COVID 'Lambda' Variant Showing Vaccine Resistence

[ALonelyDad]

Lambda Lambda Lambda I think that shyt was sweet

 

[Reign_Of_The_Most_High]

Copy-pasting a bunch of shyt off of a Mercola misinformation campaign with zero context doesn't do much of anything to inform people. I'm guessing you didn't even read those articles or do any cross-checking to see how valid they were?

Nearly every article you posted is either outdated or actually contradicts the anti-vax position.




1. Yes, theoretically a virus could evolve in response to a vaccine. However, the article itself states that in the real world history of human vaccine use the opposite has happened - vaccines have been immensely successful and remained successful. There has never been a single case of widespread vaccination causing a disease to become worse for society than it was pre-vaccination.

2. That's an outdated 10-year-old article that has nothing to do with Covid. One attempt at a SARS vaccine failed, researchers understood why it failed, published it, and used that information to develop Covid vaccines that would not fail in the same way - which is why none of the 100+ developed Covid vaccines ran into that problem.

3. A hypothetical paper from when the vaccines first came out that says, "While the vaccines work great at preventing serious disease, more research needs to be done to see how well they stop transmission." Since more research has been done, why are you posting hypothetical outdated suggestions?

4. Despite the scary headline, there's literally nothing in there that everyone doesn't already know. In fact, the paper directly contradicts the hypothetical concern from your 3rd article: "While vaccines are beneficial in preventing severe infections, contracting the virus and transmitting COVID-19, vaccinated individuals are never completely protected against COVID-19. Breakthrough infections are possible, and the delta infectivity rate is still very high."

5. The paper itself says clearly that its results have NOTHING to do with vaccines: "Now, a major new study shows that the virus spike proteins (which behave very differently than those safely encoded by vaccines) also play a key role in the disease itself."

6. Those results are preliminary but if true, what's the point? The vaccine is highly effective in preventing you from getting sick the FIRST time, yes surviving Covid might help you keep from getting sick a 2nd time but you still got sick the first time lol. And the results are likely badly off because elderly people with the weakest immune systems were vaccinated first in Israel, which distorts the findings.

7. That 2015 article said poor vaccination can make a disease worse, since that article has nothing to do with Covid and Covid vaccines clearly have not had that effect, why are you posting it?

8. That says that mrna vaccines are not gene therapy and don't change your DNA, even though some people get confused. So you posted it because.....?

9. That's the 5th outdated article you posted, from last year before the vaccine testing results had even come back and the study's own author says that his fears were alleviated by the results: Post makes false claim about COVID-19 vaccine risk



So in summary, you posted 5 outdated links that have already been proven not to apply to the covid vaccines and 2 links that have nothing to do with the vaccines at all and explicitly say so. There's only 2 useful pieces of information that actually apply to the Covid vaccines:

#1. Natural immunity may offer better protection than vaccine immunity (an uncertain result based on preliminary results of mostly elderly people with no randomization or control), but that sort of defeats the purpose because you don't get that immunity until you GET SICK FROM COVID first.

#2. Some breakthrough infections occur.

8. It does state it changes your DNA, hence the "NOT irreversibly change cell DNA", meaning the changes are not irreversible. I mean you have the Tal Zaks CEO of Moderna saying their "hacking the software of life". Without the synthetic mRNA of this platform your body cannot make the spike protein.

Just because an article is old doesn't mean the content isnt useful. For example the information regarding sterilizing vaccines vs anti-disease (lessening severity of disease) leading to vaccine escape and increased virulence of variants.

And of course natural immunity works off surviving an infection, but some reports of the death incidence being less than %1 and with the vaccine 0.04 (one of the ways where they tout the lauded 95% efficacy) I rather take my chances. Considering I have a higher chance of side effects or death in regards to vaccine. People act as if getting covid is a guarantee.

The plan should have been to use early treatment and vaccinating those of high risk groups and with FULL informed consent, not mass vaccinations regardless of previous covid infections or healthy individuals.

COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and effectiveness—the elephant (not) in the room

Approximately 96 COVID-19 vaccines are at various stages of clinical development.1 At present, we have the interim results of four studies published in scientific journals (on the Pfizer–BioNTech BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine,2 the Moderna–US National Institutes of Health [NIH] mRNA-1273 vaccine,3 the AstraZeneca–Oxford ChAdOx1 nCov-19 vaccine,4 and the Gamaleya GamCovidVac [Sputnik V] vaccine)5 and three studies through the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) briefing documents (on the Pfizer–BioNTech,6 Moderna–NIH,7 and Johnson & Johnson [J&J] Ad26.COV2.S vaccines).8 Furthermore, excerpts of these results have been widely communicated and debated through press releases and media, sometimes in misleading ways.9 Although attention has focused on vaccine efficacy and comparing the reduction of the number of symptomatic cases, fully understanding the efficacy and effectiveness of vaccines is less straightforward than it might seem. Depending on how the effect size is expressed, a quite different picture might emerge.

Vaccine efficacy is generally reported as a relative risk reduction (RRR). It uses the relative risk (RR)—ie, the ratio of attack rates with and without a vaccine—which is expressed as 1–RR. Ranking by reported efficacy gives relative risk reductions of 95% for the Pfizer–BioNTech, 94% for the Moderna–NIH, 91% for the Gamaleya, 67% for the J&J, and 67% for the AstraZeneca–Oxford vaccines. However, RRR should be seen against the background risk of being infected and becoming ill with COVID-19, which varies between populations and over time. Although the RRR considers only participants who could benefit from the vaccine, the absolute risk reduction (ARR), which is the difference between attack rates with and without a vaccine, considers the whole population. ARRs tend to be ignored because they give a much less impressive effect size than RRRs: 1·3% for the AstraZeneca–Oxford, 1·2% for the Moderna–NIH, 1·2% for the J&J, 0·93% for the Gamaleya, and 0·84% for the Pfizer–BioNTech vaccines.

ARR is also used to derive an estimate of vaccine effectiveness, which is the number needed to vaccinate (NNV) to prevent one more case of COVID-19 as 1/ARR. NNVs bring a different perspective: 81 for the Moderna–NIH, 78 for the AstraZeneca–Oxford, 108 for the Gamaleya, 84 for the J&J, and 119 for the Pfizer–BioNTech vaccines. The explanation lies in the combination of vaccine efficacy and different background risks of COVID-19 across studies: 0·9% for the Pfizer–BioNTech, 1% for the Gamaleya, 1·4% for the Moderna–NIH, 1·8% for the J&J, and 1·9% for the AstraZeneca–Oxford vaccines.

ARR (and NNV) are sensitive to background risk—the higher the risk, the higher the effectiveness—as exemplified by the analyses of the J&J's vaccine on centrally confirmed cases compared with all cases:8 both the numerator and denominator change, RRR does not change (66–67%), but the one-third increase in attack rates in the unvaccinated group (from 1·8% to 2·4%) translates in a one-fourth decrease in NNV (from 84 to 64).

There are many lessons to learn from the way studies are conducted and results are presented. With the use of only RRRs, and omitting ARRs, reporting bias is introduced, which affects the interpretation of vaccine efficacy.10 When communicating about vaccine efficacy, especially for public health decisions such as choosing the type of vaccines to purchase and deploy, having a full picture of what the data actually show is important, and ensuring comparisons are based on the combined evidence that puts vaccine trial results in context and not just looking at one summary measure, is also important. Such decisions should be properly informed by detailed understanding of study results, requiring access to full datasets and independent scrutiny and analyses.

Unfortunately, comparing vaccines on the basis of currently available trial (interim) data is made even more difficult by disparate study protocols, including primary endpoints (such as what is considered a COVID-19 case, and when is this assessed), types of placebo, study populations, background risks of COVID-19 during the study, duration of exposure, and different definitions of populations for analyses both within and between studies, as well as definitions of endpoints and statistical methods for efficacy. Importantly, we are left with the unanswered question as to whether a vaccine with a given efficacy in the study population will have the same efficacy in another population with different levels of background risk of COVID-19. This is not a trivial question because transmission intensity varies between countries, affected by factors such as public health interventions and virus variants. The only reported indication of vaccine effectiveness is the Israeli mass vaccination campaign using the Pfizer–BioNTech product. Although the design and methodology are radically different from the randomised trial,2 Dagan and colleagues11 report an RRR of 94%, which is essentially the same as the RRR of the phase 3 trial (95%) but with an ARR of 0·46%, which translates into an NNV of 217 (when the ARR was 0·84% and the NNV was 119 in the phase 3 trial). This means in a real-life setting, 1·8 times more subjects might need to be vaccinated to prevent one more case of COVID-19 than predicted in the corresponding clinical trial.

