Senator Johnson Expert Panel on Federal Vaccine Mandates and Vaccine Injuries
Senator Johnson Expert Panel on Federal Vaccine Mandates and Vaccine Injuries
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lepqvdXoA2E
视频中部分发言人名单。 Linda Wastila，BSPharm, MSPH, PhD, 马里兰大学， Director of Research, The Peter Lamy Center on Drug Therapy and Aging Parke-Davis Chair in Geriatric Pharmacotherapy。https://www.pharmacy.umaryland.edu/centers/lamy/our-team/ 反对强制。 Lieutenant Colonel Theresa Long，军医，非常推荐看，很多信息量。疫苗对军人的伤害大于covid的伤害。 1.07.41开始是这个教授Robert Kaplan https://profiles.stanford.edu/robert-kaplan 1:19 Peter Doshi是一月份就在质疑辉瑞数据不对的人。https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/01/04/peter-doshi-pfizer-and-modernas-95-effective-vaccines-we-need-more-details-and-the-raw-data/ 指出这个９５％有效性根本就是胡扯。 讲的特别好，everybody knows, this is a pandemic of the unvaccinated -- but if it is the case that hospitals are full of unvaccinated, why would we need the booster shot? Everybody knows that covid vaccines save lives --- placebo group 14, vaccine group 15. even covid death, placebo group 2, vaccine group 1. CDC 修改了疫苗的定义：definition of vaccine 1:36 儿科医生John Whelan from UCLA. 去年就给FDA写信说这个刺突蛋白不能用来做疫苗。https://www.uclahealth.org/providers/john-whelan 1:41 UCSF Aditi Bhargava @UCSF, https://cancer.ucsf.edu/people/bhargava.aditi CDC自己的数据，现在已经９０％人有抗体了 1:48 Prof. Retsef Levi, from MIT. https://mitsloan.mit.edu/faculty/directory/retsef-levi 他说很多学术界的人，都觉得现在的narrative extreme and wrong，但是不敢发言。他说一个MIT的院士说: you got to be careful, as you could be eliminated (指他提出对目前疫苗的质疑) Joel Wallskog, MD，外科医生。Numbness after Moderna 1st shot, 外科医生的职业基本over。 Shaun Barcavage, 护士，numbness and tickling, 第一针就有问题，看了一个神经科医生，医生说可能等等就好了，还让他去打第二针，第二针之后爆发，现在不能站立多于5分钟，手脚如针扎一般。Pain 7 out of 10. 找不到医生给与治疗。在社交媒体上求助，被label anti-vaxer. Aaron Siri, https://www.sirillp.com/aaron-siri/ 律师。说自从COVID疫苗推出之后，他们的电话被打爆。３个共性，疫苗不良反应病人，哪怕自己是医生，去寻求医疗帮助，往往得到的回应是不相信他们的病，并让他们去看看精神是否有问题。医生汇报到ＶＡＥＲＳ，没有人回应，给CDC, FDA写信，没有回应，律师又写信去（信在下面），FDA/CDC回复说我们没有看到safety signal, everything is fine, nothing to see here. https://aaronsiri.substack.com/p/whistleblower-fda-and-cdc-ignore 这里是一些其他的病人。 Suzanna Newell, 打疫苗前，热爱运动，铁人三项。现在需要walker，自免疫疾病。 Kellai Ann Rodriguez, 35岁，需要walker，未知的颤抖，神经问题。 Doug Cameron, 疫苗后瘫痪。 Kyle Warner, 29岁山地自行车运动员，两次拿到世界冠军，心肌炎，运动生涯已经结束。 Ernest Ramirez, 单亲爸爸，儿子疫苗后心肌炎死亡，他说My government lied to me. Cody Flint，飞行员，疫苗后脑水肿，飞行中突然犯病，好在成功降落，经历了开颅手术和其他一系列大手术。
Senator Johnson Expert Panel on Federal Vaccine Mandates and Vaccine Injuries
Senator Johnson Expert Panel on Federal Vaccine Mandates and Vaccine Injuries
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lepqvdXoA2E
视频中部分发言人名单。 Linda Wastila，BSPharm, MSPH, PhD, 马里兰大学， Director of Research, The Peter Lamy Center on Drug Therapy and Aging Parke-Davis Chair in Geriatric Pharmacotherapy。https://www.pharmacy.umaryland.edu/centers/lamy/our-team/ 反对强制。 Lieutenant Colonel Theresa Long，军医，非常推荐看，很多信息量。疫苗对军人的伤害大于covid的伤害。 1.07.41开始是这个教授Robert Kaplan https://profiles.stanford.edu/robert-kaplan 1:19 Peter Doshi是一月份就在质疑辉瑞数据不对的人。https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/01/04/peter-doshi-pfizer-and-modernas-95-effective-vaccines-we-need-more-details-and-the-raw-data/ 指出这个９５％有效性根本就是胡扯。 讲的特别好，everybody knows, this is a pandemic of the unvaccinated -- but if it is the case that hospitals are full of unvaccinated, why would we need the booster shot? Everybody knows that covid vaccines save lives --- placebo group 14, vaccine group 15. even covid death, placebo group 2, vaccine group 1. CDC 修改了疫苗的定义：definition of vaccine 1:36 儿科医生John Whelan from UCLA. 去年就给FDA写信说这个刺突蛋白不能用来做疫苗。https://www.uclahealth.org/providers/john-whelan 1:41 UCSF Aditi Bhargava @UCSF, https://cancer.ucsf.edu/people/bhargava.aditi CDC自己的数据，现在已经９０％人有抗体了 1:48 Prof. Retsef Levi, from MIT. https://mitsloan.mit.edu/faculty/directory/retsef-levi 他说很多学术界的人，都觉得现在的narrative extreme and wrong，但是不敢发言。