Jump to content

*New coronavirus - it's pretty bad.

Rate this topic


fishweewee

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, fishweewee said:

From NYT

 

Reaching ‘Herd Immunity’ Is Unlikely in the U.S., Experts Now Believe

 

There's no news there.  The same thing has been said on SOL numerous times.  

 

Livestock do not reach herd immunity until about 88%.

Edited by oc1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those of you playing along at home with the Phil Murphy is a douche game here we go again. If only a major network had reporters with the stones of NJ-12 maybe somebody would pay attention.

SmartSelect_20210503-185427_Facebook.jpg.5ffdd99cb33823655ae3851824920820.jpg

SmartSelect_20210503-185516_Facebook.jpg.6448a2a65ad19434fec81a30ea984bfd.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, fishweewee said:

Events following (but not necessarily caused by) vaccination as of Friday April 23, 2021.  These were released by CDC VAERS on Friday, April 30, 2021.

 

To put this into perspective, 246 million doses of vaccine have been administered as of yesterday.

 

X4flYWY.png

Those 7 Pfizer deaths for age 0-17 are concerning. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Denmark just banned Janssen

 

https://www.sst.dk/en/English/news/2021/The-Danish-COVID-19-vaccine-rollout-continues-without-the-COVID-19-vaccine-from-Johnson-Johnson

 

The Danish COVID-19 vaccine rollout continues without the COVID-19 vaccine from Johnson & Johnson


The European Medicines Agency (EMA) has concluded that there is a possible link between rare but severe cases of blood clots (VITT) and the COVID-19 vaccine from Johnson & Johnson. As the COVID-19 epidemic in Denmark is currently under control, and the vaccination rollout is progressing satisfactorily with other available vaccines, the Danish Health Authority has decided to continue the national vaccination campaign without the COVID-19 vaccine from Johnson & Johnson.


03 MAJ 2021


The Danish Health Authority has concluded that the benefits of using the COVID-19 vaccine from Johnson & Johnson do not outweigh the risk of causing the possible adverse effect, VITT, in those who receive the vaccine. Therefore, the Danish Health Authority will continue the Danish mass vaccination programme against COVID-19 without the COVID-19 vaccine from Johnson & Johnson.

 

The Danish Health Authority has reviewed the use of the COVID-19 vaccine from Johnson & Johnson in the Danish COVID-19 vaccination programme based on international data and statements released in the last month. In addition, a team of Danish experts has contributed to the evaluation of the vaccine.

 

In the midst of an epidemic, this has been a difficult decision to make, especially since we have also had to discontinue using the COVID-19 vaccine from AstraZeneca. However, taking the present situation in Denmark into account, what we are currently losing in our effort to prevent severe illness from COVID-19 cannot outweigh the risk of causing possible side effects in the form of severe blood clots in those we vaccinate. One should also bear in mind that, going forward, we will first and foremost be vaccinating younger and healthy people," says Deputy Director General Helene Probst.

 

The Vaccination calendar is pushed back up to four weeks


The Danish vaccination effort against COVID-19 has been ongoing for more than four months and is coming up on a significant milestone – almost everyone in target group 9 (those aged 65-74) has already either been invited, has booked time for vaccination, or have already begun the vaccination process. The next step is to offer vaccination to those under the age of 65.

 

The decision to continue the rollout without the COVID-19 vaccine from Johnson & Johnson will significantly affect the last two target groups – those between 20 and 39 years old. They are facing a delay of up to four weeks. The remaining target groups will experience a delay of about one week, as we will be getting large amounts of other vaccines.

 

"This decision will, of course, have consequences for those who now have their vaccination postponed. For example, they will have to wait longer for the corona passport that so many of us are looking forward to getting. Age is the main risk factor for severe illness from COVID-19, and these are younger citizens who are not at risk of becoming seriously ill," says Helene Probst.

 

The Danish vaccination programme


The decision to continue the rollout without the COVID-19 vaccine from Johnson and Johnson does not rule out that the vaccine may be used later. New knowledge may emerge, or the situation in Denmark may change, for example, in terms of infection pressure, disease burden, epidemic control, or other vaccines' availability.

 

"We still have an obligation to contribute to research and knowledge dissemination on the new vaccine technologies. If strict requirements are met, we may, therefore, use the COVID-19 vaccine from Johnson & Johnson in clinical trials", says Helene Probst.

 

The Danish Health Authority will continue to review the ongoing release of data from, e.g. the U.S. Health and Drug Administration that due to the current epidemic in the United States has chosen to include the COVID-19 vaccine from Johnson & Johnson in their vaccination campaign. In particular, we need more insight and data on the vaccine’s safety to determine whether women are more at risk of unusual but severe blood clotting events than men or vice versa.

 

Reviews of the COVID-19 vaccine from Johnson & Johnson


On 9 April 2021, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) decided to assess the safety of the COVID-19 vaccine from Johnson & Johnson, following reports from the United States of severe blood clotting events in four people who had received the vaccine. At that time, the vaccine had not yet been released for use in Europe.

 

On 13 April 2021, U.S. authorities chose to suspend the COVID-19 vaccine from Johnson & Johnson. At the same time, the manufacturer decided to withhold supplies to the EU countries and recommend countries that had already received deliveries not to use the vaccine while the federal health protection agencies were investigating the safety of the vaccine. Denmark followed suit and delayed using the vaccine.

 

On 20 April 2021, the EMA announced that there is a possible link between the COVID-19 vaccine from Johnson & Johnson and the occurrence of rare but severe blood clotting events, similar to those reported after injection with the COVID-19 vaccine from AstraZeneca, Vaxzevria®. However, the EMA recommended the continued use of the COVID-19 vaccine from Johnson & Johnson. On the same day, the manufacturer announced that they would resume the distribution of the vaccine to the EU countries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

eh 

 

nobody wants to nuke china

 

https://wjla.com/news/nation-world/exclusive-classified-study-found-covid-19-could-have-originated-in-chinese-lab

 

EXCLUSIVE: Classified study found COVID-19 could have originated in Chinese lab


by JAMES ROSEN, The National Desk

Monday, May 3rd 2021

 

WASHINGTON (SBG) - A classified study of the origin of SARS-CoV-2 conducted a year ago by scientists at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, the Department of Energy’s premier biodefense research institution, concluded the novel coronavirus at the heart of the current pandemic may have originated in a laboratory in China, Sinclair has learned.

 

Researchers at Livermore’s “Z Division,” the lab’s intelligence unit, issued the report May 27, 2020, classified “Top Secret.” Its existence is previously undisclosed. The Z Division report assessed that both the lab-origin theory and the zoonotic theory were plausible and warranted further investigation. Sinclair has not reviewed the report but confirmed its contents through interviews with multiple sources who read it or were briefed on its contents.

 

In an email to Sinclair, a Livermore spokesperson confirmed the existence of the report but declined to provide additional information. “Because the report you are referring to is classified,” wrote Lynda Seaver, director of public affairs, “it would be inappropriate for our lab to discuss this.”

 

Avril Haines, the new director of national intelligence, testified that the U.S. intelligence community is actively investigating both theories. “We just don't know exactly where, when, and how the coronavirus was transmitted initially,” Haines told the House intelligence committee on April 15.

 

“We have two plausible theories that we are working on that components within the intelligence community have essentially coalesced around. One of them is that it was a laboratory accident, and the other is that it emerged naturally from human contact with infected animals.”

 

Haines added that Chinese leaders “have not been forthcoming through this process,” and that U.S. analysis “is not based on an assumption that what they say is true.”

 

If the U.S. intelligence community has not been able to discount either theory, nor have the medical or scientific communities produced any consensus as to which theory is correct.

 

The zoonotic theory, advanced by China and the World Health Organization, holds that an animal, most likely a bat, infected the first human with COVID-19, or infected an intermediate host, such as another animal, that subsequently infected the first human. This theory has focused on the “wet” markets of Wuhan, the crowded bazaar of fish, meats, and frozen foods where roughly one-third of the first 174 known cases of COVID-19 had links.

 

Researchers believe coronaviruses, first identified in the 1960s, have probably afflicted humans for centuries, albeit with milder symptoms than those associated with more recent strains. Deadlier coronavirus outbreaks occurred in 2002-2003 (SARS) and 2012 (MERS). The coronavirus in the current pandemic, COVID-19, is formally known as SARS-CoV-2.

 

The lab-origin theory is predicated on the fact that the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) – located, like the wet markets, in the central Chinese city that was the epicenter of the outbreak – has long been at the forefront of China’s research on bat coronaviruses.

 

According to a “fact sheet” released by the State Department on January 15, WIV personnel work closely with the Chinese military and have conducted experiments involving RaTG13, the bat coronavirus with the closest sample to SARS-CoV-2 (96.2 percent). The lab has also published findings from “gain-of-function” research, which is aimed at increasing the transmissibility of viruses among humans.

 

This area of scientific activity, experts told Sinclair, carries a “dual-use”: It supports the development of new vaccines and therapeutics but can also be used in covert biological- and chemical-weapons programs, which China is suspected of maintaining. The State Department fact sheet said China is working “to engineer chimeric viruses.” In its 2021 report, issued this month, the State Department’s Bureau of Arms Control, Verification and Compliance (AVC) said the “dual-use applications” of China’s scientific research “raise concerns about its compliance with Article I” of the Biological Weapons Convention enacted in 1975, to which China is a signatory. That article prohibits member states from pursuing biological weapons.

 

The “dual use” of gain-of-function research has in turn divided proponents of the lab-origin theory into two main camps. Both believe SARS-CoV-2 accidentally “leaked” from WIV personnel, but one camp attributes the accident to legitimate medical research, the other to prohibited biological-weapons research.

 

Analysts said the State Department’s claim of a close working relationship between WIV and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), the Chinese military, was well founded. “Any sort of institution that works on matters that could be construed as relating to national security – which the Wuhan Lab would absolutely fall under that category – we should expect standard operating practice is that they would have a close relationship with the Chinese Communist Party and with the PLA,” said American University history professor Justin Jacobs, a China scholar.

 

That WIV could potentially suffer a serious lab accident was not far from the minds of the State Department visitors there who, in 2018, reportedly cabled back to Washington that they had observed WIV personnel practicing lax safety protocols.

 

Asked about the Z Division report, Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX), ranking member on the House foreign affairs committee, declined to comment on classified material but emphasized the need for further study. “From what I have seen and read, you absolutely cannot dismiss the notion that the WIV lab is a potential source of the virus,” McCaul said in a statement to Sinclair. “And if you listen to the leaders in the previous and current administrations, they have said exactly the same thing.”

 

In its own report on the origin of SARS-CoV-2, issued March 30, the World Health Organization team – which was denied access by the Chinese government to key sites and data and was compelled to seek formal Chinese concurrence in its findings – designated the indirect-zoonotic theory (bat-animal-human) as “very likely,” even as the team conceded it could not identify an intermediate host. By contrast, the joint WHO-Chinese report termed the lab-origin theory “extremely unlikely.”

 

The disclosure that top scientists at Lawrence Livermore reached an opposite conclusion in the spring of 2020, by which point some 104,000 Americans had died – about 18 percent of the present total – is fueling calls for a new probe. “This is why it’s crucial the WHO conduct an independent investigation – not one that is tainted by the Chinese Communist Party’s malign influence,” said McCaul.

 

U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said in March that Washington harbored “real concerns about the methodology and the process that went into the [WHO] report, including the fact that the government in Beijing apparently helped to write it.”

 

The Z Division report received only limited distribution at the time of its issuance, sources said, prompting some senior U.S. officials in the Trump administration to make inquiries into why it had not been brought to their attention last May. Senior officials at the Energy and State Departments were said to have intervened to quash efforts by lower-level U.S. officials who, intrigued by the Z Division report, contacted the Livermore scientists who wrote it to seek additional information. Seaver, the LLNL spokesperson, did not respond to that allegation.

 

One individual said to have been intimately involved in the preparation of the Z Division report is Dr. David J. Rakestraw, a senior science adviser who formerly ran LLNL’s biodefense programs and has been coordinating the lab’s technical response to COVID-19.

 

“We’ve been putting a large amount of focus for the last six years on using the computational resources at LLNL to try to accelerate the timescales for developing a response to an emerging biological threat,” Rakestraw said in a Livermore press release early in the pandemic. “That effort has put us in a position where we have tools now that are applicable to helping with the current response.”

 

In an interview with a fellow scientist uploaded to YouTube in May 2020 – two weeks before the Z Division finalized its report – Rakestraw referred to COVID-19 as “a natural occurrence.” However, he obliquely framed the outbreak in the context of Chinese gain-of-function research.

 

“The thing that I’ve worked on probably the hardest,” Rakestraw told Caleb Cheung, a director at Quest Science Center, an educational institution also located in Livermore, California, is “being able to respond rapidly to biological threats as they appeared. And we were focused on both the potential for natural occurrences, like the most recent COVID-19, but also on the potential for adversaries to use advances in biotechnology to create novel threats that we wouldn’t have vaccines for.”

 

Contacted by Sinclair, Rakestraw did not respond to messages left with his wife and on his home voice mail.

 

The slow distribution of the Z Division report across the senior echelons of the U.S. interagency – the document quietly circulated to the White House National Security Council, the State Department, and other agencies – led a handful of Trump administration officials to seek access to reporting by other intelligence agencies on the subject.

 

Its existence unknown to most Americans – even to some inside the intelligence community – Z Division was created in 1965 to study Soviet nuclear weapons programs. According to The U.S. Intelligence Community (2008 ed.), authored by the late Jeffrey T. Richelson, an intelligence historian and senior fellow at George Washington University’s National Security Archive, the division expanded its focus to include biological and chemical weapons programs. A 2006 job ad for the unit sought a biomedical scientist “with a background in virology, microbiology, immunology, epidemiologyor other areas of science and medicine relevant to Biological Weapons issues.”

 

Even credentialed scientists who have given credence to the lab-origin theory, however, have found themselves condemned for it. On March 26, 2021, ahead of the release of the joint WHO-China report, Dr. Robert Redfield, the virologist who headed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention during the outbreak, told CNN he believed “the most likely etiology” for SARS-CoV-2 was that it “escaped” from a lab in Wuhan.

 

That assessment led some liberal lawmakers to demand Redfield’s resignation from an advisory position he took, after leaving CDC, with the office of Governor Larry Hogan (R-MD). State Senate President Bill Ferguson, a Democrat representing Baltimore City, said Redfield’s embrace of the lab-origin scenario would add to the anti-Asian sentiment that has arisen since the outbreak began in late 2019.

 

“Dr. Redfield’s comments were inappropriate, unacceptable and beyond unfortunate,” Ferguson said. “A comment like this on national news is just not okay.” Hogan’s office quickly said it would not ask Redfield to step down.

 

Asked about Redfield’s comments, Dr. Anthony Fauci, the longtime director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said in a March 26 video-briefing with reporters that “most public health individuals go by” the zoonotic-origin theory.

 

Fauci cited the transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2, how “well adapted to humans” it is, as the central factor that either theory must be able to explain.

 

But the remarks by the nation’s top infectious disease expert left little doubt that he sides with the zoonotic theory.

 

“Dr. Redfield was mentioning that he was giving an opinion as to a possibility,” Fauci added. “But, again, there are other alternatives — others that most people hold by.”

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We had 4 guys at work that took off 4 months last year at this time(shop was open we refurbish power generation equipment).

Talking to them this week all 4 are antivaxers, scared to work now scared to get vexed!

 

Imagine if back in the polio epidemic we had 50% of the population not get the Vax 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't read into this from our end.

 

We are much more diverse biologically and I'm guessing they are much more aggressive in enforcing ROKdowns.

 

To put this into perspective, two seasons ago the flu shot was about 45% effective here.

 

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/skorea-says-astrazeneca-pfizer-covid-19-vaccines-87-effective-after-first-shot-2021-05-05/

 

S.Korea says AstraZeneca, Pfizer COVID-19 vaccines 87% effective after first shot


Hyonhee Shin

 

May 5, 2021
1:57 AM EDT

 

One dose of COVID-19 vaccines from AstraZeneca Plc (AZN.L) and Pfizer (PFE.N) was 86.6% effective in preventing infections among people aged 60 and older, real world data released by South Korea showed on Wednesday.

 

Data by the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency (KDCA) showed the Pfizer vaccine, jointly developed by BioNTech , was 89.7% effective in preventing infection at least two weeks after a first dose was given, while the AstraZeneca shot was 86.0% effective.

 

Its analysis is based on more than 3.5 million people in South Korea aged 60 and older for two months from Feb. 26 and included 521,133 people who received a first dose of either Pfizer or AstraZeneca shot.

 

There were 1,237 COVID-19 cases in the data and only 29 were from the vaccinated group, the KDCA said.

 

"It is shown that both vaccines provide a high protection against the disease after the first dose. (People) should get full vaccinations according to recommended schedule, as the protection rate will go up further after a second dose," it said.

 

The findings come as South Korea seeks to drum up participation in its immunisation drive after reports about potential safety issues discouraged some people from getting vaccinated. 

 

"Around 95% of people who died from the coronavirus in our country were senior citizens aged 60 or older, and the vaccines will sharply lower risks for those people," health ministry official Yoon Tae-ho told a briefing on Wednesday.

 

Yoon said the possibility of side effects including blood clotting are "extremely low" and they are mostly curable.

 

South Korea has so far vaccinated 6.7% of its 52 million strong population, but has set an ambitious target of giving shots to 70% of its people by September and reaching herd immunity by November.

 

Starting on Wednesday, South Koreans who are fully vaccinated and show a negative COVID-19 test and no symptoms will be exempted from the two-week mandatory quarantine upon their return from overseas travel, to encourages more vaccinations.

 

The KDCA reported 676 new COVID-19 cases as of midnight on Tuesday, bringing the country's total infections to 124,945, with 1,847 deaths.

Edited by fishweewee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From NYT today

 

Pfizer said yesterday kids younger than 12 will be later this year (fall).

 

The F.D.A. is set to authorize the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine for those 12-15 years old by early next week.

 

The Food and Drug Administration is preparing to authorize use of the Pfizer-BioNTech coronavirus vaccine in adolescents 12 to 15 years old by early next week, according to federal officials familiar with the agency’s plans, opening up the U.S. vaccination campaign to millions more people.

 

Some parents have been counting down the weeks since Pfizer announced results from its trial in adolescents showing that the vaccine is at least as effective in that age group as it is in adults. Vaccinating children is key to raising the level of immunity in the population and bringing down the numbers of hospitalizations and deaths.

 

The clearance, in the form of an amendment to the existing emergency use authorization for the Pfizer vaccine, could come as early as late this week. If it is granted, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s vaccine advisory panel is likely to meet the following day to review the clinical trial data and make recommendations for the vaccine’s use in adolescents.

 

The expansion would be a major development in the country’s vaccination campaign and welcome news to some parents who are anxious to protect their children during summer activities and before the start of the next school year. It also poses another challenge to policymakers who are struggling to vaccinate a large percentage of adults hesitant to get the shot. Many more could refuse to inoculate their children.

 

Pfizer reported several weeks ago that none of the adolescents in the clinical trial who received the vaccine developed symptomatic infections, a sign of significant protection. The company said that volunteers produced strong antibody responses and experienced about the same side effects seen in people ages 16 to 25.

 

Stephanie Caccomo, a spokeswoman for the Food and Drug Administration, said she could not comment on the timing of the agency’s decision.

 

“We can assure the public that we are working to review this request as quickly and transparently as possible,” she said.

 

Over 100 million adults in the United States have been fully vaccinated. But the authorization would arrive in the middle of a delicate and complex push to reach the 44 percent of adults who have not yet received even one shot.

 

With much of the world clamoring for the surplus of vaccines made in the United States, the Pfizer-BioNTech shot’s use in adolescents will also raise questions about whether the supply should be targeted to an age group that so far appears to be mostly spared from severe Covid-19.

 

The Food and Drug Administration’s authorization is likely to substantially ease concern among middle school and high school administrators planning for the fall. If students are able to be vaccinated by then, that could allow more normal gatherings and let administrators plan further ahead in the academic year.

 

The current vaccine supply in the United States is substantial. As of Monday, about 65 million doses had been delivered but not administered, including 31 million doses of Pfizer-BioNTech’s vaccine, nearly 25 million doses of Moderna’s and 10 million doses of Johnson & Johnson’s, according to figures collected by the C.D.C.

 

The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines both require two doses. Pfizer is authorized for ages 16 and up, while Moderna is authorized for ages 18 and up.

 

Tens of millions more Pfizer-BioNTech doses — about three weeks’ worth, according to one federal official — have been manufactured and are in various stages of readiness, awaiting final tests before being shipped.

 

Moderna expects results soon from its own clinical trial involving adolescents ages 12 to 17, followed by results for children 6 months to 12 years old later this year.

 

— Noah Weiland, Sharon LaFraniere and Apoorva Mandavilli

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×
×
  • Create New...