A new study by researchers at Oxford University rubbishes plans to introduce vaccine passports as it shows that Covid vaccines do not significantly reduce transmission of the Delta variant. For the same reason, the researchers suggest that herd immunity is “unachievable”. MailOnline has the story.
Although fully vaccinated people are significantly less likely to be infected, those who do get Covid have a similar peak viral load as the unvaccinated.
This means infected people ‘shed’ the same amount of virus when they cough or sneeze, regardless of whether or not they have been jabbed.
Experts said the findings strengthened the argument for a ‘booster’ Covid jab programme this autumn.
However, the study stressed that two doses remain remarkably effective at preventing death and hospitalisation.
And even though the viral load may peak at similar levels in the vaccinated and unvaccinated, scientists say it’s possible jabbed people clear the infection quicker.
The study, based on data from 700,000 Britons, is the largest yet to evaluate vaccine effectiveness against the Delta variant, which has been dominant in the U.K. since May.
Researchers concluded two doses reduce the chance of getting the Covid by about 82% for Pfizer and 67% for AstraZeneca.
It follows similar findings by Public Health England and the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which earlier this month released figures showing unvaccinated and double-jabbed have very similar viral loads. …
The researchers compared results from December 2020 to May 2021, when the Alpha variant was dominant, with those from May to August 2021, after the Indian [Delta] variant drove a summer wave.
The Delta variant has blunted the efficacy of vaccines as fully vaccinated people who do get Covid now have a similar peak ‘viral load’ as the unvaccinated.
This means they are just as likely to spread the virus onwards, and to develop mild symptoms such as a cough or temperature.
In contrast, vaccinated people who were infected with the Alpha variant had a much lower viral load and rarely got symptoms.
Worth reading in full.
Discussion
Comments
This week across the site:
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to the Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
From what I can gather from the different research published –
the vaccine (or gene therapy if being accurate) for the first 28 days massively increases your risk from catching the virus by supressing your immune system, this then reduces but there are question marks as to whether or not you are still at a slightly increased risk over an unvaccinated person. The vaccine then MAY reduce your symptoms for a couple of months but no longer because it either just doesn’t, or may not even have been designed to, enable immunity from memory cells such as T-cells as traditional vaccines do for other viruses. This means that if sick, whether vaccinated or not you are still infectious, Both vaccinated and unvaccinated can still catch the virus and develop the disease but you MAY be at reduced risk from hospitalisation from a period of time after having your second jab for a couple of months although remember you are still at increased risk of getting sick. To increase the risk of getting sick but possibly reducing the chance of hospitalisation for a couple of months (not very high for the vast majority of people) you take an unknown gene… Read more »
The latest report from PHE shows the vaccinated account for 21% of Covid infections and 58% of all Covid deaths.
In April, the CDC issued new guidance to laboratories in the US recommending reducing the RT-PCR CT value to 28 cycles — but only for those fully vaccinated individuals being tested for Covid. Any unvaccinated individuals would still have their tests done at 35-40 cycles.
The CDC made no secret of this, announcing the policy changes on their website in late April/early May, (though naturally without admitting the fairly obvious motivation behind the change). They stated reason for the 28 CT maximum is to avoid false positives on people who have been vaccinated, which would discourage acceptance of the vaccines.
I have no doubt they are doing the same thing here in the UK, but were wise enough not to publicise the fact. It would certainly explain why there are far more Covid cases amongst the unvaccinated but many more deaths amonst the vaccinated.
Tell us something that we don’t already know…
But stop using the word vaccine. Its a medical treatment
Why not call it a vaccine? See my comment. replying to 186NO.
The PCR test tell you virus particles (DNA) are present or not present. They tell you nothing about the viability of those particles to cause infection. This has been clearly stated by quite a number of scientists who study viruses. The only way to determine viability of the virus to infect is to undertake cell cultures. Looking at the paper this appears not to have been done. The so-called viral load has been determined by the number of cycles that have been run on the sample.
PCR is regularly used to test for a wide range of viruses e.g. flu, chickenpox, HIV ….
Are you saying that all these tests that have been used all round the world for years are rubbish?
There is a world of difference between “PCR” and “RT-PCR”. Katy Mullis stated unequivocally that PCR is not a test of infectiousness. Even Drosten stated that a RT-PCR derived “positive” test has to be backed up by a lab culture test – do you think every instance of a “positive” test derived from a RT-PCR test is so backed up – how many have been done since this virus was foisted on the world in late 2019?
You do not seem to place credence to the multitude of scientists who know that the RT-PCR testing regime, as mandated around the world but very tellingly rowed back from by the WHO at least once to my knowledge, is fraudulent – it does not detect infectiousness and its stringency ( as mandated by the WHO ) is 100% compromised byits design , eg, the adoption of a CT rate that produces very high false positive outcomes, that it does not test the whole strand of a section of this RNA virus (very deliberately so – as you will read below ) and has to convert the RNA sample to DNA because the RT-PCR test does not test …..RNA samples. But “don’t take… Read more »
Thanks for the reference. I will have a look at it sometime over the next few days.
In the meantime:
Real-Time PCR has been used extensively for some years for diagnosing a range of viruses. Are you claiming that these diagnoses were all based on a giant error?
The UK RT-PCR tests for Covid-19 were returning about 2,000 positive results a day back in May. They now return over 30,000 positive results a day with much the same level of testing. This dramatic increase can be explained by a lot of people getting infected with the virus as that is capable of exponential growth. Do you have a better or even an alternative explanation?
Why this fixation on whether the mRNA inoculations are correctly called vaccines? They are prophylactic injections that reduce your chances of infection and serious illness by priming your immune system. You can call them what you like, but “vaccine” seems like a useful word. I can’t see that is particularly deceptive. What are they are not is “treatments” or “therapies” as treatments and therapies are given after you have contracted a disease to cure it or reduce the symptoms.
(In any case the majority of Covid… Read more »
Real-Time PCR has been used extensively for some years for diagnosing a range of viruses. Are you claiming that these diagnoses were all based on a giant error?
No I am not; are you claiming that the tests which have been used “for some years” have all been done to identical design protocols, with identical post swab regimes of storage, assessment etc? The document I recommend is one of several I have read which drives the proverbial coach and horses through the WHO instigated, Corment-Drosten designed version – as I say “don’t take my word for it”; Ulrike Kammerer and a stack of other medics across the world, including Robert Malone ( please take his word for it ), have risked their careers to state what they know from decades of relevant study, knowledge, clinical experience.. and they state that the Cormen-Drosten RT-PCR test is a fraud and they state exactly why that is with the smoking gun part the downgrading of the number of genes examined ( page 57 onwards: “The evolution of the »Drosten Test«towards a one-gene PCR”) – that does not mean to say that other versions are likewise. Kary Mullis did say “you can pretty much… Read more »
I only have a few minutes so I will respond to just one item now and pick up the rest later.
however, very inconveniently, not even the manufacturers of mRNA claim “it” does this ( how can they when you are not injected with a dormant virus which your immune system then recognises, but only RNA nucleic acid ); as I understand it, these jabs are intended to reduce symptoms but cannot prevent infection
Where did this idea come from that not even the manufacturers claim the mRNA vaccines claim it reduces the chances of infection? I have seen it a number of times but with no source – but when Pfizer and Moderna announced the results of the RCTs the efficacy was efficacy against infection. The vaccines are intended to reduce the chances of infection and reduce symptoms.
They work by getting your cells to produce proteins which are found on the virus spike. Your body learns to produce antibodies (and maybe T cell responses) to these proteins – so when they appear as part of the virus, the virus gets attacked. But surely you and pretty much everyone on this forum knows this?
Perhaps another inconvenient issue is that the UK EUO authorisation only is given when no other treatment is available, just as in the US; there are, patently, other prophylactic treatments ….I wonder why this was ignored by the MHRA panel? And please don’t forget that MHRA and one JCVI member (who is publicly recommending these experimental less than adequately tested jabs be given to children ) are totally compromised by their undeclared conflicts of interest – or does medical ethics occupy the same space as ” the testing thing”?
Now returned – to address some of your other points.
are you claiming that the tests which have been used “for some years” have all been done to identical design protocols, with identical post swab regimes of storage, assessment etc?
Of course not. So I am glad you don’t have an objection to RT-PCR in general. I don’t know enough about the world of PCR testing to comment any further but I am pretty sure the UK (and other governments) use a variety of RT-PCR tests and not just the Cormen-Drosten RT-PCR.
As a matter of interest, why should Robert Malone be relevant to this. He is the self-professed inventor of mRNA vaccines (he wasn’t – but that is another matter) – that is nothing to do with RT-PCR.
It appears that the pharmaceutical companies have not done the pharmakinetic tests to analyse what happens to the injection site and how the jab contents react from there.
