Vaccine megathread

[isha]

If the state donated 2 million and have 4.5million for which they cannot find recipients, that's 6.5 million too many ordered (so far). At an average of 20 quid cost to government before the cost of administration, that's about 130 million just for the product alone.

https://www.irishtimes.com/politics/202 ... -vaccines/

Ireland has been unable to find recipient countries for 4.5 million unused doses of Covid-19 vaccines.

Minister for Health Stephen Donnelly told ministerial colleagues on Tuesday that the State has donated more than 2 million vaccines to date to developing countries. However, in a briefing to Cabinet on the Government’s vaccination programme he said that 4.5 million doses put up for donation in 2022 have yet to be accepted by any country.

There is an abundance of vaccine supply throughout the world at present and limited demand among prospective recipient countries, the Cabinet heard.

Like most other medicines, vaccines carry a “use before” date, raising the prospects that many unused vaccines will be wasted. Mr Donnelly said the Department of Health was actively pursuing measures to reduce the amount of vaccine wastage, including the delaying of further deliveries of vaccines to Ireland until September.

Earlier this month it was disclosed that the take-up for boosters has not been near as high in 2022 as it was during the emergency phase of the pandemic.

....The State’s Covid-19 vaccination programme was one of the most successful in Europe in 2021, with uptake rates of 96.7 per cent in the primary programme and 77 per cent uptake among adults in the initial booster programme.

[765489]

Listening to the news on RTE radio there. The HSE say that there are over 700 covid cases in hospital. No breakdown of who has been actually hospitalised by the new covid variant versus someone in a ward for a procedure that picked it up from someone else in the hospital and has just tested positive and otherwise fine. Fuckin cowboys.

[kadman]

If the state donated 2 million and have 4.5million for which they cannot find recipients, that's 6.5 million too many ordered (so far). At an average of 20 quid cost to government before the cost of administration, that's about 130 million just for the product alone.

https://www.irishtimes.com/politics/202 ... -vaccines/

Same old story, different vaccine.
Ireland had surplus swine flu vaccines that they tried to pawn off on some third world countries, but who cares.
the government has spent millions on items that were double purchased or that they did not need.
And no one is accountable....WHY?

[JayZeus]

Same old story, different vaccine.
Ireland had surplus swine flu vaccines that they tried to pawn off on some third world countries, but who cares.
the government has spent millions on items that were double purchased or that they did not need.
And no one is accountable....WHY?

Because as is always the case, they're pissing away our money, not their own.

Budget control is a shambles when it comes to any major procurement of anything related to healthcare, not just vaccines, but everything and anything that isn't pay for nurses.

The majority of people don't take these issues up with their TD's though. They'll just vote the next shower into office and somehow expect things to get better. It never will until politicians responsible to overseeing departments are put in a position where poor performance of their departments operational staff will cost them their cushty pensions. And the same for senior civil servants in same.

If it won't hurt them financially, they simply won't care. It's punching their timesheets and counting down the days to the next appointment, promotion, increment or round of golf. Cowboys, the lot of them.

I'm not in favour of privatisation of the health services, but it's about time this stuff was run like a business, where a bad result on the balance sheet at end of term will cost the people who should have been effectively leading and managing performance throughout. The taxpayer should be considered as shareholders, with a shared dividend of sorts to be available in the form of a budget surplus for future needs when we've all made our investment in services via our PAYE contributions.

Anyone in private industry who spent the way these gobdaws do would be sacked, and rightly so. Anyone who signed off on an underling making such grossly miscalculated purchases would lose their performance bonus, face discipline and possibly lose their job. That's how it should be.

But we'll all just keep paying taxes, electing primary school principles to run the country and complaining on the internet. Or we'll elect the political wing of a murderous paramilitary organisation and hope they know more about business than they did about being decent people.

Jayzus. Isha, you'd be as well off getting the oul' vaccination at this stage. Sure we're completely fecked one way or the other.

[kadman]

Because as is always the case, they're pissing away our money, not their own.

Budget control is a shambles when it comes to any major procurement of anything related to healthcare, not just vaccines, but everything and anything that isn't pay for nurses.

