patrick.net

Let me look.

Sorry, it was 8 times more likely, not 4:

https://www.technocracy.news/get-vaxxed-you-might-be-8-times-more-likely-than-non-vaxxed-to-catch-south-african-variant/

A study from Tel Aviv University found that a South African variant of the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus affects people vaccinated with the Pfizer shot more than unvaccinated people.

The study, which has not yet been peer-reviewed, indicated that the B.1.351 variant of the virus was found eight times more in individuals who were vaccinated—or 5.4 percent against 0.7 percent—against those who were not vaccinated. Clalit Health Services, a top Israeli health-care provider, also helped in the study.

I remember reading several other paper abstracts which had similar conclusions.

Original Antigenic Sin is a well-known problem with vaccines.

Hey question for people.

During the initial phases of the pandemic, before there were vaccines, and before the best standards of care evolved, and before the death rates were really known... there was a few months where we were in various stages of lockdowns with critical business operating.

I got to wondering: how high would the death rate from the disease need to be before people in critical businesses decided they didnt want to take the risk... grocery stores close because staff go on strike, towns and cities go without critical supplies, and one thing leads to another and societal collapse into cannibal anarchy ensues.

I didnt really know what the answer was... but my guess was something like 5-10% fatality rate would cause this outcome, especially if it affects working age adults.

Anyone have a guess?

Be careful to distinguish between infection fatality rate and case fatality rate.

The infection fatality rate for the original and most dangerous Wuhan Virus was somewhere between 0.1% and 0.3%.

But case fatality rates are usually 10x higher, because a case is someone already sick enough to present themselves to a doctor.

Patrick says

A study from Tel Aviv University found that a South African variant of the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus affects people vaccinated with the Pfizer shot more than unvaccinated people.

Wait... I read that article and it says "The study looked at 400 people who received at least one shot of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine and had contracted the COVID-19 variant and compared them to the same number of people who were infected and unvaccinated. "

Does this mean that the sample is 400 infected+Vaccinated people compared against 400 infected+Unvaccinated people, adn compared the prevelance of south african strain vs. original strain? Im having trouble interpreting the meaning hear. If I take that at face value, all it says is that the vaccinated people were less likely to get the original strain. Do you have the link to the paper?

Yes, I am ignoring some of the red flags in this article... CCP virus name, not peer reviewed... I'll set those aside for now adn focus on the data :-)

Edit: If I am understanding the samples correctly, this DOES suggest that the vaccine has less efficacy vs Omicron than it has against the original strains. but it does NOT say that a vaccinated person is more susceptible to getting Omicron than an unvaccinated person.

DeficitHawk says

Eventually I got a 2nd dose of J&J and a moderna booster, and felt soreness around the injection site with those too.

I recently had Covid in fall 2022... when omicron was the dominant version. It was like a cold, I isolated and tested until my test strips were negative before returning to work.

So you agree that the vax doesn't work to stop infection?

DeficitHawk says

You could imagine public funding to drive control group studies on non-profitable drugs... that may have some significant public benefit. but it would be expensive and we'd have to pay for it.

We do have a public funding system to do research on non-profitable drugs, but the purse is mostly controlled by Pfauci.

People who do research know better than to come out with any results that contract the little tyrant. Thus the zillions of papers which say contradictory things like "wow, a lot of people are getting myocarditis, but go get the vaxx anyway, it's the best thing ever!"

Two more notes about why I lost trust in most "scientific" research:

1. I worked at Harvard Medical School as a lab technician for six months after college. One of the post docs in my lab was caught sprinkling dirt in the test tubes of another post doc's experiment. I could not believe the childishness of the people doing research at Harvard. Ego was literally everything to them.

2. I have a relative who is a fairly well-known medical researcher and gets flown around the world for "conferences" at which he is supposed to say why the research done by the sponsor of his trip is valid, so that the FDA will have "evidence" for approving some new and profitable drug. I was shocked that the conflict of interest is that open and routine. Very nice vacations though!

DeficitHawk says

Yes, I am ignoring some of the red flags in this article... CCP virus name, not peer reviewed... I'll set those aside for now adn focus on the data

My point is that there are many such articles.

That one took me just a minute or two to find, and was not the original one I first remembered that said 4x increased infection risk. I think that was from https://alexberenson.substack.com/ or his Twitter feed.

But patrick that article doesnt conclude what you said it concludes. It only allows the conclusion that Omicron evades the vaccine better than original strain. It doesnt say vaccinated people are more likely to get omicron than unvaccinated people. (if I understood the samples correctly per the description in the article)

DeficitHawk says

Id say vaccines geared towards the original strains may have helped me avoid the original strain, but did not prevent infection with omicron. Omicron symptoms were not too bad for me.

But how do you know?

It was said of the original COVID-19 that many cases were "asymptomatic" and we must mask and distance to stop the spread. There were still many "breakthrough" cases.

At this point it is obvious that the vax does NOT stop transmission and there is no way to prove that, "it would have been worse if I weren't Vaxxed."

DeficitHawk says

how high would the death rate from the disease need to be before people in critical businesses decided they didnt want to take the risk...

Bodies on the street.

Onvacation says

So you agree that the back doesn't work to stop infection?

I agree that the original strain vaccines dont work as well on Omicron. yes. that was my personal anecdotal experience, and its also what the article Patrick shared says.

Its also what studies from 'my side of the aisle' also say.

DeficitHawk says

But patrick that article doesnt conclude what you said it concludes. It only allows the conclusion that Omicron evades the vaccine better than original strain. It doesnt say vaccinated people are more likely to get omicron than unvaccinated people. (if I understood the samples correctly per the description in the article)

It does say this:

The study, which has not yet been peer-reviewed, indicated that the B.1.351 variant of the virus was found eight times more in individuals who were vaccinated—or 5.4 percent against 0.7 percent—against those who were not vaccinated.

So it supports my claim that it's the primarily the vaxxed who are carrying and spreading disease, because of OAS.

But like I said, I found that article with just a minute or two of searching. There are others which show that the vaxxed are more likely to catch new variants because of OAS.

DeficitHawk says

Yes, I am having a hard time keeping up with all the various responses, sorry I missed replying to yours.

Completely understandable, appreciate you sharing. And very sorry to hear about those you have some knowledge of who died. And very glad to hear yourself and your family are doing ok. My sisters and parents all got at least one dose of one of the shots you mentioned. So far none of them have had any health issues, and I hope it stays that way.

So it sounds like between the two of us we have a fair variety of mixed results. I would be interested to know more details of the people you know who died regarding their health. My friends grandfather was old, definitely had some shaking in his hands, but don't know of anything else. My massage therapist has some pretty bad sinus issues, and smokes. Her husband I mentioned the cancer. I believe he was also fairly overweight. My upstairs neighbor is a bit on the heavier side, but not obese by any means. She is very active, and does not know the meaning of organic.

The thing that bothers me about my family, is I have to hope their health remains intact. I don't have to hope when it comes to my family, because we got sick, and not taking experimental shots, already know the long term outcome.

Patrick says

It does say this:

The study, which has not yet been peer-reviewed, indicated that the B.1.351 variant of the virus was found eight times more in individuals who were vaccinated—or 5.4 percent against 0.7 percent—against those who were not vaccinated.

At the risk of deep diving on something that I dont really care about, I still think you are misinterpreting the results of this study, and the language in the text from the article is (intentionally?) misleading.

Am I correct to say that from the 400 vax+infected and the 400 nonvax infected, the results are:
Vax Group: 22 Omicron, 378 Non Omicron (Total 400 infected)
NonVaxGroup: 3 Omicron, 397 Non Omicron (Total 400 infected)

Thats how I interpret the article. Indeed, Omicron is prevalent at a 7x higher rate in the vax group than in the non vax group and thats the headline result for the misleading article. But this does NOT mean vax group is more susceptible omicron than non vax group. it means the vax group gets preferentially less non-omicron type so the fraction of omicron in the infected-vax population is higher than in the infected-non-vax population.

seems like slight of hand based on the sample consisting of only infected individuals, with a misleading way to cast numerically accurate results.

Since you asked me to, I spent some time searching for OAS articles and I found lots. Several say it is hypothetically possible, but no data existed for covid strains to support it. One shows antigen data supporting that if you got covid shot, your antibodies will be tailored to covid rather than non-covid (common cold) coronaviruses, but not specific to covid strain. I did not find any that support the headline result of this misleading article.

Is your interpretation of the data (numerically) from the article you linked the same as mine?

DeficitHawk says

Am I correct to say that from the 400 vax+infected and the 400 nonvax infected, the results are:
Vax Group: 22 Omicron, 378 Non Omicron (Total 400 infected)
NonVaxGroup: 3 Omicron, 397 Non Omicron (Total 400 infected)

Cite source.

Where are you pulling this data from? The Internet was made with hyperlinks in mind. Demonstrate you can properly use it. Tired of this. You can make any claim you want, how are you forming your opinion?

richwicks says

Cite source.

Directly from the article patrick linked above, the sample description, and the percentages listed. I just put it in numbers instead of percentages.

Point im trying to make is that this study sample consists entirely of infected individuals, separated by vax status. So the question it can answer is "what is the prevalence of different strains in vax vs non vax infected populations?".... It can not answer the question "Are vax or non vax people more likely to get omicron infections?" yet the headline of the article implies it addresses the latter.

In percentages like this:

Vax Group: 5.4%Omicron, 94.6% Non Omicron (Total 100% infected)
NonVaxGroup: 0.7% Omicron, 99.3% Non Omicron (Total 100% infected)

One of the original tweets about negative efficacy of the vaxx was 10 months ago, but I don't know how to search for it on https://twitter.com/AlexBerenson

10 months ago

Alex Berenson: "Vaccine efficacy has turned negative, meaning vaccinated people are more likely to catch Omicron about 24 weeks out after full vaccination...The vaccines are not just not controlling infection or transmission, but actually accelerating infection and transmission."

Some similar articles (boy, it is hard to wade through all the articles that fellate the CDC and shit on anyone who dares to doubt):

https://medium.com/microbial-instincts/negative-vaccine-effectiveness-against-omicron-it-can-happen-but-not-always-bc101c242c51

For Omicron, compared to no vaccine, mRNA vaccine effectiveness was –38% at 120–179 days and –42% at 180–239 days after the second dose...

https://dailysceptic.org/archive/vaccine-effectiveness-hits-as-low-as-minus-300-as-ukhsa-announces-it-will-no-longer-publish-the-data/

Patrick, will you please address my analysis of the article you posted? Do you agree? or where was my error?

I contend that the title of that article was misleading, and that the study did not conclude what the headline said, based on the sample and results.

This all makes sense when you consider that documentation of failure is a threat to $100 billion in toxxine revenue, not to mention the credibility of those who forced the toxxine on us.

Let me look...

DeficitHawk says

Point im trying to make is that this study sample consists entirely of infected individuals, separated by vax status. So the question it can answer is "what is the prevalence of different strains in vax vs non vax infected populations?".... It can not answer the question "Are vax or non vax people more likely to get omicron infections?" yet the headline of the article implies it addresses the latter.

In percentages like this:

Vax Group: 5.4%Omicron, 94.6% Non Omicron (Total 100% infected)
NonVaxGroup: 0.7% Omicron, 99.3% Non Omicron (Total 100% infected)

What it's saying is that vaxxed people who are infected are more likely to be infected with Omicron than non-vaxxed infected people are, but does not say anything about the overall infection rate. It's looking only at infected people.

This is consistent with other reports that it is the vaxxed who are getting infected at higher rates than non-vaxxed people, as expected by OAS and as predicted by people like Nobel Prizer winner Luc Montagnier and Dutch immunologist Geert Vanden Bossche, who both said that it was known that running a massive vaccination campaign during a pandemic is counterproductive and would select for variants which would make the vaccinated more likely to get infected.

The title, "Get Vaxxed? You Might Be 8 Times More Likely Than Non-Vaxxed To Catch South African Variant" is not exactly false.

When comparing already-infected vaxxed and already-infected unvaxxed, the vaxxed were 8 times more likely to have caught Omicron, the South African variant.

Though I see what you're saying in that it does not talk about the probability of being infected overall as a function of being vaxxed. I contend that the probability of being infected is indeed much higher if you have been vaxxed.

So I'm saying that to even find 400 vaxxed infected and the 400 nonvaxxed infected, they needed to look through many more non-vaxxed people, because the non-vaxxed are less likely to get infected.

This is also consistent with pretty much every public figure who is known to be vaxxed then subsequently getting sick: Biden, Pfauci, Bourla, Walensky, etc.

Patrick says

DeficitHawk says

Point im trying to make is that this study sample consists entirely of infected individuals, separated by vax status. So the question it can answer is "what is the prevalence of different strains in vax vs non vax infected populations?".... It can not answer the question "Are vax or non vax people more likely to get omicron infections?" yet the headline of the article implies it addresses the latter.

In percentages like this:

Vax Group: 5.4%Omicron, 94.6% Non Omicron (Total 100% infected)
NonVaxGroup: 0.7% Omicron, 99.3% Non Omicron (Total 100% infected)

What it's saying is that vaxxed people who are infected are more likely to be infected with Omicron than non-vaxxed infected people are, but does not say anything about the overall infection rate. It's looking only at infected people.

