"Pandemic of the unvaccinated" CONFIRMED

Not the same person.... but there are a decent number of immunocompromised people (maybe 1-5% of the population) who cannot get vaccinated or will not produce a robust memory response to vaccines. They rely on herd immunity to protect them from a disease, vaccination a fast and the safest way to herd immunity.

Furthermore, prolonged transmission and replication of the virus leads to variant evolution. If we could snap our fingers and have everyone on the planet vaccinated in March 2021 we would have the mess all sorted.

Lastly, no vaccine is perfect. 95% effective (20X lower rate) at preventing death from COVID means a vaxxed 75 year old still has a higher chance of dying of COVID than a unvaxxed 30 year old (based chance of death for 30 y.o. vs 75 y.o. is 50X lower). So it makes sense to stop transmission of COVID.

Arrhenius: I think the anti-clerical jabs aimed at you were unnecessary and did not add anything to the conversation. Also, I admire your decision to follow the guidance of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. I admit that you face a moral predicament in the decision to be vaccinated.

But I think you're failing in the face of that predicament in two ways.

The child aborted in 1973 (if that really is the source of cells that were used for testing purposes in the development of the vaccine) cannot be helped in the slightest by your foregoing of the vaccine now. No good will be added to the world by remaining more susceptible to disease. If you are being forced to choose between distant association with nth-generation cells used as an auxiliary to developing a vaccine, and potentially harming living and unborn people today, and you decide that avoiding contact with a cell line is more important, your moral judgment seems profoundly flawed.

Your second failure is failing to take seriously the counsel of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

[quote] Those who for reasons of conscience reject vaccines produced with cell lines from aborted fetuses, however, must “do their utmost to avoid, by other prophylactic means and appropriate behavior, becoming vehicles for the transmission of the infectious agent.”[\quote]

You have not done your utmost. You haven't determined which of the world's vaccines would be acceptable to you, and urgently sought out an opportunity to be vaccinated with one of them. You haven't mentioned any commitment to masking and other prophylactic means. You have yet to recognize that what's at stake is more than a selfish concern for your own health - what's at stake is the common good in the form of the health and welfare of countless other people. You keep saying that someone who's vaccinated and has had a booster can stop worrying about others - but that's not how vaccination works (with herd immunity, we all protect each other), and it's not how the common good works.

Arrhenius wrote:

I still fail to see your logic on how I am endangering others lives by not being vaccinated. If you are vaccinated, and perhaps boosted, why would you even care if someone else isn't. If you are still concerned, than you have no faith in your sacrament (the vaccine). In which case, why did you even get vaccinated to begin with?

"For the first time in history, the ineffectiveness of a medicine is being blamed on those who haven't taken it."

Dr. Robert Malone

carmine9 wrote:

Arrhenius wrote:

I still fail to see your logic on how I am endangering others lives by not being vaccinated. If you are vaccinated, and perhaps boosted, why would you even care if someone else isn't. If you are still concerned, than you have no faith in your sacrament (the vaccine). In which case, why did you even get vaccinated to begin with?

"For the first time in history, the ineffectiveness of a medicine is being blamed on those who haven't taken it."

Dr. Robert Malone

Dr Malone is clearly wrong, there are numerous incidents of outbreaks of nominally controlled diseases attributed to unvaccinated subpopulations over recent decades. That this is true is fundamental to the concept of herd immunity.

Harambe wrote:

Waiting to see what the antivaxxers will pivot to now that 'superior natural immunity' has been revealed as a complete sham by Omicron. The goalposts are receding into the distance as we speak...

Y'know, I'm just having trouble understanding what the AV crowd's endgame is.

A) Are they saying that, if you happened to have been infected by SARS-CoV-2, then 1) you have sogenannte natural immunity, 2) it's better than jab-acquired immunity, and hence 3) you shouldn't be required to get vaccinated?

If that's all they're suggesting, then there's an argument to be made that supports their position. The available data are somewhat equivocal, and not every study I've seen indicates that natural immunity is superior, but I'm fully prepared to concede the point.

[Available data do indicate that those who've had Covid and then get vaccinated, as my sister did after her near-fatal illness, have the best protection of all--but that's a different discussion.]

B) Or are they saying that *everyone* (except, perhaps, those in especially-vulnerable groups) should 1) avoid vaccination, 2) be infected with SARS-Cov-2 naturally, and then 3) have superior immunity--if, you know, they survive?

The "if they survive" restriction is what makes this position untenable IMO. It seems very roughly equivalent to pointing out that most people (like George Washington) who got smallpox survived it and got lasting immunity...while downplaying the billions who died from it or were left crippled/blind/infertile.

So what are they pushing for? I think it's possible to have a reasoned discussion with the advocates of Position A, and not with anyone advocating Position B.

Colder and Wiser-Thank You-I appreciate your well written and respectful post! I actually have spent time researching to see if any vaccines are currently available that in no way use aborted fetal cell lines. There are a few, but unfortunately, none are currently available in the US. For anyone that is interested, here is a link to a chart from the Charlotte Lozier Institute:

https://lozierinstitute.org/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-covid-19-vaccine/

I have also pulled patents from the various vaccine manufacturers in the US to confirm that the information on the chart was correct, and it is.

I don't come into contact with many people, besides family (whom also are unvaxxed for the exact same reasons, including my 80 year old parents), other than going to the store, attending mass, etc., and I do wear a mask, as it is currently required in the state I reside (regardless of your vaccination status). So, I would say that I am respectful of others and try to minimize any risk I potentially may present to them.

When a covid vaccine becomes available in the US that I don't have any moral/ethical issues with, I would have no problem getting it.

2600 bro wrote:

then and now wrote:

Bad news for the vaccinated

https://twitter.com/MartinNeil9/status/1466814347762671628

Good news for the vaccinated.

https://www.covid-datascience.com/post/what-do-uk-data-say-about-impact-of-vaccines-on-deaths-part3-all-cause-1st-dose-w-in-21-dayshttps://www.covid-datascience.com/post/uk-data-impact-of-vaccines-on-deaths-part-4-partially-vaccinated-21-days-after-1st-dose

I think you're looking at the wrong chart. A comparison of fully vaxxed to unvaxxed in the 10-59 age cohort found that vaxxed had twice the mortality rate of the unvaxxed. (You may have to scroll down to find the chart in this link.) For over 60 and over 70, the trend was reversed... more unvaxxed deaths than vaxxed deaths.

Fisky, your laziness when it comes to data is making people sick. That's a great link you posted, but if you bothered to read all the way to the end, you would have read how this is a classic case of Simpson's paradox. The 10-59 age cohort is a huge range with widely varying health and vaccination levels, and, no surprise, the oldest group is highly vaccinated and less healthy, while the youngest group is lightly vaccinated and very healthy. This is the author's conclusions:

I thought about this while walking and had an additional thought. The over-60 and over 70 unvaccinated groups are NOT random. These are the highest vaxxed groups. They are also BY FAR the highest group of comorbidities. Many of those older unvaxxed older seniors are could be unvaxxed involuntarily because they can't get vaxxed! They have heart disease, cancer, and autoimmune disorders. These ill seniors would have a higher mortality rate that could skew the data. That's my interpretation. The author chose to look at it from a position of Confirmation Bias...the tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one's existing beliefs or theories.

I've heard enough of Simpson's paradox. It works both ways. Maybe the author's conclusion is Simpson's paradox.

Now, having said that... could I be wrong? Of course! I'm open to testing my premise. I think it stands up to logical analysis better than the author's premise. Keep in mind, we're talking about a VERY SMALL percent of seniors who are unvaxxed who are far more likely to include a significant percentage who cannot get vaxxed for autoimmune/other conditions AND as a result have much higher mortality rates. In fact, it's reasonable to assume that a percentage of these seniors were terminally ill. None of the terminally ill seniors would be in the vaxxed group. They would all be in the unvaxxed group. It wouldn't take a massive number of deaths to skew the data when you separate seniors into healthy (the vaxxed) and the seriously unhealthy (seniors who can't get vaxxed). Keep in mind, we're taking about one death per 1,000 seniors to skew the data. That's not a lot. At any one point in time, about 2 million Americans are terminally ill. I imagine it's a similar percentage in the UK.

Anyway, I see my premise as likely as the author's premise.

