new deadly human-to-human-transmissible coronavirus emerges out of China
POSTED BY: 1KIKI
UPDATED: Tuesday, May 5, 2026 22:21
VIEWED: 203741
PAGE 244 of 283
Meanwhile, while this isn't about COVID-19/ SARS-CoV-2, it does highlight the degree to which known influenza (not SARS) viruses are monitored in farm animals around the world, and addressed vigorously.
Vietnam culls 100,000 poultry as bird flu outbreaks spread
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-vietnam-birdflu-idUSKBN2A80H5
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Wish I could get it. It seems to be highly effective and not have as many serious side effects/ deaths.
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
After months of ignoring it when not outright belittling it, western media finally has to admit Russia's COVID-19 vaccine Sputnik V is an international hit.
Putin’s Once-Scorned Vaccine Now Favorite in Pandemic Fight
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-02-06/putin-s-once-scorne
d-vaccine-is-now-a-favorite-in-pandemic-fight
Speaking of vaccination deaths ...
Quote:NO PATTERN? Seems like four people dying within hours of getting vaccinated is a pretty strong pattern!
Deaths of Elderly Who Recovered From COVID-19, but Died After Vaccine, Raise Questions
Sharyl Attkisson
February 10, 2021 Updated: February 11, 2021
Two small clusters of deaths after COVID-19 vaccination have been reported among nursing homes in Kentucky and Arkansas.
In Kentucky, four seniors died the same day of their vaccination on Dec. 30, 2020. Three of the four who passed away reportedly already had had coronavirus prior to getting vaccinated.
In Arkansas, four seniors died at a long term care facility about a week after their vaccination. All tested positive for COVID-19 after vaccination.
The deaths are reported in a federal database called VAERS, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.
Deaths after vaccination don’t necessarily mean the vaccine is to blame. Of those receiving coronavirus vaccines, many are elderly and frail, or already suffering from serious illnesses. That makes it difficult to know whether there’s a connection.
Kentucky Nursing Home Deaths
According to VAERS reports, the Kentucky deaths occurred on Dec. 30 after vaccinations with the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. An ill 88-year-old woman who was “14 + days post covid” was given the Pfizer-BioNTech shot while she was “unresponsive in [her] room.” She died within an hour and a half (914961-1). An 88-year-old who was “15 days post covid” got the shot, was monitored for 15 minutes afterward, and passed away within 90 minutes (914994-1). A third report says an 88-year-old woman who was “14 + days post covid” vomited four minutes after receiving her shot, became short of breath, and passed away that night (915562-1). And an 85-year-old woman vaccinated at 5 p.m. was “found unresponsive” less than two hours later and died shortly after (915682-1).
In response to questions about the Kentucky cluster, a spokesman for the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) said its experts noted “no pattern … among the [Kentucky] cases that would indicate a concern for the safety of the COVID-19 vaccine.”
Quote:
Scientists differ on whether people who have had coronavirus, like the Kentucky patients, should receive the COVID-19 vaccination at all. The CDC insists it’s safe for people who have recovered from COVID-19 to get vaccinated and that there’s no minimum interval recommended between infection and vaccination.
“Vaccination should be offered to persons regardless of history of prior symptomatic or asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 [the virus that causes COVID-19] infection,” it states.
But other scientists say vaccinating people who are already considered immune after a natural COVID-19 infection wastes valuable doses of vaccines when there are shortages. And neither Pfizer’s nor Moderna’s studies showed any benefit to vaccinating previously infected patients.
The Kentucky patients were vaccinated shortly after the CDC disseminated false information on this point. The CDC claimed studies showed that vaccines are effective for people who have had COVID-19. The disinformation was given on the agency’s website, in its Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report and in a webinar instruction to medical professionals.
In the webinar, the CDC’s Dr. Sarah Oliver falsely stated, “Data from both clinical trials suggests that people with prior infection are still likely to benefit from vaccination.”
Under presNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
The risk of death from vaccination is still low, but it seems that people most at risk from dying of Covid-19 .... or who, ironically, survived Covid ... are also the ones most at risk for death from vaccination.
--------------------------------------------------
A government is a body of people usually, notably, governed by Mark Zuckerborg and Slack Dorsey.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I went back to the original article because that's what I do. Unfortunately, there were no 'original source' links except those that were linked to case numbers. And those required me to sign in to a database, and I'm not going to jump through those hoops.
Speaking of vaccination deaths ...
The risk of death from vaccination is still low, but it seems that people most at risk from dying of Covid-19 .... or who, ironically, survived Covid ... are also the ones most at risk for death from vaccination.
And I was really hoping there were links to the original CDC/ MMWR 'misinformation' and to the corrected 'misinformation' - or even quotes I could look up - but there weren't.
And I was hoping there's be links to information to give a relative scale for the information - how many vaccinated people in the very specific demographic elderly/ nursing home/ rehab home etc and how many deaths after vax v how many people vaccinated in the US in general and how many deaths after vax; just to eyeball the numbers.