他说一个MIT的院士说: you got to be careful, as you could be eliminated (指他提出对目前疫苗的质疑) Joel Wallskog, MD，外科医生。Numbness after Moderna 1st shot, 外科医生的职业基本over。 Shaun Barcavage, 护士，numbness and tickling, 第一针就有问题，看了一个神经科医生，医生说可能等等就好了，还让他去打第二针，第二针之后爆发，现在不能站立多于5分钟，手脚如针扎一般。Pain 7 out of 10. 找不到医生给与治疗。在社交媒体上求助，被label anti-vaxer. Aaron Siri, https://www.sirillp.com/aaron-siri/ 律师。说自从COVID疫苗推出之后，他们的电话被打爆。３个共性，疫苗不良反应病人，哪怕自己是医生，去寻求医疗帮助，往往得到的回应是不相信他们的病，并让他们去看看精神是否有问题。医生汇报到ＶＡＥＲＳ，没有人回应，给CDC, FDA写信，没有回应，律师又写信去（信在下面），FDA/CDC回复说我们没有看到safety signal, everything is fine, nothing to see here. https://aaronsiri.substack.com/p/whistleblower-fda-and-cdc-ignore 这里是一些其他的病人。 Suzanna Newell, 打疫苗前，热爱运动，铁人三项。现在需要walker，自免疫疾病。 Kellai Ann Rodriguez, 35岁，需要walker，未知的颤抖，神经问题。 Doug Cameron, 疫苗后瘫痪。 Kyle Warner, 29岁山地自行车运动员，两次拿到世界冠军，心肌炎，运动生涯已经结束。 Ernest Ramirez, 单亲爸爸，儿子疫苗后心肌炎死亡，他说My government lied to me. Cody Flint，飞行员，疫苗后脑水肿，飞行中突然犯病，好在成功降落，经历了开颅手术和其他一系列大手术。
你我对面不相识 发表于 2021-11-08 14:09
“CDC 修改了疫苗的定义：definition of vaccine 1:36 儿科医生John Whelan from UCLA. 去年就给FDA写信说这个刺突蛋白不能用来做疫苗。https://www.uclahealth.org/providers/john-whelan” 儿科医生John Whelan from UCLA. 去年给FDA的信： https://www.regulations.gov/document/FDA-2020-N-1898-0246 跟我想的一样，这个刺突蛋白是covid病毒危害的关键，也是所有刺突蛋白based疫苗毒性的关键
Senator Johnson Expert Panel on Federal Vaccine Mandates and Vaccine Injuries
Senator Johnson Expert Panel on Federal Vaccine Mandates and Vaccine Injuries
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lepqvdXoA2E
视频中部分发言人名单。 Linda Wastila，BSPharm, MSPH, PhD, 马里兰大学， Director of Research, The Peter Lamy Center on Drug Therapy and Aging Parke-Davis Chair in Geriatric Pharmacotherapy。https://www.pharmacy.umaryland.edu/centers/lamy/our-team/ 反对强制。 Lieutenant Colonel Theresa Long，军医，非常推荐看，很多信息量。疫苗对军人的伤害大于covid的伤害。 1.07.41开始是这个教授Robert Kaplan https://profiles.stanford.edu/robert-kaplan 1:19 Peter Doshi是一月份就在质疑辉瑞数据不对的人。https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/01/04/peter-doshi-pfizer-and-modernas-95-effective-vaccines-we-need-more-details-and-the-raw-data/ 指出这个９５％有效性根本就是胡扯。 讲的特别好，everybody knows, this is a pandemic of the unvaccinated -- but if it is the case that hospitals are full of unvaccinated, why would we need the booster shot? Everybody knows that covid vaccines save lives --- placebo group 14, vaccine group 15. even covid death, placebo group 2, vaccine group 1. CDC 修改了疫苗的定义：definition of vaccine 1:36 儿科医生John Whelan from UCLA. 去年就给FDA写信说这个刺突蛋白不能用来做疫苗。https://www.uclahealth.org/providers/john-whelan 1:41 UCSF Aditi Bhargava @UCSF, https://cancer.ucsf.edu/people/bhargava.aditi CDC自己的数据，现在已经９０％人有抗体了 1:48 Prof. Retsef Levi, from MIT. https://mitsloan.mit.edu/faculty/directory/retsef-levi 他说很多学术界的人，都觉得现在的narrative extreme and wrong，但是不敢发言。他说一个MIT的院士说: you got to be careful, as you could be eliminated (指他提出对目前疫苗的质疑) Joel Wallskog, MD，外科医生。Numbness after Moderna 1st shot, 外科医生的职业基本over。 Shaun Barcavage, 护士，numbness and tickling, 第一针就有问题，看了一个神经科医生，医生说可能等等就好了，还让他去打第二针，第二针之后爆发，现在不能站立多于5分钟，手脚如针扎一般。Pain 7 out of 10. 找不到医生给与治疗。在社交媒体上求助，被label anti-vaxer. Aaron Siri, https://www.sirillp.com/aaron-siri/ 律师。说自从COVID疫苗推出之后，他们的电话被打爆。３个共性，疫苗不良反应病人，哪怕自己是医生，去寻求医疗帮助，往往得到的回应是不相信他们的病，并让他们去看看精神是否有问题。医生汇报到ＶＡＥＲＳ，没有人回应，给CDC, FDA写信，没有回应，律师又写信去（信在下面），FDA/CDC回复说我们没有看到safety signal, everything is fine, nothing to see here. https://aaronsiri.substack.com/p/whistleblower-fda-and-cdc-ignore 这里是一些其他的病人。 Suzanna Newell, 打疫苗前，热爱运动，铁人三项。现在需要walker，自免疫疾病。 Kellai Ann Rodriguez, 35岁，需要walker，未知的颤抖，神经问题。 Doug Cameron, 疫苗后瘫痪。 Kyle Warner, 29岁山地自行车运动员，两次拿到世界冠军，心肌炎，运动生涯已经结束。 Ernest Ramirez, 单亲爸爸，儿子疫苗后心肌炎死亡，他说My government lied to me. Cody Flint，飞行员，疫苗后脑水肿，飞行中突然犯病，好在成功降落，经历了开颅手术和其他一系列大手术。
Senator Johnson Expert Panel on Federal Vaccine Mandates and Vaccine Injuries204,597 viewsNov 2, 2021 At today's Senate Health Committee hearing, Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) asked CDC Director Rochelle Walensky about her department's vaccination rates.
