COVID-19 ... how we cope :)

[Peter McKillop]

David Frum is an epidemiologist? If so, I would love to know where he got his degree.

Let's start with this statement from the article

"With most adults immunized, new and more infectious coronavirus variants would have nowhere to spread"

Here is what happened in the last week in Israel one of the most vaccinated populations in the world with the the delta variant and the vaxxed. The vaccine does not confer immunity or stop transmission. The vast majority of infections and transmissions come from the vaccinated, not the unvaccinated.

....

That statement being false the rest of the article is irrelevant gibberish.

Sid, you're not an epidemiologist either, are you? Frum is a respected writer and entitled to his opinion. I said that he wrote an interesting article - and he did. If you think ONE sentence turns Frum's entire article into gibberish, well, you're entitled to your opinion too. However, if that's the standard you're using to assess other people's work then maybe you should be prepared to have that same standard applied to what you write.

[Sid Belzberg]

Peter, my degree is in molecular genetics from the University of Alberta and I worked at a research virology lab at the University of Alberta for two years. For the most part that part of my life did not make an iota of difference to my career (although I did keep current with the science) until the last 18 months where I have done part time volunteer research for the c19 group of Dr's and scientists.
Yes, the whole article is predicated on the vaccine conferring immunity as stated by Mr Frum, which is a complete falsehood. The reason I asked what David Frum's background was that I simply could not believe the utter baloney he printed. Sort of like saying that 2+2=5 is a fact and anyone that views it differently is a problem. The Vax either confers immunity or it does not, nothing to do with "opinion".

The point of his article is predicated on the one sentence that is used as a logical follow-up that anyone that does not get vaxxed is part of the problem...assuming his statement was true (Not!). He then goes on to categorize who is not vaxxed and in fact, is using the unvaxxed as a scapegoat for the shortcomings of the vaccine. An article based on falsehoods and then blame groups of people for the way things are on the basis of a falsehood is not my idea of an interesting article.

[Aris Marghetis]

... Will there come a day when smart people object to carrying the cognitively challenged?

Another round to buy for Peter!!

[Aris Marghetis]

...
The vaccine does not confer immunity or stop transmission. The vast majority of infections and transmissions come from the vaccinated, not the unvaccinated.
...

Hello Sid, do you stand by these two phrases?!

[Aris Marghetis]

Peter, my degree is in molecular genetics from the University of Alberta and I worked at a research virology lab at the University of Alberta for two years. For the most part that part of my life did not make an iota of difference to my career (although I did keep current with the science) until the last 18 months where I have done part time volunteer research for the c19 group of Dr's and scientists.
Yes, the whole article is predicated on the vaccine conferring immunity as stated by Mr Frum, which is a complete falsehood. The reason I asked what David Frum's background was that I simply could not believe the utter baloney he printed. Sort of like saying that 2+2=5 is a fact and anyone that views it differently is a problem. The Vax either confers immunity or it does not, nothing to do with "opinion".

The point of his article is predicated on the one sentence that is used as a logical follow-up that anyone that does not get vaxxed is part of the problem...assuming his statement was true (Not!). He then goes on to categorize who is not vaxxed and in fact, is using the unvaxxed as a scapegoat for the shortcomings of the vaccine. An article based on falsehoods and then blame groups of people for the way things are on the basis of a falsehood is not my idea of an interesting article.

I haven't read the article, however it would seem that science, for the most part, believes that vaccines at least improve immunity, thus also reducing infection and re-transmission. I haven't heard of anyone in-the-know state that the vaccines are 100% effective. However, if someone did, that still wouldn't take away from them being overwhelmingly closer to effective than non-effective, right?!

[Ben Daswani]

Wow thx for the feedback on the tuneski guys rly appreciate it
Sent on Pfizer 5G for Android.

[Bob Gillanders]

I haven't read the article, however it would seem that science, for the most part, believes that vaccines at least improve immunity, thus also reducing infection and re-transmission. I haven't heard of anyone in-the-know state that the vaccines are 100% effective. However, if someone did, that still wouldn't take away from them being overwhelmingly closer to effective than non-effective, right?!

Wow, I haven't visited chess talk for a while. You guys are still arguing about this?

David Frum is a well respected journalist, I enjoy reading his stuff. I did read the article looking for that infamous sentence quoted by Sid. As expected, Sid extracted that single sentence out of context. In the proper context, it reads in agreement with the science as you have stated. The vaccine does provide protection against the virus, not 100% but effective protection against severe cases, and it does reduce the rate of transmission. It isn't 100%, but nobody said it was.

It's been 2 weeks since my second dose and I feel great.

[Sid Belzberg]

I haven't read the article, however it would seem that science, for the most part, believes that vaccines at least improve immunity, thus also reducing infection and re-transmission. I haven't heard of anyone in-the-know state that the vaccines are 100% effective. However, if someone did, that still wouldn't take away from them being overwhelmingly closer to effective than non-effective, right?!

Ari that maybe true for a traditional vaccine. This is not a vaccine, it is an experimental gene therapy and none of the manufacturers have ever made the claim that you are stating
and the results I posted clearly demonstrate that.
The manufacturers original claim (Pfizer) was that it is
95 percent effective against an event that happens .7 percent
if the time, namely preventing mild symptoms from progressing. No claims were ever made that it prevents infection or transmission.
Recent results in Israel and the UK appear to be more like
40 percent effective and almost zero efficacy after 6 months, the supression of the progression of the disease is not long lasting and results in Israel, Portugal and the UK show that the efficacy simply is not long lasting.
Therefore treating mild to severe symptoms with host adaptive therapies ie Ivermectin combos has greater efficacy a far better safety profile and allows natural immunity against a wider range of variants and last permanently, not simply until the next variant pops up.

https://swprs.org/covid-vaccines-the...-bad-the-ugly/

[Peter McKillop]

....


https://www.israelnationalnews.com/N...ws.aspx/310522

....

Some perspective on the situation in Israel:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...n-some-reason/

[Sid Belzberg]

Some perspective on the situation in Israel:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...n-some-reason/

"And vaccine skeptics have misleadingly promoted a quote from Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett in which he said, “We do not know exactly to what degree the vaccine helps, but it is significantly less,” while ignoring that he was specifically comparing the delta variant to others, not making a broad point about vaccines failing."

This is all well and good except that the "delta variant" now is about 90% of the COVID Virus out there, the original strain the vaccine was made for is for the most part long gone. Prime Minister Bennet's statement is not out of context as claimed by the author in this article. The "antivax" cardiologist the author talks about in this article is Dr. Peter McCullough. He is a lifetime provaxxer and is simply an "anti unproven vaxxer".

Dr. Peter McCullough bio
https://www.cardiometabolichealth.or...ccullough.html

As stated before David's Frums claim "With most adults immunized, new and more infectious coronavirus variants would have nowhere to spread" The "vaccine" does not provide long lasting immunity for anyone so blaming the unvaccinated is ridiculous on its face. it is actually an experimental gene therapy that actually has less efficacy and a dubious safety profile as compared to therapeutics like ivermectin.

By the way check out the efficacy of the "vaccine" in Israel, Portugal and Spain.

https://swprs.org/covid-vaccines-the...-bad-the-ugly/

[Sid Belzberg]

Wow, I haven't visited chess talk for a while. You guys are still arguing about this?

David Frum is a well respected journalist, I enjoy reading his stuff. I did read the article looking for that infamous sentence quoted by Sid. As expected, Sid extracted that single sentence out of context. In the proper context, it reads in agreement with the science as you have stated. The vaccine does provide protection against the virus, not 100% but effective protection against severe cases, and it does reduce the rate of transmission. It isn't 100%, but nobody said it was.

It's been 2 weeks since my second dose and I feel great. .

The vaccine does provide protection against the virus, not 100% but effective protection against severe cases, and it does reduce the rate of transmission.

You are comparing apples to cheeseburgers.
This was the quote "With most adults immunized, new and more infectious coronavirus variants would have nowhere to spread" The most vaccinated countries in the world including Israel the UK and Portugal have found that the vaccine is not doing well against the Delta variant. In other words the vaccine does not provide lasting immunity to the vast majority, not just a few anomalous cases.
https://swprs.org/covid-vaccines-the...-bad-the-ugly/

[Peter McKillop]

........
https://swprs.org/covid-vaccines-the...-bad-the-ugly/

It would be so nice if a person could look at one of your source links and not feel compelled to do a credibility check. Here's what Wikipedia says about 'Swiss Policy Research':

Swiss Policy Research (SPR; before mid-May 2020, Swiss Propaganda Research)^[1][2] is a website launched in 2016, which describes itself as "an independent, nonpartisan, and nonprofit research group[...]". While the editors of the site are unknown, the website claims that "SPR is composed of independent academics and receives no external funding".^[3]

And this:


The Swiss Policy Research site has been criticized for spreading conspiracy theories including claims that QAnon was a psyop of the FBI.^[4] and theories relating to the COVID-19 pandemic.^[2][5] German public broadcasterTagesschau calls SPR a propaganda tool.^[6]

Now we all know that Wikipedia has its own problems with accuracy, completeness, etc. But still ....... it would be so nice to open up one of your posts and see a link to, for example, The New England Journal of Medicine, or The Lancet. As for the SPR article to which you linked, if there's any truth to it then it is truly depressing. :(

[Sid Belzberg]

Peter I commented on the content of the Washington Post article as well as the glaring false statement made in the Atlantic. The data in the article and especially this graphic that is directly from the Israeli health ministry is what matters.
Here is an analysis of the actual key data presented iin the article from Dr. Peter McCullough. The bottom line is the vaccine are now obsolete and do not work at all for most groups and continue to lose efficacy over time. The virus simply evolves and mutates to a variant that eludes the specificity of the antibodies induced by the "vaccine".

\

[Bob Gillanders]

Sid, I have to disagree with your conclusions. One source I like to consult on is Dr. John Campbell in the UK. He has been doing daily youtube videos throughout the pandemic. I find him very thoughtful and does not jump to conclusions. In a recent video he discussed the Israel study you cite and compared it to UK data. He concluded that the vaccines remain very effective in both countries to prevent hospitalizations and death from new Delta variant. However, he acknowledges that in Israel the vaccines are less effective against mild cases. But that in the UK, the vaccines remain effective against mild cases. The UK data appears to replicate in other countries such as USA. The real question is why is the Israel results different from everywhere else?

And BTW, thanks to Peter for his fact check efforts. Much appreciated.

And BTW, I disagree with your characterization of the Atlantic article. I encourage everyone to read it for themselves.

[Sid Belzberg]

Sid, I have to disagree with your conclusions. One source I like to consult on is Dr. John Campbell in the UK. He has been doing daily youtube videos throughout the pandemic. I find him very thoughtful and does not jump to conclusions. In a recent video he discussed the Israel study you cite and compared it to UK data. He concluded that the vaccines remain very effective in both countries to prevent hospitalizations and death from new Delta variant. However, he acknowledges that in Israel the vaccines are less effective against mild cases. But that in the UK, the vaccines remain effective against mild cases. The UK data appears to replicate in other countries such as USA. The real question is why is the Israel results different from everywhere else?

And BTW, thanks to Peter for his fact check efforts. Much appreciated.

And BTW, I disagree with your characterization of the Atlantic article. I encourage everyone to read it for themselves.

Bob, first, I appreciate very much discussing the data and not politics, thank you for that.

However, he acknowledges that in Israel the vaccines are less effective against mild cases. But that in the UK, the vaccines remain effective against mild cases. The UK data appears to replicate in other countries such as USA. The real question is why is the Israel results different from everywhere else?