Anyway, there wasn't the information or the links I was hoping for, to help me make sens of the article or evaluate it the information.
This kind of reminds me of 'when is a cluster not a cluster' - you know, 'thyroid cancer' clusters, 'neurological' clusters, 'leukemia' clusters, etc. I was also hoping the article had some links to some analysis indicating if these were actual statistical clusters or just normal run-of-the-mill bunching data has.
Anyway, I didn't find an easy path forward and I'm not going to research it. I'll keep it in mind as a possibility, but at the present I can't find any reason to accept it either.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Since the LATimes is behind a paywall, the story may be read at either YAHOO or MSN.
California's coronavirus strain looks increasingly dangerous: 'The devil is already here'
https://news.yahoo.com/californias-coronavirus-strain-looks-increasing
ly-130055544.html
https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/californias-coronavirus-strai
n-looks-increasingly-dangerous-the-devil-is-already-here/ar-BB1dWmbA
https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2021-02-23/california-homegrown-
coronavirus-strain-looks-increasingly-transmissible-and-dangerous
The most salient medical facts are contained in the first paragraph:
Quote:
A coronavirus variant that probably emerged in May and surged to become the dominant strain in California not only spreads more readily than its predecessors but also evades antibodies generated by COVID-19 vaccines or prior infection and is associated with severe illness and death, researchers said.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
details of California's new strain summarized from the LATimes article
The CA strain B.1.427/B.1.429 has three mutations that affect the spike protein. One of those mutations L452R is previously unseen (novel) and makes the virus bind more strongly to the spike protein. While new mutations that confer news strengths ALSO often confer new weaknesses (for example trading off transmissibility for ability to cause serious disease (virulence)) the CA strain mutations don't appear to have introduced any weaknesses, only strengths.
The variant is 19% to 24% more transmissible, but under particular circumstances transmission can be six times higher. Since Sep 1, 2020 when the strain was virtually unknown, it now accounts for 50% of all coronavirus samples that were subjected to genetic analysis in the state.
One reason may be that those with the CA strain had viral loads in the nasopharynx that were twice as high. That, in turn, made it highly likely that each person infected with the new strain would go on to infect more people.
A study with an engineered strain with L452R alone was more than three times more infectious.
The L452R mutation alone also made the California strain more damaging. It was able to infect human lung tissue at least 40% more readily.
In the lab, the California strain overall also revealed itself to be only half as susceptible to antibodies to previous infections or from vaccination. (The South African coronavirus strain is only 1/6 susceptible to antibodies from previous infection and vaccination by comparison.)
Ominously, the new study also suggested the California variant could have the added impact of greater virulence (ability to cause more serious disease), based on the medical charts of 324 patients hospitalized at UCSF. The researchers found that the 21% of these patients who contracted B.1.427/B.1.429 were more likely than their counterparts to have been admitted to the ICU, and they were 11 times more likely to die. That finding held up even after researchers adjusted for differences in the patients' age, gender and ethnicity.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
FDA Clears JNJ Covid-19 Shot For Use In The US, Giving Americans 3rd Vaccine Choice
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
fwiw if I have a choice I want the J&J vax. It's only 1 shot so there's no heightened risk with a second shot, it and has no reports of allergic reactions.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You seem to pride yourself on correctly discerning between opinion and evidence.
I'm just wondering if you've ever actually read anything that convinces you that it's a-okay that they have now fast-tracked approval for not one, not two, but now three vaccines within the course of a year.
Numbers differ on the average length of time it typically takes to approve a vaccination with some sources saying 15 years. But even on the low end I don't see anyone claiming less than 6 to 8 years.
There's no freakin' way I'm ever putting any of them into my arms before 2031.
Have you watched Utopia on Amazon Prime yet?
--------------------------------------------------
A government is a body of people usually, notably, governed by Mark Zuckerborg and Slack Dorsey.
Collection of links to Second's, Nilbog's and Marcos' death threats: https://cutt.ly/tkCvEX6
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
My friend's brother is a chemist working at [redacted]... (Why mention which of the three it is? It doesn't matter. In case anybody ever doxxes me, there's no point in potentially getting somebody I know in any trouble... See your freedom of speech post you just made tonight).
His dad told me a few months ago that he'd asked him what he thought about the vaccine. He wouldn't tell his dad whether or not he should get the vaccine, but asked him how his health was otherwise, honestly, and if he felt that he was really at risk or not if he were to get Covid. The same for his mom.
He was the one who said that it usually takes at least 6 to 8 years before vaccinations are approved, and didn't instill a lot of confidence in my friend's dad about the whole thing.
--------------------------------------------------
A government is a body of people usually, notably, governed by Mark Zuckerborg and Slack Dorsey.
Collection of links to Second's, Nilbog's and Marcos' death threats: https://cutt.ly/tkCvEX6
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME