The Jerusalem Post reported as early as the beginning of August that the country with (almost) the highest full vaccination rate in the world, Israel, is preparing for a new lockdown.
An Israeli news outlet makes another lame attempt to promote a third 'booster shot' with the curious argument that the first two shots have actually had no effect. That's not quite right.
Better news for the seriously ill
It may be hopeless for 'cases' or 'infections', but you see a different picture with the seriously ill. Although there are a few more vaccinated than unvaccinated Covid patients (299 vs 219), it would have to be 2.5 times as many, if it had been a reflection of the population: about 500. There are only 300 of them. Then you can say that the vaccine is 40% effective among the vulnerable, after all, those are the ones who become seriously ill from it.
Vaccination therefore does make some sense to influence the deductible – for members in the vulnerable group. How it is possible that the number of seriously ill people is still rising while vaccination rates are rising is another problem... So the infectiousness is not stopped by it, perhaps even inhibited somewhat. So it certainly does not meet how we have always accepted 'vaccines'.
In terms of infections, it doesn't make much difference, so hardly in terms of contagiousness. It seems that vaccinated people spread the dominant virus less. According to Geert Vandebossche So spread less virus, but especially the new variants that were not stopped by the vaccine. This does not help to build a wall of herd immunity. A very undesirable development, see the bottom of this post.
That means: no more fear of non-vaccinados and therefore no more vaccine passports and that kind of nonsense to keep those groups separate and thus split society.
Furthermore, when focusing on age, you also see that the benefit for the seriously ill is mainly realized by the over-60s because they have by far the largest number of sick people.
In the 60min group, the effect of the vaccination is relatively greater. The vaccination therefore also helps young people against becoming seriously ill – but there are so few of them that in an absolute sense it has to outweigh the possible side effects of vaccinating everyone, regardless of health status or age. This can carry considerable weight in terms of QALYs (Quality Adjusted Life Years). Unfortunately, that balance has not yet been definitively and convincingly drawn up. In fact, no serious attempt is made in the Netherlands either. See also the earlier Lareb station and this video:
To infect or not to infect? It makes no difference
That things are not going well in vaccinated countries is sometimes demonstrated with the statement "There are more vaccinated than unvaccinated Covid patients in the hospital!". That is not a good argument. If 100% of the population is vaccinated, only vaccinated people will be affected by Covid. After all, there are no others and we know that there is no 100% protection, so it is logical that people get sick. There should just be fewer than before. That's where the shoe starts to pinch: infections are rising and that was really not the intention.
We had expected that there would be significantly fewer vaccinated people among the 'cases' of the vaccinations, whether they are PCR tests or actually infected people. In the older age groups, it makes a difference of a few percent, see the table below. What is more difficult to interpret is: in the age groups under 50 (and those from 60-69) there is actually an opposite effect: there are even slightly more "cases" among those vaccinated than could be expected based on the distribution among the population. ADE? Or just insignificant fluctuations? So don't vaccinate young people after all, you would say again. In any case, these figures do not give reason to continue it.
The differences are small, so the question is how important they are. The fact remains that this is not what you hoped to see. If you do a mass vaccination campaign, you expect overwhelming evidence of efficacy, not to mention what can be said about side effects. Even if only 40% of the "cases" consisted of vaccinated people, you could at least say that that would have saved half.
But in any case, it saves seriously ill people and therefore most likely deaths. It just seems that there are now too few to be able to get meaningful figures from them – if that has happened in the past. And yet in the Netherlands we call it a Group-A virus.
Shall we in any case stop using 'infections' or 'cases' as a yardstick?
My conclusion is that it looks fairly positive: the older group, which is the most vulnerable, at least benefits somewhat from vaccinations. If we do the math hard, without wanting to be cynical, there are also fewer QALYs at stake if long-term problems should arise.
Mass injection, including young people, was never a good idea and now appears to be not only ineffective but possibly even counter-effective, not to mention those side effects. If Geert Vandenbossche is right, vaccinating under these circumstances with these 'vaccines' is counterproductive. I have included his argument in a box below.
Below is the translation of How remaining in the dark and turning in vicious circles inevitably leads to erroneous decisions (geertvandenbossche.org)
How groping in the dark and turning in vicious circles inevitably leads to wrong decisions
Conducting mass vaccination campaigns against a backdrop of high infection rates generates optimal conditions for the cultivation of even more contagious Sars-CoV-2 variants. The combination of massive, peak-driven immune pressure and high infection pressure allows these variants to reproduce even more effectively and thus displace previously circulating variants/strains. Mass vaccination thus promotes viral evolution towards more contagious variants.
The resulting increase in viral infection pressure makes it more likely that everyone, including healthy, unvaccinated people, will come into contact with the virus, especially during times when infection prevention measures are relaxed. To the extent that high infection rates result in people being exposed again shortly after a previous asymptomatic infection, their innate Sars-CoV-binding antibodies (Abs) will be suppressed by short-lived, malfunctioning anti-spike Abs, which are known to be unable to prevent the infection from becoming symptomatic. It is precisely the suppression of these generally protective congenital Abs that makes previously asymptomatically infected individuals more susceptible to disease. It is also precisely this phenomenon that explains why a first wave of a natural pandemic is followed by a second wave in younger age groups.
The even greater magnitude of that second wave merely reflects the overwhelming contribution of a population's innate immunity to its overall immune protection capacity. So this is why we are now seeing more and more disease in younger age groups, and even children, although they were perfectly protected during the previous waves. Expanding mass vaccination campaigns to these younger age groups is the most irresponsible public health proposal (decision?) ever, because
- it leads to a huge cohort of naturally protected people being transformed into subjects who will soon become much more vulnerable because the virus is now becoming increasingly resistant to vaccine Antibodies (which, despite their poor functioning, are still able to suppress the generally protective innate Antibodies).
- it increases the pressure on viral infectivity (i.e. on the spike protein, which happens to be the target of all C-19 vaccines!) and will therefore only contribute to an accelerated viral evolution towards increased infectivity (and eventually complete resistance to antibodies). As already mentioned, the higher the viral infectivity rates become, the more the incredibly precious innate immune capacity of the population is eroded and the faster vaccine-mediated protection will wane due to the amplified evolution of the virus towards Spike antibody-targeted resistance. In the meantime – and as long as the C-19 vaccines provide protection against disease – mass vaccination turns healthy people into asymptomatic breeding grounds and spreaders of evolving, more contagious variants, which has the exact opposite effect of what mass vaccination should have done (namely, induce herd immunity). We are only now beginning to see the early consequences of declining vaccine protection, the erosion of innate immunity, and the explosive expansion of steadily evolving, more contagious variants.
This is to say that the total lack of understanding of why disease rates are now rising in younger age groups is prompting short-sighted experts and politicians, who usually have no long-term antennae, to advocate for mass vaccination of younger age groups and children. Since they clearly have no understanding whatsoever of the evolutionary dynamics of a pandemic and how it is driven by the interplay between viral infection pressure and host immune pressure in the population, they fail to understand that mass vaccination of the younger age groups only adds fuel to the devastating fire of a self-reinforcing vicious cycle.
I challenge any expert, regardless of their reputation or qualifications, to debunk or refute my arguments in a public debate on a mainstream platform. If that debate does not take place, it should be very easy for young people, parents, guardians, or even the children themselves, to draw their own conclusions and decide what is best for themselves or the children.
If we could let politicians and short-sighted "experts" hang this sheet over their beds, perhaps we could finally start cleaning up some of the mess they have made and end all the completely unacceptable and needless hostility it has caused between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated. The time has come to turn all this chaos into a constructive effort that is finally driven by 'Science' and 'Solidarity'!
