new deadly human-to-human-transmissible coronavirus emerges out of China
POSTED BY: 1KIKI
UPDATED: Tuesday, May 5, 2026 22:21
VIEWED: 203741
PAGE 261 of 283
It'll be fine.
--------------------------------------------------
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 are 2 kinds of immune system:
- the mucosal immune system (eyes, nose, etc) which is addressed by IgA, a specific and secreted antibody
and
- the internal immune system accessible through the bloodstream, which is addressed by IgM, an early generalized antibody to any infection; IgG a developed set of antibodies fairly specific to an infectious agent; plus cell-mediated immunity.
Because they are injected, the current vaccines stimulate the INTERNAL antibody system. That's why the ORIGINAL ENDPOINT for vaccine effectiveness was SERIOUS ILLNESS AND HOSPITALIZATION: ie pneumonia, cardiac infection, CVS infection, kidney infection etc. ... ie the effects of SARS-CoV-2 on body 'internals'.
But infection and transmission take place in the upper airways.
That the vaxs were effective against infection and transmission in the upper airways with the original COVID-19 strain was an unexpected and unexplained bonus.
BUT THAT'S NOT TRUE OF THE DELTA STRAIN. From what I've read, even people who've been vaccinated can catch COVID-19 and transmit it < somewhat-as-well to just-as-well > as the unvaccinated (numbers not released yet). Also, protection against serious illness and hospitalizations is somewhat reduced, figures I've read say the reduction is to 80%, from 95%; but other countries around the planet, ie Israel, say it's even lower as low as 40%. That's why the CDC recommends indoor masks.
Also, there are 3 vaccines available in the US. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/different-vaccines.
html
2 are mRNA vaccines, Pfizer-BioNTech, and Moderna. From what I've read these types of vaccines are particularly effective at stimulating IgG antibody immunity. The other vaccine is the J&J one which is 'vectored' which means it's carried by an adenovirus. From what I've read, vectored vaccines are particularly good at stimulating cell-mediated immunity. Having both types of immunity is helpful.
I think the Biden administration/ CDC may be reluctant to officially advise people to get a booster vax. The fed government is paying for them, and that means a lot more expense.
I think the government should study people getting both types, to develop a more complete immune response.
Also, originally the flu vax was developed to be squirted up the nose and inhaled, to stimulate the mucosal antibody system. I think the government should study people getting intranasal boosters.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Delta is magic and it came from the ancient dwarven caves on Mars when Elon Musk's spaceship accidentally kicked open one of the ancient mythrill doors where it was entombed for millennia.
--------------------------------------------------
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
Signy
The tweet outright states that the vax does NOT reduce the risk of dying from COVID-19.
Quote:
The pivotal clinical trial for the @pfizer #Covid vaccine shows it does nothing to reduce the overall risk of death. ZERO.
15 patients who received the vaccine died, 14 who received the placebo died
How could this happen???!!!! How could we be so misled??!!!
Trying to puzzle this out, a first glance, I noticed missing numbers.
Quote:15 out of how many ... ? 14 out of how many ... ?
15 patients who received the vaccine died, 14 who received the placebo died
Since there are definitely missing numbers, and missing context, this is hard to interpret.
It required a deeper dig.
I looked most assiduously for the quote tweeted, but didn't find anything.
So I went back to the original tweet by typing in
https://t.co/0rVYHRTjpm
and found it =
https://twitter.com/AlexBerenson/status/1420839456228118535 .
And I clicked on the photo within and found this
Quote:By entering the full quote into the search engine, no quotes (to account for any formatting characters) I came up with this:
During the blinded, controlled period, 15 BNT162b2 and 14 placebo recipients died; during the open label period 3 BNT162b2 and 2 original placebo recipients who received BNT162b2 after unblinding died. None of these deaths were considered related to BNT162b2 by investigators. Causes of death were balanced between BNT162b2 and placebo groups (Table S4).
Quote:Reading it, I found that the quote OBVIOUSLY addressed the safety portion of the trial, looking to see if people who received the vax were at any more risk of dying than people who didn't. And the vax was deemed as safe as getting a placebo. OBVIOUSLY the tweet was a HIGHLY edited snippet, with the author's comments that outright lied about its meaning.
https://www.scribd.com/document/517713886/2021-07-28-21261159v1-full
Six Month Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine
Anyway, I also looked into this (non provided link) source:
Quote:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261159v1
Six Month Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine
The twit could have provided links to sources, but chose not to. For some strange reason ...
I general I agree with you. Private entities should not be censoring public discussions.
That said, Berenson was beyond shameful. And anything that comes from him should be looked at with deep distrust, since he knows no boundaries when it comes to lying.
cross posted to 'new deadly ...' thread
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
But finding the full facts about SARS-CoV-2 delta in the m$m is almost as much of a chore.
I've been somewhat researching SARS-CoV-2 delta and came across apparently conflicting data.
