Northern Europe during Pandemic -- Summers 2020 & 2021 & onwards

[GordMay]

There are numerous Government or Official studies, covering the long term effects of such a MASSIVE vaccine schedule on children; all finding there is no link between vaccinations and any increase in chronic Illness and other degenerative, auto-immune, cancer etc illnesses.
Many University studies have been done, and it always comes out well for vaccinations.

[Seaworthy Lass]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Key to understanding these statistics, is that:
If they had not gotten the infection, they would still be alive.

According to the US CDC:

“... For 6% of these deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned on the death certificate.

For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19 [the underlying cause], on average, there were 3.8 additional conditions or causes per death ...”
➥ https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/c...ekly/index.htm

“... COVID-19 is listed as the underlying cause on the death certificate in 92% of deaths..”
➥ https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/c...tech_notes.htm

This is part of the data I was looking for:

“... For 6% of these deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned on the death certificate.”

That is extremely low, but the burning question is what is the percentage for those under 40? I would guess if you are young and healthy with no co-morbidities, your risk of dying would be far less than if you were elderly (or even in your 60’s) with no co-morbidities.

This information should be widely published, as it is important data.

If, for example, only 1% of those dying from COVID-19 under 40 had no co-morbidities, then in England it means the chance of dying if you are 20-29 with no co-morbidities and have a confirmed case of COVID-19 is not around 1 in 10,000, but around 1 in a million. For those aged 5-14 in the same position, it is not 1 in 100,000, but 1 in 10 million. (Contrast this to an overall risk of around 1 in 10 if over 80).

For those people at high risk, I think the vaccine is a godsend, but I think it is wrong to be coercing those whose risk of dying from COVID-19 is next to non existent, to be injected with vaccines that have zero long term data and whose mode of action (genetically instructing our cells to produce a virus spike protein) has never been approved for human use prior to this pandemic.

As for contemplating including children in this program once initial trials are completed and emergency/provisional/conditional approval is gained, if their risk of dying from COVID-19 if they have a confirmed case with no co-morbidities is close to 1 in 10 million in the midst of a pandemic (and remember that it is estimated that 80% of children are totally asymptomatic so they are not included in this data), what are we thinking!!!!

I probably sound like a broken record repeating this point , but I think it is a critical one.

[UFO]

Originally Posted by GordMay

There are numerous Government or Official studies, covering the long term effects of such a MASSIVE vaccine schedule on children; all finding there is no link between vaccinations and any increase in chronic Illness and other degenerative, auto-immune, cancer etc illnesses.
Many University studies have been done, and it always comes out well for vaccinations.

You are severely lacking in any proof with that statement - So show me the money as they say........



If I could be bothered to find them as I know y'all non believers will not even read them I would dig up some university studies that says otherwise.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by UFO

You are severely lacking in any proof with that statement - So show me the money as they say........



If I could be bothered to find them as I know y'all non believers will not even read them I would dig up some university studies that says otherwise.

Also.. there are plenty of examples of drug companies continuing to deny their drugs have been the cause of birth defects and other debilitating consequences dating back to the 60's..

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by UFO

You are severely lacking in any proof with that statement - So show me the money as they say........

If I could be bothered to find them as I know y'all non believers will not even read them I would dig up some university studies that says otherwise.

I always enjoy seeing a little humour, injected into these [sometime serious] discussions.
See ➥ https://www.cruisersforum.com/forums...ml#post3369681

[UFO]

Originally Posted by GordMay

I always enjoy seeing a little humour, injected into these [sometime serious] discussions.
See ➥ https://www.cruisersforum.com/forums...ml#post3369681

I presume the humour was linking to something of no relevance

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by TeddyDiver

Fact checker had no actual facts to prove is disprove anything.. Besides they couldn't count either.

This video is a well known hoax/joke. It's so obviously fake you can see for yourself -- look at the shadows of the van during the "lightning bolts".


See:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwr1a146gDg&t=2s

Man Survives Being Hit by Lightning Twice in Remarkable CCTV Footage - Facts - Hoax Or Fact

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Qr39-pbSqA

[Seaworthy Lass]

Originally Posted by GordMay

There are numerous Government or Official studies, covering the long term effects of such a MASSIVE vaccine schedule on children; all finding there is no link between vaccinations and any increase in chronic Illness and other degenerative, auto-immune, cancer etc illnesses.
Many University studies have been done, and it always comes out well for vaccinations.

Gord, your research skills have let you down in this instance.

RotaShield, a vaccine for rotavirus infection, was initially fully approved for children in the US, then withdrawn when it was found to cause a significantly increased incidence of intussusception in infants. Its use was subsequently completely discontinued.

Dengvaxia, which was fully approved for Dengue fever in the Phillipines was discontinued after it was found the vaccine could increase the risk of a child contracting a more severe form of the disease.

The Pandemrix vaccine (GlaxoSmithKline) was given to 6+ million in the UK during the 2009-10 swine flu pandemic after full approval. It was withdrawn after a sharp rise in narcolepsy occurred. This is a permanent condition that can be disabling. Children have been awarded compensation for this in the UK.

There are a few critical issues here:
- Most other vaccines are trialled for years before release, which is not the case with these new COVID-19 vaccines.
- The general mode of action of these vaccines had never been approved in humans before this pandemic.
- We are discussing worldwide mass vaccination.

These points should not be brushed aside. The emergency/provisional/conditional approvals for the use of these COVID-19 vaccines have been rushed through due to the urgency of the situation. Unlike development, there is no way to fast track trials. These vaccines should be used with caution for those at negligible risk of developing serious illness if contracting COVID-19.

“The basic history lesson when it comes to vaccines and immunization is that there always has been a risk and there always will be a risk” David S. Jones, PhD, the A. Bernard Ackerman professor of the culture of medicine at Harvard University

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Seaworthy Lass

Hi Dockhead
Yes, this is a very important point.

I have emphasised the low numbers already, but will repeat this, as I agree it is important:

I am HUGELY in favour of vaccinating the vulnerable, but once Phase 1 of the UK program is completed next month, the groups that have accounted for 99% of deaths will be covered.

The reported death toll currently stands at 2.7 million people worldwide. Ignoring immunity acquired through contracting the disease, if by covering, say 90% of these deaths via vaccination, this brings this figure down to under 300,000 worldwide. Many of these may have died anyway during the course of the year (figures for excess deaths during this pandemic are certainly indicating this).

To put this in perspective:
Lower respiratory infections in total made up nearly 3 million deaths in 2019.

These are the rough worldwide figures for yearly deaths in 2019 from communicable diseases:
Tuberculosis: 1.3 million
HIV/AIDS: 1 million
Malaria: 400,000
Hepatitis C: 400,000

Nor should we ignore the premature deaths from obesity, most of which are preventable. WHO estimate this at 2.8 million. Why are we not focussing on these?

Once the vulnerable are vaccinated, why proceed with highly experimental mass vaccination on a worldwide scale of “young” people who are at low risk (extremely low for some age groups) with new forms of vaccine previously never approved for human use and trialled for a very short period of only months?

Herd immunity? Eradication? It is purely guesswork (and in my opinion very unlikely) that this is feasible for a coronavirus that easily mutates. As for risks of long COVID, are there not other more pressing worldwide health concerns to worry about?

In my view mass vaccination of the “young” who are at extremely low risk of serious illness is a huge experiment that could turn out disastrously. I can only hope my concerns are totally unfounded, as some countries seem hell bent on this.

I have enormous respect for your opinion, which I consider to be probably the best informed and best thought out of anyone who has posted on the subject on CF. And you've certainly made me pause to think about this more.

Maybe you're right. But here are a couple of things to think about:

1. It seems to me that allowing the virus to freely circulate among the young is harmful despite the true and correct facts which you have cited about the very low CFR among the young. Compared to snuffing the pandemic right down (if not completely out) by vaccinating most people. For two reasons: (a) if allowed to circulate widely, it will mutate that much more with greater risk of dangerous mutations; (b) not everyone is protected by vaccination, and not 100% of vulnerable people are even willing to be vaccinated.

