Reading comprehension is not one of your strong suits. All the quotes and links are from the same peer-reviewed and published study linked in the comment. I have included the conclusion below given you seem to have had difficulty finding it.
"In conclusion, this study found an overall modest protective effect [29% BA.4/5, 20% BQ, and no effectiveness XBB] of the bivalent vaccine against COVID-19 while the circulating strains were represented in the vaccine and lower protection when the circulating strains were no longer represented. A significant protective effect was not found when the XBB lineages were dominant. The unexpected finding of increasing risk with increasing number of prior COVID-19 vaccine doses needs further study."
The author also addresses your excuses for the inconvenient data showing more vaccinations results in more incidents of Covid.
"A simplistic explanation might be that those who received more doses were more likely to be individuals at higher risk of COVID-19. A small proportion of individuals may have fit this description. However, the majority of subjects in this study were generally young individuals and all were eligible to have received at least 3 doses of vaccine by the study start date, and which they had every opportunity to do. Therefore, those who received fewer than 3 doses (46% of individuals in the study) were not those ineligible to receive the vaccine, but those who chose not to follow the CDC’s recommendations on remaining updated with COVID-19 vaccination, and one could reasonably expect these individuals to have been more likely to have exhibited higher risk-taking behavior. Despite this, their risk of acquiring COVID-19 was lower than those who received a larger number of prior vaccine doses. "
You then cite a completely unsupported anecdote about the level of vaccinated vs unvaccinated in the hospital and dying. The US data on this is problematic as it is collected inconsistently by many independent organizations using different standards.
The UK hospital system is government controlled therefore their data is consistently collected using the same standard. They collected and published good raw data biweekly through April or May of last year which shows in nearly all age groups the % of those hospitalized or dying of Covid who were unvaccinated does not exceed the % of the population that is unvaccinated at that time for any significant period of time. If what you assert were true, that the unvaccinated were hospitalized and dying at far greater rates, the % of those hospitalized or dying of Covid that were unvaccinated would exceed the % of the population that is unvaccinated by a material amount and this does not show up in the data. Do you believe that Covid would affect the English differently than those in the US?
You exposed yourself as a political ideologue and not a individual sincerely looking for truth when you decided to bring politicians into a discussion in which they have no relevance. Thanks for exposing yourself and saving me from wasting any more time with your nonsense.
Wow you really are a vaccine zealot or maybe just a paid troll. This is my last post as this is clearly a waste of time and you truly believe that you are our betters and should be in a position to tell us all how to live our lives. This perfectly illustrates why you have earned the enmity of many.
What all the articles and your anecdotes ignore is problematic nature of the data on vaccinated vs unvaccinated in hospitals. It is hopelessly flawed. You think we did not notice when the various state governments changed their data to show that 50-60% of those labelled as hospitalized for Covid were actually incidental (Covid had nothing to do with their hospitalization or deaths). Data in my own state (which was slanted toward unvaccinated) carried a disclaimer admitting that the unvaccinated number was likely inflated for both hospitalizations and deaths. You still have not addressed the UK data (the raw data) which clearly shows little difference in the vaccinated and unvaccinated hospitalizations and deaths. Interestingly, when this data started to trend in favor of the unvaccinated the government stopped collecting the data.
While it is anecdotal, my own experience taking my mother weekly to her cancer treatments throughout the pandemic revealed the hospital was a ghost town. It was not overwhelmed like I was being told on the news every night. At the same time the media was telling me that the hospital was overwhelmed with Covid patients and children in particular were hit hard, the state data showed 8 total Covid positve patients in ICU and only 2 pediatric patients who were Covid positive.
You also ignore the early Israeli study which showed that natural immunity was stronger and longer lasting than vaccine induced immunity. It showed the order of whether you were vaccinated prior to infection or infected prior to vaccination had an impact on hybrid immunity. Hybrid immunity was nearly equal to natural immunity alone if you were infected prior to receiving the vaccine. However, if you were vaccinated prior to infection your immunity was inferior.
