Pasayten's Methow Valley Bulletin Board

Wall street is trying to make a killing from covid.

FYI... Omnicon and November jobs report killing wall street today...

dorankj wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 10:28 pm
I’m just dealing with the reality I find and I think my statements are pretty consistent. I don’t believe I’m leading anyone to bad advice but we all have to make choices for ourselves and sometimes accept consequences for those choices. I have an entire career seeing the outcome of bad choices so I believe I have a pretty discerning eye for risk analysis at least for myself and I really hate false propaganda being the reason people make certain choices

We probably have a fair amount of alignment to those principles even if we arrive at slightly different ultimate choices.

My choice to get the vaccines are based on age and risk factors such as breathing in VOCs, dry wall dust, wood dust and other nasty particles that carpenters are exposed to on the job even with trying to wear PPE as much as possible.

I definitely don't need a respiratory infection.

I have spent a big part of my life purposely taking risks at both work and play so understanding how to manage those risks and actively learning the human factors behind how and why humans make poor choices was of paramount importance to continued survival.

However, all that experience and learning doesn't mean that I won't crash and burn someday.

I totally get what you are saying.

I’m just dealing with the reality I find and I think my statements are pretty consistent. I don’t believe I’m leading anyone to bad advice but we all have to make choices for ourselves and sometimes accept consequences for those choices. I have an entire career seeing the outcome of bad choices so I believe I have a pretty discerning eye for risk analysis at least for myself and I really hate false propaganda being the reason people make certain choices! We probably have a fair amount of alignment to those principles even if we arrive at slightly different ultimate choices.

dorankj wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 11:09 pm Chris, you allude to a fundamental problem. It’s not that people say you are wrong (very few are against the vaccine as an option for those that choose it). But neither you or anyone has explained why a virus that has virtually no risk to me would require a ‘mandate’? If I choose not to be ‘vaccinated’ I’m 100% protected against any side effects now or long term, if I get COVID I have a 99.9x survivability and improved natural immunity! Why is this so hard to understand?

I totally understand what you are saying, which is why I stated that in my previous post.

I've also stated in,my previous posts here that when I was younger I may not have chosen the vaccine, just as I ignored all the recommended flu shots until I turned 64.

When I did get the flu a few times it was not a pleasant experience, but I felt my immune system was stronger for having had it.

However statements like the one quoted below I believe sow doubt about the vaccine and seem contrary to what you just stated about "It’s not that people say you are wrong"

dorankj wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 10:25 am Not much of a ‘vaxxine’ if it needs a booster every 6 mos.! (I never worry about polio or TB) I’m thinking a 99.9xx survivability with superior natural immunity is the way to go if you’re younger and healthy. Just sayin’ "Unsavory acronym".

As I posted in reply to that quote, you don't have to worry about many of those diseases because chances are you've already been vaccinated against them as a mandated requirement to attend public school. Herd impunity has been reached for those pathogens.

We do get an occasional outbreak of measles in this country from those who refuse that vaccine, but fortunately most are a not conduit for that particular virus because they're vaccinated, so it appears that measles is no longer a concern here. Not the case in many parts of the world.

https://www.cdc.gov/measles/cases-outbreaks.html

I have also been a proponent for recognizing the benefits of natural immunity.

And I do catch some flack for taking that position, with what I hope is a unifying message, that both the vaccinated and people who have acquired natural immunity are contributing to putting this pandemic in the rearview mirror.

I certainly can't explain the Governmental actions behind why "a virus that has virtually no risk to me would require a ‘mandate’?" except perhaps those mandates have worked in the past to help put other diseases in the rear-view mirror through vaccination.

Covid-19 Vaccines or Infections: Which Carries the Stronger Immunity?

Denise Roland - Wall Street Journal

Evidence grows that infections provide as much protection as vaccines, prompting some experts to suggest a nuanced approach to vaccine mandates

Evidence is building that immunity from Covid-19 infection is at least as strong as that from vaccination. Scientists are divided on the implications for vaccine policy.

The role of immunity from infection, which scientists have been trying to figure out since the outset of the pandemic, has gained fresh significance amid the controversy over vaccine mandates.

