This IFR gave rise to the modelled estimates that “in an unmitigated epidemic, we would predict approximately 510,000 deaths in Great Britain and 2.2 million in the U.S.”.
The authors wrote this: “However, the resulting mitigated epidemic would still likely result in hundreds of thousands of deaths and health systems (most notably intensive care units) being overwhelmed many times over. For countries able to achieve it, this leaves suppression as the preferred policy option.”
A recent publication by Stanford researchers based on seroprevalence studies in the Covid pre-vaccination era provides a more robust estimate of the IFR.
Across 32 studies, the median IFR of COVID-19 was estimated to be 0.035% for people aged 0-59 years and 0.095% for those aged 0-69.
We compared the two IFR estimates, which shows the Imperial College estimates are much higher than Stanford’s across the age groups.
It will take the medical community at least 10 years to figure this out, even though it was published in the peer-reviewed medical literature more than a year ago. Here's why
Conclusion: Low serum 25 (OH) Vitamin-D level was significantly associated with a worse clinical evolution and prognosis of COVID-19 infection. We found a higher proportion of institutionalised and dependent people over 80 years of age among patients with COVID-19 and vitamin D deficiency.
And so we get to our position today, where our authorities are surely breathing sighs of relief that the vaccines at least offer some protection from serious disease, if not infection and transmission.
Which is just one reason why a recent paper from Oxford, Edinburgh and Swansea universities in the International Journal of Epidemiology on the risk of serious Covid or death by vaccination status is so very important.
The paper analyses hospitalisations and deaths related to Covid in the populations of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, comparing the impact of one or two doses of vaccine with the remaining unvaccinated population. It is quite a nice paper, and unlike most other epidemiological studies to date uses the ‘Target Trial’ study design. This data analysis method attempts to calculate what results would have been found had there been a full randomised trial undertaken at the initial vaccine rollout. Because the study was based on population-wide data there are many hundreds of thousands individuals’ data in the analysis, even after attempts to match the characteristics of the vaccinated and unvaccinated. Given that there were no large-scale studies into the safety and effectiveness of the Covid vaccines when they were first given in large numbers during 2021, this type of ‘emulation’ of such a study is possibly as good an approach as we’re going to get.
The results of the analysis are, quite frankly, astounding.
The study found that the effectiveness of the vaccines at preventing hospitalisation and death maintain a level of protection for some weeks following their administration, and then go negative at around 60-80 days post-vaccination. That means within two to three months, the vaccinated experienced a higher rate of Covid hospitalisation and death than the unvaccinated.
Oxford Study Finds Negative Vaccine Effectiveness Against Covid Hospitalisation and Death
For the second time in a week, top scientists have reported that “Omicron specific” Covid mRNA boosters are a $5 billion taxpayer-financed marketing gimmick.
The new shots work no better than the original mRNA shots to produce antibodies specifically targeting the Omicron variant.
And the Omicron shots are even WORSE than the original boosters in producing T-cells that target Omicron, according to the researchers, part of a group led by Dr. Dan Barouch, a highly respected virologist. This finding is of particular concern because T-cells, the second line of the immune system, keep infections from becoming too severe.
Zero COVID means Zero iPhone
A number of workers at a Foxconn iPhone factory in Zhengzhou ran for the hills rather than submit to Foxconn's “closed loop” quarantine in place strategy to deal with the latest round of Zero COVID lockdowns in China.
CNN and MEDPAGE Today published about articles about a study that allegedly shows that people who had adverse events had a stronger antibody response. Their interpretation? Doctors should tell their patients that their adverse reaction is evidence that the vaccine is “working”.
“People who reported experiencing side effects to the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna Covid-19 vaccines such as fever, chills or muscle pain tended to have a greater antibody response following vaccination, according to new research.
Having such symptoms after vaccination is associated with greater antibody responses compared with having only pain or rash at the injection site or no symptoms at all, suggests the paper published Friday in the journal JAMA Network Open.
‘In conclusion, these findings support reframing postvaccination symptoms as signals of vaccine effectiveness and reinforce guidelines for vaccine boosters in older adults,’ the researchers – from Columbia University in New York, University of Vermont and Boston University – wrote in their paper.”
Note CNN left of “older” before “people”.
This study, and the press’s generalization of the finding to “people” prompted me to have this done. (Feel free to download this image asset and use it wherever you like (no copyright), but please link back to the source.)
Then there’s this study, that shows that having COVID-19 prior to vaccination is associated with increased risk of adverse events (#PathogenicPriming), leading the authors to conclude that perhaps vaccinating those who have natural immunity might be a bad idea:
“This study of healthcare workers demonstrated that prior COVID-19, but not Long-COVID, was associated with increased risk of AEs following BNT162b2/Pfizer vaccination, although there was no relationship with duration since COVID-19 illness.”
“Women and younger individuals were also more likely to report AEs. Our study adds to other reports supporting the wider understanding of AEs following COVID-19 vaccination , , , . Importantly, given hesitancy surrounding recently developed COVID-19 vaccines , our findings may help inform those with previous COVID-19 of increased susceptibility to certain AEs. Our study also adds weight to the question of whether a second dose of mRNA vaccine is necessary in those with previous COVID-19, assuming effective immunity is established after the first dose [1,2,8,9]. This is relevant, given that Tre-Hardy's and other studies have reported worse AEs following second doses of vaccine…”
Raw RK, Kelly CA, Rees J, Wroe C, Chadwick DR. Previous COVID-19 infection, but not Long-COVID, is associated with increased adverse events following BNT162b2/Pfizer vaccination. J Infect. 2021 Sep;83(3):381-412. doi: 10.1016/j.jinf.2021.05.035. Epub 2021 May 29. PMID: 34062184; PMCID: PMC8164507.
An Army National Guard Special Forces soldier spoke out against the vaccine mandate and its negative effects on morale and recruiting.
New evidence has emerged that the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are routinely injuring the heart of all vaccine recipients, raising further questions about their safety and their role in the recent elevated levels of heart-related deaths.
The latest evidence comes in a study from Switzerland, which found elevated troponin levels – indicating heart injury – across all vaccinated people