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 broadcast is making a poor attempt to promote a third 'booster shot' with the strange argument that the first two shots actually did nothing. 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 among the seriously ill. Although there are slightly more vaccinated than unvaccinated Covid patients (299 vs. 219), there should be 2.5 times as many if it had been a reflection of the population: approximately 500. There are only 300. Then you can say that the vaccine is 40% effective among the vulnerable, after all, these are the ones who become seriously ill from it.
Vaccination therefore certainly makes some sense in influencing the deductible - for members in the vulnerable group. How it is possible that the number of seriously ill people continues to increase while the vaccination rate is increasing is another problem... This does not stop the contagiousness, but may even slow it down somewhat. So it certainly does not correspond to 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 also means: no more fear of non-vaccinados and therefore no more vaccine passports and that kind of nonsense to keep those groups separated 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.
The effect of the vaccination is relatively greater in the 60-minute group. The vaccination therefore also helps young people against becoming seriously ill - but there are so few of them that in absolute terms it still has to outweigh the possible side effects of vaccinating everyone, regardless of health status or age. This can have a significant impact in terms of QALYs (Quality Adjusted Life Years). Unfortunately, that balance has not yet been drawn up definitively and convincingly. In fact, no serious attempt is being made in the Netherlands. See also the previous one Lareb station and this video:
To infect or not to infect? It makes no difference
Dat het niet goed zou gaan in gevaccineerde landen wordt soms aangetoond met de uitspraak "Er liggen meer gevaccineerde dan niet-gevaccineerde Covid-patiënten in het ziekenhuis!". Dat is geen goed argument. Als 100% van de bevolking is gevaccineerd, zullen er ook alleen maar gevaccineerden door Covid worden getroffen. Anderen zijn er immers niet en we weten dat er geen sprake is van 100% bescherming dus dat er mensen ziek worden is logisch. Het zouden er alleen wel minder moeten zijn dan voorheen. Daar begint de schoen al te wringen: besmettingen lopen op en dat was toch echt niet de bedoeling.
Van de vaccinaties hadden we verwacht dat er beduidend minder gevaccineerden zouden zijn onder de 'cases', of dat nou PCR-testen of daadwerkelijk geïnfecteerde mensen zijn. In de oudere leeftijdsgroepen scheelt het een paar procent, zie de tabel hieronder. Wat moeilijker te duiden is: in de leeftijdsgroepen onder de 50 (en die van 60-69) is er juist een averechts effect: er zijn zelfs iets méér "cases" onder die gevaccineerden dan op basis van de verdeling onder de populatie verwacht kon worden. ADE? Of gewoon insignificante schommelingen? Jongeren dus toch maar niet vaccineren, zou je dan opnieuw zeggen. In elk geval geven deze cijfers geen aanleiding om het wél door te zetten.
De verschillen zijn klein dus het is de vraag hoe belangrijk ze zijn. Feit blijft dat dit niet is wat je hoopte te zien. Als je een massale vaccinatiecampagne doet, verwacht je een overduidelijk bewijs van werkzaamheid, nog afgezien van wat er over bijwerkingen kan worden gezegd. Al bestond maar 40% van de "cases" uit gevaccineerden, dan zou je tenminste kunnen zeggen dat dat de helft had gescheeld.
But in any case it will save seriously ill people and therefore most likely also deaths. It just seems that there are now too few to be able to extract meaningful figures - to the extent that this has already 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.
Injecting en masse, 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 correct, vaccination under these circumstances with these 'vaccines' is counterproductive. I have included his argument translated into 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 accelerated viral evolution towards increased infectivity (and ultimately full resistance to antibodies). As already mentioned, the higher viral infectivity rates become, the more the population's incredibly precious innate immune capacity will be eroded and the more rapidly vaccine-mediated protection will wane due to the virus's enhanced evolution toward Spike-antibodies-directed resistance. In the meantime – and as long as the C-19 vaccines protect against disease – mass vaccination turns healthy people into asymptomatic breeding grounds and spreaders of evolving, more contagious variants, which has exactly the opposite effect of what mass vaccination was supposed to do (namely induce herd immunity). We are only beginning to see the early consequences of waning 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.
Als we politici en kortzichtige "deskundigen" dit laken over hun bed konden laten hangen, zouden we misschien eindelijk kunnen beginnen met het opruimen van een deel van de puinhoop die ze hebben gemaakt en een einde kunnen maken aan alle volstrekt onaanvaardbare en nodeloze vijandigheid die het heeft veroorzaakt tussen de gevaccineerden en de niet-gevaccineerden. De tijd is gekomen om al deze chaos om te zetten in een constructieve inspanning die eindelijk wordt gedreven door 'Wetenschap' en 'Solidariteit'!