This is consistent with other reports...

Patrick says

The title, "Get Vaxxed? You Might Be 8 Times More Likely Than Non-Vaxxed To Catch South African Variant" is not exactly false.

When comparing already-infected vaxxed and already-infected unvaxxed, the vaxxed were 8 times more likely to have caught Omicron, the South African variant.

Though I see what you're saying in that it does not talk about the probability of being infected overall as a function of being vaxxed. I contend that the probability of being infected is indeed much higher if you have been vaxxed.

Patrick says

So I'm saying that to even find 400 vaxxed infected and the 400 nonvaxxed infected, they needed to look through many more non-vaxxed people, because the non-vaxxed are less likely to get infected.

This is also consistent with pretty much every public figure who is known to be vaxxed then subsequently getting sick: Biden, Pfauci, Bourla, Walensky, etc.

@Patrick's point about not revealing the proportion of infected (jabbed or unjabbed) relative to the entire population in each group is, and I say this as a formally trained statistician, profoundly misleading. For example, if in the jabbed group of say 10,000 people 2,000 people contract Wuhan, whereas in the non-jabbed group of 10,000, only 200 contract Wuhan, then on it's face, the jabbed are 10X more likely to contract Wuhan than the unjabbed, precisely because (and this has been well known for over 50 years) natural immunity focuses on as many loci on the invading virus as possible (spike, nucleocapsid, etc.).

Now if we just express the percentages of who was infected by what variant, COMPLETELY EXCLUDING THE ABSOLUTE NUMBERS OF THOSE INFECTED RELATIVE TO THE TOTAL SAMPLE SIZE IN EACH GROUP, and we just report the percentages, we have completely missed the forest for the trees.

@DeficitHawk - this is where you are naive (a more polite way of saying that you are ignorant). You only see what is said or claimed, not what has been withheld (lies of omission, as the example above) or how the data have been misrepresented. Surely (and I'm not calling you Shirley) you've heard the expression "Lies, damned lies, and statistics?" Statistics can be used to fool the naive and ignorant, but as someone versed in statistics, I can recognize the ways in which they have been manipulated.

DeficitHawk says

Onvacation says

So you agree that the back doesn't work to stop infection?

I agree that the original strain vaccines dont work as well on Omicron. yes. that was my personal anecdotal experience, and its also what the article Patrick shared says.

Its also what studies from 'my side of the aisle' also say.

It's far worse,. ADE will make the jabbed get sick more often, worse and increase their chance of death. But for that you need basic medical/vaccine knowledge. Or at least the inclination and time to read up on it. And that doesn't include any of the grave side effects of repeat vaccination within a short amount of time with the experimental dna altering mrna shots

stereotomy says

Now if we just express the percentages of who was infected by what variant, COMPLETELY EXCLUDING THE ABSOLUTE NUMBERS OF THOSE INFECTED RELATIVE TO THE TOTAL SAMPLE SIZE IN EACH GROUP, and we just report the percentages, we have completely missed the forest for the trees.

@DeficitHawk - this is where you are naive (a more polite way of saying that you are ignorant). You only see what is said or claimed, not what has been withheld (lies of omission, as the example above) or how the data have been misrepresented. Surely (and I'm not calling you Shirley) you've heard the expression "Lies, damned lies, and statistics?" Statistics can be used to fool the naive and ignorant, but as someone versed in statistics, I can recognize the ways in which they have been manipulated.

Stereotomy, How I think this study was done is simply by pulling 400 positive test samples form Vax and Non-Vax populations and send for sequencing, and then tally the results by variant. That is to say, there never was a quantified larger population from which the researchers selected the infected individuals. This study has no information on what overall fraction of vax or non-vax people are sick. Only what relative fraction of variants the populations have. so I think we are all saying the same thing at this point regarding this study. The question everyone really wants an answer to simply isnt in the dataset in this study.

DeficitHawk says

This study has no information on what overall fraction of vax or non-vax people are sick.

You're right about that @DeficitHawk

What I want to see are unassailable numbers on sickness as a function of whether and how often someone is vaxxed. The graph here claims to show something like that, but I don't know whether their methodology is unassailable or not:

https://patrick.net/post/1377632/2022-11-10-can-anyone-find-some-democrats-willing?start=347#comment-1897749

Patrick says

Some similar articles (boy, it is hard to wade through all the articles that fellate the CDC and shit on anyone who dares to doubt):

I took a look at these ones that use UK data too. I also dont agree with the conclusions implied by those charts, but for different reasons than the other study.

This is not a control group study. Its passive monitoring of test swab submissions, plotting positive results by age and vaccine status. Who is doing test swab submissions anymore? who knows at this point.. its not random, and its not evenly distributed. Us lefty triple-vaxxers keep lining up to get tested over and over because we have nothing better to do.

Here, Im gonna go with Mell's method. Instead of counting the people who voluntarily submitted swabs, count the people who died. Or people presnted to the ER for treatment.
Like I always say, I always agree with how Mell does analysis!

Column on the left is what they are charting in those websites linked... the other columns are severe illness presenting at ERs, or deaths. VERY different story.



The raw reports are here.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1049160/Vaccine-surveillance-report-week-3-2022.pdf

fwiw, The guy who made those charts is literally taking the UK government tables which contains an explicit statement in the footnote "dont use these data for estimating vaccinne efficacy because the samples are not administered uniformly", and rejecting that warning, throwing away the ER admission and death data and plotting ONLY the data he knows is not valid.

@DeficitHawk Interested in your take on the Democratic party seemingly morphing into the Neo-conservatives they've always hated. I grew up in a neocon household that was also very religious. Not sure how my parents justified two irreconcilable ideologies, but seems people will sacrifice everything for their party. Even personal morals.

OK first, this is what you mean by neoconservative: Neoconservatives typically advocate the promotion of democracy and interventionism in international affairs, including peace through strength, and are known for espousing disdain for communism and political radicalism.

First, I dont think all democrats fall into this category. The uber-libbies actually dont. Its more often the moderates like me who do. This is a case where the Trumpers and the AOC types will all agree with each other and try to throw the moderates of both parties out of the tent.

Most often I am for non-intervention (militarily) when there isnt a threat to USA or global security, but think engagement via trade and cultural exchange is always a plus and can gain allies. When there is a threat, I guess I do think peace through strength is the path.

I suppose you are asking about Ukraine? Yup, I support helping Ukraine push Russia back to the border. I think both parties should honor the borders they agreed to when the USSR broke up, and failure to contain the aggression will encourage more.

DeficitHawk says

richwicks says

Cite source.

Directly from the article patrick linked above

Then link it.

Patrick says

What I want to see are unassailable numbers on sickness as a function of whether and how often someone is vaxxed.

Seems like a fundamental question. There should be hundreds of such studies by now intending to answer it. If they existed and they showed the vaccines had a definite overall benefit, we all would have heard of them.

Undoctored says

Seems like a fundamental question. There should be hundreds of such studies by now intending to answer it. If they existed and they showed the vaccines had a definite overall benefit, we all would have heard of them.

see the table in comment 378. thats the UK data we were discussing.

Undoctored says

There should be hundreds of such studies by now intending to answer it.

I find it hard to trust most studies as they are for the most part financed by the same people who committed the crime.

DeficitHawk says

I tend to get my information from online print sources.

Me too, TV is a waste of time. I can read quicker than anyone can talk. Besides the talking heads are full of hot air and the “reporting” is just sensational sound byte laden BS.

Reuter’s is a good source, but to get certain facts you must go outside the mainstream. Consider the hunter Biden laptop story that mainstream media said was fake news but now has begrudgingly and slowly began to admit was true. Relying on mainstream media for news is like living your life connected to a BS machine. Here is another example: mainstream media said that bats in a food market in China were the origins of SARS COV-2. But that was another lie, it is clear the virus is not natural at all, but the product of gain of function research and engineered by “science”.

Do you know what it is like to take the red pill figuratively speaking? Mainstream media is the blue pill as in the Matrix movies. And it is not always lies like the lies about hunter Biden’s laptop being Russian hoax or the origin of the virus but it is the truths they don’t report even when they aren’t lying that are the most deadly, like the fact that the young are more likely to be injured by the Pfizer or Moderna jabs than by infection.

You folks are not getting it. People(bots!) spoke how much they liked Biden mega inflation and free money press, free student loans, free abortions, free vaccines, free sex education for children, free to get away from law, free affordable housing, free money for Ukrainians, free to cross boarders just to begin with. Isn’t it obvious you are a racist if you don’t like or question any of those free programs.

PeopleUnited says

but to get certain facts you must go outside the mainstream

Why do you think I come here? Hint: Its not for the friendly encouragement from richwicks.

Blue says

Isn’t it obvious you are a racist if you don’t like or question any of those free programs.

And the FBI might come to your door to ask you what's wrong with you for not liking those things.