回复 422楼yueceiling的帖子 12岁到17岁 得新冠后得心肌炎的概率 比打疫苗得心肌炎概率高数倍 https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg25133462-800-myocarditis-is-more-common-after-covid-19-infection-than-vaccination/ Myocarditis is more common after covid-19 infection than vaccination males aged 12 to 17 were most likely to develop myocarditis within three months of catching covid-19, at a rate of about 450 cases per million infections. This compares with 67 cases of myocarditis per million males of the same age following their second dose of a Pfizer/BioNTech or Moderna vaccine, according to figures from the US Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.
回复 422楼yueceiling的帖子 12岁到17岁 得新冠后得心肌炎的概率 比打疫苗得心肌炎概率高数倍 https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg25133462-800-myocarditis-is-more-common-after-covid-19-infection-than-vaccination/ Myocarditis is more common after covid-19 infection than vaccination males aged 12 to 17 were most likely to develop myocarditis within three months of catching covid-19, at a rate of about 450 cases per million infections. This compares with 67 cases of myocarditis per million males of the same age following their second dose of a Pfizer/BioNTech or Moderna vaccine, according to figures from the US Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.
楼主号称自己很好的专业背景， 但是至少对第一篇文章的理解就很有问题。 不想花太多时间废话。 但建议版上真的英文阅读还可以的还是自己去读读这篇短小的针对Anika Singanayagam新文章的review。文章建议Higher vaccination coverage rates need to be achieved because indirect protection from vaccinated to unvaccinated people remains suboptimal。简单地说，就是疫苗只减轻症状不阻断传播， 谁打疫苗疫苗保护谁， 别指望别人都打了， 没打疫苗的就不会被传染。 COVID-19 vaccines that have obtained WHO emergency use listing appear to have high efficacy against severe disease and death, but lower efficacy against non-severe infections, and emerging evidence suggests that protection against non-severe disease declines faster following vaccination than that against severe disease and death. What is less clear is whether vaccination not only directly protects individuals but reduces the risk of infection among the contacts of vaccinated people, particularly with respect to the now dominant delta variant. Before the emergence of the delta variant, it was reported that after at least one dose of the mRNA vaccine by Pfizer or the adenoviral vector vaccine by Astra Zeneca, the risk of symptomatic cases in household contacts of vaccinated cases was about 50% lower than that among household contacts of unvaccinated cases.1 [ 链接：www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00690-3/fulltext#bib1 ] The now globally dominant delta variant is more transmissible2 [ 链接：www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00690-3/fulltext#bib2 ] and associated with reduced vaccine effectiveness, particularly against mild breakthrough infections, whereas protection against severe disease is not greatly reduced.3 [ 链接：www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00690-3/fulltext#bib3 ] Data are lacking on whether the effect of vaccination on transmission is lower for the delta variant and new insights on this are provided by a study done in the UK when the delta variant was the predominant strain, reported in The Lancet Infectious Diseases.4 [ 链接：www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00690-3/fulltext#bib4 ] • View related content for this article [ 链接：www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00690-3/fulltext#coronavirus-linkback-header ] Anika Singanayagam and colleagues did a carefully designed cohort study whereby 602 community contacts (household and non-household) identified via the UK contact tracing system and 471 COVID-19 index cases were enrolled through the Assessment of Transmission and Contagiousness of COVID-19 in Contacts (ATACCC) study. These participants contributed 8145 upper respiratory tract samples for up to 20 days, regardless of symptoms. The study had two study arms, with the first group enrolling contacts only, and the second group enrolling both index and contact cases at a time when the delta variant was predominant. What is unique about this study is that both vaccinated and unvaccinated contacts were included, thereby allowing for stratified analyses by vaccination status, both for the index cases and the contacts. To address the primary study outcome to establish the secondary attack rates (SARs) in household contacts, the vaccination statuses for 232 contacts exposed to 162 epidemiologically linked delta-variant-infected index cases were analysed. The SARs in household contacts exposed to the delta variant was 25% in vaccinated and 38% in unvaccinated contacts. These results underpin the key message that vaccinated contacts are better protected than the unvaccinated. All breakthrough infections were mild, and no hospitalisations and deaths were observed. But these results also highlight that breakthrough infections continue to occur in the vaccinated, with an attack rate of 25%. Time since vaccination in fully vaccination contacts was longer for those infected than those uninfected, suggesting that waning of protection might have occurred over time, although teasing out general waning versus reduced vaccine effectiveness due to delta is challenging owing to so many confounding factors. SAR among household contacts exposed to fully vaccinated index cases (25%; 95% CI 15–35) was similar to household contacts exposed to unvaccinated index cases (23%; 15–31). Obviously, infection might also have occurred beyond the household level with unknown exposure in the community. Indeed, genomic and virological analysis confirmed only three index-contact pairs. Owing to the small sample size, the authors were not able to establish the vaccine effectiveness against asymptomatic infections versus symptomatic infections. This limitation together with the