1) The trend appears to be that the efficacy of the therapy is not long lasting as more variants elude the antibody that is elucidated. Even in hosptializations and severe cases this trend is apparent.
THe expectation is in this cohort effectiveness will further decrease due to lags in hospitalizations. We simply don't have enough data yet, and that is why vaccines take years to get approved , longitudinal data is imperative. Operation Warp Speed was an enormuos blunder by the Trump administration and frankly I am surprised that the Biden Administration continued to aggressively pursue this ill conceived idea.
The UK and Israel Data comparison to the US data is not applicable as the CDC inexplicably does not track COVID+ cases for vaccinated individuals pre hospitalization. Here is the UK data from the Govt.

https://assets.publishing.service.go...riefing_17.pdf
"
Lets Start with UK Cases of the "Delta variant" that is now 90% of the viruses out there. For the over 50. cohort out of 9571 cases only 976 were unvaccinated.





Next lets take a look at Delta variant Deaths in the UK out of 117 deaths 44 were unvacinated.

Again in the UK just like in Israel the "Vaccine" is becoimng obsolete to variants and this will only get worst. The concept of blaming the unvaccinated or insist they get vaccinated makes no sense when the vaccines effectiveness was only a flash in the pan.
Natural immunity where infection is fought off naturally or with host adaptive therapeutics such as IVM or HCQ makes the cellular environment unfriendly as opposed to only attacking a specific part of virus. Natural Immunity allows permanent immunity against a wide range of variants.

And BTW, thanks to Peter for his fact check efforts. Much appreciated.

What facts did he refute? He attacked the messenger because he could not attack the message. Data is data regardless of who the messenger is.

And BTW, I disagree with your characterization of the Atlantic article. I encourage everyone to read it for themselves.

Meaningless statement. On what basis do you disagree with my characterization?


Here is a good quote from this article that sums up what I am saying with respect to "immunity"
https://covidcandy.net/coronavirus/t...ld-doesnt-end/
"The third, as touched on above, is the broad application of novel mRNA vaccines. Vaccines have a long and celebrated history^[46]; with great credit to the scientific and medical communities of days gone by, almost every single vaccine in history, after generally taking 5-10 years in development and testing, has been both extraordinarily safe and highly effective. The most effective vaccines, the ones most broadly pressed into public service, provide sterilizing immunity^[47]. This means that the vaccine will prevent both initial infection and transmission. They achieve this with both the introduction of IgA antibodies in the external mucosa, the body’s very first line of defense, and CD8 T-cell immunity, which enables the body to rapidly recognize and destroy infected cells. Less effective prophylactic vaccines, which do not provide such sterilizing immunity, generally only provide spotty immunity to the pathogen^[48], and are usually used only by a small number of individuals in high risk situations; virologists and microbiologists studying a given pathogen, or soldiers that may be exposed to such pathogens as weaponized anthrax, for instance. In their intended use case, prophylactic vaccines serve their purpose very well. The downside of prophylactic vaccines, in their failure to provide comprehensive sterilizing immunity, is that their limited immunity accommodates mutation and adaptation by the pathogen, which can lead to immune escape, the failure of the vaccine and breakthrough infections^[49]. In such limited use cases, this is ordinarily not an issue. However, the deployment of such vaccines at massive, society-wide scale, during the middle of this active pandemic, is quite predictably leading to immune escape, as the virus is presented with millions of opportunities to evolve and evade the immunity they provide. In fact, SARS-CoV-2 is especially ill-suited for these vaccines; rather than significant mutations taking place at a population level, the engineered nature of the virus has resulted in variants of concern frequently evolving within single individuals^[50], with significant convergent evolution toward the same advantageous mutations taking place in completely unrelated viral lineages^[51].


More Evidence of the uselessness of Vaccines and why David Frum's Atlantic article is completely off the mark. When i last checked
CNBC are not "conspiracy theorists".

"cdc-study-shows-74percent-of-people-infected-in-massachusetts-covid-outbreak-were-fully-vaccinated"

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/30/cdc-...accinated.html