They did it on animals but not people as that is not generally required for vaccines against respiratory viruses. Since then there have been studies which show that only tiny quantities of the vaccine and protein leave the injection site. See https://www.deplatformdisease.com/blog/spike-protein-circulating-in-the-vaccinated-what-does-it-mean
How… Read more »
“Now returned,” you say. I think you drank a lot of Kool-aid on your break!
Experimental use only authorisation requires informed consent or is that another myth?
Are you completely comfortable that you know and understand the long term implications of the contents of the jab (s) you willingly gave verbal assent to?
FDA >25: Google Dr Ryan Cole Stop the Mandate or is that another myth?
If you are trying to suggest that the evident side effects of mRNA jabs are rare, try telling that to the thousands of people who have died very soon after a jab was administered or is that another myth.
EUO authorisation has been granted with grossly inadequate testing, and in contravention of the availability of other treatments in the US and UK; how many recored deaths have there been from , say, Ivermectin over the 40 years or so it has been produced.Or are you a subscriber to the “Fact check” that has rubbished its efficacy, as demonstrated by Dr Peter McCullough and others or are these medics clinical experience with real patients another myth. You have no doubt satisfied yourself that there is a logical and legal reason why other available treatments have been ignored by the FDA and MHRA or is that another myth that… Read more »
You are arguing about whether the shots are rightly called “vaccines,” “treatments,” or “therapies.”
Any number of highly credentialed, expertly qualified scientists make a very compelling argument for calling them “bio-weapons.”
They were used for years to confirm diagnoses based on symptoms. Not in a massive fishing expedition.
Just a thought: if jabs reduce sympoms but have same viral load (in their own clownworld) aren’t the jabbed more of an asymptomatic spreader risk than the unjabbed who will have more prompts that they are bugged and that they should isolate? By causing symptom suppression they are stimulating spread (in their world)?
They are symptomatic.
“…that herd immunity is “unachievable” ”
“…that jab induced herd immunity is “unachievable”. Fixed it. Or I could précis…’the jabs do no good.’
It’s shocking and extremely irritating how the daily sceptic keeps posting gibberish stuff…like ‘variants’. Epidemiologist professors Dolores Cahill and Sucharit Bhakdi already instructed us that ‘variants’ are NEVER dangerous; they are more infectious but NEVER dangerous!
So explain this to me, how can a fragment of a virus that doesn’t exist [C19 fails koch postulates] inside a jab that isn’t a conventional vaccine, produce dangerous ‘variants’?
1) C19 doesn’t exist because ti fails Koch Postulate
2) Kary Mullis, the scientists who invented the pcr test, stated that this test cannot diagnose diseases
3) this C19 jab isn’t a conventional vaccine, but mRNA gene therapy which among other things alters our DNA.
So do you want to correct the article and start calling things by their proper names, instea of spreading disinformation?
Luis
Epidemiologist professors Dolores Cahill and Sucharit Bhakdi already instructed us that ‘variants’ are NEVER dangerous;
I very much doubt they said that – do you have a link? There is always the possibility that a variant will be more lethal as well as being more infectious – although that has not been true so far.
C19 doesn’t exist because it fails Koch Postulate
No virus can meet the Koch postulates because postulate two requires the organism be grown in a pure culture and viruses can only grow in other cells. Are you saying that no viruses exist?
Kary Mullis, the scientists who invented the pcr test, stated that this test cannot diagnose diseases
Not exactly – he said you can use it to find almost anything – but this was in the context of an informal group talking about AIDS patients and may well have just been a figure of speech.
this C19 jab isn’t a conventional vaccine, but mRNA gene therapy which among other things alters our DNA.
The Astrazeneca vaccine does not use mRNA. The mRNA vaccines (Pfizer, Moderna) do not alter our DNA. The AZ vaccine adds some DNA to a limited number of cells for… Read more »
Bears, Woods, Popes, Catholics, fictional detectives and excrement… really?
“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe.” (Albert Einstein)
Useful information, resources and links: https://www.LCAHub.org/
Slightly off topic, but is anyone else worried about how the world of blood donation is going to look in a year or two? If the spike protein is as dangerous as some experts believe, and is in the bloodstream, will a market be created for the blood of those of us who have not had the poison?
The idea of selling one’s blood to the NHS will seem tasteless and objectionable to many, but if the blood of the vaxxed can’t be used the NHS will be in serious trouble and I can see a situation in which incentives will have to be offered (social credits perhaps!).