The majority of people don't take these issues up with their TD's though. They'll just vote the next shower into office and somehow expect things to get better. It never will until politicians responsible to overseeing departments are put in a position where poor performance of their departments operational staff will cost them their cushty pensions. And the same for senior civil servants in same.

If it won't hurt them financially, they simply won't care. It's punching their timesheets and counting down the days to the next appointment, promotion, increment or round of golf. Cowboys, the lot of them.

I'm not in favour of privatisation of the health services, but it's about time this stuff was run like a business, where a bad result on the balance sheet at end of term will cost the people who should have been effectively leading and managing performance throughout. The taxpayer should be considered as shareholders, with a shared dividend of sorts to be available in the form of a budget surplus for future needs when we've all made our investment in services via our PAYE contributions.

Anyone in private industry who spent the way these gobdaws do would be sacked, and rightly so. Anyone who signed off on an underling making such grossly miscalculated purchases would lose their performance bonus, face discipline and possibly lose their job. That's how it should be.

But we'll all just keep paying taxes, electing primary school principles to run the country and complaining on the internet. Or we'll elect the political wing of a murderous paramilitary organisation and hope they know more about business than they did about being decent people.

Jayzus. Isha, you'd be as well off getting the oul' vaccination at this stage. Sure we're completely fecked one way or the other.

Hey Isha, there is little point in getting the vaccine now....its outa date.

[isha]

Just to add for the record - Jeffrey Sachs, famous economics professor at Columbia University, who for 2 years chaired the Lancet's Covid-19 Commission, says that his opinion after a lot of research is that Covid came about as a result of a blunder by US laboratory biotechnology research.

Remember when you were as mad as a bag of spiders when you dared to suggest that.
https://covid19commission.org/jeffrey-sachs

[JayZeus]

Just to add for the record - Jeffrey Sachs, famous economics professor at Columbia University, who for 2 years chaired the Lancet's Covid-19 Commission, says that his opinion after a lot of research is that Covid came about as a result of a blunder by US laboratory biotechnology research.

Remember when you were as mad as a bag of spiders when you dared to suggest that.
https://covid19commission.org/jeffrey-sachs

I'm not sure I can believe Sachs is making a declaration that it's anything more than a possibility.

He killed the Lancet's investigative study, because he was concerned about impartiality and bias of the panel he had assembled. It appears that that panel may well have leaned towards the zoonic origin of the Covid 19 virus, which may well have been against his own bias.

Seems like it's just as easily argued that he has an agenda (everyone does) and in the absence of any research, he's over-stepping and putting the cat amongst the pigeons with little good to come of it.

https://www.science.org/content/article ... igin-probe

I think it's pretty shitty for an experienced academic to reference how there's lots of evidence, but in the absence of investigative research, to proceed with making such brazen statements.

In light of that, I'd see him as little more than another opinion, no more valuable than anyone elses.

[isha]

There's a lot of evidence in the genome sequencing to be fairly definitive about engineering on the virus. But I accept he may be wrong. We are all biased. Being chair of the Lancet Covid Commission does give his opinion more value however. It's just a fact. He has been immersed in this at a very high level.

Fwiw I have thought it is a lab leak since the very beginning.

[knownunknown]

There's a lot of evidence in the genome sequencing to be fairly definitive about engineering on the virus. But I accept he may be wrong. We are all biased. Being chair of the Lancet Covid Commission does give his opinion more value however. It's just a fact. He has been immersed in this at a very high level.

Fwiw I have thought it is a lab leak since the very beginning.

I thought the opposite was true, that it revealed a new backbone and that if you were working on virus you’d probably use an existing one. Also the ace receptor binding was not what was predicted. All the mutations seen in this virus are seen in similar ones in nature. This was in a report from nature in 2020 so maybe there is evidence that refutes it since. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9

Sachs is an economist and making statements like this is unprofessional, I can only guess where his funding comes from. A quick glance at his background reveals he’s a Chinese apologist who has written foreword positions for huawei.

It reminds me of the ‘turtles all the way down’. Why believe it was produced in a lab when there is already a perfectly reasonable explanation. Forests full of bats with coronavirus and people that frequent them was always going to trigger a mutation some time or other.