We are far afield from the original post but you have clearly illustrated your unwillingness to even consider an alternative to the narrative. We have not even touched on the other ineffective interventions but I suspect you are similarly closed minded.
I know said I was done but you again perfectly illustrate your inability to think critically. Making a decision on the potential risk vs benefit of a hastily tested vaccine for a 78 yo woman with cancer represents a completely different risk profile than making the similar decision for a healthy teenager or young adult. Recently, the Israeli ministry of the health was forced by court order to admit there were ZERO Covid deaths in healthy individuals age 19-49. Marty Makary from Johns Hopkins looked at US data early in the pandemic and reached a similar conclusion and data from Germany shows similar low risk for healthy younger people. Yet public health policy failed to consider this and advocated forced/coerced universal vaccination. This policy was advocated for even though we knew that the vaccine did not prevent infection nor spread (July 4th outbreak in Barnstable showed this as did several other studies). The dubious claim of preventing severe disease and death is nearly impossible to prove given the corruption of the data. However, what you choose to ignore are data and evidence which call into question the consensus to which you are so wed. I have not cited conspiracy theories above but evidence in the form of legitimate studies and collected data that you choose to ignore because they are inconvenient. I fear you are teaching your students what to think not how to think. I also fear that you are in a bubble and do not understand that the consensus is changing and the trust in public health and the medical community is waning. Look at vaccine uptake as a proxy. Do you really think that all those people that dutifully listened and got their shots and boosters made the conscious decision to stop without considering the prudence of the shots in the first place? They did what was expected and they still got Covid as did their vaccinated friends and family. They were promised otherwise only to have the public health and medical community change their tune when it became obvious the shots were not working. The justification morphed into the nearly impossible to prove "prevents severe disease and death". To further burst your bubble, polls have shown that a nearly equal % of people believe that a family member died of vaccine injury as believe died of Covid. Also, Fifty-seven percent (57%) are concerned that COVID-19 vaccines may have major side effects. I present this not a evidence of vaccine side effects (we know they exist and are only now beginning to understand their severity) but to inform you that your consensus is not universal in the population and the trend is away from your position.
Your constant reliance on a consensus of "experts" and unsupported anecdotal data does nothing to effectively support your position. You have now added the favorite tool of internet trolls attacking the source rather than actually refuting the data.
Would you allow you students to prove out a hypothesis by citing a consensus of expert opinion vs requiring repeatable and replicable research and data?
Your “expert” opinion is that the vaccines “worked” until they did not due to the mutation of the virus. And by “worked” you mean, had some beneficial affect on prevention of serious illness and death as no one continues to maintain that they prevent infection and spread. Dr. Birx stated "I knew these vaccines were not going to protect against infection. And I think we overplayed the vaccines, and it made people then worry that it's not going to protect against severe disease and hospitalization.". Supporting this is the inconvenient fact that everyone got Covid regardless of vaccination status. You believe that the vaccines only failed nearly completely when the virus mutated which was inevitable and completely predictable. Anyone who knows anything about respiratory viruses is aware that they mutate quickly thus the failure of the vaccine due to mutation of the virus was predictable and nearly assured. But with this understanding you support a public health policy of coerced/mandated universal vaccination without consideration of prior infection, the dramatic variation in risk represented by the virus depending upon age and health, potential drug interaction and the unknown safety profile of the vaccine due to rushed testing. We are only now beginning to understand the safety profile of the vaccines and it is not looking very good.
Kind of sounds like the type of policy that would be formulated by the people who determined we needed to wear masks (ineffective cloth or cheap paper masks) all the time but when we sat down in a crowded restaurant it was OK to take your mask off. Or that you had to wear a mask in a crowded enclosed metal tube (a modern airliner) except it is OK when you are eating or drinking to take the mask off.
Reading comprehension is not one of your strong suits. All the quotes and links are from the same peer-reviewed and published study linked in the comment. I have included the conclusion below given you seem to have had difficulty finding it.
"In conclusion, this study found an overall modest protective effect [29% BA.4/5, 20% BQ, and no effectiveness XBB] of the bivalent vaccine against COVID-19 while the circulating strains were represented in the vaccine and lower protection when the circulating strains were no longer represented. A significant protective effect was not found when the XBB lineages were dominant. The unexpected finding of increasing risk with increasing number of prior COVID-19 vaccine doses needs further study."
The author also addresses your excuses for the inconvenient data showing more vaccinations results in more incidents of Covid.
"A simplistic explanation might be that those who received more doses were more likely to be individuals at higher risk of COVID-19. A small proportion of individuals may have fit this description. However, the majority of subjects in this study were generally young individuals and all were eligible to have received at least 3 doses of vaccine by the study start date, and which they had every opportunity to do. Therefore, those who received fewer than 3 doses (46% of individuals in the study) were not those ineligible to receive the vaccine, but those who chose not to follow the CDC’s recommendations on remaining updated with COVID-19 vaccination, and one could reasonably expect these individuals to have been more likely to have exhibited higher risk-taking behavior. Despite this, their risk of acquiring COVID-19 was lower than those who received a larger number of prior vaccine doses. "
You then cite a completely unsupported anecdote about the level of vaccinated vs unvaccinated in the hospital and dying. The US data on this is problematic as it is collected inconsistently by many independent organizations using different standards.
The UK hospital system is government controlled therefore their data is consistently collected using the same standard. They collected and published good raw data biweekly through April or May of last year which shows in nearly all age groups the % of those hospitalized or dying of Covid who were unvaccinated does not exceed the % of the population that is unvaccinated at that time for any significant period of time. If what you assert were true, that the unvaccinated were hospitalized and dying at far greater rates, the % of those hospitalized or dying of Covid that were unvaccinated would exceed the % of the population that is unvaccinated by a material amount and this does not show up in the data. Do you believe that Covid would affect the English differently than those in the US?
You exposed yourself as a political ideologue and not a individual sincerely looking for truth when you decided to bring politicians into a discussion in which they have no relevance. Thanks for exposing yourself and saving me from wasting any more time with your nonsense.
Wow you really are a vaccine zealot or maybe just a paid troll. This is my last post as this is clearly a waste of time and you truly believe that you are our betters and should be in a position to tell us all how to live our lives. This perfectly illustrates why you have earned the enmity of many.
What all the articles and your anecdotes ignore is problematic nature of the data on vaccinated vs unvaccinated in hospitals. It is hopelessly flawed. You think we did not notice when the various state governments changed their data to show that 50-60% of those labelled as hospitalized for Covid were actually incidental (Covid had nothing to do with their hospitalization or deaths). Data in my own state (which was slanted toward unvaccinated) carried a disclaimer admitting that the unvaccinated number was likely inflated for both hospitalizations and deaths. You still have not addressed the UK data (the raw data) which clearly shows little difference in the vaccinated and unvaccinated hospitalizations and deaths. Interestingly, when this data started to trend in favor of the unvaccinated the government stopped collecting the data.
While it is anecdotal, my own experience taking my mother weekly to her cancer treatments throughout the pandemic revealed the hospital was a ghost town. It was not overwhelmed like I was being told on the news every night. At the same time the media was telling me that the hospital was overwhelmed with Covid patients and children in particular were hit hard, the state data showed 8 total Covid positve patients in ICU and only 2 pediatric patients who were Covid positive.
You also ignore the early Israeli study which showed that natural immunity was stronger and longer lasting than vaccine induced immunity. It showed the order of whether you were vaccinated prior to infection or infected prior to vaccination had an impact on hybrid immunity. Hybrid immunity was nearly equal to natural immunity alone if you were infected prior to receiving the vaccine. However, if you were vaccinated prior to infection your immunity was inferior.
