InhaleExhale

Current Events and Hot Social Topics.  CEHST is just an acronym for the title of this forum.

Efficacy is determined mathematically/statistically using the data that the medical research folks have provided. You don't need an academic or medical research background to do that. What you need is some basic mathematical knowledge, a calculator and rational thinking skills. To back up my approach and calculations I had also linked to respective medical literature. If you disagree with my approach you are welcome to explain yours and your reasoning for it. E.g. why would you possibly NOT include ALL participants of the trial in the final evaluation of efficacy/AAR? What are the points you disagree on and why?
 
Given the lack of data you have provided there is no way to explain anything. Speculatively, IF your claim was actually factual you could ponder this:

Other countries are reporting up to 60% of the cases occurring in "vaccinated" people. So maybe those countries have not stopped monitoring vaccine breakthrough cases.
I don't consider news articles as qualifying credible evidence for anything since investigational journalism is scarce. If you wish to engage in an intelligent and scientific debate then provide adequate sources and be ready to back up any claim you make or retract it if you can't. 
The ultimate issue with the case numbers remains as tests are being used that are inadequate for the purpose, are unapproved and the CDC has already distanced itself from the PCR test but it is still being used for "case count".
Also what is the protocol for the testing? What counts as a case under which circumstances and how often are they reported as a new case? Do you know all these parameters? I don't.
Here is another source that weakens your claim: https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#vaccination-case-rate, expand the Data Table for Vaccinations by Case Rate and look at the numbers. I cannot see correlation of numbers of cases with percentage of vaccinations. They are all over the place.
Or look at this map:

 
 
 
 

The ARR is relevant because it indicates the actual efficacy of the investigational injections, which I would say, currently satisfies the definition of "relevant".
Your link doesn't show any data to back up your claim of "why the states with the lowest vaccine rates are seeing the largest spike in cases".
Do you have data to back it up or not?

Wasn't someone here recently talking about how falsely inflated covid case counts were, and how the PCR tests themselves are highly inaccurate?  And now it seems that the inserts that come with the tests say NOT to use them for covid testing.  

 
 
 
Lots to read in this case document, but well worth it.
 
https://img1.wsimg.com/blobby/go/3c6a0774-cfad-46fa-aa97-af5aa5e74f00/M for PI file stamped.pdf

I get it from the data of the clinical trials Pfizer and Moderna used for their EUA application with the FDA.
For example Pfizer promoted an (primary endpoint of) efficacy of 95% in their document (https://www.fda.gov/media/144245/download). If you read how they came to that number (e.g. page 24) you will see it was determined considering only 170 (162 out of control group and 8 out of injected group) out of about 35,000 total candidates.
Their data is showing that:
- out of 17,411 people in the injected group 8 people experienced symptoms associated with Covid19 AND tested positive (using an unapproved test)
and
- out of 17,511 people in the control group 162 people experienced symptoms associated with Covid19 AND tested positive (using an unapproved test).
 
To get the AAR (absolute risk reduction) we need to consider ALL trial participants: 17,411 candidates in the injected group and 17,511 in the control group.
- 8 out of 17,411 injected candidates equals 0.046% of 17,411
- 162 out of 17,511 placebo candidates equals 0.925% of 17,511
 
Determining the difference between the two results:
0.925-0.046=0.879
The AAR for the Pfizer injection is 0.879% ~ 0.88%.
 
The difference of experiencing any Covid19 associated symptoms between the 2 groups is so small that it becomes statistically insignificant.
Despite that fact they keep advertising a 95% "efficacy" which is simply false according to their own documents. The 95% is being promoted as if there is a 95% less chance for you to get Covid19 if you agree to be injected. But there is only a 0.88% less chance as we can see from their own trial data.
 
When I last calculated the same according to the Moderna data I got an AAR of 1.14%.
 
There is also medical literature about this:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7996517/?fbclid=IwAR0Hrsl9wtGPtUwtpfubQ6c0TY69VGeyK_pMcie95H2TY4YOyH--g3e0E1s
"Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna reported the relative risk reduction of their vaccines, but the manufacturers did not report a corresponding absolute risk reduction, which “appears to be less than 1%"


Here is another article from the lancet: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5247(21)00069-0/fulltext?fbclid=IwAR1_lg0WMIT0hkbQmWdIyg29jqwgv8M5VDDX7MARKwP9Tpz_SIw3n2TQnvk

Thank you very much for sharing this valuable info!

I get it from the data of the clinical trials Pfizer and Moderna used for their EUA application with the FDA.
For example Pfizer promoted an (primary endpoint of) efficacy of 95% in their document (https://www.fda.gov/media/144245/download). If you read how they came to that number (e.g. page 24) you will see it was determined considering only 170 (162 out of control group and 8 out of injected group) out of about 35,000 total candidates.
Their data is showing that:
- out of 17,411 people in the injected group 8 people experienced symptoms associated with Covid19 AND tested positive (using an unapproved test)
and
- out of 17,511 people in the control group 162 people experienced symptoms associated with Covid19 AND tested positive (using an unapproved test).
 
To get the AAR (absolute risk reduction) we need to consider ALL trial participants: 17,411 candidates in the injected group and 17,511 in the control group.
- 8 out of 17,411 injected candidates equals 0.046% of 17,411
- 162 out of 17,511 placebo candidates equals 0.925% of 17,511
 
Determining the difference between the two results:
0.925-0.046=0.879
The AAR for the Pfizer injection is 0.879% ~ 0.88%.
 
The difference of experiencing any Covid19 associated symptoms between the 2 groups is so small that it becomes statistically insignificant.
Despite that fact they keep advertising a 95% "efficacy" which is simply false according to their own documents. The 95% is being promoted as if there is a 95% less chance for you to get Covid19 if you agree to be injected. But there is only a 0.88% less chance as we can see from their own trial data.
 
When I last calculated the same according to the Moderna data I got an AAR of 1.14%.
 
There is also medical literature about this:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7996517/?fbclid=IwAR0Hrsl9wtGPtUwtpfubQ6c0TY69VGeyK_pMcie95H2TY4YOyH--g3e0E1s
"Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna reported the relative risk reduction of their vaccines, but the manufacturers did not report a corresponding absolute risk reduction, which “appears to be less than 1%"


Here is another article from the lancet: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5247(21)00069-0/fulltext?fbclid=IwAR1_lg0WMIT0hkbQmWdIyg29jqwgv8M5VDDX7MARKwP9Tpz_SIw3n2TQnvk

I get it from the data of the clinical trials Pfizer and Moderna used for their EUA application with the FDA.
For example Pfizer promoted an (primary endpoint of) efficacy of 95% in their document (https://www.fda.gov/media/144245/download). If you read how they came to that number (e.g. page 24) you will see it was determined considering only 170 (162 out of control group and 8 out of injected group) out of about 35,000 total candidates.
Their data is showing that:
- out of 17,411 people in the injected group 8 people experienced symptoms associated with Covid19 AND tested positive (using an unapproved test)
and
- out of 17,511 people in the control group 162 people experienced symptoms associated with Covid19 AND tested positive (using an unapproved test).
 
To get the AAR (absolute risk reduction) we need to consider ALL trial participants: 17,411 candidates in the injected group and 17,511 in the control group.
- 8 out of 17,411 injected candidates equals 0.046% of 17,411
- 162 out of 17,511 placebo candidates equals 0.925% of 17,511
 
Determining the difference between the two results:
0.925-0.046=0.879
The AAR for the Pfizer injection is 0.879% ~ 0.88%.
 
The difference of experiencing any Covid19 associated symptoms between the 2 groups is so small that it becomes statistically insignificant.
Despite that fact they keep advertising a 95% "efficacy" which is simply false according to their own documents. The 95% is being promoted as if there is a 95% less chance for you to get Covid19 if you agree to be injected. But there is only a 0.88% less chance as we can see from their own trial data.
 
When I last calculated the same according to the Moderna data I got an AAR of 1.14%.
 
There is also medical literature about this:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7996517/?fbclid=IwAR0Hrsl9wtGPtUwtpfubQ6c0TY69VGeyK_pMcie95H2TY4YOyH--g3e0E1s
"Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna reported the relative risk reduction of their vaccines, but the manufacturers did not report a corresponding absolute risk reduction, which “appears to be less than 1%"


Here is another article from the lancet: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5247(21)00069-0/fulltext?fbclid=IwAR1_lg0WMIT0hkbQmWdIyg29jqwgv8M5VDDX7MARKwP9Tpz_SIw3n2TQnvk

Israeli People Committee’s Report Find Catastrophic Side Effects Of Pfizer Vaccine To Every System In Human Body
https://greatgameindia.com/israel-report-pfizer-vaccine-side-effects/
 
Most protective immunity is natural immunity
 

Sadly yes. I believe it's because they don't research, so they don't know and may not want to know.
Also the CDC decided to stop counting the breakthrough cases 2 months ago. The already instable and inaccurate data is getting even muddier.
Despite the halt on reporting the breakthroughs there are many reports indicating up to 60% of Covid19 cases admitted to the hospitals occurred in people who had received both doses of the injections. This is not surprising at all though given that the AAR is between 0.88% and just over 1%, yet most people believe it is 95%.

And to add to the obfuscation, the CDC decided that after people started getting the vaccine, they needed to lower the cycle count so that people weren't getting "infected" as much.  Total manipulation of the data.  But some refuse to open their eyes to see it.

Yep, unfortunately. Labs were using up to 45 (!) cycles and it has been established that 35 and above results in a 97% chance of a false positive. Yet, those numbers have been used for the case counts. It's unscientific madness.
Ultimately, this PCR test is great for forensic purposes but not for diagnosing an active viral infection. As Karry Mullis said, you can find anything with it if you amplify long enough.
Even the manuals of those tests included that whatever is being detected could also be Influenza A or B. 
There is no approved test I am aware of that is able to diagnose an active infection with Sars-Cov2. I welcome any info of its existence.
 
 

Sadly, this is where the real, actual misinformation comes from. News articles like this one or any claims that have not been investigated by the reader but being presented as facts.
At this moment the CDC lists deaths involving Covid-19 for 2020 at 385,235.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/index.htm , sort by year.
Mind the term "involving". That means the cause of death was not necessarily Covid-19. At some point the CDC estimated only 6% of all supposed Covid-19 deaths were actually caused by this disease.
If you look below the table you will see further clarification on that number: "[1] Deaths with confirmed or presumed COVID-19, coded to ICD–10 code U07.1."
"COVID-19 deaths are identified using a new ICD–10 code. When COVID-19 is reported as a cause of death – or when it is listed as a “probable” or “presumed” cause — the death is coded as U07.1. This can include cases with or without laboratory confirmation.
We have no data on the percentage of the 385,235 being confirmed to test positive for Sars-Cov2. 
And even if we did have that, we would need the CT-value they used to determine a possible false positive if they did use a PCR.
Of course the other issue is that the PCR-test is not adequate to determine an active infection to begin with.
As of today, there is still no approved and licensed test to determine an active infection with Sars-Cov2.
None of the tests used have set standards. All of them are experimental just as the promoted injections.
 
 
 

Yep, unfortunately. Labs were using up to 45 (!) cycles and it has been established that 35 and above results in a 97% chance of a false positive. Yet, those numbers have been used for the case counts. It's unscientific madness.
Ultimately, this PCR test is great for forensic purposes but not for diagnosing an active viral infection. As Karry Mullis said, you can find anything with it if you amplify long enough.
Even the manuals of those tests included that whatever is being detected could also be Influenza A or B. 
There is no approved test I am aware of that is able to diagnose an active infection with Sars-Cov2. I welcome any info of its existence.
 
 

Yep, unfortunately. Labs were using up to 45 (!) cycles and it has been established that 35 and above results in a 97% chance of a false positive. Yet, those numbers have been used for the case counts. It's unscientific madness.
Ultimately, this PCR test is great for forensic purposes but not for diagnosing an active viral infection. As Karry Mullis said, you can find anything with it if you amplify long enough.
Even the manuals of those tests included that whatever is being detected could also be Influenza A or B. 
There is no approved test I am aware of that is able to diagnose an active infection with Sars-Cov2. I welcome any info of its existence.
 
 

Well, would you look at this.  The PCR test is being recalled by the end of the year due to its inaccurate results.  So all those people who tested positive using said test... may well NOT have been.  

https://streetloc.com/news/view/2ql/fda-announced-today-the-cdc-pcr-test-for-covid19-has-failed-its-full
 
 
 
Reading that, it appears as though the PCR test some have been "following the science" with for months can't differentiate between the flu and covid (based on the FDA asking labs to use testing that CAN differentiate).
 
 

Sadly, this is where the real, actual misinformation comes from. News articles like this one or any claims that have not been investigated by the reader but being presented as facts.
At this moment the CDC lists deaths involving Covid-19 for 2020 at 385,235.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/index.htm , sort by year.
Mind the term "involving". That means the cause of death was not necessarily Covid-19. At some point the CDC estimated only 6% of all supposed Covid-19 deaths were actually caused by this disease.
If you look below the table you will see further clarification on that number: "[1] Deaths with confirmed or presumed COVID-19, coded to ICD–10 code U07.1."
"COVID-19 deaths are identified using a new ICD–10 code. When COVID-19 is reported as a cause of death – or when it is listed as a “probable” or “presumed” cause — the death is coded as U07.1. This can include cases with or without laboratory confirmation.
We have no data on the percentage of the 385,235 being confirmed to test positive for Sars-Cov2. 
And even if we did have that, we would need the CT-value they used to determine a possible false positive if they did use a PCR.
Of course the other issue is that the PCR-test is not adequate to determine an active infection to begin with.
As of today, there is still no approved and licensed test to determine an active infection with Sars-Cov2.
None of the tests used have set standards. All of them are experimental just as the promoted injections.
 
 
 

If someone killed their self, but was even "suspected" to have had covid, they would be listed as a covid death, and no autopsy performed.  Ditto all the other leading causes of death.  As I have said elsewhere, we will never know the truth.  
 
 

No, the vaccine is not required for now (even though it should be!). 
Side note: husband and I took the Moderna one a couple of months ago and no, it’s not that there’s wifi in Heaven. We’re just not dead!

So some number less than 6k is - maybe - due to side effects.
on the other hand we have just in the US, 608k deaths, and the global number is known to be underreported especially in Africa and india but is already over 4 million.   What do those numbers say about the balance of probabilities? Like any vaccine out there, the chances  of serous side effects exist but are minuscule compared to what happens if you get the disease. Gee, I wonder why we don’t need to have smallpox vaccinations anymore yet no one dies of smallpox these days, And the people talking about “experimental drugs” yada yada clearly do not understand how scientific trials work. 
 
(What gets me is that so many people who are anti dismiss it as some kind of left wing push, yet even Trump - who got COVID so knows how bad it is , luckily for him he had the best medical care you can get - got the vaccine pretty much as soon as he could.)
 
 

For anyone who is confused about the data, and prefers anecdotal information:  I am an oncology RN for a major cancer hospital in Seattle.  My colleagues and I spent a year risking our lives to do this work.
 
My job is administering chemotherapy and biotherapy to cancer patients.  Chemotherapy kills cancer cells, but also kills healthy cells, such as infection-fighting white blood cells, which makes chemo patients extra vulnerable to infection.
 
It was my employer's stance that most solid tumor patients could (and should) safely be vaccinated for COVID.  Between December of 2020 and June of 2021, we gave >77,000 vaccines to some of the most vulnerable people out there.  And guess what?  NONE of them died from the vaccine.
 
Thanks to everyone reading this thread who made the choice to protect themselves and others.  

The real problem is that people are awful at understanding statistics/math/science. They suck at critical reading and source evaluation and can't accurately weigh pros and cons very well because they suck at all of the above. Like, you're obviously seriously weighing the VAERs death reporting to make a decision but the reported deaths are literally anyone who has received a COVID vaccine and then died at any point since receiving the vaccine. This is inappropriate information to be using to judge whether you should vaccinate or not because it means very little. 

I hear ya.  It is good when people look at it rationally like that.  I think, too, that there are a lot of people who aren't anti-vaccine in general, but are holding back to wait and see how things shake out, as the scientific community (heck, the entire world) is still learning about the effects of the vaccine and COVID in general.  The CDC keeps updating its list of side effects (some of which are quite serious) and the number of reported deaths (which they correctly state that it is unknown how many of the 6,079 deaths are due to the vaccine or something else.)  https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/adverse-events.html  

I think most people here recognize that it's a personal choice. And hey, some people (SOME) have legitimate health issues that the vaccine may interfere with. That's between those people and their doctors. And that's totally fine. What's NOT fine is people saying flagrantly false things like, "The vaccine has killed thousands of people and it has hundreds of thousands of side effects." Saying stuff like this (especially if the person saying those things is not a medical expert and/or provides absolutely no reputable scientifically-backed sources to their claims) IS crazy.

I really hope NVC eventually makes it mandatory for all immigrants to be vaccinated before granting them their visa. I mean if you are required to be vaccinated against measles and chicken pox, why not COVID considering it is our biggest health threat right now.
 
I understand it may not make sense to make it mandatory everywhere currently as not everyone has access to vaccines. I hope they start phasing it in by consulate. In Canada for example, we are at a point where everyone who wants a vaccine can get one, so I see no reason for not making it mandatory for everyone who interviews at Montreal.