Uncoordinated phase 3 trials do not satisfy public health requirements; platform trials designed to address public health relevant questions with a common protocol will allow decisions to be made, informed by common criteria and uniform assessment. These considerations on efficacy and effectiveness are based on studies measuring prevention of mild to moderate COVID-19 infection; they were not designed to conclude on prevention of hospitalisation, severe disease, or death, or on prevention of infection and transmission potential. Assessing the suitability of vaccines must consider all indicators, and involve safety, deployability, availability, and costs.

 

[Lord_nikon]

fukk this, song been in my head since this thread.... let me get this shyt

 

[The Amerikkkan Idol]

Are you and other black people in this country "White right wing republicans"? Because your reply to my comment doesn't make any fukking sense unless that's the case. I'm going to need you to explain why you wasted your time typing this out as an attempt to defend a group of people (WHITE RIGHT WING REPUBLICANS) who have made this political from day 1

Also don't use the word "elitism" if I was an actual elitist I wouldn't be fukking posting message board, I'd be sipping a bourbon on a private beach in a 5 million dollar home. You don't even know the meaning of that word except for garbage you read online from right wing paste eaters. So why are you defending white people?

Dude, you're not on fukking Breitbart, you're on The Coli

the people you're being condescending to, I'm assuming are Black people, as am I

What guys like you are doing is completely ignoring that Blacks & Latinos are less likely to trust the vaccines because the companies that make them have proven themselves to be unscrupulous time and time again as is the US government. \

So, it's not "right-wing propaganda" that makes us skeptical, it's the very people handing out the shot itself.

You're politicizing something that shouldn't be politicized.

Yeah, a lot of right-wing types don't trust the shot, but a lot of Black/Latino people don't either and at a higher rate than White people on average.

Maybe it's time to place the blame where it belongs on the corporations and the government for people's vaccine hesitance, rather than just accuse anybody who doesn't want to get the shot a "right wing republican"

And there's lots of poor elitists out there.

The world is full of Starbucks employees who think they're better than the rest of us because they have a pricey degree in a subject they can't make money on and go online and talk down to the rest of us.

Yes, there is. Unfortunately, it'd cause civil unrest in a LOT of places in this country for sure. Especially among Republicans.​

Dude, China hasn't even wrangled this disease and it's a Communist country.

Vietnam thought they had it under control and now they're fighting it worst than ever.

If straight up communist dictatorships can't rid themselves of COVID with full blown authoritarianism, you think America is?

You might be right but dont underestimate the amount of black republicans in the closet on here either. I see it on all my timelines... great pages with useful and entertaining posts run by black men and women who supposedly aint into politics, but shyt on democratic politicians damn near every day (and they deserve it for the most part) but I NEVER see a post from them about these racist ass republicans who are literally creating anti black laws and passing them. And of course these same pages are anti vax for all the wrong reasons.

Jeez, I said I wasn't going to get back into arguing about politics with dudes on this board, but here we go

The Democrats get 90% of the Black vote in every election and make promises to Black people, that is why a lot of us who aren't into voting call them out for the hypocrisy.

It also doesn't hurt that all of our families and friends are constantly in our face with the MSNBC bullshyt.

The Malcolm X quote in my sig PERFECTLY sums up why those of us "non-partisans" shyt on the Democrats more than The Republicans.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

8. It does state it changes your DNA, hence the "NOT irreversibly change cell DNA", meaning the changes are not irreversible.

No, the mRNA vaccine definitely does NOT change your DNA, either irreversibly or reversibly. You're reading way to much into that sentence, it was just saying that mRNA vaccines are not doing what gene therapy does.

Just because an article is old doesn't mean the content isnt useful.

But it's bullshyt to link an article saying, "This is a question that hasn't been answered yet" when those questions have long since been answered.

You're deflecting from the fact that out of 9 studies you linked, 5 of them have already been shown NOT to apply to the Covid vaccines, 2 others had NOTHING to do with actual vaccines at all, and the other two were just regular, well-known information.

COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and effectiveness—the elephant (not) in the room

Goddamn, after that clusterfukk you're really going to double-down on more copy-pasting from social media? That study's own author has stated that the instagram post you copy-pasted that from is full of bullshyt. He was only pointing out that RRR and ARR should both be publicized for public health experts - unfortunately most laymen looking at it don't understand that ARR is not comparable to RRR at all and that ARR will change dramatically depending on how prevalent infection becomes.

