new deadly human-to-human-transmissible coronavirus emerges out of China
POSTED BY: 1KIKI
UPDATED: Tuesday, May 5, 2026 22:21
VIEWED: 203741
PAGE 276 of 283
There's some preliminary data showing that Omicron does offer a level of protection against Delta. And Delta does offer a smaller level of protection against Omicron.
https://www.thestreet.com/lifestyle/omicron-could-provide-increased-pr
otection-against-delta-study-finds
https://inews.co.uk/news/health/omicron-can-get-after-delta-covid-immu
nity-variant-protect-new-strain-explained-1355021
But, like much of the data, it's subject to review, revision, and even reversal.
see below
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I thought this was a pretty complete and dispassionate examination of COVID-19 pandemic science to date.
‘Science is flawed’: COVID-19, ivermectin, and beyond
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/science-is-flawed-covid-19-i
vermectin-and-beyond#How?
Science has a gap between its mechanics and outputs.
The mechanics of science are fine. The machines always get bigger and more efficient. New tools are always developed. Techniques become more sophisticated over time, and more knowledge is acquired.
The outputs of science are not. The culture of academia demands publication and warrants little retrospection about potential errors — this means that mistakes are rarely corrected, and even outright fraud is often left undetected in academic literature.
Take ivermectin. It is an amazingly successful antiparasitic medication that has treated literally billions of people in the time since it was invented, and it has almost eliminated some parasitic diseases from the world.
It has also been globally promoted as a cure for COVID-19 by a group of passionate fans. It is likely that more ivermectin has been taken to prevent or treat COVID-19 than any other single medication, except perhaps dexamethasone.
And yet, we do not know if ivermectin is actually useful in the treatment of COVID-19 at all.
A recent review from the Cochrane collaboration — long considered the gold standard in medical research — concluded that ivermectin should not be used for the treatment or prevention of COVID-19 outside of well-conducted clinical trials, which is a stark contrast to the hundreds of millions of doses still being taken for those exact reasons.
How?
In early 2020, people were desperate for any kind of treatment for COVID-19. A melange of partial evidence emerged.
This included: a laboratory study showing that the drug acted as a strong antiviral in a petri dish, a study in a French nursing home where the residents took ivermectin to treat a scabies outbreak and seemed to subsequently enjoy higher survival rates, and preprint reporting that ivermectin reduced the mortality from COVID-19 by 90%.
All three were weak evidence in different ways. Single in vitro studies are very poorly predictive of eventual clinical outcomes, and the nursing home paper was an accidental and uncontrolled observational study — what if the residents had never been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 in the first place? The clinical study was entirely fabricated and later withdrawn from the preprint server, subsequent to great scandal.
The ivermectin story somehow got even worse from there. In late 2020, studies started popping up showing what can only be described as simply incredible results for the medication — a 90% mortality benefit or a 100% reduction in cases when used as a prophylactic.
After nearly a year, myself and other data sleuths demonstrated that many of these studies probably never happened, but the damage was well and truly done long before the first fake paper was retracted.
...
This story could’ve been told very differently. Imagine a world where the initial laboratory paper came with a disclaimer, where the fraudulent preprint was looked on with skepticism immediately, and where the positive trials were assessed for fraud before they were even published.
Instead, at every stage, the process of highlighting concerns with data is ignored, with peer-review being the only flimsy barrier to publication for terrible research.
When we most needed effective fact-checking, our grand institutions of scientific research instead reviewed studies in a matter of days, if not hours, and posted fraudulent studies online to be shared across the world.
It’s tempting to say that research into ivermectin is uniquely flawed, but that’s clearly not true — realistically, it would be remarkable if a broken system produced only one failure
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
A bunch of over-educated, self-righteous assholes who all think they're right and can't ever agree with each other.
Science is the biggest religion out there.
--------------------------------------------------
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
I'm sure the "science" behind this decision in NY is sound.
https://nypost.com/2022/01/02/nys-racial-risk-factor-for-covid-treatme
nt-is-illegal-and-immoral/
Quote:
New York City’s and state’s departments of health have reached a divisive and destructive low. In new guidelines rationing scarce, lifesaving oral antiviral medications and the one monoclonal antibody preparation that is effective against the Omicron variant of the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19, they instruct providers to “consider race and ethnicity” and give preference to those who are “Black, Indigenous, and People of Color.” These directives are immoral, illegal and bear no relation to the science.
They just can't fucking help themselves.
--------------------------------------------------
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
I just did a quick inet search for Omicron and COVID-19 vaccines (mostly reported in the US is Pfizer/BioNTech, the next most reported is Moderna).
I specifically looked for numbers. So far, available numbers are coming out of NYS.
This link gives an analysis of available NYS numbers January 20, 2022 showing a roughly 1/7 infection rate for the fully vaccinated v unvaccinated:
https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/coronavirus/omicron-ny-covid-cases-bre
akthrough-infection-fully-vaccinated-symptoms/3504616/
and this is to me the article's graphic of interest:
This article from earlier January 3, 2022 gives slightly lowers numbers of vaccine protection from Omicron v unvaccinated, but it's still in the range of later numbers.
https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/coronavirus/
ny-covid-hospitalizations-top-2021-surge-levels-as-omicron-
drives-95-of-cases/3476250/
I ran across an article that claimed
Data Show Triple-Vaxxed More Likely To Get Omicron Than Vaxxed
https://www.citizensjournal.us/data-show-triple-vaxxed-more-likely-to-
get-omicron-than-vaxxed/
OMG! How could something like this be hidden!