2. Herd immunity is not a binary thing. Greater and greater immunity in the population progressively cuts out the vectors of transmission. Young people who circulate a lot in society are disproportionately important vectors of transmission. Will it take 70% or 80% or 90% to snuff it out completely? We don't know, but we do know 50% already has a tremendous effect on R0 and dramatically affects the tragectory of the pandemic. Therefore the beneficial effect at the population level, of vaccinating young people, will be huge.

3. Now you might say the young will be getting their immunity naturally, and that will get us to herd immunity just the same. You might be right, but how much damage will done on the way? And how does that damage compare with the risks of vaccination itself? And by the time we start vaccinating the young in large numbers, we will have accumulated vast experience with the vaccines. And since there are a variety of vaccines, some of which work in very different ways, if there IS some risk which we don't know about, which we find out about with the gigantic trial which is going on now (working on half a billion vaccinations worldwide as of today), we can drop those vaccines which are causing problems and carry on with those which are not.

4. In any case, can we even imagine that the vaccines have greater rate of causing harm, than even the very small risk of the disease itself in young people? I think it's a big mistake to apply the "precautionary principle" in a way that we just freak out and lose our nerve over some hard to quantify risk, and impose quantified and vastly greater risks on mankind. Perfect example of this was the recent freak-out over Astra Zeneca and possible blood clotting, suspected (only suspected to be connected with the vaccine!) and in a vanishingly small percentage of cases, which led to killing concretely how many people due to withholding the Astra Zeneca vaccine from how many really vulnerable people in the midst of big third waves of infection? This seems completely idiotic to me, criminally stupid. Let's not do this on a global scale.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Seaworthy Lass

Gord, your research skills have let you down in this instance.

RotaShield, for rotavirus infection, was initially fully approved for children in the US, then withdrawn when it was found to cause a significantly increased incidence of intussusception in infants. Its use was subsequently completely discontinued.

Dengvaxia, which was fully approved for Dengue fever in the Phillipines was discontinued after it was found the vaccine could increase the risk of a child contracting a more severe form of the disease.

There are a few critical issues here:
- Most other vaccines are trialled for years before release, which is not the case with these new COVID-19 vaccines.
- The general mode of action of these vaccines had never been approved in humans before this pandemic.
- We are discussing worldwide mass vaccination.

These two points should not be brushed aside. The emergency/provisional/conditional approvals for the use of these COVID-19 vaccines have been rushed through due to the urgency of the situation. Unlike development, there is no way to fast track trials. These vaccines should be used with caution for those at negligible risk of developing serious illness if contracting COVID-19.

“The basic history lesson when it comes to vaccines and immunization is that there always has been a risk and there always will be a risk” David S. Jones, PhD, the A. Bernard Ackerman professor of the culture of medicine at Harvard University

Persuasively argued (as usual). I don't think anyone could disagree with any of this.



But one question:


Are we not already now beyond that stage, where these vaccines can be considered wildly experiemental and unproven? After all, we have administered nearly half a billion doses already. Isn't the wide scale vaccination of large parts of the population better than the biggest clinical trial you could ever imagine?


I realize it is possible that there are side effects which only appear in a longer term than the experience we have so far, but how likely is that? And by the time we start vaccinating young people, we should be already a year and billions of test subject into it.


Shouldn't it therefore be Plan A to vaccinate young people and really snuff this out to the maximum degree possible, with the plan only to be abandoned in case evidence and experience is accrued which contraindicates that plan?

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Seaworthy Lass

Gord, your research skills have let you down in this instance...

My post [1] was not a result of research.
It was a sarcastic paraphrasing of UFO’s post [2], merely reversing his negative unsupported claims, to positive unsupported claims.
I, apparently mistakenly, thought some might see the ironic humor.

[2]

Originally Posted by UFO

Trouble is there is no Government or Official studies covering the long term effects of such a MASSIVE vaccine schedule on children. Chronic Illness and other degenerative, auto-immune, cancer etc illnesses have been on the rise for the last 30 years, yet there is no "official" studies to see if there is a link between vaccinations and this increase - Maybe its just not profitable to find out the answer? Plenty of smaller University studies have been done and it never comes out well for vaccinations ...

