The Covid vaccines really do work

[Anaxagoras]

Case example: Japan

Japan was a relative latecomer to getting people vaccinated, but it finally got its act together and the rate of vaccination here has caught up to that in the US and looks like it will end up being somewhat higher than in the US. So what about the infamous Delta variant? It was reported in early September that Delta is now the most prevalent variant in Japan. Nevertheless, we've seen new infections here drop rather dramatically over the last month. It peaked at somewhere over 20,000/day in late August, but has since fallen to roughly 2,500/per day over the last 7 days (Dashboard Here). Currently the effective reproduction number is at 0.6 (even lower in Tokyo, at 0.56). Deaths have also started to come down.

So what could account for this? I suggest it's the vaccinations. Will the effect wear off? Maybe, I guess we'll have to wait and see. Maybe this post won't age very well. But for now at least, it seems to be doing what it's supposed to.

Obviously this is not a scientific analysis, just the view of a layman, but it sure does look like it's working as it should here.



Here's the view of someone more qualified than me:

No, Vaccinated People Are Not ‘Just as Likely’ to Spread the Coronavirus as Unvaccinated People

This has become a common refrain among the cautious—and it’s wrong.

By Craig Spencer

About the author: Craig Spencer is an emergency-medicine physician and director of global health in emergency medicine at New York Presbyterian/Columbia University Medical Center.

For many fully vaccinated Americans, the Delta surge spoiled what should’ve been a glorious summer. Those who had cast their masks aside months ago were asked to dust them off. Many are still taking no chances. Some have even returned to all the same precautions they took before getting their shots, including avoiding the company of other fully vaccinated people.

Among this last group, a common refrain I’ve heard to justify their renewed vigilance is that “vaccinated people are just as likely to spread the coronavirus.”

This misunderstanding, born out of confusing statements from public-health authorities and misleading media headlines, is a shame. It is resulting in unnecessary fear among vaccinated people, all the while undermining the public’s understanding of the importance—and effectiveness—of getting vaccinated.

So let me make one thing clear: Vaccinated people are not as likely to spread the coronavirus as the unvaccinated. Even in the United States, where more than half of the population is fully vaccinated, the unvaccinated are responsible for the overwhelming majority of transmission.

I understand why people are confused. In April, after months of public-health experts cautiously promoting the merits of vaccination, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky cited new real-world data of the shots’ effectiveness to jubilantly proclaim that “vaccinated people do not carry the virus.” The CDC later walked back her comment, but headlines such as “It’s Official: Vaccinated People Don’t Transmit COVID-19” had already given many the impression that in addition to their remarkable protection against infection with the coronavirus, the shots also prevented them from passing the illness on to others.

Scientists and researchers objected, warning that there weren’t enough data to support such a proclamation. Their concerns were prescient. As Delta first took hold early this summer and then quickly spread, our collective relief turned into dejection.

An outbreak in Provincetown, Massachusetts—in which 74 percent of the 469 cases were in the fully vaccinated—forced the CDC to update its mask guidance and issue a sad and sobering warning: Vaccinated people infected with the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant can be just as contagious as unvaccinated people.

In the aftermath of the Provincetown announcement, many who had gotten their shots were confused about what the news meant for them, especially when headlines seemed to imply that vaccinated individuals are as likely to contract and transmit COVID-19 as the unvaccinated. But this framing missed the single most important factor in spreading the coronavirus: To spread the coronavirus, you have to have the coronavirus. And vaccinated people are far less likely to have the coronavirus—period. If this was mentioned at all, it was treated as an afterthought.

Despite concern about waning immunity, vaccines provide the best protection against infection. And if someone isn’t infected, they can’t spread the coronavirus. It’s truly that simple. Additionally, for those instances of a vaccinated person getting a breakthrough case, yes, they can be as infectious as an unvaccinated person. But they are likely contagious for a shorter period of time when compared with the unvaccinated, and they may harbor less infectious virus overall.

The effectiveness of the vaccines was probably oversold by some, who were so eager to promote them that they "got out over their skis". Exaggerating is never a good idea, even if you think it's for a good reason. But at the same time, they really do have a protective effect. It's just not perfect.