[isha]

Personality analysis- I confess I don't know much about Sachs at all. His name may have been vaguely known to me in passing, but my personality analysis of him has extended as far as thinking he looks a bit like Jeffrey Archer and maybe that's a Jeffrey thing . So, he could well be biased, brazen, shitty, and unprofessional as described variously above.

Nonetheless he undeniably has occupied a senior position in the global context re covid, so his statements cannot be casually dismissed. And they accord with emerging permitted ideas eg SAGO reporting to the UN that lab leak must be kept as possibility, and Dr Tedros of WHO said to have recently confided to a UK politician that he is inclined towards engineered theory. This is a big change from before. Lab leak theory was punishable thought crime til recently.

It's going to take time to know the truth. Years.


Chinese apologist - Sachs may very well be a Chinese apologist. I honestly don't know. If he is, however, he joins a very large team. Not only does China own all the things now because governments all over Europe and elsewhere keep on selling or leasing them important strategic real estate, but delegations from all countries, including Ireland, just keep on rocking up to China hoping to sell stuff, giving as much a damn about Uighurs in concentration camps or experiencing forced sterilisation or organ harvesting as they do about the purposeful mass starving of Yemeni people. Which is to say, not much of a damn at all. We are all apologists for China now, forcibly complicit. Sure even Bertie Ahern was on the verge of selling them our forestry land. Etc.

But aside from all that, I assumed (and could be completely incorrect!) that the "blunder" Sachs references happened at the Wuhan lab. The US biotechnology research referred to has been going on there for quite some time. Maybe he means another lab - a US based one - but that was not what I think he means. Therefore (and if he means a Wuhan lab blunder) he is implying serious coverup by the Chinese of incompetent personnel and/or insufficient security in a high level laboratory. And that doesn't seem very apologetic for China on his behalf.


Genome - I have read loads here and there from people writing about sequences in the SARS COV genome that suggest engineering, and forgotten almost all of it and where it is. I will keep an eye out and post some bits if I retrieve them.
Examples of such articles would include https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10 ... 22.2057010

Though I confess I also do keep an eye on the chatter among the weaponised autists of the internets as I have a hunch that occasionally they are the pathfinders in highly complex times. Many are wrong, some few are correct way ahead of the rest of us. They have been consistently pointing towards anomalies in the receptor binding domain which do not occur in nature but do occur in research projects.

Since that Nature article linked above there has been mainstream theory published about doubts re natural occurrence eg
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-scienc ... lewebshare

This has been supported and challenged. It would seem that contrary to the propaganda science is NOT settled! Crazy, I know.

Right at the beginning (Feb 2020) when scientists like Andersen were writing to Fauci in emails later redacted the opinion was that the genome did not look naturally evolved. I think that very much remains likely. But it is going to take time to prove/ be admitted. The implications are just so huge.

[knownunknown]

The line in China pushed by their state run t.v. was that covid came out of us laboratories and I thought that was the same thing Sachs was repeating here.

“I'm pretty convinced it came out of a US lab of biotechnology”.

It doesn’t look like he’s talking about wuhan.

Edit/ Found this in an article from the intercept:

For their part, Sachs and Harrison emphasize that they’re not saying laboratory manipulation was involved in the emergence of the pandemic virus, only “that it could have been.”

“ Among the institutions that Sachs and Harrison list as possibly having “knowledge of the detailed activities that were underway in Wuhan and in the United States” are the National Institutes of Health; the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, which has provided grant funding to EcoHealth Alliance; the Department of Homeland Security; DARPA; the U.S. Agency for International Development, which funded the $200 million PREDICT program that catalogued potential pandemic viruses; and the University of California, Davis, which participated in that program.

He works exclusively now for the UN which are just a propaganda machine for Beijing, including covering up atrocities in Xinjiang.
https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/2 ... da-machine

He is a Chinese shill, much more than your average person who doesn’t speak out against this stuff.
“ Subsequently, 19 advocacy and rights groups jointly wrote a letter to Columbia University questioning Sachs' comments(regarding the treatment of Uighur).The letter's signatories wrote that Sachs took the same stance as China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, a digression to the history of U.S. rights violations as a way to avoid discussions of China's genocide of the Uyghurs. The rights groups went on to say that Sachs "betrayed his institution's mission" by trivializing the perspective of those who were oppressed and murdered by the Chinese regime.”