[2] Here ➥ https://www.cruisersforum.com/forums...ml#post3369675


[1]

Originally Posted by GordMay

There are numerous Government or Official studies, covering the long term effects of such a MASSIVE vaccine schedule on children; all finding there is no link between vaccinations and any increase in chronic Illness and other degenerative, auto-immune, cancer etc illnesses.
Many University studies have been done, and it always comes out well for vaccinations.

[Seaworthy Lass]

Originally Posted by GordMay

My post [1] was not a result of research.
It was a sarcastic paraphrasing of UFO’s post [2], merely reversing his negative unsupported claims, to positive unsupported claims.
I, apparently mistakenly, thought some might see the ironic humor.

Oops! Sorry. That went right over my head .

I did at least have a giggle at the pot and kettle joke .

[CatNewBee]

Regarding science, big money and health. Herbicides, like Glyphosat had been proved to be carcinogens, but are still approved in the agriculture by health organizations, EU - its big business, who cares about some deaths.

Experimental mRNA and artifiacially constructed gen manipulated Virus Vaccines may work against the current covid variant, but they never will eradicate it on a global scale, it will mutate an find its way, because Darwin works. You may supress one variant, it will create a new one, that resists. Than you make another more aggressive vaccine, then another one, and another one. Meantime your immune system is wrecked and cannot deal any more naturally to new threads. It will be like a permanent drug addiction.

The irrational discussion of the vax proponents sound already like drug addicts who deny the problem. It feels soo much better to be a hero getting vaxed for the greater good.

A monoculture is never good for life, it makes more vulnerable to changes than a diverse evolution driven immune system, that learns from recombination and individual exposure. Individuals may need help and treatement, but the whole humanity has a broad range of immune responses, some are better than others - and this keeps the variants on a low profile in the long run.

If everybody has the same immunity based on the same vaccines, a small variation of the virus will lead again to a pandemic.

Just want to remind you, that Corona Viruses are older than humans, and people used to be infected with them long before C19, and they will be around longer than humans exist - in other species, they will mutate, evolve, jump across species and survive.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by GordMay

My post [1] was not a result of research.
It was a sarcastic paraphrasing of UFO’s post [2], merely reversing his negative unsupported claims, to positive unsupported claims.
I, apparently mistakenly, thought some might see the ironic humor.

[2]

[2] Here ➥ https://www.cruisersforum.com/forums...ml#post3369675


[1]

We'll dodged..

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by GordMay

My post [1] was not a result of research.
It was a sarcastic paraphrasing of UFO’s post [2], merely reversing his negative unsupported claims, to positive unsupported claims.
I, apparently mistakenly, thought some might see the ironic humor.

[1]

Poe's law, Gord; merely Poe's law in action. We couldn't see the twinkle in your eyes and the dimples of a coy smirk, nor the tone of jest in your voice.

Quick Google search:

How do I indicate sarcasm / irony on line?

It once became common in online conversation among some Internet users to use an XML closing tag: </sarcasm>. The tag is often written only after the sarcasm so as to momentarily trick the reader before admitting the joke. Over time, it has evolved to lose the angle brackets (/sarcasm) and has subsequently been shortened to /sarc or /s.

Or the use any of the many smiles inserts


All the best.

This thread brings back rich memories of my early career, working in the S.F. Bay Area in the very infancy of biotechnology commercializations, pursuing therapeutics, diagnostics and prophylactics, including the development and commercial deployment of four highly effective vaccines, each vaccine being the first to target their respective diseases, all but one of which are still widely administered. The one that thankfully is no longer in use, was developed with the modest financial support World Health Organization and was to inoculate against Rinderpest; that virus has been eliminated from the planet and is no longer of potential to mutate and become zoonotic yet again and derive yet another massively dangerous and contagious virus to other species like it did when it crossed to be measles in humans and to be canine distemper in dogs. Rinderpest being one of only two viruses that have been eliminated with the aid of vaccines, the other being small pox. The last documented case of Rinderpest was in 2001; in 2010 the WHO declared it an eliminated disease, a worthy Mission Accomplished.