[Anaxagoras]

Why you need to control for age when looking at vaccine statistics:

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/09 ... ation.html

[Doctor X]

Tell Strokin' Joe, he and Ginger Goebbels and Whatever Failure is running the CDC are arguing that the vaccinated are still a danger.

– J.D.

[robinson]

Why you need to control for age when looking at vaccine statistics:

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/09 ... ation.html

Very good article

[robinson]

It’s pretty obvious the risk from the mRNA injections are greater in the young than the virus

But not for the elderly

[Anaxagoras]

It’s pretty obvious the risk from the mRNA injections are greater in the young than the virus

Not sure how you reached that conclusion.

There's also additional risk to the elderly when half the country isn't vaccinated, because there are still breakthrough infections, unfortunately. The vaccines reduce the risk to the vaccinated elderly, but do not eliminate it.

The risks to the young from the vaccine are quite rare, and I seriously doubt that they exceed the risk of the virus, even for the young.

[Pyrrho]

Apparently there is controversy today about the Johnson & Johnson vaccine after Project Veritas published videos taken by undercover reporters asking questions of Johnson & Johnson employees. I don't know if those employees knew they were being taped but the gist of it is that they said that the vaccines shouldn't be administered to children. I'm busy and can't look anything up at the moment but one might look to see if the vaccine is being administered to children. I don't think it is. That would require regulatory approval, etc.

[Anaxagoras]

This is a YouTube channel I recently came across, and he seems to a no-nonsense guy who tries to present just the facts and stick to that without political commentary or stuff that might alienate some people who are not disposed to listen to people who they consider to be on the opposite political side.

Title of the video:
COVID Transmission | Do vaccinated transmit as much as unvaccinated?

He discussed recent studies that bear on that question. (Bottom line is that the best currently available evidence says no, the vaccinated do not transmit as much as unvaccinated.)

Here is the video description and links to the studies:

When it comes to COVID Transmission to vaccinated individuals really transmit as much is unvaccinated? i will review several studies that answer this question one from Singapore and one from the Netherlands. They looked at vaccine breakthrough infections and compared viral loads to look at COVID transmission.

Mayo Clinic study: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34401884/


UK study: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101 ... 21262237v1


Singapore study: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101 ... 21261295v1


Netherlands study: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101 ... 1.full.pdf

[Doctor X]

You did not tell me if he voted for Trump or Biden so I have no basis upon which to decide whether or not to believe him.

– J.D.

[Anaxagoras]

The comments on that video are depressing though. A lot of people very resistant to any evidence that the vaccines work.

[robinson]

https://twitter.com/marissa__larkin/sta ... 62291?s=21

On a giant pile of money

[Anaxagoras]

Who exactly said that?

[Anaxagoras]

Do you think that acquiring natural immunity through exposure to the virus is safer than getting vaccinated?

The risks of getting vaccinated appear to be minimal. The risk of catching Covid is far greater.

700,000 deaths due to Covid in the US, how many have died from the shot? Any?

The deaths reported in the VAERS data aren't even necessarily caused by the vaccine. When you give millions of shots, some people are going to die after getting a shot merely by coincidence. Because about 2.8 million people died in the USA in 2019 before Covid. That's 7,800 people per day or 1 in every 42,000 or 24 per million. So for every million shots given, on average 24 people will die within 24 hours just by coincidence.

[xouper]

That's one way to spin the data.

[Pyrrho]

Who exactly said that?

I believe that is from the Project Veritas undercover video. Someone smarter than I can probably advise on it. Here is one take on it:

https://www.truthorfiction.com/project- ... om-pfizer/

One may also find credulous repetition of the video content, if one cares to.

As for the Pfizer scientist, well, his career and private life are 100% fucked over, that's for certain.

Also fuck all those people with compromised immune systems, the elderly, and anyone else not man enough to survive COVID-19,. eh? Survival of the fittest. Also fuck all those hospital workers inundated with COVID-19 cases, eh?

And piss off with the data from the clinical trials. Real men don't need science.

[Anaxagoras]

That's one way to spin the data.

Feel free to check my math (or logic) if you disagree.

[Anaxagoras]

Who exactly said that?

I believe that is from the Project Veritas undercover video. Someone smarter than I can probably advise on it. Here is one take on it:

https://www.truthorfiction.com/project- ... om-pfizer/

One may also find credulous repetition of the video content, if one cares to.

As for the Pfizer scientist, well, his career and private life are 100% fucked over, that's for certain.

Ah, thanks. I guess I heard wind of this, but hadn't bothered to look at the details, because I know how Project Veritas operates.

Also fuck all those people with compromised immune systems, the elderly, and anyone else not man enough to survive COVID-19,. eh? Survival of the fittest. Also fuck all those hospital workers inundated with COVID-19 cases, eh?

And piss off with the data from the clinical trials. Real men don't need science.

Yeah, that's the problem, isn't it?

The written accompaniment to Project Veritas’ video contained a flawed premise right from the beginning. In its statement that “antibodies lead to equal, if not better, protection” against COVID-19 than any vaccine, it conveniently skimmed past the part where individuals would need to survive the virus to obtain said immunity.

IF you are lucky enough to survive the virus, you may have somewhat better immunity after that.

If you have a compromised immune system, or you happen to be old or infirm or are just plain unlucky, you might not survive it. Or you might survive it only after a long and difficult bout. And some people just aren't the same afterwards. They may be left with long-term sequelae.

[xouper]

That's one way to spin the data.

Feel free to check my math if you disagree.

Your math is not the issue. I was disagreeing with your interpretations of the data.

You are entitled to post your opinion. And I am entitled to post that I don't find your opinion persuasive.

What else needs to be said?

[Pyrrho]

Given that COVID-19 is now endemic, It may be prudent to compare the benefit:risk ratio of vaccination with the benefit:risk ratio of natural immunity from COVID-19, in terms of hospitalization rates and death rates.

[Pyrrho]

Separately:

https://vaers.hhs.gov/faq.html

One of the main limitations of VAERS data is that it cannot determine if the vaccine caused the reported adverse event. This limitation has caused confusion in the publicly available data from VAERS WONDER, specifically regarding the number of reported deaths. There have been instances where people have misinterpreted reports of deaths following vaccination as deaths caused by the vaccines; that is not accurate. VAERS accepts all reports of adverse health events following vaccinations without judging whether the vaccine caused the adverse health event. Some reports to VAERS represent true vaccine reactions and others are coincidental adverse health events and not related to vaccination. Overall, a causal relationship cannot be established using information from VAERS report alone.

Strengths of VAERS:

VAERS collects national data from all U.S. states and territories
VAERS accepts reports from anyone
The VAERS form collects information about the vaccine, the person vaccinated and the adverse event
Data are publicly available
VAERS can be used as an early warning system to identify rare adverse events
VAERS is a tool for identifying potential vaccine safety concerns that need further study using more robust data systems

Limitations of VAERS:

It is generally not possible to find out from VAERS data if a vaccine caused the adverse event
Reports submitted to VAERS often lack details and sometimes contains errors
Serious adverse events are more likely to be reported than non-serious events
Numbers of reports may increase in response to media attention and increased public awareness
VAERS data cannot be used to determine rates of adverse events

Are all adverse events reported to VAERS caused by vaccines?
No. Some adverse events might be caused by vaccination and others might be coincidental and not related to vaccination. Just because an adverse event happened after a person received a vaccine does not mean the vaccine caused the adverse event.

VAERS accepts reports of adverse events following vaccination without judging the cause or seriousness of the event. VAERS is not designed to determine if a vaccine caused an adverse event, but it is good at detecting unusual or unexpected patterns of reporting that might indicate possible safety problems that need a closer look.

The "closer look" would be in the form of appropriate analysis of the patient data involving adverse events, ideally by medical scientists including but not limited to MDs who know what they are doing...not talking-head punditry on the evening news or random celebrities or attention-seekers on social media.