Vaccines typically give rise to a stronger antibody response than infection, which might make them better at fending off the virus in the short term. Infection triggers a response that evolves over time, possibly making it more robust in the long term. A combination of both types appears to be stronger than either alone. But the jury is out on whether one form is stronger than the other, and whether their relative strength even matters for vaccine policy.

The comparison is further complicated by the emergence of new variants, such as that identified this month in southern Africa, which may be more contagious and be better at evading vaccines.

One thing is clear: Vaccination is a far safer, more reliable strategy for acquiring immunity, given the risks of serious illness or death from infection. But viewpoints splinter about whether people who have had Covid-19 before need a full course of vaccination, and whether documented prior infection should count as proof of immunity—as is the case in some other countries, including much of Europe.

Immunity from infection hasn’t been studied as extensively as vaccine-mediated immunity. But over the course of the pandemic, clues have emerged to suggest the two are at least equivalent.


Several peer-reviewed studies conducted in the early part of the pandemic, before widespread vaccination, found that people infected during the first waves were around 80% less likely to test positive during the next surge. Those studies spanned healthcare workers in the U.K., the Danish population and patients at the Cleveland Clinic, a large health system with facilities mostly in Ohio and Florida.

A recent Israeli study found that people who had been vaccinated with two shots of the vaccine developed by Pfizer Inc. and BioNTech SE —the most commonly used there—were 13 times more likely to later get infected than those with a prior infection. The study, which hasn’t been peer reviewed, tracked confirmed infections between June and August this year for people who had been either vaccinated or infected in January or February.

It also suggested that immunity from infection is longer lasting than that from vaccination.

More real-world evidence would be needed to make the case that immunity from infection is superior to that from vaccination, said David Dowdy, associate professor of epidemiology at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

A factor that may have exaggerated the protective benefit of infection in the Israeli study was that vaccinated people could be more likely to travel abroad and bring the virus back to their vaccinated families, pushing case numbers up in that group, he said.


Data from the U.K.’s Office for National Statistics showed that, between May and August, a prior infection offered around the same level of protection against the Delta variant as vaccination with either the Pfizer shot or the one developed by AstraZeneca PLC and the University of Oxford.

Some studies suggest the opposite. One, conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, found that, among people hospitalized with a respiratory illness, Covid-19 was over five times more common among those who were unvaccinated and had an earlier infection compared with those who were fully inoculated and hadn’t had the virus before. Critics say the study, which hasn’t been peer reviewed, had flaws that likely overestimated the relative strength of vaccination.

The CDC said in a recent review of the current scientific evidence that both fully vaccinated and those previously infected with the virus have a low risk of subsequent infection for at least six months.

“It is complicated but…we’re at a state in the world where [vaccination and prior infection] seem equally protective,” said Monica Gandhi, professor of medicine and associate chief of the University of California San Francisco’s division of HIV, infectious diseases and global medicine.

The two forms of immunity appear to have different strengths. Vaccination with mRNA vaccines produced higher concentrations of neutralizing antibodies—the type that prevent the virus from entering cells—than infection, although levels waned in both groups, according to a recent paper published in the journal Nature by researchers at the Rockefeller University in New York.

Immune memory, however, appears to be stronger following infection. The Rockefeller research group found in an earlier study, also published in Nature, that the antibodies produced by memory B cells—which quickly multiply in subsequent encounters with the virus—continued to evolve at least a year after infection. The study on vaccinated people found that the antibodies produced by their memory B cells didn’t change much over time.

One possible reason for the difference, they said, was that pieces of virus remain in the body for weeks after infection, whereas vaccine particles fade away faster. The upshot: The immune memory of people who have been infected is ready to produce a broader array of antibodies than of people who have been vaccinated.

Michel Nussenzweig, the professor who led the Rockefeller research, said the papers suggest that vaccination likely offers better protection from infection but that this protection wanes rapidly. However, the quality of long-term immune memory, which is key to responding to infection and staying out of the hospital, is superior in people who have had an infection, he said.

So-called hybrid immunity—that in people who have had both vaccination and infection—has been shown to be strongest of all. The Rockefeller researchers found that vaccination boosted levels of antibodies in the blood and memory B cells in people who had been infected before. The effect also appears to work in the other direction: A study of vaccinated people who were infected during a July 4 holiday weekend outbreak in Cape Cod found that they produced high levels of antibodies and T-cells directed against the virus. That study, led by researchers at the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, hasn’t been peer reviewed.

Questions remain, though, about whether people who have had Covid-19 need a full course of vaccination. A study from New York University found that although one dose of the Pfizer vaccine significantly increased antibody levels in people with a prior infection, a second dose produced a more muted response.

Another study from researchers at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York found that a single dose of the Pfizer or Moderna Inc. vaccines produced more antibodies in people who had previously had Covid-19 than two doses did in those who had never encountered the virus. It also found that people with prior infection report more unpleasant side effects from vaccination. The authors concluded that offering a single shot to those who had already had Covid-19 wouldn’t negatively affect their antibody levels and would spare them from needless pain. The NYU and Icahn studies haven’t been peer reviewed.

Some doctors say the mounting evidence on the role of immunity from infection supports a more nuanced approach to vaccine policy.

Among them is UCSF’s Dr. Gandhi, who supports a single dose of vaccine in people who have had the virus. She also thinks prior infection should carry weight when it comes to vaccine mandates. “Mandating [vaccination] so that someone [unvaccinated] loses their job if they have a proven prior infection is going too far,” she said.

Marty Makary, a professor at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, also advocates a case-by-case approach to vaccination in people who have already had Covid-19, especially among children. “There’s no scientific basis for vaccinating people who had the infection,” he said. “It’s not clear to me that the benefits of vaccination in someone who has circulating antibodies outweighs the risk.”

Yet others say universal vaccination—as recommended by the CDC—still makes sense. That is mainly because the vaccines are safe and have been shown to enhance the immune response of people who have been infected before.

One issue with a more targeted approach is that immune responses to infections vary, and there is no way to sort out people whose infection led to a strong response from those who didn’t. Although responses to vaccination also differ, the dose is fixed, making it less variable, they say.

“The risk of vaccination is extraordinarily low,” said Tom Frieden, former director of the CDC and chief executive of Resolve to Save Lives, a nonprofit initiative that works on strengthening epidemic preparedness. “The benefit is high and the uncertainty with infection makes it so that you can’t make that a replacement to vaccination.”

Write to Denise Roland at Denise.Roland@wsj.com

And I know many people (some with the exact COVID risk factors, age, weight and co-morbidities) who have had no issues or death, that’s why it’s personal body autonomy. I REALLY don’t need you to save me! The exact same things you listed can be said for the flu shot and it kills 100s of thousands every year, no mandate. Why are you entitled to your info to decide for yourself and I am not?

dorankj wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 11:09 pm ... Why is this so hard to understand?

Why is it so hard to understand that even people who survive COVID have an alarmingly high rate of long-term illness? Right now I personally know two otherwise healthy people like you who are unable to work due to long COVID. Depending on how you measure it, somewhere between fifteen and forty percent of people who get this virus suffer long-term health effects. Of course, we don't know exactly how long those will last, but with the closely related SARS and MERS viruses we know that the long-term health effects can last more than ten years.

Even if the vaccines do not 100 percent prevent retransmission of the virus, they do substantially reduce the rate at which the disease is transmitted. Which means fewer sick people and far fewer variants that might make us much sicker. Why is that so hard to understand?

Why is it so hard to understand that there has never been a vaccine which had a side effect that didn't manifest itself within three months of vaccination? And why is it so hard to understand that there are uncounted trillions of different kinds of mRNA (not all of it from you) sloshing around your body at any given time? It is hard to come up with a credible mechanism where one more kind of mRNA will cause you to drop dead in twenty years.

Chris, you allude to a fundamental problem. It’s not that people say you are wrong (very few are against the vaccine as an option for those that choose it). But neither you or anyone has explained why a virus that has virtually no risk to me would require a ‘mandate’? If I choose not to be ‘vaccinated’ I’m 100% protected against any side effects now or long term, if I get COVID I have a 99.9x survivability and improved natural immunity! Why is this so hard to understand?

woodman wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 8:04 pm
Personally I believe many of you have been captured by the mainstream narrative.

Same mainstream narrative that saved my life when I caught a bad case of bacterial pneumonia when I was in the fourth grade. I don't recall an anti penicillin movement.

Big Pharma also makes Ivermectin and folks are gobbling those pills down like they're candy even though the company that makes them says that they're not a proven treatment for Covid19.

And what about those five radio and media vocal anti-vaxxers who on their death-beds from Covid had wished that they had taken the vaccine?

I understand y'all don't want to take the vaccine and that's a reflection of your right to bodily autonomy and I agree with that right. But why such a strong desire to tell the folks that want the vaccine that we're wrong?

Especially when majority of people now dying from covid in the United States have not been vaccinated.

In other news, New variant discovered in South Africa. Too early to tell if it's more transmissible, more deadly or more resistant to the vaccine than the Delta variant or the original strain.

woodman wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 8:04 pm ...I believe many of you have been captured by the mainstream narrative.

Sorry Brad, the same could be said for you being captured with the alternative narrative of your fake news and conspiracy websites...

alfrandell wrote: Sun Nov 21, 2021 1:07 am brad, you do not understand how the vaccine works, or you would get it.
it is pointless to argue your utube hocus pocus here.

This guy is a chiropractor. That doesn't mean he can't understand the scientific literature better than you. Personally I believe many of you have been captured by the mainstream narrative. You don't understand the power and influence of Big Pharma over the media as well as the medical system. BigAg gave us herbicides so that our food is tainted. Why is it such a stretch to realize the diabolical nature of this behemoth?

https://brandnewtube.com/watch/dr-kevin ... pKcdz.html

woodman wrote: Tue Nov 16, 2021 10:41 am According to this news outlet vaccine efficacy has slipped to 40% in Israel.

Any loss of vaccine efficacy is why booster shots are being recommended. Saw an interview with a former Surgen General who stated that our mra vaccines are really a three shot vaccine. He said barring any serious variants, no more booster shots should be required for the general public.

Also, I'm sure you've noticed that on the internet that there are people claiming to be scientists who have no understanding of the scientific method. That method includes citing sources of previous peer reviewed research that supports current research, hypothesis or theory.

In other words, lots of misinformation is being put forth by both the right and left such as the unsourced charts that a membrer here posted concerning measuring antibody levels as it relates to Covid immunity.

All that misinformation just leads to more confusion which is why a personal physician should be consulted in matters of personal health recommendations.

alfrandell wrote: Sun Nov 21, 2021 1:07 am brad, you do not understand how the vaccine works, or you would get it.
it is pointless to argue your utube hocus pocus here.

I am not into arguing. I agree that we should be committed to the scientific method. It is not even very complicated...

https://beforeitsnews.com/eu/2021/11/de ... 79594.html

Ray, I think that news story out of Israel portrayed the current concerns without censoring anything. No mention was made of preventing serious disease. Maybe there is confirmational bias here in order to boost ratings, and maybe an error in translation, but I don't think so personally.

Here is something interesting from the point of view of an american military doctor, and what he is experiencing. I am very impressed with his integrity.

https://brandnewtube.com/watch/dr-sigol ... oFruw.html

and the rest of the story Brad forgot to mention... 90% effective in preventing severe disease... and these are stats in a time period before the boosters were approved.

"Analyzing the government’s national health statistics, researchers estimated that the Pfizer shot was just 39 percent effective against preventing infection in the country in late June and early July, compared with 95 percent from January to early April. In both time periods, however, the shot was more than 90 percent effective in preventing severe disease."

According to this news outlet vaccine efficacy has slipped to 40% in Israel. Meanwhile in the US and UK the data apparently is not showing the same results. Why is there such a discrepancy? I think of Israel as the canary in the coal mine since they are several weeks ahead of the US. If there is a problem they may be an early warning signal.

https://brandnewtube.com/watch/israhell ... 3WAKk.html

mister_coffee wrote: Sat Oct 30, 2021 8:19 am Another study just out:

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/ ... mm7044e1_w

Top-line result is that unvaccinated people with a previous covid infection are over five times more likely to end up in the hospital with a covid infection than vaccinated people.

The details are important. This study looks specifically at infections from 90-179 days after a previous infection or after vaccination became fully effective (so two weeks after your last shot). They only looked at mRNA vaccines (Pfizer and Moderna) because there wasn't enough J&J vaccinated-subjects to provide a significant sample.

While the information they shared isn't complete, they seem to have made a rigorous effort to check for confounding factors, such as health status (we know that immunocompromised people are less likely to survive a covid infection, are more likely to get vaccinated, and are more likely to have breakthrough infections), age (vaccinated people tend to be older), and location (if you are in a place with relatively small amounts of covid your risks are quite a bit different than if you are in a place with active community spread).

I'm not even going to say that this study is "right" and other studies are "wrong". The important point is that people need to understand that all of these studies have limitations and you have to be pretty careful to understand exactly what question any given study is answering. For myself, I am still nervous because you are still looking at a tiny portion of the population (out of ~200k hospitalized patients, they were considering under 10,000) so you can still, like all of the studies I've seen, find yourself just looking at outliers and not learning anything at all. Population errors are really easy to make, especially if you are in a hurry.

Correct me if I misread the paper, but the study used people who had already shown a poor immune response to SARS COV-2, ie people hospitalized with Covid. Wouldn't you expect that their reinfection rates would to be higher than people who had a better outcome with their initial case of covid?

Wonder how those re-infection rate numbers for prior Covid 19would apply to people with a stronger immune response to their initial case of Covid compared to those who had been vaccinated?

Too bad we don't have any medical experts on this site that could answer that question or provide an unbiased analysis of that study.

Another tip off that I noticed, is that she did not know what BLAST stood for and had to look it up, yet she said she used it.

Great info David. You know Bitchute is really shitchute. That's no lie.

woodman wrote: Sun Oct 31, 2021 5:23 pm THIS WHOLE THING IS A LIE.

Please tell me specifically what in blazes you mean by that?

The only way I could even imagine that working (and it makes my brain hurt to think it) is if we were in a North-Korean style (or more likely a 1984-style) hall-of-mirrors totalitarian information control regime. Which we most definitely aren't, unless it is of inhumanly skillful construction.

Just as a matter of curiosity, how is any of the following possible if "this whole thing is a lie?"

1. Mortality and co-morbidity data from many different countries and areas (e.g. from countries as diverse as Taiwan, Poland, Germany, Spain, Chile, &c) are very roughly consistent, with case fatality rates on the order of 1-2 percent, and identical co-morbidities observed worldwide. How was that organized and decided?

2. Falsifying a death certificate is a serious crime, and almost certainly will result in the loss of medical license and could very likely result in time in prison. How did "they" get so many thousands of doctors to go along with that? And I doubt it was money because most doctors make good money and are quite well-to-do, and most of them are smart enough to see the risks of committing a crime on someone else's behalf for unclear benefits to themselves.

3. I personally know quite a few people who live right here in the valley who got the covid, most of them in spring of 2020. They all reported similar symptoms and all worked in situations where they were vulnerable to exposure. Were they all in on the hoax?

4. Finally, a subtle observation. The whole sequence of events, from the initial outbreaks in China, to how it was grossly mishandled by many governments and not-so-badly handled by some others, plus the incomprehensible political pushbacks (especially here but also in some other countries) was extremely chaotic. If you were going to set up a fake narrative about an infectious disease you'd probably make your lies simpler and you'd probably also make your fake infectious disease much scarier. Anyone cynical enough and ruthless enough to pull something like this off wouldn't be squeamish about killing people in large numbers, so I don't see why they wouldn't just have whole cities wiped out by the disease (easy enough to fake if they have total media control and access to nerve gases) as part of their narratives?

Premise: THIS WHOLE THING IS A LIE.

Yep... Worlds apart in our opinions...

alfrandell wrote: Sun Oct 03, 2021 8:54 am one has not gotten that much from the vaccine.
a 66% or 95% freedom from serious infection is not that good when confronting 1000 times greater viral load.
do the math yourself.
1/5 [roughly] of icu and ventilator patients with c19 [central washington hospital] are fully vaccinated.
David suggests that this is correct, but i suggest that a 20% vax rate in those showing severe covid is not correct.
In other words, the vaccine, and the masks, and the other measures are working exactly like before, but the breakthrough infections are amplified many times.
i do not want this to be true.
but, i will not hide my findings simply because they are dire.
the unvaccinated are dying about 5 times faster than the vaccinated.
i think that this is the source of the 20% figure at CWH.
so, with the current influences, the equation ballances out to a 1/5 reduction in covid death for those who take every precaution. That is very worth a sore arm and some infections around my nose.

ps... chris can evaluate my typing, and comment, but i will never know about it. sorry chris, i tried and tried to work with you.

