The "vaccines" prevent neither infection nor transmission. A recent article in The Lancet showed no statistical difference in secondary attack rates in households based on vaccine status. A CDC study of an outbreak in a Texas prison showed 24% effectiveness in preventing disease across the entire study period and 3% for time more than 4 months beyond "full vaccination".( Suscipe Domine: Strickland: ‘I’d rather die than benefit from anything produced by using aborted ... )
The words above were written by Rock on the Suscipe Domine forum (link to post), and being of a critical mind (which sometimes gets me into trouble), I wondered what the source materials stated and if this aligned with Rocks perspective.
Reading the above quote there are three assertions:
- Vaccines prevent neither infection nor transmission.
- There is no statistical difference in secondary attack rates based on vaccine status.
- Vaccine efficacy in Texas prison was 24% across study period and 3% at four months+
Rock kindly provided links to the documents and here's my thoughts after reading the reports.
First, the Lancet Letter. These are letters sent to the editor and are not peer reviewed.
The letter itself discusses infection of other household members by breakthrough cases and the German reference is in the 60+ age cohort. The rates are the same between breakthrough and unvaccinated.
Meaning that if you get infected by a breakthrough case the viral load is the same for unvaccainted.
This doesn't mean that the vaccinated with no 'breakthrough' cases transmit SARS-CoV-2.
Neither of these results are surprising given what we know about immune system performance in that cohort. The whole point of the letter is that public health agencies need to take into consideration that the vaccinated need to be considered as a "relevant source of transmission".
Lancet Letters: The epidemiological relevance of the COVID-19-vaccinated population is increasing
The thirst claim is that vaccine efficacy was as low as 24% and 3% at four months. Yup. The scenerio with a bunch of inmates in close quarters would create high viral loads - so I'm not surprised that they had issues.
Interestingly, given the 'experiment' conditions:
The attack rate was higher among unvaccinated versus fully vaccinated persons (39 of 42, 93% versus 129 of 185, 70%; p = 0.002).
So in a closed environment where dozens of people are close proximity, there will be more transmission and higher viral loads.
This reminds me, I wonder if they have figured out the viral load needed for symptomatic disease.
Caveat: I am tired, so I may have misread the study papers.
References
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/fully-vaccinated-people.html
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00450-z
Tradical Thoughts
What is the goal of the vaccination campaign?
Ultimately to remove 'novel' from the phase Novel Coronavirus.
The problem with SARS-CoV-2 is that it is 'novel'. Meaning it is (was) sufficiently different from the previous viruses that by the time a large number of our immune systems would mount a response it would be too little, too late.
The vaccinations are an attempt to aid in removing the novelty from the equation.
The data that I've heard about (caveat not fact checked deeply) is that even the break through infections are milder that those without infection.
So combining infection survivors and vaccinated people - eventually the pandemic will burn itself out.
That is lifecycle of pandemics - it comes - it kills - people survive - and immunity is good for a while ... until the next virus.
If this has been any of the more lethal viruses, then the morgues would be over capacity as well as the hospitals.
So what to do?
Well, I think in the grand scheme of things it is a case of:
Keep up your Spritual Life, study the Faith, receive the Sacraments. This way you'll know what "hill to die" ... hopefully only metaphorically.
P^3
Comments
Post a Comment