[isha]

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2202769119

Worth a quick read. It covers some of the genome stuff too.

He is mentioning BOTH US based and US supported labs as possible sources . Including Wuhan.

And because it is difficult to get transparency from the Chinese, which he says, yet still there is no reason that US based materials/sites may not be investigated.

He may very well be a completely rotten person. I'm not assessing his moral character. Just recording that he (and increasingly others who operate at high levels in this whole debacle) consider lab leak a strong possibility.

I think it is worth considering strongly, regardless of the messenger. That doesn't mean I'm correct. Time will tell.

[knownunknown]

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2202769119

Worth a quick read. It covers some of the genome stuff too.

He is mentioning BOTH US based and US supported labs as possible sources . Including Wuhan.

And because it is difficult to get transparency from the Chinese, which he says, yet still there is no reason that US based materials/sites may not be investigated.

He may very well be a completely rotten person. I'm not assessing his moral character. Just recording that he (and increasingly others who operate at high levels in this whole debacle) consider lab leak a strong possibility.

I think it is worth considering strongly, regardless of the messenger. That doesn't mean I'm correct. Time will tell.

I’d happily wager a lot on this Sachs fella being more political than scientific. He was in charge of the scientific investigation into the origins of covid at the UN. The Chinese were the ones not being forthright in releasing their data. He then shutdown the investigation and is now calling for an investigation into US laboratories, not from the UN but the NIH in the US. It wreaks of politicisation.

I was involved in a discussion on planks about this from the beginning when we were in lockdown. You might recognise my username from the ‘Chinese big lie’. I remember how the Chinese were lying about everything, lying about their covid numbers, lying about patient zero, how it leaked from a lab in wuhan and how there was lots of evidence for that, except none of this turned out to be true. There was no bat blood and pee as was stated in reports back then, it came from old reports from a decade ago.

Maybe this virus came from a lab, that’s possible, but it still hasn’t answered how or why or how a cover up is possible. It just adds an extra layer of questions rather than solving anything. It’s like asking, where did everything come from and being answered with ‘god’, well where did he come from? Everyone accepts this could have happened naturally, in fact these mutations happen all the time. There is a massive reservoir in wuhan of bats with coronavirus and the first cases of a new coronavirus appeared there that were very similar genetically.

I don’t see a point in disputing the intricate science, most people believe it could have evolved naturally or from hypothetical lab leak scenario, even Sachs says this. To state it came from a U.S. lab is a bold claim that requires bold proof. All Sachs has is questions. One of my favourite speakers, Hitchens, had the razor, ‘that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence’.

This makes no sense whatsoever, an excerpt from that article by Sachs, in the beginning:
“

The investigation into the origin of the virus has been made difficult by the lack of key evidence from the earliest days of the outbreak—there’s no doubt that greater transparency on the part of Chinese authorities would be enormously helpful. Nevertheless, we argue here that there is much important information that can be gleaned from US-based research institutions, information not yet made available for independent, transparent, and scientific scrutiny.”

[PureIsle]

Just to add to the 'consideration' ...... maybe the "Bad Faith" means something

Lab Leak Theory: New Evidence? (w/ Jeffery Sachs)
This week, Briahna spoke to Jeffery Sachs, who is heading the COVID-19 commission for Lancet, one of the world’s premiere scientific magazines.

[knownunknown]

Just to add to the 'consideration' ...... maybe the "Bad Faith" means something

Quote from Sachs from this interview: 8mins50seconds

“Are we going to have a serious grown up discussion in this country(US)? Why are these things being proposed? Who was doing them? What did they do? So what we’re calling for is grown up truth [sounds a bit like my truth or your truth, not THE truth]

We’re not saying this is a lab leak or a lap manipulation, but it sure could have been.”

