifetime immunity.

Someone just looking at the number and frequency of jabs, and not considering the other factors involved, (such as in this report) might well assume that they aren't getting enough of them.

The title of this thread, “COVID vaccination rates ‘alarmingly’ low among nursing home staff”

Is there an abnormal high rate of Covid amount this group? Compared to what control group.

originally posted by: navigator70
a reply to: chr0naut

That doesn't explain how the jab can provide immunity when its designed to train the immune system to attack the spike protein, which can only happen after you're already infected.

Normally initial infection begins with one or two pathogen organisms or virions and then they begin to replicate. Usually, as long as the abundance of pathogens is low, the body does not show any sign of disease as any damage is minor. But replicating pathogens increase arithmetically, and not just simply additively, and so populations can grow faster and faster until the damages they do aggregates and becomes substantial.

Note that this whole 'initial infection' part takes time. It isn't instant. In the case of COVID-19 people do not drop dead immediately when they are first infected, and symptoms usually build up over five days to many weeks, to the point where people begin to die.

In a situation where your immune system has never encountered a pathogen, or something similar to it, The natural response to that pathogen is slow, allowing time for the pathogen to potentially replicate enough to become overwhelming to the body's resources.

However, once an immune response is functioning in your body, there are immune resources called antigens that can quickly identify the pathogen as foreign on contact, and the immune function of the 'killer' T cells then begins.

Immunizations can give the immune system time to produce antigens, without exposure to the whole pathogen, and without the pathogen getting a head start at replication. An immune system primed and ready with antigens can begin destroying the foreign matter almost immediately.

a reply to: chr0naut

Effectiveness of a fourth SARS-CoV-2 vaccine dose in previously infected individuals from Austria
Alena Chalupka, Lukas Richter, Ali Chakeri, Ziad El-Khatib, Verena Theiler-Schwetz, Christian Trummer, Robert Krause, Peter Willeit, Bernhard Benka, John P. A. Ioannidis, Stefan Pilz
First published: 30 November 2023
doi.org...
Alena Chalupka and Lukas Richter contributed equally as first authors to this manuscript.


Compared to three vaccine doses, those with fewer or no vaccinations did not differ with regard to COVID-19 mortality but had reduced risk of SARS-CoV-2 infections. Of note, less vaccinated groups yielded also significantly lower SARS-CoV-2 infection risk compared to the four vaccine dose group in 2023, a finding that fits well to a relatively long-term follow-up study from Qatar.26

Thanks to,

originally posted by: tarantulabite1
No protection against death - Dr. John Campbell

Study - LINK

Austria nationwide retrospective observational study. 1 November to 31 December 2022 Primarily comparing individuals with four versus three vaccine doses. Whole population data. Results 3,986,312 previously infected individuals 281,291 (7,1%) had four vaccinations at baseline 1,545,242 (38.8%) had three vaccinations at baseline We recorded 69 COVID-19 deaths 89,056 SARS-CoV-2 infections The majority of COVID-19 deaths and a significant proportion of all-cause deaths occurred in nursing home residents Relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) for four versus three vaccine doses -24% against COVID-19 deaths 17% against SARS-CoV-2 infections. Protection against infection rapidly diminished over time, and infection risk with four vaccinations was higher during extended follow-up until June 2023. Adjusted HR for all-cause mortality for four versus three vaccinations was 0.79. That is people with a 4th dose were only 79% as likely to die (Suggesting healthy vaccinee bias, i.e. healthier persons received more vaccine doses)