This data from a study by the Kaiser Family Foundation using public sources indicated that, at most, 0.9% of fully vaccinated people will catch SARS-CoV-2 delta, with at most 0.06% hospitalized, and 0.0% deaths. And that means that virtually all infections, and hospitalizations, and all deaths, will occur in the unvaccinated. (It also indicated that the CDC stopped tracking breakthrough infections in July 2021. Who knew? But that's why KFF had to compile data from states that track the data.)
Quote:
COVID-19 Vaccine Breakthrough Cases: Data from the States
https://www.kff.org/policy-watch/covid-19-vaccine-breakthrough-cases-d
ata-from-the-states/
Percent of Fully Vaccinated Individuals That Have Experienced a COVID-19 Breakthrough Event (interactive graph not able to be linked)
But then there's this:
Quote:This is just one link among many about this topic, but this one was particularly complete.
Three-quarters of people infected in Provincetown outbreak were vaccinated, CDC finds
https://www.pressherald.com/2021/07/30/cdc-finds-most-people-in-delta-
fueled-provincetown-outbreak-were-vaccinated/
The report on the Massachusetts cases, from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, offers key evidence bolstering the hypothesis that vaccinated people can spread the more transmissible variant and may be a factor in the summer surge of infections.
The full outbreak, which began over the July 4 holiday weekend, is close to 900 cases, but the analysis included only a subset of 469 cases. About three-quarters of infections occurred in people who were fully vaccinated, and that group had received vaccines from Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson. ... 79% of vaccinated breakthrough infections were symptomatic. Four of five people who were hospitalized were fully vaccinated.
And there's this about the same incident:
Quote:Though this AP story isn't as complete, it did link a CDC study.
Study: Vaccinated people can carry as much virus as others
https://apnews.com/article/science-health-coronavirus-pandemic-d950451
9a8ae081f785ca012b5ef84d1
The linked CDC study was a statistical reporting of the outbreak:
Quote:
Outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 Infections, Including COVID-19 Vaccine Breakthrough Infections, Associated with Large Public Gatherings — Barnstable County, Massachusetts, July 2021
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7031e2.htm?s_cid=mm7031e2_w
Looking over all of this, there are definitely missing numbers:
Quote:The number of vaccinated/ infected is out of how many vaccinated/ exposed? If a few thousand vaccinated were exposed, and only a few hundred were infected; and only a few hundred were unvaccinated and exposed, but a few hundred of those became ill, that would put a different meaning into the numbers.
469 COVID-19 cases were identified among Massachusetts residents who had traveled to the town during July 3–17; 346 (74%) occurred in fully vaccinated persons.
To be fair, those numbers - vaccinated and unvaccinated plus exposed - aren't provided because they aren't known. What is known is that statewide, the vax rate is about 70%. But that number may be percent vaccinated of vaccine-eligible population (age, occupation, and health conditions, as defined by the state) rather than percent of total population. So that missing information causes me a slight pause in interpreting this.
Another gap is an explanation as to how these cases were enumerated. How, for example, did they find the asymptomatic cases? And is there a difference between asymptomatic percent in vaccinated v unvaccinated? (FWIW I'd assume the vaccinated would have more symptoms related to immune response: fever, chills, aches and pains, feeling 'blah', and so on.)
Finally, there's the as-yet-unpubl
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
All told, I can see why the CDC has changed its mask guidance. While the data is incomplete, there are indications that SARS-CoV-2 delta is more infectious and more severe than 'normal' SARS-CoV-2. Simple prudence should indicate a safer public policy. And masking is one of the least intrusive, and inexpensive, precautions to take. Effective masks like N95 are once again available on Amazon.com.
The mask mandate was never about safety. It was about control and compliance.
If it were about safety, everyone would have been wearing N95. They would have even been provided with them after the shortage of supply was over.
But that's not what happened, and a vast majority of people went out with scarfs, rags or whatever cheap made-in-China fabric masks they could find on Amazon. As long as your face was covered with something... anything... you weren't going to be accosted by staffers or put on YouTube by mask Karens for non-compliance.
It was NEVER about safety.
It was a grand social experiment to see if people have become so weak that the individual can be smothered out by the mob.
The individual lost.
And now they're moving on to the big fish. Attempting the same thing with an untested vaccination. Forcing it on every last individual via any means necessary just short of an official written mandate so they can pretend that there was never a mandate.
This is all stuff Kurt Vonnegut wrote about before I was born and most people today either forgot about or were never even introduced to.
--------------------------------------------------
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
Epidemiology reveals mask wearing by the public is crucial for COVID-19 control
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590097820300124
COVID-19 epidemic: disentangling the re-emerging controversy about medical facemasks from an epidemiological perspective
https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/49/4/1063/5813980?login=true
Respiratory virus shedding in exhaled breath and efficacy of face masks
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0843-2
Face masks to prevent transmission of influenza virus: a systematic review
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/epidemiology-and-infection/art
icle/face-masks-to-prevent-transmission-of-influenza-virus-a-systematic-/64D368496EBDE0AFCC6639CCC9D8BC05
Community use of face masks and similar barriers to prevent respiratory illness such as COVID-19: a rapid scoping review
https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.
49.2000725?crawler=truehttps://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/6/12/e012330https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/m20-6817As
Face masks, public policies and slowing the spread of COVID-19: Evidence from Canada?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S016762962100060
6
The introduction of a mandatory mask policy was associated with significantly reduced COVID-19 cases in a major metropolitan city
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0253
510
Effectiveness of community face mask use on COVID-19 epidemiological trends and patterns in Italy: evidence from a “translational” study
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23744235.2021.1883731
Face masks: what the data say
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8
COVID-19 transmission in Hong Kong despite universal masking
we conclude that universal mask-wearing can reduce transmission, but transmission can continue to occur in settings where face masks are not usually worn.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S016344532100205
X
An evidence review of face masks against COVID-19
https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118?fbclid=IwAR0acQLrK5uzFb
EsJE5E7lDgkcBVPB7b_2CjhPAy2yG2jDzEJ5H5ekpwVIk
Face masks to prevent transmission of COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S019665532031043
9
Association of State-Issued Mask Mandates and Allowing On-Premises Restaurant Dining with County-Level COVID-19 Case and Death Growth Rates — United States, March 1–December 31, 2020
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7010e3.htm?s_cid=mm7010e3_w#c
ontribAff
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I've also tried to look up the effectiveness of facemasks.
Some websites have collected an impressive array of studies to show that they DON'T work - for example, the nations that had early success controlling Covid-19 thru masking experienced high rates of transmission later, even tho theystill required masks.
https://www.aier.org/article/masking-a-careful-review-of-the-evidence/
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/do-masks-stop-the-spread-of-covid-
19-
https://www.epa.gov/sciencematters/epa-researchers-test-effectiveness-
face-masks-disinfection-methods-against-covid-19
There was a Swiss website that I found on my phone but not here, with many links to studies tha masks ... not even N95s ... work. It seems to me, tho, that N95s provide adequate filtration, so possibly the problem is that people don't use them properly or consistently.
So in light of the HUGE amount of conflicting information, I guess I'll have to go thru each article and decide for myself.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
THUGR posts about Putin so much, he must be in love.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
https://www.aier.org/article/masking-a-careful-review-of-the-evidence/
I made a quick look-through of the linked articles, and linked articles to linked articles - roughly 3 layers deep, and screening out the opinion pieces and linked articles that either weren't scientific publications or that didn't have links to scientific publications. In general, this link has a lot of BS, hyperbole, self-referencing, links that don't support the claim, and so on.
For example, upfront it claims SARS-CoV-2 spreads primarily through the orofecal route. How is the orofecal route relevant in public gatherings that are known to have been superspreader events? Did someone shit their pants and somehow contaminate the air? Did the orofecal route play a role in the Washington superspreader choir practice event? https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6919e6.htm
It repeatedly debunks the claim that masks offer protection for the wearer, but nearly completely fails to address the claim that masks may protect the people near the wearer; when it does address that claim it uses links that refute its own position.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600%2820%2
930323-4/fulltext "However, surgical masks worn by patients reduce exposures to infectious aerosols to health-care workers and other individuals."
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-1132-9 "There is now growing evidence that face masks can considerably reduce the transmission of respiratory viruses like SARS-CoV-2, thereby limiting the spread of COVID-19 (refs. 22,23,24)."
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/disaster-medicine-and-public-h
ealth-preparedness/article/testing-the-efficacy-of-homemade-masks-would-they-protect-in-an-influenza-pandemic/0921A05A69A9419C862FA2F35F819D55 "Our findings suggest that a homemade mask should only be considered as a last resort to prevent droplet transmission from infected individuals, but it would be better than no protection."
Checking out the CIDRAP link, for example, I found that at CIDRAP, newer articles recommended mask wearing, as opposed to the one article cited from over a year ago. So I suspect this article of cherry-picking, especially when it comes to newer contrary information.
But the best evidence for cumulative measures taken, including masks, is the non-influenza season of 2020-2021.
Anyway, after doing a quick look-through, I don't take this article very seriously. Maybe you could point out the parts you found were convincing.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/do-masks-stop-the-spread-of-covid-
19-
link not found
https://www.epa.gov/sciencematters/epa-researchers-test-effectiveness-
face-masks-disinfection-methods-against-covid-19
haven't checked it out yet
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
We shut down nearly everything, laying off tens of millions in the process and adding insult to injury by calling them all non-essentials, ended church, ended sports, ended concerts, made parties illegal, pulled our kids out of school, camped out at home and watched Netflix all day long for the better part of a year, all while making people so terrified they'd scream if people weren't standing 6 feet away from them.
Sure. It was the almost-never-N95 masks.
--------------------------------------------------
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