We are far afield from the original post but you have clearly illustrated your unwillingness to even consider an alternative to the narrative. We have not even touched on the other ineffective interventions but I suspect you are similarly closed minded.
I know said I was done but you again perfectly illustrate your inability to think critically. Making a decision on the potential risk vs benefit of a hastily tested vaccine for a 78 yo woman with cancer represents a completely different risk profile than making the similar decision for a healthy teenager or young adult. Recently, the Israeli ministry of the health was forced by court order to admit there were ZERO Covid deaths in healthy individuals age 19-49. Marty Makary from Johns Hopkins looked at US data early in the pandemic and reached a similar conclusion and data from Germany shows similar low risk for healthy younger people. Yet public health policy failed to consider this and advocated forced/coerced universal vaccination. This policy was advocated for even though we knew that the vaccine did not prevent infection nor spread (July 4th outbreak in Barnstable showed this as did several other studies). The dubious claim of preventing severe disease and death is nearly impossible to prove given the corruption of the data. However, what you choose to ignore are data and evidence which call into question the consensus to which you are so wed. I have not cited conspiracy theories above but evidence in the form of legitimate studies and collected data that you choose to ignore because they are inconvenient. I fear you are teaching your students what to think not how to think. I also fear that you are in a bubble and do not understand that the consensus is changing and the trust in public health and the medical community is waning. Look at vaccine uptake as a proxy. Do you really think that all those people that dutifully listened and got their shots and boosters made the conscious decision to stop without considering the prudence of the shots in the first place? They did what was expected and they still got Covid as did their vaccinated friends and family. They were promised otherwise only to have the public health and medical community change their tune when it became obvious the shots were not working. The justification morphed into the nearly impossible to prove "prevents severe disease and death". To further burst your bubble, polls have shown that a nearly equal % of people believe that a family member died of vaccine injury as believe died of Covid. Also, Fifty-seven percent (57%) are concerned that COVID-19 vaccines may have major side effects. I present this not a evidence of vaccine side effects (we know they exist and are only now beginning to understand their severity) but to inform you that your consensus is not universal in the population and the trend is away from your position.
Your constant reliance on a consensus of "experts" and unsupported anecdotal data does nothing to effectively support your position. You have now added the favorite tool of internet trolls attacking the source rather than actually refuting the data.
Would you allow you students to prove out a hypothesis by citing a consensus of expert opinion vs requiring repeatable and replicable research and data?
Your “expert” opinion is that the vaccines “worked” until they did not due to the mutation of the virus. And by “worked” you mean, had some beneficial affect on prevention of serious illness and death as no one continues to maintain that they prevent infection and spread. Dr. Birx stated "I knew these vaccines were not going to protect against infection. And I think we overplayed the vaccines, and it made people then worry that it's not going to protect against severe disease and hospitalization.". Supporting this is the inconvenient fact that everyone got Covid regardless of vaccination status. You believe that the vaccines only failed nearly completely when the virus mutated which was inevitable and completely predictable. Anyone who knows anything about respiratory viruses is aware that they mutate quickly thus the failure of the vaccine due to mutation of the virus was predictable and nearly assured. But with this understanding you support a public health policy of coerced/mandated universal vaccination without consideration of prior infection, the dramatic variation in risk represented by the virus depending upon age and health, potential drug interaction and the unknown safety profile of the vaccine due to rushed testing. We are only now beginning to understand the safety profile of the vaccines and it is not looking very good.
Kind of sounds like the type of policy that would be formulated by the people who determined we needed to wear masks (ineffective cloth or cheap paper masks) all the time but when we sat down in a crowded restaurant it was OK to take your mask off. Or that you had to wear a mask in a crowded enclosed metal tube (a modern airliner) except it is OK when you are eating or drinking to take the mask off.