new deadly human-to-human-transmissible coronavirus emerges out of China
POSTED BY: 1KIKI
UPDATED: Tuesday, May 5, 2026 22:21
VIEWED: 203741
PAGE 273 of 283
Quote:??
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
If you're referring to the new antiviral, it wasn't HCQ. And if you ARE referring to the new antiviral, I suggest you learn to read.Quote:
JSF" If they had the option of getting HCQ and being out of the hospital in hours, or being left to die in this study, what kind of fatalist nimrods chose to die for science? Or die for stupidity's sake?
hcq HAS BEEN CURING FOLK ON DEATH'S DOOR FROM COVID SINCE mARCH 2020.
The new study offered patients the opportunity to be in the control group and be left to die, for the good of science.
So their choice was to get well from HCQ, or try the new pill in the study.
Not sure of your confusion.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
My prediction is that unless those countries that have had a 'zero-COVID-19' policy have vaccinated roughly 70% of their currently eligible populations within in the span from roughly 3 months previous to now, once they give up those policies, they'll have a strong COVID-19 surge. I'll be checking that at 91-DIVOC.
Australia
New Zealand
China
Singapore
Hong Kong
Laos
Vietnam
Cambodia
Thailand
China is maintaining its 'zero Covid' policy.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
Australia
Their only option is to go to war with their own people and keep them locked up forever, or everybody is getting it.
Same with everybody else on the list.
Everyone will get Covid.
--------------------------------------------------
Vaccinated People: "You need to get muh vaccination shots that don't work because I got muh vaccination shots that don't work and I'm afraid of people that didn't get muh vaccination shots that don't work because muh vaccination shots that don't work don't work."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There's vaccination, which prevents roughly 2 in 3 new infections.
OOPS!!!
Too much fact! 
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
No it doesn't. They're still walking around like a cesspool with legs.
OPPS!
--------------------------------------------------
Vaccinated People: "You need to get muh vaccination shots that don't work because I got muh vaccination shots that don't work and I'm afraid of people that didn't get muh vaccination shots that don't work because muh vaccination shots that don't work don't work."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
OOPS!
Too little fact!
Just fyi - for those who do get infected, they carry the same amount of virus. But most people don't get infected.
That's something your 'sources' failed to let you know.
compilation of studies from around the globe
https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/how-much-protection-covid-19-
vaccines-give-you-against-the-delta-variant-according-to-the-best-available-data/ar-AALURZQ
Scottish study
the test-negative analysis to estimate vaccine effectiveness in preventing RT-PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection showed that, compared to those unvaccinated, at least 14 days after the second dose, BNT162b2 (Pfizer–BioNTech vaccine) offered very good protection: 92% (95% CI 90–93) S gene-negative (alpha variant), 79% (75–82) S gene-positive (delta variant). Protection associated with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (Oxford–AstraZeneca vaccine) was, however, substantial but reduced: 73% (95% CI 66–78) for S gene-negative cases versus 60% (53–66) for those S gene-positive
Qatar study
BNT162b2 (Pfizer) effectiveness against any Delta infection, symptomatic or asymptomatic, was 64.2% (95% CI: 38.1-80.1%) =14 days after the first dose and before the second dose, but was only 53.5% (95% CI: 43.9-61.4%) =14 days after the second dose in a population in which a large proportion of fully vaccinated persons received their second dose several months earlier. (ie waned over an extended time)
Corresponding effectiveness measures for mRNA-1273 (Moderna) were 79.0% (95% CI: 58.9-90.1%) and 84.8% (95% CI: 75.9-90.8%), respectively.
UK study
the effectiveness of BNT162b2 and ChAd0x1 against any infections (new PCR positives) and infections with symptoms or high viral burden is reduced with the Delta variant. A single dose of the mRNA-1273 vaccine had similar or greater effectiveness compared to a single dose of BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1 (Oxford vaccine). Effectiveness of two doses remains at least as great as protection afforded by prior natural infection. The dynamics of immunity following second doses differed significantly between BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1, with greater initial effectiveness against new PCR-positives but faster declines in protection against high viral burden and symptomatic infection with BNT162b2.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Are we even talking about the same thing?
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:??
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
If you're referring to the new antiviral, it wasn't HCQ. And if you ARE referring to the new antiviral, I suggest you learn to read.Quote:
JSF" If they had the option of getting HCQ and being out of the hospital in hours, or being left to die in this study, what kind of fatalist nimrods chose to die for science? Or die for stupidity's sake?
hcq HAS BEEN CURING FOLK ON DEATH'S DOOR FROM COVID SINCE mARCH 2020.
The new study offered patients the opportunity to be in the control group and be left to die, for the good of science.
So their choice was to get well from HCQ, or try the new pill in the study.
Not sure of your confusion.
Did you even read the articles?
It was NOT a choice between HCQ and the new antiviral. Where are you getting all of this misinformation from?