Yet the most technically challenging of the vaccine projects [and by far the most controversial] was the R & D directed to derive specific vaccines that would inhibit the fertility of women and also one for men, for use as an alternative choice method for human birth control and planned parenthood. The vaccines needed to not only, inhibit fertility, [and not cause abortion] and not inhibit libido, but also needed to be reversible by hormone therapy so that a person that had chosen to be inoculated could opt to have a child if and when they thence chose to.
Note: The not inhibiting libido was more of a major "marketing" attribute, rather than a technical goal as to fulfilling the inhibition of infertility. A vaccine that diminishes or eliminates a persons sexual desires, [or performance capabilities] was perceived to be an attribute that would assuredly induce a large degree of "vaccination hesitancy" and significantly reduce its utilization and market acceptance. Although, I recall quite a number of parents jokingly stating that delaying libido of their teenagers might be a desirable attribute; actually many, upon reconsideration, thence saying, "Hey, you might be onto something there; could we make the vaccine be effective say between only the ages of 12 to 18?"

There being obvious major sociological and ethical [and religious] considerations involved in such birth controlling vaccine, which resulted with our company having many large symposiums and meetings with a wide spectrum of organizations from all over the world. And because there was always the potential of the misuse of the vaccine technology to be used against the will of a person or even targeted against a large sector and huge demographic and economic and anthropologic attributes - always the terms: annihilation · extermination · elimination · liquidation · eradication were some of the one's that tended to rise to the forefront. Albeit, each of those spoken as CAPITALIZED. Mind you that this was around the time of recognition of forced sterilization of 6 million "untouchable" men in India by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi; and of The Gukurahundi, the genocide by a series of massacres of Ndebele, and of course, many, many historical incidents of the despicableness of humankind, against one or another, e.g., The Holocaust; the Genocide of Armenians; the decimation of Indigenous populations, and on and on, and on. When the four principal scientists that were leading the research all became pregnant within one year and thus were no longer allowed to enter any laboratory region of the company during their gestation and for several months after the birth of their children and which took maternal and family leave, it became convenient to just discontinue the project.

Immunization against procreation - that was a subject that had never previously been seriously contemplated. A topic subject that became deep in oh, so many ways. The thought and emotional energy demanded by all of the company employees was continuous and consuming over the course of several years.

Yet this approach or direction towards immunization towards an attribute of oneself is far reaching and has the potential towards being directed to therapeutics such as targeting cancer or autoimmune disorders, or the formation of amyloid plaques / Alzheimer's, etc., thus going far beyond, procreation. The mere inhibition or annihilations of viruses well that being comparatively mere child's play.

I perceive the mRNA vaccination technology will become directed towards specific cancer therapeutics or prophylactic.

Tomorrow my wife and I get our second jab of the Moderna vaccine. Expecting to likely have a bit more side effect reaction on the second dose given the first jab induces the immune system to respond to the invasive inoculation.

On April 1, Montana will evolve to opening vaccinations to all persons above the age of 16, thence having progressed through the three highest priority categories and to having had opened to all persons with of age 16 to 59 with risky medical conditions. I have been viewing the progression of this disease and experiencing the proactiveness of cultural acceptance to mitigation protocols by being privileged of living within the boundary of an opened Native American reservation. The native population of Montana was given the second highest priority categorization without regard to their age, [seconded only to the primary healthcare workers]; this local community has advanced to a very high percentage status of administration of at least one dose. The tribes having been very proactive in protecting their elders; there being very few, whole blood, ancestry remaining of the three tribes which membership now being constitutionally defined as having a minimum of quarter quantum ancestry. One literally can see the slipping away of America's foundational diversity. And the historical adversity and devastation by exposure to diseases of their immunologically naïve population is very much keenly recalled and not distant in time. Taking a walk through a tribal burial ground with one of the Elders, will leave one with a tremendous recognition of the consequences of contagious disease and the hope for prevention and / or cure. Protecting my tribal neighbors, that is by far and away reason enough for my wife and I to be inoculated against SAR-CoV-2 and a host of other viral diseases that have extra harsh effects on their population.