The Vaccine

[JohnRoberts]

Lots of good points being raised after we stopped the name calling. Let's try to continue that productive transfer of information.

While it is human nature to seek out simple explanations for complex issues, sometimes simple answers don't exist. As the old saying goes “For every critical and complicated problem, there’s always an obvious simple answer, that’s wrong!” (Einstein).

JR

 

[crazydoc]

Can you cite a study that deals with potential long term side effects?

No, because there is no "long term" yet (I assume you mean vaccinations). But it would be hard to beat USA's covid-19 side effects of 1% mortality (or higher using excess death calculations), 40% long covid, and millions of hospital admissions.

 

[Matador]

40% long covid

This study (based on about 250K patients) put the prevalence close to 57% (for at least one symptom).

https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1003773
This was particularly nice due to a) the size of the sampling, and b) having a sizable control group of influenza patients. What struck me was how markedly young people (18 or younger) had long-COVID at similar rates as those 65 and over, and how pain and myalgia impacted all groups almost equally.

 

[john12ax7]

One of you could easily have been exposed and been asymptomatic due to adequate immune response such that the other was not.

I'm not sure why you keep bringing this up. In a close contact household the asymptomatic person would still then be exposing the others. The timeline for exposure is therefore still the same for everyone.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

I'm not sure why you keep bringing this up. In a close contact household the asymptomatic person would still then be exposing the others. The timeline for exposure is therefore still the same for everyone.

Well, you've obviously got everything figured out, then. Good day.

 

[crazydoc]

I find it a little strange that this is your takeaway from what was posted. We have two individuals with the same vaccination status and exposure levels and two different results. This is not an asymptomatic case, as an asymptomatic person will still replicate the virus and that will eventually show up in a test. That hasn't happened here. If a person keeps testing negative do you still conclude they had the virus? That doesn't make sense.

The most logical explanation is that in this particular case the vaccine actually worked, the virus was never able to replicate to detectable levels for 1 of 2 people. Is that not an interesting result?

Some people get it and some don't, even if unvaccinated, just like almost any other disease. Here's an interesting study - amazing they found people to consent to it ($$$$?). I don't think ethics committees in the US would approve it.

Researchers at Imperial College London infected 36 male and female volunteers by dropping a small dose of the virus in their noses. The participants were 18 to 29 years of age, and none had been vaccinated against COVID-19. The researchers said none of the participants became seriously ill. Eighteen of the volunteers became infected, and most developed mild to moderate cold-like symptoms, including a runny nose, sneezing and a sore throat.

He also said the scientists will be examining why 16 participants (two withdrew from the study) did not become infected and why some did not develop any symptoms.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/wor...letter&cu_id=tAAICf6Brex3d/swV338uIoafOGBW09J

 

[john12ax7]

Well, you've obviously got everything figured out, then. Good day.

Not at all. We should all be conscience of the limits of our knowledge. But if we need to make a best guess, doesn't it make sense to lean in the direction of what is most logical and plausible?

 

[shabtek]

@ crazydoc--I have always thought, and even discussed w/ my buddy/doc/researcher the following issue :
as far as I know, when testing the vaccines no vaccinated human subject was ever inoculated with the target pathogen--he did not see issue with this but its been a year since we discussed this...I'll ask next time if it still makes sense to conclude effective without known exposure

this is similar to parallel discussion about cohabitants being physically close but differing genetics

I suspect if there is an acquired immunity component than exposure level may play into it
--this would jibe with the advice concerning distance and duration of potential exposure;

but then again the less than 6 feet for more than 10 minutes (or whatever) may be some best guess

it has seemed very knee-jerk and reactionary all along.

many more unknowns than most humans are prepared to concede

 

[AnalogPackrat]

Not at all. We should all be conscience of the limits of our knowledge. But if we need to make a best guess, doesn't it make sense to lean in the direction of what is most logical and plausible?

With as little information as we have about this virus and its origins, it is difficult to apply rules of plausibility. I was merely trying to point out that there are other possible reasons for the outcomes you described, not trying to "prove" one or the other. Occam's razor is hard to use when the available information is inadequate.

 

[john12ax7]

That is a rather interesting study crazydoc. Wonder when further data will be available.

In other rather interesting news, Denmark has effectively ended the pandemic, lifting all restrictions and essentially treating it like the common cold going forward.



Incidentally I've also found Dr. John Campbell's YouTube channel to be an excellent resource, data driven and non-politicized.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Denmark isn't alone... UK has removed plan B restrictions. I don't know what plan B restrictions are, but several countries have relaxed covid restrictions already or are about too.

JR

 

[user 41968]

I saw this one coming:

https://freewestmedia.com/2022/01/14/life-insurer-refuses-to-cover-vaccine-death/

According to the company, an experimental vaccination resulting in death is like suicide

The insurance company justified the refusal of payment to the family by stating that the use of experimental medication or treatments, including Corona injections, is expressly excluded from the insurance contract. The family’s subsequent lawsuit against the insurance company has been unsuccessful.

The court allegedly justified its ruling as follows: “The side effects of the experimental vaccine are published and the deceased could not claim to have known nothing about it when he voluntarily took the vaccine. There is no law or mandate in France that compelled him to be vaccinated. Hence his death is essentially suicide.” Since suicide is not covered by the policy from the outset, the insurance refuses to budge.

Scandalous verdict: taking a fatal risk is legally suicide

“The court recognizes the classification of the insurer who, in view of the announced side effects, including death, legally regards participation in the phase three experiment, whose proven harmlessness is not given, as voluntarily taking a fatal risk that is not covered by the contract and legally recognized as suicide. The family has appealed. However, the insurer’s defense is recognized as well-founded and contractually justified, as this publicly known fatal risk is legally considered suicide, since the customer has been notified and has agreed to voluntarily take the risk of death without being obliged or compelled to do so.”

"Whose proven harmlessness IS NOT given..."

 

[crazydoc]

@ crazydoc--I have always thought, and even discussed w/ my buddy/doc/researcher the following issue :
as far as I know, when testing the vaccines no vaccinated human subject was ever inoculated with the target pathogen--he did not see issue with this but its been a year since we discussed this...I'll ask next time if it still makes sense to conclude effective without known exposure

Sort of hard to justify a study infecting people with a pathogen that has high morbidity, mortality, and no effective treatment, but I guess they can do it in the UK.

A similar study was done in the last century here in the US - didn't bode well for anybody, and the sociological effects are still being felt today.

https://www.history.com/news/the-infamous-40-year-tuskegee-study

 

[Matador]

https://www.ldi.la.gov/news/press-r...on-about-covid-19-vaccines-and-life-insurance

The Louisiana Department of Insurance (LDI) is urging the public to beware of misinformation circulating on social media sites claiming that receiving a COVID-19 vaccination would result in the death benefit not being paid on existing life insurance policies or would result in an individual not being able to obtain new life insurance. Other rumors suggest that life insurance policies do not cover death due to COVID-19. This information is false.

Can a life insurance company refuse to pay the death benefit on my existing life insurance policy if my death is due to COVID-19?

No. Louisiana Law does not permit life insurance exclusions based on death due to disease or illness.

Can a life insurance company refuse to pay the death benefit on my existing life insurance policy if my death is due to COVID-19?

No. New York Law does not permit life insurance exclusions based on death due to disease or illness.

Note that, unlike Life Insurance, Accidental Death Insurance, which typically only covers death resulting from an accidental bodily injury, does not typically cover death resulting from a disease or illness such as COVID-19.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...eopardize-life-insurance-coverage/5203188001/

Claims that life insurance companies deny life insurance coverage to people who received a vaccine popped up again in May, two months after an industry trade group sought to quash similar rumors that circulated on social media....Regulators in Maryland, New York, Texas, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Washington state all said the same thing: Whether someone is vaccinated against COVID-19 is irrelevant to whether a life insurance claim would be paid. Industry groups in those states joined regulators in their statements.

 

[JohnRoberts]

I like to joke that life is an ongoing IQ test (it sort of is), but living life involves personal risk assessment. Not unlike buying stocks that don't come with guarantees, taking a vaccine involves a similar upside vs downside assessment. The upside is that we may avoid serious illness and possible death, the downside is a tiny fraction of known side effects. Something like 10 Billion jabs have been distributed worldwide so we should have a pretty good idea by now of the downside risk.

The risk of serious illness or death from covid seems to be waning. While I can imagine government trying to hold onto the authoritarian emergency powers they were granted (half waiting for the mid-term election covid variant ).

JR

@Cdoc the embarrassing Tuskegee experiment gets routinely run up the flagpole to fuel racial division and distrust of government. This in part explains somewhat lower vaccination rates in certain minority communities. It is remarkable how cruel humans can be to other humans but we don't have to dig back into history to find cruelty going on right now. Chinese medical community has been collecting blood samples and DNA sequences from their Uighur minority. I can't read minds as well as some here. I am not sure I trust China with all the DNA samples they collect from international athletes under the guise of Covid testing. [ hypothetical- if a nation was going to engage in bio-warfare, they would strive to catalog other nation's DNA to target. I don't give the Chinese communists that much credit but they routinely engage western technology for nefarious ends. /hypothetical]

 

[hodad]

I have only read the abstract for this--looks interesting and apropos.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-021-01278-3
(W)e demonstrate that fact-checks reduce targeted misperceptions, especially among the groups who are most vulnerable to these claims, and have minimal spillover effects on the accuracy of related beliefs. However, these reductions in COVID-19 misperception beliefs do not persist over time in panel data even after repeated exposure. These results suggest that fact-checks can successfully change the COVID-19 beliefs of the people who would benefit from them most but that their effects are ephemeral.

 

[crazydoc]

@Cdoc the embarrassing Tuskegee experiment gets routinely run up the flagpole to fuel racial division and distrust of government. This in part explains somewhat lower vaccination rates in certain minority communities. It is remarkable how cruel humans can be to other humans but we don't have to dig back into history to find cruelty going on right now. Chinese medical community has been collecting blood samples and DNA sequences from their Uighur minority. I can't read minds as well as some here. I am not sure I trust China with all the DNA samples they collect from international athletes under the guise of Covid testing. [ hypothetical- if a nation was going to engage in bio-warfare, they would strive to catalog other nation's DNA to target. I don't give the Chinese communists that much credit but they routinely engage western technology for nefarious ends. /hypothetical]

Well, we don't need to open that can of worms here. There are good reasons for doing it, and nefarious ones

"In 1990, the US Congress authorised and funded a military programme mandating the collection of blood and tissue for DNA testing of all military personnel. The FBI and the law enforcement agencies in every state require convicted felons to have a sample of their body tissue bankedand tested for purposes of future identification. In some states, non-violent offenders and misdemeanants are included."

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/1467-9566.00179

 

[JohnRoberts]

I didn't raise that subject, but still hear the divisive drumbeat a little too often.
==
Modern technology is routinely a double edged sword.

JR

 

[shabtek]

@doc,
my friend brought up the same (only?) example

I suppose some other species was given vaccine and actually administered the pathogen...It seems muddy science to deduce and assign a number that substance X protects against affliction Y when there is no known certain exposure to Y--and exposure is a grey definition IME; <6 feet for >5 minutes or something...them are a few big variables is all I'm saying.

I do know that usually this process is not carried out under such public/media scrutiny; that fact it is explains the multitude of "information" and debate

 

[crazydoc]

It seems muddy science to deduce and assign a number that substance X protects against affliction Y when there is no known certain exposure to Y

I think it's still good science when you take a huge population and subject part of them to a given protocol (with no other differences in the entire group) and then compare the outcomes of each group. So if you vaccinate part of the population (who all have an equal probability of exposure to the disease) against a given pathogen that causes that disease, and then compare the prevalence of the disease in the vaccinated versus the unvaccinated, then that gives a statistical measure of the efficacy of the vaccine.