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
OOPS!
Too little fact!
Just fyi - for those who do get infected, they carry the same amount of virus. But most people don't get infected.
That's something your 'sources' failed to let you know.
compilation of studies from around the globe
https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/how-much-protection-covid-19-
vaccines-give-you-against-the-delta-variant-according-to-the-best-available-data/ar-AALURZQ
Scottish study
the test-negative analysis to estimate vaccine effectiveness in preventing RT-PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection showed that, compared to those unvaccinated, at least 14 days after the second dose, BNT162b2 (Pfizer–BioNTech vaccine) offered very good protection: 92% (95% CI 90–93) S gene-negative (alpha variant), 79% (75–82) S gene-positive (delta variant). Protection associated with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (Oxford–AstraZeneca vaccine) was, however, substantial but reduced: 73% (95% CI 66–78) for S gene-negative cases versus 60% (53–66) for those S gene-positive
Qatar study
BNT162b2 (Pfizer) effectiveness against any Delta infection, symptomatic or asymptomatic, was 64.2% (95% CI: 38.1-80.1%) =14 days after the first dose and before the second dose, but was only 53.5% (95% CI: 43.9-61.4%) =14 days after the second dose in a population in which a large proportion of fully vaccinated persons received their second dose several months earlier. (ie waned over an extended time)
Corresponding effectiveness measures for mRNA-1273 (Moderna) were 79.0% (95% CI: 58.9-90.1%) and 84.8% (95% CI: 75.9-90.8%), respectively.
UK study
the effectiveness of BNT162b2 and ChAd0x1 against any infections (new PCR positives) and infections with symptoms or high viral burden is reduced with the Delta variant. A single dose of the mRNA-1273 vaccine had similar or greater effectiveness compared to a single dose of BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1 (Oxford vaccine). Effectiveness of two doses remains at least as great as protection afforded by prior natural infection. The dynamics of immunity following second doses differed significantly between BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1, with greater initial effectiveness against new PCR-positives but faster declines in protection against high viral burden and symptomatic infection with BNT162b2.
Your studies are bullshit Kiki.
Seriously. Don't bother posting any of them. They won't even be read.
I've been right about everything regarding Covid since April of last year.
--------------------------------------------------
Vaccinated People: "You need to get muh vaccination shots that don't work because I got muh vaccination shots that don't work and I'm afraid of people that didn't get muh vaccination shots that don't work because muh vaccination shots that don't work don't work."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Another nonsense response from JSF.
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:Are you in denial?
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
From the annals of Manipulated Satistics.Quote:
'Not Supposed To Happen': US State With Highest Vaxx Rate Sees Record Surge In COVID Cases
https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/not-supposed-happen-us-state-highes
t-vaxx-rate-sees-record-surge-covid-casesQuote:
In late August, four of ten cases of COVID-19 in Vermont were among vaccinated people, according to a letter signed by 90 employees of the Vermont Health Department, including state Epidemiologist Patsy Kelso.
HOWEVER, sinceQuote:
More than 69 percent of Vermont’s population has been fully vaccinated against COVID-19 as of Sept. 24
Hmmm... 7/10 are vaccinated. but 4/10 new cases are vaccinated. That means that the vaccinated are getting sick at a MUCH lower rate than the unvaccinated.
Also, Vermont, altho experiencing a peak of "new cases" compared to its own history, is near the bottom (on a per capita basis) compared to other states, and similarly near the bottom of "new deaths" per capita compared to other states in the nation.
So I wouldn't exactly label Vermont as a failure in terms of reducing cases and deaths from Covid because they, and their vaccination policy, seem to be doing better than most other states.
Just as an FYI, Vermont's Delta caseload, like pretty much everyone else's, has peaked and is now declining.
I pisses me of when authors write up phony statistics. THEY know what they're doing, but the unwary reader won't catch on.
Although actual figures are nonexistent in that story, or in any of it's links, the story does still quite clearly state the highest hospitalizations since last Jan, the second most deadly month since the pandemic began, and the record level number of case.
You do not seem to dispute those facts. Why not? And what are the actual figures, which you claim are manipulated?
BECAUSE the article didn't have any ACTUAL FIGURES i.e. new cases and new deaths per 100,000 compared to other states... which BTW should always be a big red flag for anyone reading stats ... I looked them up on my own.
As you should have.
If you start with one case of Covid and another pops up, headlines can scream CASELOAD DOUBLES IN JUST ONE DAY! But still, it's just one more person. If you know anything about numbers you should know that.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
In Vitro Analysis of the Anti-viral Potential of nasal spray constituents against SARS-CoV-2
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.12.02.408575v3.full
GE to require Covid-19 vaccinations as federal contractor
https://www.wcpo.com/money/local-business-news/ge-to-require-covid-19-
vaccinations-as-federal-contractor
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME