[Misc] Will we have another lockdown ?

[e77]

As for the difference between dying 'of Covid' and dying 'with Covid', it is never going to be an exact science due to the numbers involved but the fact remains they caught Covid and it shortened their life, with the exception of people who died in car crashes (or similar) within 28 days of a Covid test but that is going to be a very low amount out probably balanced up with people who died without being tested in the early days of the pandemic.

If you don't want to have the vaccination then that is your personal choice but do remember that if the 85% of us - or however many have it in the end - shared that view we would either still be in strict lockdown and/or deaths might be in the millions in this country by now.

I think people who choose to ignore the weight of evidence are similar to a lot of people who buy into conspiracy theories in that they either want to find someone to blame for everything that goes wrong in the world or try and prove it is made up or vastly overestimated. By doing this it mentally shields them for the realisation that bad things do happen that no one is responsible for. It's a coping mechanism, ultimately,

 

[Albion Dan]

OpenVAERS is a site run by non-medical people. Those 10k people who died shortly after taking a vaccine have not had their cause of death linked to a vaccine except by the friends or relatives who reported it.

Simply by law of averages, you would expect at least 15,000 people of those vaccinated in the USA, to die within 24 hours after the vaccine. Another 15,000 the day after. And the day after that.

Try and find an actual medical site that reports on deaths, and you might be reassured.

The VAERS site is run by the CDC. VAERSOPEN are simply running a report on the CDC database.

 

[Albion Dan]

I'm looking through some of the data points they are including. Looks to me like they've made an easy mistake: they're pulling all records where a patient has had the vaccine, regardless of how recently and the actual cause of death. Found one record where the listed cause of death is Covid, which the patient caught 5 months after having their vaccine.

Alot may be because of something else and alot may be because of the jab but there would certainly be enough in the numbers to create some cause to ask questions? Surely enough to make it understandable that people are entitled to be able to exercise caution before sticking it in their body?

 

[Audax]

The VAERS site is run by the CDC. VAERSOPEN are simply running a report on the CDC database.

But there's an open question about how the openvaers site is extracting the data, and how they are presenting it. I've looked through more of the data they've provided on the site and it has only confirmed for me that they are presenting a skewed version by only pulling the initial reports and not pulling the most recent reports. Many of the reports they have on their site the report clearly states that they expect further information to be provided and that until that information is available they can't determine whether the vaccine was a factor or not.

It looks to me like the data they present is a very superficial, surface-only, view of the data: that is, they're using a search to a) find records where the patient had a vaccine, and b) extract the cause of the death. In a lot of the data there are multiple causes of death listed, so it's probable they are counting the same record multiple times in their data. I also think (based on the structure of the data) that they are doing nothing in terms of filtering based on the content of the report as to how likely the vaccine was to be a contributory factor.

The more I look at it, the more I see that casts doubt on the numbers they present on their home page. At the moment I suspect they are massively over-inflating the numbers. I'm only doing spot-checks rather than looking through every record forensically, but so far I've not yet seen any reports where the vaccine is actually declared as a definitive factor in the death.

 

[rippleman]

Does anybody know whether PMs were being conducted on care home residents who died or were the deaths just attributed to covid so that is what went on the death cert?

 

[Albion Dan]

Does this show vaccine testing didn’t extend to pregnant women despite it actually being given to pregnant women? If true isn’t that terrifying? When you really start looking there are potential questions in the information that some would suggest just don’t exist or would never be true.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/...pregnant-women.html?__twitter_impression=true

 

[Pint of Ale and a Burger]

Would be interested in seeing that myself - hopefully they've controlled for the effect of lockdowns as part of that study - because lockdown won't have only prevented the spread of Covid, it will also have suppressed the spread of Flu, common cold, and other viral / bacterial infections. One big worry I have about the complete removal of all restrictions that we've had isn't just that it gives Covid an opportunity to really get its teeth in again, it also opens us up to a surge in Flu etc. The government should have kept mandatory mask wearing IMO.

Interestingly enough, around two weeks after I'd been double jabbed I developed symptoms of a cold. PCR test came back negative, which didn't surprise me - it had all the hallmarks of being an old-school common cold: blocked sinus, sore throat (but no significant cough), and ultimately when I did develop a cough it was productive (not the Covid dry cough).

I found the study I was reading last night and I think I confused my self with what I read.
The study actually showed a link between vaccinations and the elimination of variants of sars-cov-2 ,which leaves behind the stronger and fitter delta type variants which then become dominant.
I confused myself because I was looking into a regular thing I keep hearing that the test kits will pick up the RNA of all coronaviruses,not just sars-cov-2 which is why we get so many asymptomatic positive tests as in the arsenal players yesterday and somewhere along the way I've thought that sars-cov-2 is also cold and flu which I don't think is correct.
Funnily enough I think you have answered that question too when you say you had a test with a cold and it came back negative.
Sorry about that,I am not a scientist or doctor and I am trying to understand the science and also look into he claims of some of the conspiracy folk to hopefully get my head in the right place in all this.
It was an interesting study I read anyway but Im not sure how to do links and I'm not sure if you want to read it anyway as I have mis sold it to you somewhat.


Edit-im not sure how to do a link but if you Google
Medical life sciences COVID-19 vaccination may be stemming evolution of “fitter” SARS-CoV-2 variants.then it should take you to the report and a link to the study which does seem like positive news.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

Does this show vaccine testing didn’t extend to pregnant women despite it actually being given to pregnant women? If true isn’t that terrifying? When you really start looking there are potential questions in the information that some would suggest just don’t exist or would never be true.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/...pregnant-women.html?__twitter_impression=true

But the lack of testing on pregnant women and possible side effects are well known. The vaccine is simply available to them, not compulsory so there is no need for you to be terrified. Many pregnant women have chosen not to be vaccinated and many are in hospital with Covid as a consequence. Would you advocate a new lockdown to protect pregnant women from Covid or is your concern limited to vaccine effects ?

https://www.rcog.org.uk/en/news/cov...rm-for-pregnant-women-say-maternity-colleges/

 

[Pint of Ale and a Burger]

Does this show vaccine testing didn’t extend to pregnant women despite it actually being given to pregnant women? If true isn’t that terrifying? When you really start looking there are potential questions in the information that some would suggest just don’t exist or would never be true.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/...pregnant-women.html?__twitter_impression=true

Yes that does seem strange and quite worrying.

 

[Pint of Ale and a Burger]

But the lack of testing on pregnant women and possible side effects are well known. The vaccine is simply available to them, not compulsory so there is no need for you to be terrified. Many pregnant women have chosen not to be vaccinated and many are in hospital with Covid as a consequence. Would you advocate a new lockdown to protect pregnant women from Covid or is your concern limited to vaccine effects ?

https://www.rcog.org.uk/en/news/cov...rm-for-pregnant-women-say-maternity-colleges/

Yes,it's that "do the risks outweigh the benefits"question again.

 

[Napper]

Does this show vaccine testing didn’t extend to pregnant women despite it actually being given to pregnant women? If true isn’t that terrifying? When you really start looking there are potential questions in the information that some would suggest just don’t exist or would never be true.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/...pregnant-women.html?__twitter_impression=true

and its things like this and more to come which is a reason why some are happy to wait and see and trust their immune systems.

Doesnt mean an anti vaxer and should be respected

 

[e77]

Does this show vaccine testing didn’t extend to pregnant women despite it actually being given to pregnant women? If true isn’t that terrifying? When you really start looking there are potential questions in the information that some would suggest just don’t exist or would never be true.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/...pregnant-women.html?__twitter_impression=true

Oddly enough they didn't give then experimental vaccines to pregnant women. What is the world coming to?

Reading this and other sources pregnant women could read up and decide if they wanted to have a vaccine or wait until they gave birth. Ultimately, unlike being a selfish coward who thinks they know better than the scientific community, women could wait and have it after they have given birth.

 

[Audax]

Does this show vaccine testing didn’t extend to pregnant women despite it actually being given to pregnant women? If true isn’t that terrifying? When you really start looking there are potential questions in the information that some would suggest just don’t exist or would never be true.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/...pregnant-women.html?__twitter_impression=true

Some pregnant women chose to have the vaccine voluntarily. Others were given it before they knew they were pregnant. Worldwide, that resulted in enough pregnant women receiving vaccines to establish baseline safety. That has then opened the door to doing a proper study on it (which, incidentally, is *really* difficult to get permission for).

 

[Audax]

Does anybody know whether PMs were being conducted on care home residents who died or were the deaths just attributed to covid so that is what went on the death cert?

PM not needed. There's strict rules around what goes on death certs, and the certifying doctor must justify what they put down. They can't just list Covid because "everyone else was dying of covid" - they need to list the clinical reasons why they declared it to be Covid. It's part of the reason why a lot of the early death certs will list people dying "with covid" rather than "from covid" - because the exact way that covid can and does cause death wasn't fully understood at the time, so the (correct) cautious approach was taken to only list covid as a contributing factor in many cases.

 

[Jimmy Grimble]

and its things like this and more to come which is a reason why some are happy to wait and see and trust their immune systems.

Doesnt mean an anti vaxer and should be respected

It does mean if everyone thought like that we’d still be in a lockdown type situation.

Have you had your jab? I know from your other posts you’re against continuing any restrictions so I hope you’re contributing and have had it.

 

[Audax]

Does this show vaccine testing didn’t extend to pregnant women despite it actually being given to pregnant women? If true isn’t that terrifying? When you really start looking there are potential questions in the information that some would suggest just don’t exist or would never be true.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/...pregnant-women.html?__twitter_impression=true

Finally brought myself to actually read the article. Daily Mail is such a poor outlet, as shown by the slant they chose to put on this (that the trial is aimed at finding out if the vaccine *causes* adverse effects. Which is true, but it's an alarmist way of saying that the study is aimed at identifying how safe the vaccine is).

Anyway, what I said in an earlier post is very true here. To reply to your post in more detail:

1. It is very, very, very difficult in most countries to get approval to trial an experimental drug / vaccine on pregnant women. For very good reasons, not least of which is to protect the unborn infant who has no say in being part of a trial. Ethics committees *will not* grant permission for trials to take place in pregnant women until there is good evidence that safety levels will be high.

2. As such, it is unsurprising that clinical trials in pregnant women are only starting now.

3. When my wife had her first jab (as an NHS worker, she got an early one) she was told categorically not to get pregnant until at least a month after the second dose. Precisely because there was very little data available on safety in pregnant women.

4. By the time she had her second dose 12 weeks later, the advice had changed. In those 12 weeks, new data had started to emerge from around the world that hinted strongly that the vaccine is safe in pregnancy. As I mentioned earlier, this mostly comes from pregnant women voluntarily ignoring the advice and/or not knowing they were already pregnant when they got the jab. Globally, as the number of cases of jabbed pregnant women grew they were able to establish baseline data that indicated it was probably safe.

5. That brings us to now, where Moderna have been able to use that baseline data to get ethics committee approval to run a full trial. I would expect that trial to confirm that the vaccine is as safe during pregnancy as it is for non-pregnancy. It's a study to confirm what the real world data is already telling us.

 

[Albion Dan]

Some pregnant women chose to have the vaccine voluntarily. Others were given it before they knew they were pregnant. Worldwide, that resulted in enough pregnant women receiving vaccines to establish baseline safety. That has then opened the door to doing a proper study on it (which, incidentally, is *really* difficult to get permission for).

So there haven't been scientific tests on pregnant women or the potential long term affects on their children yet the Government recommendation is:

COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy
The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) has advised that pregnant women should be offered COVID-19 vaccines at the same time as people of the same age or risk group. In the USA, around 90,000 pregnant women have been vaccinated mainly with Pfizer and Moderna vaccines and no safety concerns have been identified.

How are the long term effects on their babies known and understood? I'm sorry but this sounds like madness. Have people forgotten the Thalidomide scandal?

If there is accepted baseline safety why are they bothering to do a proper study? This for me is yet more grey area around the vaccines that again surely allows an understanding why people (in this case mothers) are perfectly within their rights to wait and see without persecution imo.

 

[Audax]

So there haven't been scientific tests on pregnant women or the potential long term affects on their children yet the Government recommendation is:

COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy
The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) has advised that pregnant women should be offered COVID-19 vaccines at the same time as people of the same age or risk group. In the USA, around 90,000 pregnant women have been vaccinated mainly with Pfizer and Moderna vaccines and no safety concerns have been identified.

How are the long term effects on their babies known and understood? I'm sorry but this sounds like madness. Have people forgotten the Thalidomide scandal?

If there is accepted baseline safety why are they bothering to do a proper study? This for me is yet more grey area around the vaccines that again surely allows an understanding why people (in this case mothers) are perfectly within their rights to wait and see without persecution imo.

The answer is in what you quoted: 90,000 pregnant women in the US have had the mRNA jabs and there is no evidence of safety concerns. That's real world data. Why are Moderna now running a study? Because the world demands scientific certainty where possible, that's why. The Moderna study will include far fewer than 90,000, but it will be fully controlled so they'll know all the potential variables and they'll be aiming to build on top of what is currently known.

As far as thalidomide is concerned: clearly not forgotten. Thalidomide is largely the reason why getting approval for clinical trials in pregnant women is so difficult today. The scandal was the direct result of shortcomings in how drugs were trialled back in the 1950's - thalidomide was only tested in animals, with no human clinical trials. That all changed by the end of the 1960's, as the thalidomide scandal forced changes. From this article on it all, key paragraph:

"One key change was that drugs intended for human use could no longer be approved purely on the basis of animal testing. And drug trials for substances marketed to pregnant women also had to provide evidence that they were safe for use in pregnancy."

And that is where we find ourselves today: Moderna have enough evidence that their vaccine will be safe for use in pregnancy, and therefore are now approved to run a full clinical trial.

[Side note: the USA never approved thalidomide, and thus never got exposed to the scandal. Also - thalidomide remains in use today, but it's use is prescribed and restricted based on what we now know about the drug. Turns out it's really effective for leprosy sufferers].

 

[beorhthelm]

If there is accepted baseline safety why are they bothering to do a proper study? This for me is yet more grey area around the vaccines that again surely allows an understanding why people (in this case mothers) are perfectly within their rights to wait and see without persecution imo.

the lack of testing for pregnant women applies for all drugs, for the reasons noted. and children too. why is there such a focus on vaccines, overlooking the entire world of medicine follows the same practices for all drugs?

 

[Audax]

I'll add here as well, knowing a few pregnant women currently, there is no pressure being put on them to get the jab. They are provided with information (*not* advice, just information) and allowed to make their own choices on whether they get jabbed or not. If they choose not to get jabbed, then I back them on that choice. If they choose to get it, I'll back that too. The evidence we have today is strong that the vaccines are safe during pregnancy, but until that clinical trial reports its results there remains that window of doubt that needs to be closed.

But this just adds to the reasons why those of us without any vulnerabilities to Covid should get double jabbed. Firstly, for those pregnant women who don't feel they can get vaccinated. Secondly, because there's evidence out there that the vaccine is less effective in those with underlying conditions (especially those who have or had cancer).

Those who can, should, to help protect those who can't (or can but it's less effective).