Just the Facts, the Crown virus.

[SwampDonkey]

New randomized double blind study (people administering doses don't know if placebo or not, patients don't know either) with antidepressant fluvoxamine with Brazilian patients which were not vaccinated I believe. Administered dose early on when a confirmed case, within 7 days.

Canada, Brazil and USA involved. Research being done under the 'Together Trial' banner.

https://www.togethertrial.com

Published online here: DEFINE_ME

Dr. Campbell sums it up. Essentially shows 32% reduction in both hospitalization and death.

Antidepressant reduces hospitalisations and deaths - YouTube

[Gary_C]

For those interested in the protection of natural vs vaccine effectiveness there is a new study out which this article discusses.

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2021/10/covid-19-vaccine-gives-5-times-protection-natural-immunity-data-show°°

Here is a quote from the referenced article.

Unvaccinated at 5.5 times the risk
The researchers looked at data from nine states on 201,269 hospitalizations for COVID-like illness from Jan 1 to Sep 2, 2021. Of these, 94,264 had molecular testing for SARS-CoV-2, and 7,348 (7.8%) had lab-confirmed COVID-19. Among that group, 1,020 hospitalizations were among previously infected and unvaccinated people, and 6,328 cases were among fully vaccinated people who were not previously infected.
Lab-confirmed COVID-19 was found in 324 (5.1%) of the fully vaccinated people and in 89 (8.7%) of the unvaccinated, previously infected people.

Those numbers just don't add up nor make any sense. Looks to me like the unvaccinated, previously infected group is the place to be.

[SwampDonkey]

Gary those percentages are always confusing to us laymen. But it's in the presentation.

Smaller group of unvaccinated who were previously infected versus vaccinated who were not previously infected showed higher rate of infection (higher percentage) in the small group of unvaccinated with prev. infections. And if it is randomized you don't get to choose how many of each in the sample (from 201,000+ hospitalizations).

[doc henderson]

we have very few admits, that are not 100% covid tested prior.  so that was odd that such a small percentage of covid admits tested +.  I can remember one that tested negative, but the x-ray was spot on covid and her husband was +.  so she needed admitted for what ever what causing her shortness of breath and hypoxia.  she also needed a bypass and valve replacement that had to wait due to the dx.  88y/o.

[SwampDonkey]

Depending on what test was used, they could be false results until they use a proper molecular test. That's why up here those kinds of tests are considered unreliable and invalid to enter Canada.

[SwampDonkey]

Here in New Brunswick 93% with at least one dose, 85% fully vaccinated. We have 23 in hospital and 513 active cases.

[Ianab]

Those numbers just don't add up nor make any sense. Looks to me like the unvaccinated, previously infected group is the place to be.

When you look at the % of cases that are recovered vs vaccinated, that's a % of the new infections, not of the overall population.  

So what is the % of the general population that are vaccinated vs recovered?

If 50% of the population is vaccinated, and 10% are recovered, but they have a similar number of cases, that suggests the vaccine is giving 5X better protection than a recovered infection. More cases could actually be showing up in the vaccinated folks, but there are many more of them out in population. 

Arguably the best protected might be the vaccinated and then infected with a mild case, but if you got a good reaction from the vaccine, you probably wont get infected at all. (Which would suggest the best protection possible) 

No one is saying that recovering from the virus doesn't give "some" immunity, or that the vaccine is 100% effective. But recovered people ARE catching the virus again, as are some vaccinated people. It's only the relative % that are in question. But no vaccinated person has died of Covid here in NZ, and about 80% of the cases are in the ~20% of the population that aren't vaccinated. We don't have enough recovered to get any meaningful stats for them.

[firefighter ontheside]

Are those data taking into account the unvaccinated folks who did not make it out of the hospital.  They did not live long enough to become infected again.  Even if acquired immunity were 100x more effective than that from vaccine, I would not choose to get the illness and risk death on the hope that the second time I get the illness it saves my life that I had it once before.

I believe in the findings from this study, but the writer of the article did a poor job of showing the data to support the findings.

[doctorb]

Here's the author's summation...

The authors conclude, "These findings suggest that among hospitalized adults with COVID-19–like illness whose previous infection or vaccination occurred 90–179 days earlier, vaccine-induced immunity was more protective than infection-induced immunity against laboratory-confirmed COVID-19."

[Gary_C]

Here's the author's summation...

The authors conclude, "These findings suggest that among hospitalized adults with COVID-19–like illness whose previous infection or vaccination occurred 90–179 days earlier, vaccine-induced immunity was more protective than infection-induced immunity against laboratory-confirmed COVID-19."

Yes doctorb, I read that conclusion. The problem I have with that conclusion is the facts they present in that "news story" do not support those conclusions and in fact what facts they present sorta contradict their conclusion. So I followed the link they provided back to the early release of the report as published by the CDC who apparently funded the study and report. Just for reference the authors admit they are also receiving funding from Pfizer, Merck, GlaxcoSmithKline and AstraZeneca. 

Without diving into all the gory details of the study, here is the first two sentences of one paragraph in the Discussion.
The findings in this report are subject to at least seven limitations. First, although this analysis was designed to compare two groups with different sources of immunity, patients might have been misclassified. 

If that doesn't shake your confidence in the results, here are a few things I found troubling.
1.  Nowhere in the study did they actually measure antibody levels. It was all based on the presence or absence of positive SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen or molecular assays during specified intervals.
2.  In the unvaccinated group, the largest percentage (31%) fell in the 18-49 year old age range while in the vaccinated group the largest percentage (32%) fell in the 75-84 year old age range.
3.  The test date for the unvaccinated group had the highest numbers (53%) in the April-May months while the vaccinated group had the highest numbers (75%) in the July-August months.

At this point I lost interest and confidence in the report and looked no further. 

[SwampDonkey]

Up this way for travel purpose anyway:

These tests are considered acceptable molecular tests:

• PCR - Polymerase chain reaction
• Nucleic acid test (NAT) or Nucleic acid amplification test (NAATs)
• Reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP)

These tests use methods such as a nasopharyngeal (NP) swab, nose swab, or saliva sample.
Other acceptable types of tests

• RT-PCR – reverse transcription real time PCR
• Quantitative PCR (qPCR)
• Isothermal amplification
• Droplet digital PCR or digital droplet PCR (ddPCR)
• Transcription-mediated amplification (TMA)
• RNA (Ribonucleic acid)
• Ct (cycle threshold)
• CRISPR
• Sequencing
• Next generational sequencing (NGS) or whole genome sequencing (WGS)
• Oxford Nanopore sequencing (LamPORE)
• Detection of the N gene
• Detection of Orf1a/b
• Detection of the S gene
• Detection of the E gene
• Detection of the RdRp gene

Rapid antigen tests will not be accepted.

COVID-19 testing for travellers - Travel restrictions in Canada ? Travel.gc.ca

Seems to me, if rapid antigen tests can't be used for travel, then it's pretty flaky for an experiment. :D

[doctorb]

The study's "gravitas" is based in the huge numbers of people studied.  On the downside, All large population studies have flaws, and this one is no different.  I wouldn't use if to further support or reject my current opinion.  I would just file it away as something that needs corroboration with better methods.

[Walnut Beast]

Fact is the press secretary had the covid shot that they are drilling in your head to get and she has Covid now

[Southside]

Triple jabbed, double masked, even brags about always distancing, with enough mandate virtuous signaling for one to get sunbuned in a solar eclipse.  So much for "The science".  Maybe you can catch it from the toilet seat? 

[Ianab]

Crash course in how your immune system works for anyone with a spare 1/2 hour. 
Warning - Even the simplified version is not simple...  :-\ :P

How The Body Reacts To Viruses - HMX | Harvard Medical School

But it goes into how we have "Innate" immunity, which is defences that work against ANY random intruder. This would explain how some people are exposed to the Covid Virus, but it doesn't gain a foothold in their body. 

Then we have B-Cell system, that recognises specific intruders, and produces different types of antibodies to bind to them up and have them destroyed (by other "innate"  immune system cells) 

Then there are the different T Cells, which are basically "on standby" to activate for a specific protein marker. These exist in millions of different combinations, so there will be at least one that's able to activate. When that cell gets "turned on", it multiplies itself, and sets out to destroy infected body cells (before they can replicate and release new viral particles). There are also different T Cell functions. Some work with the B-Cells to produce more anti-bodies etc. And there are long lived "Memory T Cells" that hang around after the infection is cleared up. So those are waiting to kick back into action if a re-infection occurs later. 


But when you look at how complex the system is, (even the simplified version), and consider how each persons individual immune system is going to respond in a slightly different way, you can see how it's difficult to measure immunity with something like a blood test. Anti-body levels alone aren't a good measure. There are people that have recovered from Covid, without producing the "normal" antibody, because their immune system triggered on a completely different part of the virus, and so produced a completely different (but effective enough) antibody. And how it's difficult to predict how long either natural or vaccine immunity might last. Antibodies might have been flushed from the system, but "some" Memory T Cells remain, on standby to make more? How effectively?

[Paul_H]

But when you look at how complex the system is, (even the simplified version), and consider how each persons individual immune system is going to respond in a slightly different way, you can see how it's difficult to measure immunity with something like a blood test.

That's true and most likely why the Vaccine(an idea so good it's mandatory) causes some to have mild symptoms like a sore arm and others anaphylaxis, myocarditis in young people, Guillain-Barre and like the two guys I knew here in our little town, death. Maybe one size doesn't fit all?

[SwampDonkey]

Fact is the press secretary had the covid shot that they are drilling in your head to get and she has Covid now

She has mild symptoms by the way. Why is it that some people think the jab prevents infection? It lowers the probability of severe disease, that is all. That's the only line I have heard up here. But one thing they did get wrong, was thinking you couldn't spread it after fully immunized. And that was even after many of the top doctors said was probably not likely, but we need to wait and see.

One size doesn't fit all, even the kids get smaller doses. But sever side effects have been rare and some caused by injection technique, which is part of the demonstration going on this month in DC. We are letting people not fully trained, jab us. Lots of evidence of this from Dr. Campbell who receives daily testimony on video from folks who got improper jabs. The last testimony I seen was when the patient asks the person if she knows what aspiration is. "Yeah, that's when you inject water in first?" A response in the form of a question is the first bad sign, besides being wrong. :

[Ianab]

She has mild symptoms by the way. Why is it that some people think the jab prevents infection? It lowers the probability of severe disease, that is all.

From local numbers it DOES seem to reduce infections, AND if they break though, the symptoms are less severe. 

The vaccine isn't 100% effective at stopping infection, more like 80%?
But of the breakthrough cases, they are much less severe.  

Either way, many less dead people. 

[SwampDonkey]

The only numbers you see is from test results from contact tracing, travel and symptoms. You don't see all the numbers of infections in the vaccinated because it's a wild guesstimate with the asymptomatic. Testing is prioritized. It's well known already you can carry the virus and not be sick at all. Expel the virus and spread it around in a building of people coming and going or close crowd. The virus will be with us for some time.

[Peter Drouin]

I don't know about all the facts. I know my arm from last March 2 shots is still sore. When the needle came out, the #2 time blood shot out at the guy giving the shot 3' away and hit him. :

[Paul_H]

She has mild symptoms by the way. Why is it that some people think the jab prevents infection?

Well the answer to your question is because that's how they rolled it out 8 months ago however as time marched on they changed those claims.When I get home tonight I can post CNN's timeline on reporting those CDC's claims.
Now in our area many have been infected and the majority have been mild flu like symptoms and some more severe. Several families close to us have had it and all had declined the gene therapy with the same outcome both young and elderly. These families live healthy lifestyles and eating habits.
The only two deaths I know of personally have been within hours of the shot so I can only speak of what I see

[HemlockKing]

Here’s a “crown fact”, these restrictions and regulations and documenting of peoples movements will never go away, the cats out of the bag, have made a massive “pandemic/crisis” out of a virus little more harmful than the common cold, and they have everyone thinking the means justify the actions(loss of liberty). A lot of people judge folks who don’t want the vaccine, but here I am, still no covid, still finer than ever, still haven’t even known anyone around here that has had this virus, and they have it dividing us, have us fighting over scraps and stupid “problems” while we get robbed through modern day slavery.  

Here’s a idea; everyone who has been worried of catching covid has had the opportunity to get the vaccine, the people who don’t want it don’t need to get it, the people who do get it but are still frantically scared…can stay in the safety of their home being frantically scared…while the rest of us don’t need to live a alternate lifestyle for these people.

I’ve said my piece, what’s fun is, sitting back and watching people keep making up excuses for all this madness, I’m thinking “what excuse next?”  IMO nothing should override liberty, if you’re scared of the virus then go hide in your basement as this is supposedly a free nation and you are allowed to do so.

And I can understand what paul is saying, they did sell it as “everything back to normal, just need the jabs”, then after the fact came out and told us we can get infected anyway, so if you can get infected anyway, why are some people afraid of unvaccinated people?

Someone’s making billions anyway

[doctorb]

My humble opinion is that this thread has moved away from "just the facts".

[Southside]

The facts have become more clear as time moved on.

[Gary_C]

Or we are having trouble discerning the difference between facts and fiction. This "information age" does have flaws.