unconfirmed source of transmission in many of these index-contact pairs, suggests that the low SAR reported here should be interpreted with caution. Nevertheless, the findings raise concern that the effect of vaccination on reducing transmission might be lower for the delta variant compared with the variants that circulated in the UK before the emergence of delta. Infectiousness of breakthrough infections can be measured by viral densities. Higher SARS-CoV-2 viral density in the upper airways of people infected with the virus are thought to increase transmission to household members.5 [ 链接：www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00690-3/fulltext# ], 6 [ 链接：www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00690-3/fulltext# ] If vaccines reduce viral density in those who do become infected despite vaccination, it would probably lead to lower infectiousness and less onward transmission. Hence, the authors compared the viral kinetics in breakthrough delta variant infections in vaccinated people with delta variant infections in unvaccinated people. They report that peak viral loads showed a faster decline in vaccinated compared with unvaccinated people, although peak viral loads were similar for unvaccinated and vaccinated people. Although preventing severe disease and deaths remains the primary public health goal in the acute phase of the pandemic, and is still being achieved by available COVID-19 vaccines despite the emergence of the delta variant, addressing SARS-CoV-2 transmission is a crucial additional consideration. Reducing transmission is necessary to reduce virus circulation, reach herd immunity and end this tragic pandemic. This study confirms that COVID-19 vaccination reduces the risk of delta variant infection and also accelerates viral clearance in the context of the delta variant. However, this study unfortunately also highlights that the vaccine effect on reducing transmission is minimal in the context of delta variant circulation. These findings have immediate public health implications. Higher vaccination coverage rates need to be achieved because indirect protection from vaccinated to unvaccinated people remains suboptimal. The question of whether booster doses will improve the impact on transmission should be addressed as a top priority.7 [ 链接：www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00690-3/fulltext#bib7 ] Research efforts should be directed towards enhancing existing vaccines or developing new vaccines that also protect against asymptomatic infections and onward transmission. Until we have such vaccines, public health and social measures will still need to be tailored towards mitigating community and household transmission in order to keep the pandemic at bay. AWS is a member of The Lancet Commission on COVID-19, and a consultant to WHO. The author alone is responsible for the views expressed here and they do not necessarily represent the decisions, policies, or views of The Lancet Commission or WHO. I declare no competing interests.
楼主号称自己很好的专业背景， 但是至少对第一篇文章的理解就很有问题。 不想花太多时间废话。 但建议版上真的英文阅读还可以的还是自己去读读这篇短小的针对Anika Singanayagam新文章的review。文章建议Higher vaccination coverage rates need to be achieved because indirect protection from vaccinated to unvaccinated people remains suboptimal。简单地说，就是疫苗只减轻症状不阻断传播， 谁打疫苗疫苗保护谁， 别指望别人都打了， 没打疫苗的就不会被传染。 COVID-19 vaccines that have obtained WHO emergency use listing appear to have high efficacy against severe disease and death, but lower efficacy against non-severe infections, and emerging evidence suggests that protection against non-severe disease declines faster following vaccination than that against severe disease and death. What is less clear is whether vaccination not only directly protects individuals but reduces the risk of infection among the contacts of vaccinated people, particularly with respect to the now dominant delta variant. Before the emergence of the delta variant, it was reported that after at least one dose of the mRNA vaccine by Pfizer or the adenoviral vector vaccine by Astra Zeneca, the risk of symptomatic cases in household contacts of vaccinated cases was about 50% lower than that among household contacts of unvaccinated cases.1 [ 链接：www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00690-3/fulltext#bib1 ] The now globally dominant delta variant is more transmissible2 [ 链接：www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00690-3/fulltext#bib2 ] and associated with reduced vaccine effectiveness, particularly against mild breakthrough infections, whereas protection against severe disease is not greatly reduced.3 [ 链接：www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00690-3/fulltext#bib3 ] Data are lacking on whether the effect of vaccination on transmission is lower for the delta variant and new insights on this are provided by a study done in the UK when the delta variant was the predominant strain, reported in The Lancet Infectious Diseases.4 [ 链接：www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00690-3/fulltext#bib4 ] • View related content for this article [ 链接：www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00690-3/fulltext#coronavirus-linkback-header ] Anika Singanayagam and colleagues did a carefully designed cohort study whereby 602 community contacts (household and non-household) identified via the UK contact tracing system and 471 COVID-19 index cases were enrolled through the Assessment of Transmission and Contagiousness of COVID-19 in Contacts (ATACCC) study. These participants contributed 8145 upper respiratory tract samples for up to 20 days, regardless of symptoms. The study had two study arms, with the first group enrolling contacts only, and the second group enrolling both index and contact cases at a time when the delta variant was predominant. What is unique about this study is that both vaccinated and unvaccinated contacts were included, thereby allowing for stratified analyses by vaccination status, both for the index cases and the contacts. To address the primary study outcome to establish the secondary attack rates (SARs) in household contacts, the vaccination statuses for 232 contacts exposed to 162 epidemiologically linked delta-variant-infected index cases were analysed. The SARs in household contacts exposed to the delta variant was 25% in vaccinated and 38% in unvaccinated contacts. These results underpin the key message that vaccinated contacts are better protected than the unvaccinated. All breakthrough infections were mild, and no hospitalisations and deaths were observed. But these results also highlight that breakthrough infections continue to occur in the vaccinated, with an attack rate of 25%. Time since vaccination in fully vaccination contacts was longer for those infected than those uninfected, suggesting that waning of protection might have occurred over time, although teasing out general waning versus reduced vaccine effectiveness due to delta is challenging owing to so many confounding factors. SAR among household contacts exposed to fully vaccinated index cases (25%; 95% CI 15–35) was similar to household contacts exposed to unvaccinated index cases (23%; 15–31). Obviously, infection might also have occurred beyond the household level with unknown exposure in the community. Indeed, genomic and virological analysis confirmed only three index-contact pairs. Owing to the small sample size, the authors were not able to establish the vaccine effectiveness against asymptomatic infections versus symptomatic infections. This limitation together with the unconfirmed source of transmission in many of these index-contact pairs, suggests that the low SAR reported here should be interpreted with caution. Nevertheless, the findings raise concern that the effect of vaccination on reducing transmission might be lower for the delta variant compared with the variants that circulated in the UK before the emergence of delta. Infectiousness of breakthrough infections can be measured by viral densities. Higher SARS-CoV-2 viral density in the upper airways of people infected with the virus are thought to increase transmission to household members.5 [ 链接：www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00690-3/fulltext# ], 6 [ 链接：www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00690-3/fulltext# ] If vaccines reduce viral density in those who do become infected despite vaccination, it would probably lead to lower infectiousness and less onward transmission. Hence, the authors compared the viral kinetics in breakthrough delta variant infections in vaccinated people with delta variant infections in unvaccinated people. They report that peak viral loads showed a faster decline in vaccinated compared with unvaccinated people, although peak viral loads were similar for unvaccinated and vaccinated people. Although preventing severe disease and deaths remains the primary public health goal in the acute phase of the pandemic, and is still being achieved by available COVID-19 vaccines despite the emergence of the delta variant, addressing SARS-CoV-2 transmission is a crucial additional consideration. Reducing transmission is necessary to reduce virus circulation, reach herd immunity and end this tragic pandemic. This study confirms that COVID-19 vaccination reduces the risk of delta variant infection and also accelerates viral clearance in the context of the delta variant. However, this study unfortunately also highlights that the vaccine effect on reducing transmission is minimal in the context of delta variant circulation. These findings have immediate public health implications. Higher vaccination coverage rates need to be achieved because indirect protection from vaccinated to unvaccinated people remains suboptimal. The question of whether booster doses will improve the impact on transmission should be addressed as a top priority.7 [ 链接：www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00690-3/fulltext#bib7 ] Research efforts should be directed towards enhancing existing vaccines or developing new vaccines that also protect against asymptomatic infections and onward transmission. Until we have such vaccines, public health and social measures will still need to be tailored towards mitigating community and household transmission in order to keep the pandemic at bay. AWS is a member of The Lancet Commission on COVID-19, and a consultant to WHO. The author alone is responsible for the views expressed here and they do not necessarily represent the decisions, policies, or views of The Lancet Commission or WHO. I declare no competing interests. foreverf 发表于 2021-11-08 22:37
如果疫苗有效率不那么好，不阻断传染，又降低很快。为啥还要提higher coverage？什么情况下“疫苗是解决问题的唯一办法”这个假设能被falsify？不能出什么不利于疫苗的data就explain away吧？这就跟信miracle，结果没成，然后说你信的还不够坚定，是一样的。疫苗不是宗教，要看data调整对它的看法。 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10654-021-00808-7/ Increases in COVID-19 are unrelated to levels of vaccination across 68 countries and 2947 counties in the United States
如果疫苗有效率不那么好，不阻断传染，又降低很快。为啥还要提higher coverage？什么情况下“疫苗是解决问题的唯一办法”这个假设能被falsify？不能出什么不利于疫苗的data就explain away吧？这就跟信miracle，结果没成，然后说你信的还不够坚定，是一样的。疫苗不是宗教，要看data调整对它的看法。 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10654-021-00808-7/ Increases in COVID-19 are unrelated to levels of vaccination across 68 countries and 2947 counties in the United States
其实死亡数他们也可以作假，比如一个车祸死亡的人最后测出新冠结果被算成新冠死亡。这年头，没有不可能的事。
她真是脸皮赛城墙啊，她知道连国会都拿她没办法，就敢面对国会面对付她工资的国民骗你没商量 上个CDC的头至少比较sincere，像个科学家
如果大家都不mandate口罩，很不可能还有什么mandate口罩的学校了，大家一心一意要back to normal，打疫苗的附加值就是这个大饼，再提口罩老美不干了。
这个不算作假，只是个统计口径的问题，而且不是专门为新冠搞得，2010年就开始了，叫flu burden，统计当年流行病造成的相关超量死亡，比如如果用这个模型，武汉封城的时候跳楼死的也算到这里。
就是这么算的啊 所以我早就不看数据了 全是garbage.
关键在对比打了和没打的死亡率的时候要一致 不能再算unvaccinated 死亡的时候 把车祸死是测试阳性的算在unvaccinated 头上 然后一转脸在算vaccined死亡那就怎么都跟疫苗无关 这还比个屁啊
Senator Johnson Expert Panel on Federal Vaccine Mandates and Vaccine Injuries
CDC 修改了疫苗的定义：definition of vaccine 1:36 儿科医生John Whelan from UCLA. 去年就给FDA写信说这个刺突蛋白不能用来做疫苗。https://www.uclahealth.org/providers/john-whelan 1:41 UCSF Aditi Bhargava @UCSF, https://cancer.ucsf.edu/people/bhargava.aditi CDC自己的数据，现在已经９０％人有抗体了
1:48 Prof. Retsef Levi, from MIT. https://mitsloan.mit.edu/faculty/directory/retsef-levi 他说很多学术界的人，都觉得现在的narrative extreme and wrong，但是不敢发言。他说一个MIT的院士说: you got to be careful, as you could be eliminated (指他提出对目前疫苗的质疑) Joel Wallskog, MD，外科医生。Numbness after Moderna 1st shot, 外科医生的职业基本over。 Shaun Barcavage, 护士，numbness and tickling, 第一针就有问题，看了一个神经科医生，医生说可能等等就好了，还让他去打第二针，第二针之后爆发，现在不能站立多于5分钟，手脚如针扎一般。Pain 7 out of 10. 找不到医生给与治疗。在社交媒体上求助，被label anti-vaxer. Aaron Siri, https://www.sirillp.com/aaron-siri/ 律师。说自从COVID疫苗推出之后，他们的电话被打爆。３个共性，疫苗不良反应病人，哪怕自己是医生，去寻求医疗帮助，往往得到的回应是不相信他们的病，并让他们去看看精神是否有问题。医生汇报到ＶＡＥＲＳ，没有人回应，给CDC, FDA写信，没有回应，律师又写信去（信在下面），FDA/CDC回复说我们没有看到safety signal, everything is fine, nothing to see here. https://aaronsiri.substack.com/p/whistleblower-fda-and-cdc-ignore
这里是一些其他的病人。 Suzanna Newell, 打疫苗前，热爱运动，铁人三项。现在需要walker，自免疫疾病。 Kellai Ann Rodriguez, 35岁，需要walker，未知的颤抖，神经问题。 Doug Cameron, 疫苗后瘫痪。 Kyle Warner, 29岁山地自行车运动员，两次拿到世界冠军，心肌炎，运动生涯已经结束。 Ernest Ramirez, 单亲爸爸，儿子疫苗后心肌炎死亡，他说My government lied to me. Cody Flint，飞行员，疫苗后脑水肿，飞行中突然犯病，好在成功降落，经历了开颅手术和其他一系列大手术。
是不是好的决定，现在说太早了。以后再看吧。
这两个统计不一回事，目的都不一样
可是通常被放在一起比啊
话糙理不糙
你怎么知道这个统计不一样？我理解美国新冠死亡是新冠是病人诊断之一就算，但是车祸不可能算在新冠死亡里，不管是有没有打疫苗 这个统计方法在有没有打疫苗的人群都是一样的。
两回事
一个是疫苗有没有作用
一个是疫苗有没有害处
打完针几天就出问题的，哪怕不算在疫苗无效的统计里面，起码可以仔细看看是不是疫苗造成的危害
“CDC 修改了疫苗的定义：definition of vaccine 1:36 儿科医生John Whelan from UCLA. 去年就给FDA写信说这个刺突蛋白不能用来做疫苗。https://www.uclahealth.org/providers/john-whelan”
儿科医生John Whelan from UCLA. 去年给FDA的信： https://www.regulations.gov/document/FDA-2020-N-1898-0246
跟我想的一样，这个刺突蛋白是covid病毒危害的关键，也是所有刺突蛋白based疫苗毒性的关键
这是多早以前的了。联邦政府雇员mandate 疫苗了，11月底之前要完成接种，所以cdc员工现在接近100%打了疫苗了。
Mark
Senator Johnson Expert Panel on Federal Vaccine Mandates and Vaccine Injuries204,597 viewsNov 2, 2021
At today's Senate Health Committee hearing, Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) asked CDC Director Rochelle Walensky about her department's vaccination rates.
你哪儿看出来是很早以前的了？ 瞎话张开就来吗
他们即使有也不会告诉你，即使告诉你也不知真假。普通人如何根据数据做决定？所以干脆不看数据，只看这件事儿的逻辑就很简单了。
就是前几天的，另一个议员又问她，还问道如果11/8她还不知道，怎么马上执行biden的疫苗mandate？还是不说，打死也不说，就是藐视议会，藐视民主权力啊，lol
系统提示：若遇到视频无法播放请点击下方链接
https://www.youtube.com/embed/JGOTYtDD6lc?showinfo=0
我今天狗了一下心肌炎。
永久性心肌炎平均存活期是5年，好的11年，这比癌症都吓人。这都什么父母，争着抢着带孩子去打？本来小孩得新冠的后果和普通流感也差不了多少。
投胎是门艺术。
上次有个新闻，说一个儿童重症住院，最后好像没了，新闻说是一个健康儿童，可是照片上好像不大健康，过于重了一些。。。
如果要强制第三针也还没反抗的话，那美国人民真是听话的小绵羊，叫干啥就干啥，有人还总说中国国内都是顺民，美国也不差嘛
父母的脑子决定娃的生死存亡，父母的眼界决定娃的起点
12岁到17岁 得新冠后得心肌炎的概率 比打疫苗得心肌炎概率高数倍
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg25133462-800-myocarditis-is-more-common-after-covid-19-infection-than-vaccination/
Myocarditis is more common after covid-19 infection than vaccination
males aged 12 to 17 were most likely to develop myocarditis within three months of catching covid-19, at a rate of about 450 cases per million infections.
This compares with 67 cases of myocarditis per million males of the same age following their second dose of a Pfizer/BioNTech or Moderna vaccine, according to figures from the US Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.
不是所有人都会得新馆的，不感染的话，因为新馆得心肌炎的概率就是0。打了，就是100%拿不出来了。
楼主号称自己很好的专业背景， 但是至少对第一篇文章的理解就很有问题。
不想花太多时间废话。 但建议版上真的英文阅读还可以的还是自己去读读这篇短小的针对Anika Singanayagam新文章的review。文章建议Higher vaccination coverage rates need to be achieved because indirect protection from vaccinated to unvaccinated people remains suboptimal。 简单地说，就是疫苗只减轻症状不阻断传播， 谁打疫苗疫苗保护谁， 别指望别人都打了， 没打疫苗的就不会被传染。
COVID-19 vaccines that have obtained WHO emergency use listing appear to have high efficacy against severe disease and death, but lower efficacy against non-severe infections, and emerging evidence suggests that protection against non-severe disease declines faster following vaccination than that against severe disease and death. What is less clear is whether vaccination not only directly protects individuals but reduces the risk of infection among the contacts of vaccinated people, particularly with respect to the now dominant delta variant. Before the emergence of the delta variant, it was reported that after at least one dose of the mRNA vaccine by Pfizer or the adenoviral vector vaccine by Astra Zeneca, the risk of symptomatic cases in household contacts of vaccinated cases was about 50% lower than that among household contacts of unvaccinated cases.1 [ 链接：www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00690-3/fulltext#bib1 ] The now globally dominant delta variant is more transmissible2 [ 链接：www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00690-3/fulltext#bib2 ] and associated with reduced vaccine effectiveness, particularly against mild breakthrough infections, whereas protection against severe disease is not greatly reduced.3 [ 链接：www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00690-3/fulltext#bib3 ] Data are lacking on whether the effect of vaccination on transmission is lower for the delta variant and new insights on this are provided by a study done in the UK when the delta variant was the predominant strain, reported in The Lancet Infectious Diseases.4 [ 链接：www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00690-3/fulltext#bib4 ] • View related content for this article [ 链接：www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00690-3/fulltext#coronavirus-linkback-header ] Anika Singanayagam and colleagues did a carefully designed cohort study whereby 602 community contacts (household and non-household) identified via the UK contact tracing system and 471 COVID-19 index cases were enrolled through the Assessment of Transmission and Contagiousness of COVID-19 in Contacts (ATACCC) study. These participants contributed 8145 upper respiratory tract samples for up to 20 days, regardless of symptoms. The study had two study arms, with the first group enrolling contacts only, and the second group enrolling both index and contact cases at a time when the delta variant was predominant. What is unique about this study is that both vaccinated and unvaccinated contacts were included, thereby allowing for stratified analyses by vaccination status, both for the index cases and the contacts. To address the primary study outcome to establish the secondary attack rates (SARs) in household contacts, the vaccination statuses for 232 contacts exposed to 162 epidemiologically linked delta-variant-infected index cases were analysed. The SARs in household contacts exposed to the delta variant was 25% in vaccinated and 38% in unvaccinated contacts. These results underpin the key message that vaccinated contacts are better protected than the unvaccinated. All breakthrough infections were mild, and no hospitalisations and deaths were observed. But these results also highlight that breakthrough infections continue to occur in the vaccinated, with an attack rate of 25%. Time since vaccination in fully vaccination contacts was longer for those infected than those uninfected, suggesting that waning of protection might have occurred over time, although teasing out general waning versus reduced vaccine effectiveness due to delta is challenging owing to so many confounding factors. SAR among household contacts exposed to fully vaccinated index cases (25%; 95% CI 15–35) was similar to household contacts exposed to unvaccinated index cases (23%; 15–31). Obviously, infection might also have occurred beyond the household level with unknown exposure in the community. Indeed, genomic and virological analysis confirmed only three index-contact pairs. Owing to the small sample size, the authors were not able to establish the vaccine effectiveness against asymptomatic infections versus symptomatic infections. This limitation together with the unconfirmed source of transmission in many of these index-contact pairs, suggests that the low SAR reported here should be interpreted with caution. Nevertheless, the findings raise concern that the effect of vaccination on reducing transmission might be lower for the delta variant compared with the variants that circulated in the UK before the emergence of delta. Infectiousness of breakthrough infections can be measured by viral densities. Higher SARS-CoV-2 viral density in the upper airways of people infected with the virus are thought to increase transmission to household members.5 [ 链接：www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00690-3/fulltext# ], 6 [ 链接：www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00690-3/fulltext# ] If vaccines reduce viral density in those who do become infected despite vaccination, it would probably lead to lower infectiousness and less onward transmission. Hence, the authors compared the viral kinetics in breakthrough delta variant infections in vaccinated people with delta variant infections in unvaccinated people. They report that peak viral loads showed a faster decline in vaccinated compared with unvaccinated people, although peak viral loads were similar for unvaccinated and vaccinated people. Although preventing severe disease and deaths remains the primary public health goal in the acute phase of the pandemic, and is still being achieved by available COVID-19 vaccines despite the emergence of the delta variant, addressing SARS-CoV-2 transmission is a crucial additional consideration. Reducing transmission is necessary to reduce virus circulation, reach herd immunity and end this tragic pandemic. This study confirms that COVID-19 vaccination reduces the risk of delta variant infection and also accelerates viral clearance in the context of the delta variant. However, this study unfortunately also highlights that the vaccine effect on reducing transmission is minimal in the context of delta variant circulation. These findings have immediate public health implications. Higher vaccination coverage rates need to be achieved because indirect protection from vaccinated to unvaccinated people remains suboptimal. The question of whether booster doses will improve the impact on transmission should be addressed as a top priority.7 [ 链接：www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00690-3/fulltext#bib7 ] Research efforts should be directed towards enhancing existing vaccines or developing new vaccines that also protect against asymptomatic infections and onward transmission. Until we have such vaccines, public health and social measures will still need to be tailored towards mitigating community and household transmission in order to keep the pandemic at bay. AWS is a member of The Lancet Commission on COVID-19, and a consultant to WHO. The author alone is responsible for the views expressed here and they do not necessarily represent the decisions, policies, or views of The Lancet Commission or WHO. I declare no competing interests.
现在的统一宣传口径是大家都迟早会得，没人能幸免，所以要打，防重症。而且得过了还会再得，所以要反复打。这个病毒是永远跟人类共存了😂
计算新冠心肌炎的概率似乎应该用染上的概率乘以新冠致心肌炎的概率
但是随着时间也许会有越来越多的新药或者旧药发现对新冠致心肌炎有抑制作用？
随着时间的推移肯定会有更多有效又安全的药物被承认，被推荐，同时疫苗的副作用也会更加清晰。再等半年，都会有更多信息，更好的做决定。现在打就是做赌注。
如果疫苗有效率不那么好，不阻断传染，又降低很快。为啥还要提higher coverage？什么情况下“疫苗是解决问题的唯一办法”这个假设能被falsify？不能出什么不利于疫苗的data就explain away吧？这就跟信miracle，结果没成，然后说你信的还不够坚定，是一样的。疫苗不是宗教，要看data调整对它的看法。
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10654-021-00808-7/ Increases in COVID-19 are unrelated to levels of vaccination across 68 countries and 2947 counties in the United States
1. PFIZER VAX FOR KIDS 5-11: FDA DECISION, EXPLAINE https://youtu.be/kLMYBu9cuAs The Truth About Myocarditis, Kids, Boosters, Natural Immunity, & More (w/Dr. Paul Offit) https://youtu.be/z3wJZ9zh5a8 3. BOOSTER SHOTS, KIDS & MASKS, VACCINE MANDATES & MORE (W/DR. VINAY PRASAD) https://youtu.be/Fe9boK1jKCM Vincent Racaniello: Viruses and Vaccines | Lex Fridman Podcast <iframe width="560" height="315" src=https://www.youtube.com/embed/G433fa01oMU title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Joe Rogan Interview with Dr. Sanjay Gupta <iframe src=https://open.spotify.com/embed/episode/6rAgS1KiUvLRNP4HfUePpA?utm_source=generator width="100%" height="232" frameBorder="0" allowfullscreen="" allow="autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; fullscreen; picture-in-picture"></iframe>
已经说得很清楚了。你也没交学费， 我没必要再给你讲。
同意。 其实这篇文章的研究数据和结果是很客观的 confirm 疫苗降低感染，减轻症状 highlight 疫苗不能阻隔Delta的传染 但是作者因此得出的结论就很主观了，就是： 不能指望他人打疫苗保护自己，不想得covid就得自己打疫苗。 这个作为个人层面的抉择完全可以理解，但是以此去影响policy making就不对了。
Again，每个人得covid的概率是不一样的，并且承担得covid风险的能力也是不一样的。不能Assume每个人都因为怕得covid而去选择打疫苗或者booster，因为每个人的健康顾虑是不一样的，要相信成年人能做出对自己和家人负责的决定。我不反对打疫苗，但也不反对这是individual choice。特别是Booster和儿童疫苗，都不应该强制。
其实，既然疫苗不能阻隔传染，那个群体免疫的模型也就摇摇欲坠了。
不幸的是层主的思路也被作者带着跑了
正解，我有同学心肌炎，年纪轻轻就突然走了