[Pyrrho]

Here's a link to the FDA Briefing Document for the December 2020 advisory committee which discussed the Moderna vaccine. One might care to review the efficacy tables and charts and the safety tables and charts.

https://www.fda.gov/media/144434/download

Here's the FDA page with links to various pages regarding the Vaccines committee:

https://www.fda.gov/advisory-committees ... -committee

2020 meetings--the list has the Moderna and Pfizer discussions:

https://www.fda.gov/advisory-committees ... -committee

The December 17, 2020 meeting about the Moderna vaccine:

https://www.fda.gov/advisory-committees ... nouncement

Meeting materials...there's a lot to look at, including presentations and other documents.

https://www.fda.gov/advisory-committees ... -materials

Here's a link to the Moderna Briefing Document for that meeting:

https://www.fda.gov/media/144452/download

The "briefing documents" are prepared separately by the FDA and by the "sponsor", aka the pharmaceutical company seeking approval, from the clinical study reports, which are quite voluminous and which are not usually publicly available, so you won't see those on the site. Those are typically full of hundreds of pages of statistics and raw data.

[Pyrrho]

In the FDA briefing document, table 19 on page 32 shows that there were 4 deaths in the vaccine group and 4 deaths in the Placebo group. None of those deaths were judged to be related either to the vaccine or to the placebo.

Vaccine: 4 deaths in a group of 15184 subjects (<0.1%)
Placebo: 4 deaths in a group of 15165 subjects (<0.1%)

Current Johns Hopkins data show a death rate of 1.6% in COVID-19 cases, in the USA.

https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality

One could go further and compare other adverse events, such as the known risk of myocarditis and allergic reactions to the vaccines. That's what the FDA does and what the advisory committees do, and yes, the pharmaceutical company does. The FDA doesn't take what the pharmaceutical company says at face value--they do their own independent review and ask the advisory committees to do their own independent review.

As always, consult your physician.

[Anaxagoras]

That's one way to spin the data.

Feel free to check my math if you disagree.

Your math is not the issue. I was disagreeing with your interpretations of the data.

You are entitled to post your opinion. And I am entitled to post that I don't find your opinion persuasive.

What else needs to be said?

OK, that's fine, of course, but you didn't explain where my interpretations of the data went astray. Not that you are under any obligation to do so. But I am curious what your thinking on the matter is.

From Pyrrho's post above:

VAERS accepts all reports of adverse health events following vaccinations without judging whether the vaccine caused the adverse health event. Some reports to VAERS represent true vaccine reactions and others are coincidental adverse health events and not related to vaccination. Overall, a causal relationship cannot be established using information from VAERS report alone.
. . .
VAERS is not designed to determine if a vaccine caused an adverse event,

In clinical trials, even people given a placebo report adverse events, often at similar rates to the people given the actual drug, so it should be pretty clear that some adverse events are merely coincidences, and not caused by the active ingredient.

[Pyrrho]

Yeah...in clinical trials, such events are reviewed by investigators who determine if the adverse event or death is related to the vaccine or therapy. Clinical trials are one thing, widespread public use is another...which is why VAERS exists. Companies are, in the USA, required to perform monitoring and have their own adverse event reporting systems. There may very well be an increased incidence of death and other adverse events in the public administration of vaccines but we're left with the challenge of discovering what actually caused the death or AE, and that requires investigation by medical professionals, preferably an MD or PhD or both. But an increased incidence in vaccinated patients would be a "signal" that the vaccine is a possible cause.

As an example of a health authority taking action on the basis of a "signal" of increased incidence:

https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus- ... d3474921a0

Swedish health authorities on Wednesday suspended the use of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine for those ages 30 and under, saying the move was done out of precaution.

The reason for the pausing is “signals of an increased risk of side effects such as inflammation of the heart muscle or the pericardium” — the double-walled sac containing the heart and the roots of the main vessels, Sweden’s Public Health Agency said in a statement. “The risk of being affected is very small.”

Different health authorities will take different approaches, but for the most part they do perform due diligence and act accordingly.

[Anaxagoras]

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2114114

Waning of BNT162b2 Vaccine Protection against SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Qatar

Background
Waning of vaccine protection against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection or coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is a concern. The persistence of BNT162b2 (Pfizer–BioNTech) vaccine effectiveness against infection and disease in Qatar, where the B.1.351 (or beta) and B.1.617.2 (or delta) variants have dominated incidence and polymerase-chain-reaction testing is done on a mass scale, is unclear.

Methods
We used a matched test-negative, case–control study design to estimate vaccine effectiveness against any SARS-CoV-2 infection and against any severe, critical, or fatal case of Covid-19, from January 1 to September 5, 2021.

Results
Estimated BNT162b2 effectiveness against any SARS-CoV-2 infection was negligible in the first 2 weeks after the first dose. It increased to 36.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 33.2 to 40.2) in the third week after the first dose and reached its peak at 77.5% (95% CI, 76.4 to 78.6) in the first month after the second dose. Effectiveness declined gradually thereafter, with the decline accelerating after the fourth month to reach approximately 20% in months 5 through 7 after the second dose. Effectiveness against symptomatic infection was higher than effectiveness against asymptomatic infection but waned similarly. Variant-specific effectiveness waned in the same pattern. Effectiveness against any severe, critical, or fatal case of Covid-19 increased rapidly to 66.1% (95% CI, 56.8 to 73.5) by the third week after the first dose and reached 96% or higher in the first 2 months after the second dose; effectiveness persisted at approximately this level for 6 months.

Conclusions
BNT162b2-induced protection against SARS-COV-2 infection appeared to wane rapidly following its peak after the second dose, but protection against hospitalization and death persisted at a robust level for 6 months after the second dose. (Funded by Weill Cornell Medicine–Qatar and others.)

Bottom line is that the vaccine still protects against severe disease and death.

[xouper]

Given that COVID-19 is now endemic, It may be prudent to compare the benefit:risk ratio of vaccination with the benefit:risk ratio of natural immunity from COVID-19, in terms of hospitalization rates and death rates.

Of course. Is anyone here arguing otherwise? Not me.

[Doctor X]

Unless I am missing something, I believed the arguments regarding natural immunity referred to those, such as a particular NBA player, who became infected and survived, but are now still being mandated to have the vaccine. The "revelation" supposedly lends credence to the argument that such a person is just as if not more protected than one with the vaccine.

I have not seen a proper "sorting out" of that issue. While I think Fauci pissed away his credibility, that does not render everything he says a lie. I think I mentioned some time ago Tucker "Did Your Mom Buy You that Bowtie" Carlson gibbered over Fauci suggesting that the vaccine may select for the creation of a better, as in more clinically efficacious, antibody and immune response than the infection.

That is a good point. You make antibodies all the time. HIV was detected by the antibodies you make to it; it is just that those antibodies do not actually inactivate the virus.

To which one should then ask what is the evidences – thanks – that those infected generate antibodies that prove less effective than those by the vaccines? Do their titres fall faster? In other words, what is the evidences – thanks – that vaccine is better than natural immunity?

I do not think, unless I missed it, that anyone serious is arguing that someone should get infected rather than get the vaccine. Yes, there are loons out there arguing for that stupidity, just as there are all sorts of willfully ignorant conspiracy theorists.

– J.D.

[Pyrrho]

I guess it would have to be a comparison of breakthrough infection rates in vaccinated populations versus re-infection rates in unvaccinated populations who had contracted COVID-19 after having had it before. Another comparison would be hospitalization rates in vaccinated versus unvaccinated who contract COVID-19. Someone has probably conducted such analyses but I haz a tired and can't look for such at the moment.

[Fid]

Them fucks had me at "flip flop Fauci". Yep that's the way science works. Please die at home.

[Doctor X]

Well, he not only "flip-flopped," he lied. A critical mistake to make.

Per Pyrrho's point, I wonder if they have enough good data.

What the hell, the game sucks, and I am avoiding exercise:

In this case-control study, being unvaccinated was associated with 2.34 times the odds of reinfection compared with being fully vaccinated.

Okay.

That is from: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm

Off to exercise.

RIVER 'n all. . . .

– J.D.

[Hotarubi]

Stop posting stupid shit like evidence.