All of this great debate can only lead to one conclusion, taking this vaccine should be a choice. Any other conclusion is unacceptable.

I looked up UK vac rates by age to see if it supported my premise stated above.

Vaxxed 60+: 97%. (Thus 3% unvaxxed)

Vaxxed 10-59: ~ 85%? (15% unvaxxed)

Those unable to get vaccinated due to autoimmune/cancer/other conditions:

Over 60: 2% of over 60 population (totally a guess on my part)

Under 60: 1% of under 60 population. (again, a guess, but it's likely less in this younger group)

Percentage of each group who can't get vaccinated. That is also the group with a much likely higher mortality rate:

Over 60: 2 out of 3: 66.7%

Under 60: 1 out of 15: 6.7%

If these numbers are even remotely in the ballpark, the unvaxxed 60+ population in the UK is substantially unhealthier than the vaxxed 60+ population and would thus have a higher mortality rate.

At least, I'm looking at raw data or a conservative guess at raw data and attempting to draw conclusions. Is this wrong? If you think it is, show me the health status of the over 60 cohort by vaxxed/unvaxxed. If you can't show it, you're just guessing.

Noyankee wrote:

All of this great debate can only lead to one conclusion, taking this vaccine should be a choice. Any other conclusion is unacceptable.

Tell that to Liberal leadership - they're the ones implementing the vaccine mandates, passports, restrictions etc.

First of all, anti-vaxxer is really a stupid term. Most of us are “fully” vaccinated and have had our kids vaccinated with traditional, attenuated viral vaccines. Many (most?) of us who are leery of the leaky mRNA vaccines want a more nuanced approach to vaccination; namely, vaccinate the elderly and high risk groups but not the healthy or young (sub 30) populations, like Scandanavia. That provides optimal protection (along w masking & distancing for those who need it) along with the ability for the rest of humanity to acquire as much natural immunity as possible, so that our immune systems are primed to see all of the viral epitopes without already having been primed with antibodies that can outcompete the natural response. Multiple infection is inevitable but also like a natural boost and should get milder with each iteration.

The only way to achieve herd immunity globally is to vaccinate every human being, and, frankly, certain animal species as they acquire the virus too. This is and was always unrealistic. Coronaviruses mutate very rapidly. There is no more evidence that this latest iteration of Covid was cultivated in an immunocompromised patient than there is in a fully vaccinated individual who generated antibodies to the spike but also couldn’t sterilize it (like Geert has been warning about). There are scientists actually promoting that it probably combined with another Coronavirus in an animal sub population. It is unlikely we will ever find out, but it makes the proposition of fully vaccinating everyone even more untenable.

The opposition to the mRNA jab is that it absolutely crosses into the cytoplasm and nucleus of cells and appears to impede DNA repair machinery. It does cause myocarditis & pericarditis in subsets of the population. It’s possible that it increases thrombotic and cardiovascular episode risk in the future, but we need more data. Some of my friends are comparing this to the flu, in that we will need a rapidly evolving vaccine annually or semiannually to deal w Covid. The difference is, the mRNA jabs are not like a traditional flu vaccine. Yes, we have billions of data points, but we do not have long term safety studies. Ten years of in vitro, ferrets, and small scale human studies devoid of children is not long term safety data.

Therapeutics are the way to go to treat risky populations who refuse the jab. If Covid 19, 20, 21, 22 was MERS, I don’t think you would have an issue with jab compliance, but it’s simply not. Not by a long shot. We have many early treatment protocols now. We just haven’t been willing to do large scale, peer-reviewed studies with established control groups. Many unorthodox allopathic MDs have been treating high risk groups with great success, but the cabal is threatening their licensures and pharmacies are impeding the sacred doctor/patient relationships while becoming Covid mills themselves, because there is so much money in it.

fisky wrote

If you think it is, show me the health status of the over 60 cohort by vaxxed/unvaxxed. If you can't show it, you're just guessing.

Uh huh. As are you.

See, the thing is: In reasoned argument, the person who advances a novel hypothesis has the burden of proof to support it. That would be you. YOU find the health status of the over-60 cohort.

"None of the terminally ill seniors would be in the vaxxed group. They would all be in the unvaxxed group." Another interesting assertion that you advanced, and for which YOU are required to produce backup...especially since your statement seems to be contradicted:

There are people, such as those with silent heart disease, who might be days or hours away from death by heart attack, who have no inkling of a problem and just go about their day (which, nowadays, might include getting a vaccination). A few years ago I worked with just such a person: Not wanting to have to go to an ATM, he borrowed some cash for the bus ride home, clearly with the intention of repaying it the next day; he died that night of a massive heart attack. Was he "terminally ill"? Depends on your definition, I suppose; he certainly had (silent) disease that put him at death's door, and because he was obese and past middle age, he certainly would have been a candidate for vaccination in a period of covid.

But let's look at a situation that's perhaps more common: chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder. Some people with COPD are clearly terminal--there's a COPD death in the USA every four minutes--and yet, because of the damage that Covid-19 does to the lungs, *all* COPD patients (except those with rare contraindications) are urged to get vaccinated.

So it would seem that there *are* terminally ill seniors in the vaccinated group. But I could be wrong; please provide something that supports your point.

PS--Kudos for laying out your position and your reasoning in an orderly way, without insulting others.

fisky wrote:

2600 bro wrote:

Good news for the vaccinated.

https://www.covid-datascience.com/post/what-do-uk-data-say-about-impact-of-vaccines-on-deaths-part3-all-cause-1st-dose-w-in-21-dayshttps://www.covid-datascience.com/post/uk-data-impact-of-vaccines-on-deaths-part-4-partially-vaccinated-21-days-after-1st-dose

I think you're looking at the wrong chart. A comparison of fully vaxxed to unvaxxed in the 10-59 age cohort found that vaxxed had twice the mortality rate of the unvaxxed. (You may have to scroll down to find the chart in this link.) For over 60 and over 70, the trend was reversed... more unvaxxed deaths than vaxxed deaths.

https://www.covid-datascience.com/post/what-do-uk-data-say-about-real-world-impact-of-vaccines-on-all-cause-deaths

That’s just Simpson’s paradox. Not the point of my post, which was to look at the recently vaccinated cohorts and show no increased death.

formerly present wrote:

So it would seem that there *are* terminally ill seniors in the vaccinated group. But I could be wrong; please provide something that supports your point.

PS--Kudos for laying out your position and your reasoning in an orderly way, without insulting others.

Quick google search found... at any one point, 2 million Americans are terminally ill. 1.4 million are in hospice (meaning prognosis is typically less than six months.) Average age in hospice is 72.3 male and 73.1 female. No one in hospice would be vaccinated because hospice care is palliative only.

From here on, we'd have to make some assumptions. Assuming the percentages of hospice are about the same US vs UK, we have about 2% of the age 60+ that are terminally ill. Let's assume it's 2% in the UK as well. 97% of 60+ are vaccinated in the UK, leaving 3% that are unvaxxed. So, it's 2% divided by 3%... or 67% of the unvaxxed over age 60+ are in hospice.

Again, my math might be wrong. My assumptions might be wrong. But... are they wrong by an order of magnitude? I think not.

It seems obvious that a significant percentage of the 3% over age 60 who are not vaccinated have some severe or terminal health issue that prevents them from getting vaccinated. That, in turn, skews the results as more of these very sick, unvaccinated seniors die than their healthy peers who include both the vaccinated and the unvaccinated.

P.S. As an American, I'd prefer doing these maths for US numbers, but if the CDC provides a report similar to this UK report, I've not seen it. If anyone has a similar US/CDC report that breaks down deaths by age by vaccination status and charts it, please post a link. Thanks.

Nov 1, 2021 by: Ed Payne

Do fully vaccinated people account for 82% of recent COVID-19 deaths and 66% of hospitalizations in the UK? Yes, that's true. The figures are found in the COVID-19 vaccine surveillance report - Week 43 by the UK Health Security Agency published on October 28, 2021.

[quote]fisky wrote:

[quote]formerly present wrote:

... or 67% of the unvaxxed over age 60+ are in hospice.

That's crazy.

I know lots of people 60+ who want nothing to do with the vaxx and their health is fine.

They are the minority but way bigger than 3%.