This guy needs to jog on back to Beijing. Even the nature article I posted earlier that was cited thousands of times says it could have resulted from lab manipulation. The fact that we don’t even know what he’s talking about, where did the virus come from wuhan or the US should have you asking serious questions about what he’s saying.

Daily mail, yesterday, “ It is unclear if Professor Sachs believes Covid originated in the US or was borne out of a collaboration between American and Chinese scientists in Wuhan.”

[PureIsle]

...

Daily mail, yesterday, “ It is unclear if Professor Sachs believes Covid originated in the US or was borne out of a collaboration between American and Chinese scientists in Wuhan.”

Beliefs have no place at all in such a discussion.
I have no idea from where the virus came so cannot prove what I might believe.

I strongly suspect it was lab created, but because of the close ties between US and Chinese labs there is presently no way of narrowing down my beliefs to one or the other or both.
Even then that would be just a belief and not based on provable fact.

I think much less of the Daily Mail scribes than I do of Sachs TBH.

[isha]

Remember when this was heresy. Only crackpots said mass vaccination into the blood stream especially against a respiratory disease was not a good idea. You are allowed say that now. And that mask mandates don't have much effect.

Mass boosting the general population to protect against coronavirus infection is set to fail.

That's according to Paul Moynagh, professor of immunology and director of the Kathleen Lonsdale Institute for Human Health research at Maynooth University.

He was speaking as COVID-19 cases continue to surge here and across Europe.

Prof Moynagh told Newstalk Breakfast the current vaccines weren't designed for this.

"The reality is the virus is staying here, it's mutating all the time, we're getting new variants coming along.

"I think in terms of mass boosting every four months, I'm not so sure how practical that is.

"I certainly agree in terms of targeting boosting, especially around older age groups and vulnerable age groups.

"We've asked a lot of these vaccines: these vaccines were designed to protect us against serious illness and they're still doing that.

"I think if we continue to boost with the objective in terms of trying to to prevent infection, I think that's going to fail.

"So I think we have to look at new technologies and ask companies to step up to the mark, in terms of - potentially - nasal vaccines.

"The antibodies we tend to focus on in the bloodstream, that's not the primary site of infection: it's in the respiratory system.

"So we need to look at nasal vaccines, where we would get that - what we call - mucosal immunity".

'It's here to stay'
He also says as we head into winter, we need to plan for additional waves.

On any potential mask mandate, Prof Moynagh believes they won't really make a difference.

"I think the high-efficiency ones, like the FFP2 masks, I think they do work and they offer protection.

"But in terms of a quantitative measure, how protective at a population level, I think it'd be difficult to use that as a basis to mandate masks again.

"And remember with the Omicron [variant] last January, masks were mandated at that time - and within the space of about four to six weeks, about half the population got infected.

"We can do things like ventilation, air filtration... I think testing still has some role in terms of when to enter and exit isolation.

"But I think definitely it's here to stay and we have to accept that this is an additional virus now that we have to deal with".

https://www.newstalk.com/news/mass-boos ... 1657181346

[PureIsle]

Why do we not have such sprays recommended here?

[PureIsle]

My thoughts today ...

The aged are vulnerable according to everything I have read.
The reason for their vulnerability is that the immune system is old and weary and does not respond well to attacks such as from a virus.

OK, so far I am on board with that.

Now comes the point where my thoughts diverge from others ....

If the aged are vulnerable due to a low immune response (because of age) why then would one expect a suitably robust response to the injection which causes the hosts cells to produce the Spike protein, which imitates a SARS-2 viral infection?

I am not questioning whether or not the injections work, only wondering about the logic that indicates they would work for the aged and vulnerable.

Someone got the reasoning behind how/why the injections work for this cohort?

[knownunknown]

My thoughts today ...

The aged are vulnerable according to everything I have read.
The reason for their vulnerability is that the immune system is old and weary and does not respond well to attacks such as from a virus.

OK, so far I am on board with that.

Now comes the point where my thoughts diverge from others ....

If the aged are vulnerable due to a low immune response (because of age) why then would one expect a suitably robust response to the injection which causes the hosts cells to produce the Spike protein, which imitates a SARS-2 viral infection?

I am not questioning whether or not the injections work, only wondering about the logic that indicates they would work for the aged and vulnerable.