But it turns out it's 'fake news'. I know that bc I tracked back to the original paper:
Coronavirus (COVID-19) Infection Survey, UK: Characteristics related to having an Omicron compatible result in those who test positive for COVID-19
Coronavirus (COVID-19) Infection Survey, UK: Characteristics related to having an Omicron compatible result in those who test positive for COVID-19 (84.8 kB xlsx)
https://www.ons.gov.uk/file?uri=/peoplepopulationandcommunity/
healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/
adhocs/14107coronaviruscovid19infectionsurveyuk
characteristicsrelatedtohavinganomicroncompatibleresult
inthosewhotestpositiveforcovid19/omicronpredictorsofpositivityadhoc.xlsx
which states:
Vaccination status: Those who have received three doses of a vaccine and test positive for COVID-19 are more likely to be infected with infections compatible with the Omicron variant compared with those who are unvaccinated, though individuals who had received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine continued to be less likely to test positive for COVID-19, regardless of variant.* It is too early to draw conclusions from our data on the effectiveness of vaccines against the Omicron variant.
* emphasis in original
So if we're to draw any conclusion at all (which the publication cautions against), it's that overall people who are vaccinated against COVID-19 are less likely to get infected, though they have less protection against Omicron than other variants.
But looking at the NYS and British data, I'd say the vaccines are still very good at protecting against confirmed COVID-19 infection, even Omicron. (Of course many people may have been exposed to Omicron, and technically been infected, in the sense that some of the virus latched onto some cells. But the vaccine gave their immune system the tools to quickly detect and destroy the virus before it could be detected either by the individual or through testing.) Though of course no vaccine is 100%.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thanks for clarifying that fake news item.
It pisses me off no end when writers deliberately abuse statistics to mislead the reader. It's CLEARLY on purpose, nothing at all accidental about it. Just plain malicious reporting.
****
I see China is still aiming for "zero Covid" and still using lockdowns. I really don't understand that. It's like they fucked up by letting the virus loose, and now they're trying to undo history bc they lost face, or something.
Seems like if their vaccine works, they should change their approach. Must be something cultural going on that I don't grok, like trying to prove the superiority of their system or something.
Personally, I think they undertook the research bc they were so anxious to keep up with the west, were taking the convenient way riding on US coattails, and so insecure about their own scientific abilities and that bit them in the ass. They're kind of weasely that way. Maybe next time they won't try to slide their way ahead. I have very little respect for that kind of behavior.
I still would have loved to be a fly on the wall when Xi and Putin talked about it. That's an awfully big "forgive" to extend.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
My niece gets a vaccine and within a week she has full blown Covid and gave it to my brother and his wife.
Good vaccine.
Good luck, mudbloods.
--------------------------------------------------
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
. Well . Dang .
So much for my hopes that Omicron is a natural vaccine for COVID-19. Initial data looks like that while various strains of COVID-19 like Alpha and Delta stimulate antibodies against Omicron, Omicron doesn't stimulate antibodies against other strains of COVID-19 like Alpha and Delta.
Omicron protects you against Omicron, for a while. That's about it.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Also, I just thought I'd bring this up in case anyone runs across this and is curious. Supposedly there was a many-thousand person observational study on ivermectin done in Itajaí, Brazil with fantastic results!
But all is not what it seems.
The city itself reports that very very few of the supposed prophylactic doses of ivermectin were ultimately delivered. https://saude.itajai.sc.gov.br/noticia/26084/nota-de-esclarecimento--t
ratamentos-profilaticos Running through google translate gets you this:
Quote:So whatever results of this study there were, they can't be correlated with ivermectin use, which was spotty and/or inconsistent.
when the Health Department started distributing ivermectin, 138,216 residents took the first dose. Fifteen days later that number dropped to 93,970 people who took the second and third doses. Subsequently, only 8,312 people withdrew the fourth and fifth doses. That is, there was no biweekly continuity of the use of ivermectin, as recommended.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:From Australia comes this information about vaccination: Whilst partial protection against COVID-19 may be as soon as 12 days after the first dose, this protection is likely to be short lived. The second dose encourages the body to create stronger protection (immunity) against the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
My niece gets a vaccine and within a week she has full blown Covid and gave it to my brother and his wife.
Good vaccine.
Good luck, mudbloods.
Individuals may not be fully protected until 7-14 days after their second dose of the Pfizer (Comirnaty) or AstraZeneca (Vaxzevria)) vaccine.
https://www.health.gov.au/initiatives-and-programs/covid-19-vaccines/i
s-it-true/is-it-true-how-long-does-it-take-to-have-immunity-after-vaccination
6ix, since your niece got covid in 7 days, but the vaccine takes 12 days to provide partial protection, your niece wasn't protected from covid.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME