“The vaccines were never tested to prevent transmission, only symptomatic disease….”
How many of you are literally reading that for the first time?
Really important—and obvious—points about the representation about cases and serious disease since the beginning of the year.
Also implies another important caveat about the flawed CDC study— CDC provided guidance that vaccinated shouldn’t test for mild symptoms So reinforces the acknowledged caveat in the study that confirmed cases are likely underrepresented in the vaccine arm.
Given tiny size (246 observations) this selection bias itself is problematic.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
What about college students, school kids, and other young healthy people (such as military) who have recovered from Covid, have natural immunity, and are being forced (or pressured) to be vaccinated?
Well here's the deal--everything that applies in my case (mid-50s, good immune system, healthy) applies EVEN MORE to them.
Baseline risk for young people even without vaccine is very low, especially for serious illness. Risk post-natural immunity is even lower. We are taking as close to bullet-proof zero risk as you are likely to find.
For those of you who have recently recovered and are being pressured to get the vaccine, next time someone tells you that ask them if they would recommend that you get vaccinated against any other virus while concurrently or recently infected....
I had shingles this spring and after recovery asked my doctor if I should get the shingles vax. He looked at me as if it was the most foolish question he had ever heard and said patiently, "Well no. Of course not. You do not vaccinate right after you have a virus....
"Because it presents a high risk of hyperinflaming your immune system. Its dangerous and unnecessary. Come back in a few months and we'll check your antibodies level and see if it is safe and efficacious then."
Here's one interesting observation from the week since I filed my case: some vaccinated people lecture me that Covid-recovered should get forced vax despite the fact that there is no trial data on safety (Covid-recovered were purposely excluded from the trial)...
and that there is not just the ordinary risk of side-effects (which is why responsible doctors ALWAYS avoid unnecessary treatments and procedures including vaccination) but actually ELEVATED risks of adverse effects...
because in their opinion (after reading a blog post describing a news article about one study that they have no idea of the quality or other contrary evidence) they conclude that it would enhance immunity protection...
Its extremely good that for now vaccination is mitigating serious disease and death. But MANDATES are legally justified only if they substantially limit infection and transmission. Which requires a careful calibration of marginal benefits and marginal costs. Not anything goes.
Economists call this "externalities." But if the benefit of a decision is largely private not external, then that's a matter for private choice. Indeed, to the extent that vaccination makes it less likely that a person is infected and contagious because no symptoms...
Then they are actually CREATING externalities. This is known as the "Peltzman Effect" (or "Seatbelt Effect") named after a famous example by the great economist Sam Peltzman who noticed that mandatory seatbelt laws reduced fatalities to drivers...
Its generally recognized that natural immunity provides better protection against SARS-CoV-2 variants than vaccination with a narrow vaccine designed to target the now-extinct original variant because natural immunity recognizes the entire complement of proteins. 1/
But some people still have trouble understanding why that is. This marvelous cellular-level analysis that was just posted a couple of days ago is really informative to explain the underlying process. cure-hub.com/post/sars-cov-… 2/
The whole thing is worth reading carefully and analyzing all of the data and Figures that usefully illustrate the concepts. 3/