I accept that we are miles apart on this issue. I havn't budged in my opinion since the beginning. I respect that you think you are correct, and I don't blame you for conflating your previous work experience dealing with radiation with Covid although I believe it is a fatal flawed exercise. I am aligned with Dr Lee Merritt. She has humungous credentials, atleast in my world. She not just a right wing talking head. It's just a 7 minute video, and I know many will tune in even if you don't... Premise: THIS WHOLE THING IS A LIE. https://www.bitchute.com/video/lV6JzXmkRtfu/

Another study just out:

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/ ... mm7044e1_w

Top-line result is that unvaccinated people with a previous covid infection are over five times more likely to end up in the hospital with a covid infection than vaccinated people.

The details are important. This study looks specifically at infections from 90-179 days after a previous infection or after vaccination became fully effective (so two weeks after your last shot). They only looked at mRNA vaccines (Pfizer and Moderna) because there wasn't enough J&J vaccinated-subjects to provide a significant sample.

While the information they shared isn't complete, they seem to have made a rigorous effort to check for confounding factors, such as health status (we know that immunocompromised people are less likely to survive a covid infection, are more likely to get vaccinated, and are more likely to have breakthrough infections), age (vaccinated people tend to be older), and location (if you are in a place with relatively small amounts of covid your risks are quite a bit different than if you are in a place with active community spread).

I'm not even going to say that this study is "right" and other studies are "wrong". The important point is that people need to understand that all of these studies have limitations and you have to be pretty careful to understand exactly what question any given study is answering. For myself, I am still nervous because you are still looking at a tiny portion of the population (out of ~200k hospitalized patients, they were considering under 10,000) so you can still, like all of the studies I've seen, find yourself just looking at outliers and not learning anything at all. Population errors are really easy to make, especially if you are in a hurry.

mister_coffee wrote: Mon Oct 18, 2021 8:32 am It will no doubt be interesting to see what happens, as long as the body count is not grossly high.

I am skeptical about "natural" immunity and how much it will impact controlling the pandemic. Right now outside of studies with very small and questionably selected samples there isn't any serious evidence for such, and there is no evidence at all in the larger data about the progress of the disease in the population.

If there was a strong "natural" immunity effect, one would reasonably expect that an area that had a very high rate of covid last year would have a lower rate of covid this year, independent of immunization. On a global scale you might look at Brazil, South Africa, or Iran. Closer to home you might consider Yakima County, which had a very high rate of covid in 2020 and has a mediocre vaccination rate. Even with all that covid rates this year are still quite high. You can find lots of counties with a similar history across the United States. What you probably aren't going to find is a county that (1) Had a very high covid rate in 2020, (2) Has a low to moderately low vaccination rate, and (3) Has a low or very low covid rate in 2021.

your whole post is pure speculation based upon your own bias. There are still plenty of people who do not have any immunity to this virus that certainly could account for the Covid Cases seen now.

If 90% of the America's population had immunity that would still leave 33 million people without immunity plus the percentage of breakthrough cases.


https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-power- ... 1623171303

"The news about the U.S. Covid pandemic is even better than you’ve heard. Some 80% to 85% of American adults are immune to the virus: More than 64% have received at least one vaccine dose and, of those who haven’t, roughly half have natural immunity from prior infection. There’s ample scientific evidence that natural immunity is effective and durable, and public-health leaders should pay it heed.

Only around 10% of Americans have had confirmed positive Covid tests, but four to six times as many have likely had the infection. A February study in Nature used antibody screenings in late summer 2020 to estimate there had been seven times as many actual cases as confirmed cases. A similar study, by the University of Albany and New York State Department of Health, revealed that by the end of March 2020—the first month of New York’s pandemic—23% of the city’s population had antibodies. That share necessarily increased as the pandemic spread."

Links to the studies that the article is based upon are included in the article.