The article cited in the post is a Lancet Microbe commentary, not a peer-reviewed study. And one of its authors, along with other experts, said the post’s interpretation is misleading. "It is extremely disappointing to see how information can be twisted," said Piero Olliaro, a professor of poverty related infectious diseases at the University of Oxford’s Centre for Tropical Medicine and Global Health. "We do not say vaccines do not work."

But the "bottom line," Olliaro said, is that "these vaccines are good public health interventions."​

PolitiFact - Instagram post misleads on vaccine efficacy by conflating two different measures

 

[Godless Socialist CEO]

Dude, you're not on fukking Breitbart, you're on The Coli

the people you're being condescending to, I'm assuming are Black people, as am I

What guys like you are doing is completely ignoring that Blacks & Latinos are less likely to trust the vaccines because the companies that make them have proven themselves to be unscrupulous time and time again as is the US government. \

So, it's not "right-wing propaganda" that makes us skeptical, it's the very people handing out the shot itself.

You're politicizing something that shouldn't be politicized.

Yeah, a lot of right-wing types don't trust the shot, but a lot of Black/Latino people don't either and at a higher rate than White people on average.

Maybe it's time to place the blame where it belongs on the corporations and the government for people's vaccine hesitance, rather than just accuse anybody who doesn't want to get the shot a "right wing republican"

And there's lots of poor elitists out there.

The world is full of Starbucks employees who think they're better than the rest of us because they have a pricey degree in a subject they can't make money on and go online and talk down to the rest of us.



.

Did I blame black and latinos in my fukking message... Nope. So once again why the fukk are you responding to me as if I did? If you want to argue with people over bullshyt find someone else. Also the only people on here I'm talkin down to are paste eating conspiracy theorists/anti vaxxers who say stupid shyt like "Mark of the Beast" and "OMG GOVT IS GONNA MICROCHIP ME!!!!!!!!!!" bytch wtf do you think the NSA been doing since the early 2000's????? It would be nice if people would like learn some history or pay attention to politics every now and then.....

To address the rest of your nonsense the blame for COVID Vaccine anti vaxxers lies squarely at the feet of republican politicians and online right wing propaganda on social media full stop. The first people that were begging to get this shot were rich white people, if that's not the signal that it aint dangerous I'm not sure what is. Rich mother fukkers in Florida were literally bribing Ron Desantis to get their hands on this shyt. The government didn't make these vaccines private corporations did and most private corporations especially Big Pharma aint really in the business of killing their paying customers. It's bad for business, that's capitalism 101.

If you're still skeptical at this point it's not based in reality or what's actually going on in the world. You're probably just stupid as fukk and poisoned your brain with online bullshyt. The people who have been responsible throughout this pandemic are sick and tired of these stupid mother fukkers. I don't care if you're white, black, purple whatever you're fukking stupid get the fukking jab. It's time to fall in line get this shyt and let's get society cranking again enough is enough. Let's drive these numbers down and make COVID as relevant as the flu.

BTW there are a bunch of right wing loons on this site so it could quickly be confused for Black Breitbart. I don't care what color you are if you're a fascist you're a piece of shyt human and you don't deserve respect or oxygen.

 

[Godless Socialist CEO]

We're never going to get out of this because at some point in the past 20 years someone convinced dumb mother fukkers that they're actually smart and know more than actual experts.

Then of course there's people like the poster above who think we should coddle these fukking people instead of doing what any normal sane society would do and making this mandatory and not giving people a choice because it's for the good of society overall.

 

[HarlemHottie]

...most private corporations especially Big Pharma aint really in the business of killing their paying customers. It's bad for business, that's capitalism 101.

The terrifying part is that you actually believe this stupidity. Please be a paid poster.

 

[Godless Socialist CEO]

The terrifying part is that you actually believe this stupidity. Please be a paid poster.

What would it accomplish for a pharmacy company if their vaccines killed a fukk load of people in first world countries except put it out of business. Do you understand how stupid that would be?


Please tell me what that would accomplish.

 

[HarlemHottie]

You already see, the powers that be, were unprepared, for this shyt in the first place

Don't believe that. Bill Gates, in his own words, been preparing for a pandemic since ebola. There's actually a conspiracy that the Gates Foundation held an invite-only coronavirus pandemic simulation just one month before the first case of covid 19 in wuhan.

Ofc, your friendly fact checkers claim that to be false. How so, you might ask. Was there not actually a coronavirus pandemic simulation? No, there was, they just concluded that its unrelated.

Our ruling: False

Although Event 201 was a real event affiliated with high-profile medical professionals, business leaders and government actors, the claim that the event predicted the current pandemic, or is tied to it directly in some way, is unfounded. We rate this claim FALSE because it is not supported by our research. There is no reason to believe that the current pandemic will resemble the Event 201 simulation, despite coincidences in the modeling and timing of the simulation.
Fact check: A Bill Gates-backed pandemic simulation in October did not predict COVID-19

Never did I think it would be so easy for people to beg for a communist style dictatorship amongst so called 'free thinkers'.

Im thinking more of a 'woke' technofascism.

 

[Godless Socialist CEO]

Don't believe that. Bill Gates, in his own words, been preparing for a pandemic since ebola. There's actually a conspiracy that the Gates Foundation held an invite-only coronavirus pandemic simulation just one month before the first case of covid 19 in wuhan.

Ofc, your friendly fact checkers claim that to be false. How so, you might ask. Was there not actually a coronavirus pandemic simulation? No, there was, they just concluded that its unrelated.

Our ruling: False

Although Event 201 was a real event affiliated with high-profile medical professionals, business leaders and government actors, the claim that the event predicted the current pandemic, or is tied to it directly in some way, is unfounded. We rate this claim FALSE because it is not supported by our research. There is no reason to believe that the current pandemic will resemble the Event 201 simulation, despite coincidences in the modeling and timing of the simulation.
Fact check: A Bill Gates-backed pandemic simulation in October did not predict COVID-19


Im thinking more of a 'woke' technofascism.

O nevermind you’re a crazy person

 

[HarlemHottie]

What would it accomplish for a pharmacy company if their vaccines killed a fukk load of people in first world countries except put it out of business. Do you understand how stupid that would be?


Please tell me what that would accomplish.

You're really serious. Are you unaware that big pharma is currently being held liable for the entire opioid crisis? Literally killing folks left and right???

Opioid Manufacturer Purdue Pharma Pleads Guilty to Fraud and Kickback Conspiracies​

“Purdue admitted that it marketed and sold its dangerous opioid products to healthcare providers, even though it had reason to believe those providers were diverting them to abusers,” said Rachael A. Honig, First Assistant U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey. “The company lied to the Drug Enforcement Administration about steps it had taken to prevent such diversion, fraudulently increasing the amount of its products it was permitted to sell. Purdue also paid kickbacks to providers to encourage them to prescribe even more of its products.”

Opioid Manufacturer Purdue Pharma Pleads Guilty to Fraud and Kickback Conspiracies

Different manufacturer, same shyt: Want to understand how big pharma helped create the opioid epidemic? Read this report.

 

[HarlemHottie]

O nevermind you’re a crazy person

Ad hominems: the strategy of poor debaters since 350 bc.

 

[Godless Socialist CEO]

You're really serious. Are you unaware that big pharma is currently being held liable for the entire opioid crisis? Literally killing folks left and right???

Opioid Manufacturer Purdue Pharma Pleads Guilty to Fraud and Kickback Conspiracies​

“Purdue admitted that it marketed and sold its dangerous opioid products to healthcare providers, even though it had reason to believe those providers were diverting them to abusers,” said Rachael A. Honig, First Assistant U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey. “The company lied to the Drug Enforcement Administration about steps it had taken to prevent such diversion, fraudulently increasing the amount of its products it was permitted to sell. Purdue also paid kickbacks to providers to encourage them to prescribe even more of its products.”

Opioid Manufacturer Purdue Pharma Pleads Guilty to Fraud and Kickback Conspiracies

Different manufacturer, same shyt: Want to understand how big pharma helped create the opioid epidemic? Read this report.

Considering I live in Florida I know all about pill mills and the opioid crisis. So I'll ask again, what would a Pharmacy company have to gain by killing large swaths of the population with an important life saving vaccine in a first would country except get itself put out of business.

 

[Godless Socialist CEO]

Ad hominems: the strategy of poor debaters since 350 bc.

Being a conspiracy theorist is no way to live life. It just tells me you're a very gullible person