The Covid vaccines really do work

[ceptimus]

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101 ... 22283625v1

Summary: the study monitored 51011 working age employees of a Cleveland, Ohio, clinic for a three-month period from September 2022. It found that people who had received more shots of vaccine were more likely to test positive for COVID-19 during the trial period than people who had received fewer, or no, shots.

The multivariable analyses also found that, the more recent the last prior COVID-19 episode was, the lower the risk of COVID-19, and that the greater the number of vaccine doses previously received, the higher the risk of COVID-19.

People with one dose of vaccine tested positive 1.7 times more than the unvaccinated, during the trial period
People with two doses tested positive 2.63 times more.
Those with three doses tested positive about three times more.
...and those with four doses tested positive almost four times as often.

Furthermore, the study found that recently administered shots of bivalent vaccine were only 30% effective at preventing infection in the short term (three months).

The authors of the study claim 99% confidence in their results, but it will be interesting to see if other organizations are able to replicate their results.

[Doctor X]

What percentage of greater than two doses developed the autisms?

– J.D.

[ed]

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101 ... 22283625v1

Summary: the study monitored 51011 working age employees of a Cleveland, Ohio, clinic for a three-month period from September 2022. It found that people who had received more shots of vaccine were more likely to test positive for COVID-19 during the trial period than people who had received fewer, or no, shots.

The multivariable analyses also found that, the more recent the last prior COVID-19 episode was, the lower the risk of COVID-19, and that the greater the number of vaccine doses previously received, the higher the risk of COVID-19.

People with one dose of vaccine tested positive 1.7 times more than the unvaccinated, during the trial period
People with two doses tested positive 2.63 times more.
Those with three doses tested positive about three times more.
...and those with four doses tested positive almost four times as often.

Furthermore, the study found that recently administered shots of bivalent vaccine were only 30% effective at preventing infection in the short term (three months).

The authors of the study claim 99% confidence in their results, but it will be interesting to see if other organizations are able to replicate their results.

yeah but yeah but ... how did they control for contaminating factors? Did they identify them? I might hypothesize that the people more likely to get repeated doses might have been more at risk for other reasons ergo amount of vaccine covaried with likelihood of getting the disease.

Impossible to interpret.

[ceptimus]

My own guess is that those less vaccinated are more likely to have recovered from one or more previous infections. The resulting natural immunity is likely better and longer-lasting than the (poor) immunity delivered by the current crop of bivalent vaccines.

The real takeaway from the study is how poor the immunity granted by the current vaccines is. Only 30% effective at preventing disease, even over a short period of three months. Remember when they used to claim the vaccines were 80%+ effective, and they wouldn't be rolled out unless shown to be 60%+ ?

[robinson]

Unless you are a true believer, at this point, you probably realize that the vaccines are a huge cluster fuck

[Doctor X]

Yup.

And I am disappointed.

Someone called me "antivax" for simply repeating how poorly effective they actually are. Wish that was not the case.

– J.D.

[Anaxagoras]

Can someone explain how these results showed that "The bivalent COVID-19 vaccine given to working-aged adults afforded modest protection overall against COVID-19" or that "the bivalent COVID-19 vaccine booster was 30% effective in preventing infection"? Does it not show negative efficacy?

I will note that the study is a preprint. The primary outcome is a positive Covid test. It doesn't seem to look into how many were hospitalized or died as a result. It is a "retrospective cohort study", which makes me wonder if there might be some other thing going on which skews the results. Could it be that people who don't get vaccinated are less likely to tell others or get tested for Covid? Pure speculation, of course.

Three years in, I still haven't tested positive yet, but I have only been tested when I had to for travel purposes (which is no longer necessary). But I also haven't had cold or flu-like symptoms since Feb. of 2020 (back when it was mostly only in China). I don't self-test, and I don't go out of my way to get tested. I'm not opposed to it, but I decided that unless I am in a seriously bad way, I'm not going to go to a doctor just because I have a sniffle or a sore throat.

[Doctor X]

Basically, you have proven moe anime is protective.

– J.D.

[robinson]

What we want is an actual vaccine that results in “artificial active immunity. This type of immunity is generated when a dead or weakened version of the disease enters the body, causing an immune response which includes the production of antibodies. This is beneficial because it means that if the disease is ever introduced into the body, the immune system will recognize the antigen and produce antibodies more rapidly.”

What the mRNA INJECTION ACTUALLY IS is not a vaccine. It is a “new” treatment, that infects your own cells, using mRNA, to cause your own body to produce spike proteins.

Does it do that? Yes, yes they do. So now you have spike proteins in your body, and the goal is to have your own immune system created antibodies to these proteins.

Which obviously is not the same thing as immunity to Covid-19

Why is this obvious? If I have to explain that you must be willfully ignorant.

Seriously, if anyone still thinks an mRNA treatment gives immunity, they are delusional at this point. If you get a Covid-19 infection, and spread it, after 5 shots, and you still think “it works!”, then fuck,

[Pyrrho]

One of the limitations of the clinical trials for the mRNA vaccines is that they were short-term compared with the length of time clinical trials usually require. Thus, long-term efficacy literally could not be evaluated.

Also there have been variants of the virus.

But, I am not a medical scientist and I defer to people who know more than I do and who are smarter than I am.

I'm interested in data about the Corbevax vaccine:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corbevax

Other vaccines showed lower rates of efficacy in clinical trials. I probably have linked to information about the various vaccines earlier in this thread.

[robinson]

I find it interesting the antibody test showed antibodies after the mRNA injections

It’s as if the tests actually are testing for antibodies to the spike protein, not for actual COVID-19

[Pyrrho]

Observational cohort study preprint:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm ... id=4314067

Findings: A total of 622,701 participants met the eligibility criteria. Of those, 85,314 (14%) received a bivalent-booster during the 70-day study period. Hospitalization due to Covid-19 occurred in 6 bivalent recipients and 297 participants who did not, adjusted hazard ratio (HR): 0.19 (95% CI, 0.08-0.43). Death due to Covid-19 occurred in 1 bivalent recipient and 73 participants who did not, adjusted HR 0.14: (95% CI, 0.02-1.04).

Interpretation: Participants who received the bivalent vaccine had lower hospitalization and mortality rates due to Covid-19 than non-recipients up to 70 days after vaccination.

[robinson]

There is big problem with their methodology