Someone got the reasoning behind how/why the injections work for this cohort?

It has a chance to learn from this ‘pathogen’ while not being sick. Their immune systems still work, though maybe not as well as others. It’s the B lymphocytes that respond quicker in future infections having learned how to deal with them.

[PureIsle]

the UK Gov. published a report confirming Fully Vaccinated Children are 13,633% more likely to die of COVID than Unvaccinated Children

https://expose-news.com/2022/07/13/dist ... die-covid/

A rather eye-catching headline and graphs.

.
The following chart shows the calculated Covid-19 death rate per 100,000 person-years among children aged 10 to 14 in England between 1st Jan 2021 and 31st May 2022 –

As you can see the rates are horrendous. With a death rate of 3.2 among the partly vaccinated, and a death rate of 41.2 per 100k among the triple vaccinated, compared to just 0.3 per 100k among the unvaccinated.

Based on Pfizer’s vaccine efficacy formula, this data reveals that the Covid-19 injections are now proving to have negative effectiveness against death among children, with the real-world effectiveness between January 2021 and May 2022 being as follows –

Put plain and simply, the above means vaccinated children are more likely to die of Covid-19 than unvaccinated children. Unfortunately, though, this increased risk of death is earth-shattering.

The Covid-19 injections are proving to have real-world negative effectiveness against death of minus-966.67% among partly vaccinated children, and a shocking real-world negative effectiveness against death of minus-13,633.33% among triple vaccinated children.

I also noted this

The ONS unfortunately still refuses to provide any data on children under the age of 10, despite 5 to 11 year-olds being offered the Covid-19 injection in England since at least January 2022. We dread to think what sort of numbers we would be seeing if they had the decency and nerve to provide it.

These figures are really horrendous.
But apparently the injections go on, and even worse, in some places, they now inject children down to age 6 months!

What the hell is wrong with parents that they put their children in such danger?

... no I do not expect an answer that I can accept .... but do surprise me - please.

[isha]

My opinion from looking at that - and to be honest I really dislike that site and their whole style - is that the vast majority of children are unvaccinated, and the small number comparatively that are triple dosed are likely to be children with serious co-morbidities. So in my opinion the writers cannot make such sensationalist claims based on the ONS figures for childhood covid vaccines.
As far as I can see the majority of parents are not choosing to get the covid shots for their kids.
Which I think is good.

That's just my opinion on it. By the way, Kieran Moore, Ontario health officer, said yesterday that the risk benefit for younger people needs to be considered especially given their low risk from covid and a 1 in 5000 ( what he is so far admitting) myocarditis risk. He is getting it in the neck for encouraging hesitancy. Interestingly he also called the shots therapeutics rather than vaccines. Sounds to me like someone trying to wash their hands.

[PureIsle]

Regardless the source above being a bit dubious in their presentations, I also found this, from Steve Kirsch, who essentially agrees with their calculations. His summary begins with

I was inspired by this article https://expose-news.com/2022/07/13/dist ... fe9771270b in the Expose to take a look at the latest UK numbers.

and later writes

Because if the UK data is accurate then…

Kids aged 10 to 14 are dying at a rate 45 times higher than normal

He does give some thought to why the numbers come out as they do.

https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/are- ... dium=email

Norman Fenton also had some things to say about the ONS data here

https://probabilityandlaw.blogspot.com/ ... d-why.html
.

[PureIsle]

This is rather controversial, but I am in no position to comment on their methods or results

https://denisrancourt.ca/entries.php?id ... young_male

[schmittel]

This weeks epidemiological report looking similar to last weeks:

According to National Office of Clinical Audit (NOCA) data as of 5th July 2022, where vaccination status was known (N=31), 3% of COVID-19 cases in ICU were unvaccinated and 97% were fully vaccinated. Of those COVID-19 cases in ICU who were fully vaccinated, 83% were recorded as having received a booster/additional dose.

We've previously heard a lot about the pandemic of the unvaccinated based on the ICU numbers. I wonder will people now be remarking on how the the unvaccinated are disproportionately underrepresented in ICU.

Somehow I doubt it.