Excellent interview, great to see someone taking this kind of action in the UK. Anna is a shining light :
Anna De Buisseret Serves Notice Of Criminal Liability On UK Covid Vaccinators Under Nuremberg Code
https://www.bitchute.com/video/RVcI7oT6YaOp/
So are the jib jabbed asymptomatic ?
No. I’m surprised you don’t already know someone coughing away who has recently had the stabs.
Isn’t this just the same press release rehashed once more? Eg, how can someone do a large-scale comparison of vaccinated vs unvaccineted starting from December last year? By that time, no one was vaccinated as the vaccination program just started. It is still absolutely impossible that vaccination prevents infection. That’s sort of like claiming that a door could stop people walking past it in the street. Lastly, why on earth is vaccination worked as advertised a justification for another round of vaccinations?
This isn’t news
‘And that’s exactly what’s seen in viral load data’
But that is NOT what has been seen. The viral load is the same.
As far as symptoms are concerned, we actually have no evidence its better or worse in injected people. Its highly likely the Delta variant is mild compared to Alpha etc, so the reduction in hospitalisation and deaths are to be expected irrespective of injection status. What data there is, from Iceland and Israel appears to show similar percentages of injected and non-injected.
Exactly.
Here is a Florence Nightingale chart of all cause mortality (based on ONS weekly data) in the age 45-64 age group for the years 2015 to 2021. I’ve adjusted this based on ONS population estimates to weekly deaths per million in that age group. I’ve only applied the population adjustment based on the ONS mid year population for each year applied to all the weeks in that year but that’s probably more than good enough.
You can see that there is now a very abnormal level of high mortality (perhaps 20% more than we might expect) going on currently in that age group which given respiratory deaths are at relatively low fairly normal levels (we will get another check on this in the ONS monthly mortality publication on 23rd August) may be due to lack of access to healthcare or to vaccine adverse affects or perhaps something else.
This unusually high mortality did not happen in Summer 2020 and Summer mortality as you can see normally runs within tight bands. A similarly trend of current higher Summer mortality can be seen in other age groups (I won’t post up the charts at the moment) although it’s not quite as pronounced… Read more »
I think you may be starting to see the result of deferred health care and diagnosis from lats year. The CDC data is starting to show that effect. Especially in pulmonary disease.
The other thing to bear in mind is that mass screening testing using RT/PCR will give rise to a very large number of misdiagnosis of respiratory illness. When the RT/PCR test is done first, rather than a late stage part of the diagnosis of pneumonia, because almost all the symptoms are non specific that will mean a lot of the hospital admissions with serious respiratory symptoms would be mis-diagnosed. Less of a problem with viral or bacterial infections but with a lot of other respiratory diseases with early stage symptoms in common that would cause serious problem with early diagnosis and treatment.
Unfortunately the real uptick in lockdown related mortality has yet to happen. Next year is when it will start really kicking in.
ADE
That would require high numbers of Covid deaths currently – I don’t think we’re seeing those.
“either the vaccines are causing deaths or it might be due to a lack of access to healthcare that is really impacting now to an extent not seen in 2020.”
It’s difficult to say, isn’t it? Although the ‘bump’ is relatively small. The age-group is probably the one most affected by delayed and insufficient diagnosis and health care after eighteen months, and certainly vaccination could be a factor, with the growth of double jabbing.
Re ‘vaccination’, the comparison of the ’20 and ’21 major spikes is fascinating. It is noticeable that there is an unexpected rise in mortality after the introduction of the vaccines in December – and the decrease is much slower than it was in April 2020.
The December spike is the planned euthanasia of elderly in care homes with the vaccine. There is no other way of saying it, murder.
Excellent work, thank you.
“Experts said the findings strengthened the argument for a ‘booster’ Covid jab programme this autumn.”
And there it is.
Another worthless study based on fraudulent PCR data.
Bonus: PCR test CCP style!
Interesting observation by Dr Clare Craig on this study:
Even a lot of the ONS ‘raw data’ is actually modelled now, they have run out of willing guinee pigs.
If the so-called vaccines work against the original strain but not the variants then they are not stimulating a proper immune response, that is the only conclusion I can draw from this.
Worse than that, they are probably responsible for creating the variants, or at least creating the environment in which the variants can prosper.
It’s notable that all of the variants seen to date originated in places where there were early trials of the vaccines.
100% agree! the 3 countries where the clotshots were tested produced variants, Brazil, Kent, South Africa, and so it continues but now theyve changed the names to the Greek Aphabet.
Did any of us actually need a new study to figure this out? I simply read what each company intended to achieve and nowhere did anything say “immunity”.
I still prefer my own healthy immune system and untainted blood – thanks.
Yes that’s where the emphasis should have been all along. And in emergency the likes of Ivermectin.
If vaxports are brought in for big gatherings, we’ll soon see how fast the vaxxoids can pass the bug on, won’t we?
They’ll blame it on the self-exempted….
None of these studies and data about the vaccine really matter.
We are witnessing once again the manufacture of an accepted truth. The conclusion has already been written: covid vaccines save lives and the more people take them the more lives are saved.
Studies will be produced that show the right results. Data will be twisted if it has to. And ultimately neither of these things will be that important, because what matter is the size of the megaphone and who is behind it.
The propaganda machine which is unstoppable will produce that “truth”. In much the same way that it produced the “truth” that covid is an unusual and unprecedented killer and that everyone should be terrified of it.
But it’s even worse than that. With vaccine passports, they haven’t really presented any evidence of their usefulness – not that I have seen anyway. In fact the evidence presented makes it obvious they are useless, and the governments own policy that you need to take a test when coming back from abroad makes it obvious they know the passports are useless from a practical point of view. Yet no-one in the mainstream seems to have called them out on it.
Vaccine passports are the sole point of all this, unless eugenics and genocide are the other one.
Thales has confirmed this yesterday.
https://norberthaering.de/die-regenten-der-welt/thales/
They want you to use a digital ID to do ANYthing.
The EU has already issued a tender for studying the implementation of a centralized register of every person’s assets!
And this news, aka another conspiracy theory having become true, has been totally ignored by the MSM, of course.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=k_Ooyt_6KVo
Almost everyone in the MSM is a Ministry of Truth employee – that much is quite clear.
“Researchers concluded two doses reduce the chance of getting the Covid by about 82% for Pfizer and 67% for AstraZeneca.”
82% and 67% of what level of absolute risk (even accepting the figures)?
“ two doses remain remarkably effective at preventing death and hospitalisation”
Nothing to do with the relative mildness of the dominant variant, then?
All irrelevant anyway, since there is no good RCT data upon which to base any conclusions.
The absolute risk will depend on the prevalence at the time and also the duration of the period under consideration – that is why you typically quite vaccine effectiveness which should not vary in these ways.
“The absolute risk will depend on the prevalence at the time “
That excuse pops out of the woodwork every time the fact of ARR is stated. Of course – communal viral load may make some difference to all RR calculations. But not that much, if the base data is sound in terms of a properly sampled RCT.
I always know I’ve won the argument when that one pops its head out.
The absolute risk is going to be pretty much proportional to the prevalence. The more people there are currently infected, the greater your chances of being infected. The daily case rate has varied from 2,000 to 50,000 this year. I know that is not quite the same thing as prevalence but it gives you some idea of how much it has changed.
Sorry – but you are wanting cake and eating it. ARR can change, but RRR will remain the same outside the trial framework? That’s scientific nonsense, and defeats the whole logic of an RCT.
RRR might change – but there has to be a reason for it other than simply a change in the base line risk. This is completely standard medical statistics. See for example: https://bestpractice.bmj.com/info/toolkit/learn-ebm/how-to-calculate-risk/
RRR is usually constant across a range of absolute risks. But the ARR is higher and the NNT lower in people with higher absolute risks
“The daily case rate has varied from 2,000 to 50,000 this year”
By what measure is the “daily case rate” number derived?
Oh God – the testing thing again. I don’t want to fight that battle yet again right now. Consider it hypothetical if you like – my only point was that prevalence makes a very big difference to absolute risk.
It is not a battle; you might have a different point of view when you read what I have recommended – but then again, Oh God, not the blind refusal again to take on board that “the testing thing” is critical, that even the WHO don’t reckon their original “bright idea” is really that. But at the risk of repeating myself, don’t take my word for it as I am not a scientist; but I am very capable of discerning that the Cormen-Drosten RT-PCR process for mass testing…is decidedly not “The Gold Standard” and public health strategies and Government decrees which use it as the “raison d’être” are tainted and equally dubious.
they aren’t vaccines
I haven’t seen the paper, but from the charts in the Daily Mail, the patients were only followed for just over 2 months post second dose kicking in. SO before significant drop off in efficacy was seen.
We all know IgG levels are sky high post second dose. But they drop off rapidly. And then you are back to square one (with maybe added ADE, tbc)
“Although fully vaccinated people are significantly less likely to be infected,”
I’m willing to bet this isn’t true.
I bet they are just as likely to get infected but perhaps less likely to show symptoms and therefore become asymptomatic spreaders. The way that the delta infections are spreading in highly vaccinated countries like Israel and Iceland suggests that is the case.
I’d also be interested to know how many PCR cycles are being used to test the vaccinated and whether this is the same as the unvaccinated. We know that in the US different numbers of cycles are used for the “clean” and the “unclean”.
Same. Might conceivably be true for around 8-10 weeks post vaccination. Not so sure after that.
Yep. And it’s practically only the unvaccinated who are still mass tested and thereby many more of their positive results are caught. Multiples of asymptomatic infected and infectious untested vaccinated are running around than them.
Even if true, I don’t think it rubbishes the idea of vaccine passports.
It goes some way towards that but not completely. The argument could be made that vaxxed people clear it more quickly and not hospitalised so are more ‘deserving’.
But it’s a start.
What idiots people are, though.
Be anti lockdown because you are ideologically opposed to them.
But don’t start getting back to normal because of this vaccine.
People organising parties on the back of vaccine effectiveness are just fools. OK even if it does reduce hospitalisations even a mild case is pretty grim but, hey, it’s all right now cause of vaccines.
It isn ‘t.
Also, because people think they’re now immune, because vaccine implies immunity in most people’s minds, they’re just going to mix again! Guaranteed lockdown soon.
I’m opposed to lockdowns but I’m not going to get back to normal because of the vaccine.
If anyone goes down the “deserving” route, they can ram it. How about the overweight? they’ve had 18 months to lessen their risk and lose the lbs. It is a slippery slope.
I hope it’s clear that I disagree with the concept of deserving as opposed to undeserving, sophie, I’m just pointing out what I think might happen.
I’m not saying that normality should not resume, I’m saying it should not resume because of the vaccines.
I hope that comes across in my post.
Ever? The only way we will get back to normal is by people picking up an infection and developing a level of natural immunity to the virus. It looks like the “vaccine” is still protecting the most vulnerable so they should get on with their lives, expose themselves to the pathogen and develop natural immunity. We should all be partying like it is 1999 to be exposed to the virus before vitamin D levels drop and those who have been “vaccinated” run the gauntlet of ADE.
Will, I am NOT saying that we should not get back to normal I am saying normality shouldn’t be resumed on the back of the vaccine.
If people are returning to normality SOLELY because of the vaccine, I think it’s foolish.
I hear you, apologies for any misunderstanding.
Thanks.
“ even a mild case is pretty grim”
No. Or it’s not ‘mild’. Or colds are ‘pretty grim’.
What I mean is that when medics say it’s mild they mean you’re not needing to be put in hospital. That doesn’t mean to say it’s a pleasant thing to have.
We can argue about the definition, but what I really mean is that it can be a nasty thing to have even if you don’t need to go to hospital and that people who think they’re not going to be ill BECAUSE of the vaccine are in for a shock.
Does this mean I am for lockdowns? No but anyone who was FOR lockdowns previously but are not now because of vaccines will be in for a nasty surprise when they are still hit with a nasty flu-type illness.
I really think people don’t realise this. So many people organising parties because they think they won’t be at all sick.
I got your point. But what I’m saying is that you will not necessarily develop ‘a nasty flu-type illness’.
‘….even a mild case is pretty grim.’
Man Flu lives!
Any numbers on those who got properly immunised by having COVID?
Although fully vaccinated people are significantly less likely to be infected,
No, they’re merely MORE likely to transmit it as they are Asymptomatic…
If you think asymptomatic transmission is a factor.
It appears to be in the 2 weeks following the jab – those people are apparently shedding the virus.
Not in the unvaccinated who haven’t taken a pain killer.
Plenty in the vaccinated, some in the unvaccinated who were so dumb to take a pain killer and then run around.
It seems to be that spreading is not correlated with viral load as measured with CT
Mildly symptomatic. But then why we are trying to slow transmission at the moment I don’t really understand. We should be having covid parties!!!
Getting Covid is the best way to actually immunise.
Good idea!
When the results of such studies become public, the first question any decent journalist should ask is “who funded the research?” to ensure that there is no conflict of interest. I’m sure the £98 million from this chap came in handy…
Committed Grants | Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation – Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
In a saner world, all this investigation and analysis would take place BEFORE millions of people are given the treatment.
… in the vaccinated and unvaccinated… And, as usual, the implication that “unvaccinated” is synonymous with “susceptible”. I guess including people with immunity from having had Covid19 would be just too embarasing.