It's inconvenient.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lani ... 6/fulltext

Between Dec 8, 2020, and July 4, 2021, 1 240 009 COVID Symptom Study app users reported a first vaccine dose, of whom 6030 (0·5%) subsequently tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 (cases 1), and 971 504 reported a second dose, of whom 2370 (0·2%) subsequently tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 (cases 2). In the risk factor analysis, frailty was associated with post-vaccination infection in older adults (≥60 years) after their first vaccine dose (odds ratio [OR] 1·93, 95% CI 1·50–2·48; p<0·0001), and individuals living in highly deprived areas had increased odds of post-vaccination infection following their first vaccine dose (OR 1·11, 95% CI 1·01–1·23; p=0·039). Individuals without obesity (BMI <30 kg/m2) had lower odds of infection following their first vaccine dose (OR 0·84, 95% CI 0·75–0·94; p=0·0030). For the disease profile analysis, 3825 users from cases 1 were included in cases 3 and 906 users from cases 2 were included in cases 4. Vaccination (compared with no vaccination) was associated with reduced odds of hospitalisation or having more than five symptoms in the first week of illness following the first or second dose, and long-duration (≥28 days) symptoms following the second dose. Almost all symptoms were reported less frequently in infected vaccinated individuals than in infected unvaccinated individuals, and vaccinated participants were more likely to be completely asymptomatic, especially if they were 60 years or older.

Seems many people, in so many countries, are "in on the scam." Thank heavens for the experts on this board.

[Pyrrho]

https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus- ... fc5b4cafee

Finland has joined other Nordic countries in suspending or discouraging the use of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine in certain age groups because of an increased risk of heart inflammation, a rare side effect associated with the shot.

The Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare said Thursday that authorities won’t give the shot to males under age 30. They will be offered the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine instead. The government agency said it found that young men and boys were at a slightly higher risk of developing myocarditis.

[Doctor X]

SEEE?!!1!!!!!

– J.D.

[robinson]

https://twitter.com/djcalligraphy/statu ... 43877?s=21

[robinson]

We are going to need a definition of “work”

[ceptimus]

Misleading statistics.

Total COVID deaths in Singapore are only 153 as of yesterday. There were eleven COVID19 deaths yesterday - the highest daily total in Singapore ever. Before September this year, the daily deaths in SIngapore never exceeded three. So yes, in comparison to their previous record, I suppose you could say the deaths have "soared." :roll:

However, Singapore is still doing remarkably well. With most of the population now vaccinated, they've relaxed restrictions; which means those idiots who refuse the vaccine (and the unfortunate few who are unable to take it) are now more likely to catch COVID and possibly die.

Without the vaccine, many more Singaporeans would die: there would be increased death rates in both groups of the population - the group choosing to take the vaccine, and the anti-vax guys that live there.

Worldometer COVID data for Singapore

[xouper]

. . . those idiots who refuse the vaccine . . .

That was uncalled for and is total bullshit.

For example, just because thousands of medical professionals disagree with your (non-expert) opinion and refuse the vaccine, does not make them idiots.

I expected better from you than stooping to petty name-calling.

If you're trying to convince people to get vaccinated, calling them idiots is not going to help. In fact, more likely it will be counterproductive, since those "idiots" will be tempted to infer that anyone who feels the need to engage in petty name-calling, cannot make the case on its own merits.

[Pyrrho]

Misleading statistics.

Total COVID deaths in Singapore are only 153 as of yesterday. There were eleven COVID19 deaths yesterday - the highest daily total in Singapore ever. Before September this year, the daily deaths in SIngapore never exceeded three. So yes, in comparison to their previous record, I suppose you could say the deaths have "soared." :roll:

However, Singapore is still doing remarkably well. With most of the population now vaccinated, they've relaxed restrictions; which means those idiots who refuse the vaccine (and the unfortunate few who are unable to take it) are now more likely to catch COVID and possibly die.

Without the vaccine, many more Singaporeans would die: there would be increased death rates in both groups of the population - the group choosing to take the vaccine, and the anti-vax guys that live there.

Worldometer COVID data for Singapore

Could the relaxed restrictions account for the recent uptick in cases? Singapore began relaxing restrictions on August 19, 2021.

Reference: https://www.gov.sg/article/updates-to-s ... ugust-2021

The daily case count increase began shortly thereafter and has continued to rise.

Singapore's official page with statistics:

https://covidsitrep.moh.gov.sg/

Singapore has administered multiple vaccines, primarily the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna, and SinoVac.

Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_ ... _Singapore

New York Times has a story about Singapore's experience but it's behind a paywall.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/08/worl ... covid.html

[robinson]

https://twitter.com/ginacarano/status/1 ... 15558?s=21

[robinson]

If the Covid mRNA treatment doesn’t stop infection or transmission

Then the definition of “work” is going to have to be changed