She bravely decolonized someone else's work.
His job was to drive Canada economically and culturally off of a cliff once Trump was out and America was back on side for the reset.
Countries with low vaccination rates either skew young or deployed ivermectin + hydroxychloroquine + azithromycin as happened in India. Countries with low vaccine rates that skew young also aren't known for collecting data that can be spun into information.
The % looks worse when you look at the vaccination numbers in the cohorts that died. People over 70 are more vaccinated than the ones under 30.
This is similar to demanding to see a control group in a parachute test because you don't want to accept the science and engineering behind drag, atmospheric pressure, and gravitational force being responsible for the success of the parachute. The years of foundational education that even prime someone to search for empirically valid repeatable truth are lost on you.
My "opinions" are based on math, the actual laws of thermodynamics, and a foundational understanding of life sciences and chemistry that's pretty on point with the topic at hand. The blogs you point at are narrow views presented narrowly, ignorance feigned and leaving known knowns to a benefit of a doubt [see the control group for parachutes]. They distort high levels of certainty as not being 100% certain and therefore uncertain so they can say whatever they want really. Actually it's worse because they speak to mathematical models that can be initialized with assumptions based on the above and leaving certain things out.
For example, the recent one about unvaccinated drivers being far more likely to have accidents. Leaves out distance driven and it turns out the unvaccinated cohort had an order of magnitude more kilometers driven. It told us that people who drive 10 times more have more accidents. But we leave that part out saying, instead prefacing that "if we just look at people's vaccine status and adjust for age because we need to flatten that distortion because the boosted cohort is older, but we just do it person to person instead of adjusting for km commuted", well then we can create a sexy sounding study that feeds people's confirmation bias that those risk tolerant asshole crazies are killers on the road too and maybe they're so evil that they should probably pay more for insurance so they don't drive up the premiums of good people.
Your bloggers are publishing in a similar spirit.
I don't care to dox myself. It's easily done these days, especially if someone gets to boasting about rare credentials or demonstrates expertise across more than one discipline. Phrase based fingerprinting is bad enough that a person should be changing up their writing style if they're going to be saying controversial things in controversial places.
The studies you're pointing at aren't saying what you think they are. Omicron spreads equally fast in both populations because it is less affected by bloodborne immunity than the ancestral and delta strains. It replicates in the upper respiratory tract @ 77X the ancestral strain's replication rate. It has increased specificity for those tissues and would be better addressed by mucosal immunity and more specific antibodies. Neither of which a vaccinee has. It's a tabula rasa situation.
I did mention that bloodborne antibodies do help when the infection progresses incredibly slowly to the lower lungs where the blood-oxygen exchange is happening. Not as much as you think because of COVID-19's pathology and tendency to form multi-nucleated tumor-like masses instead of lysing cells. The multinucleated masses also are not detected by the vaccinee's system.
There will be confounding factors in states with low vaccination rates. If you're taking absolute numbers, they probably burnt through the infection more quickly for behavioural reasons. It would have also been winter/spring so you'd have to look at past years and comparable influenza outbreaks. Also consider the "load" and triage states of a given state at that time of year. Also the age of the population (Florida snowbirds and retiree). Also the definitions used for vaccinated. Also lockdowns. Also the typical capacity of the hospitals in an area.
It's a lot and most statistical research doesn't consider these kinds of variables past seeing if the model they selected passes some sanity checks in the numbers being spit out.
Scientists have become increasingly sloppy with the past couple decade's changes to academic culture and the move toward the Replicability Crisis.
It's frustrating. I've had the leaky vaccine and weighted probability talk here before. I appreciate you weighing in.
I can speak to what I have learned. I believe that what I have learned is based on repeatably verifiable empirical observation. Based on that, I will say:
In theory survival rates would be better if vaccines were only deployed to at-risk populations. They're typically deployed to healthy populations only when eradication is on the table due to the virus in question being genetically stable.
The theoretical basis would be that healthy populations would get hit hard and fast and provide enough naive hosts that there wouldn't be evolutionary pressure on escape. It'd likely go the normal route of becoming more specific to the upper respiratory tract which makes it spread faster while being milder. While this is happening, vaccinated at-risk people get infected and benefit from vaccination long enough to make it to the hospital to get cleared by monoclonal antibodies. Fewer elderly people die in this scenario.
What follows is political/economic opinion:
And with profit to be made from naive hosts, there is incentive to treat people who are sick so we don't have a reason to forget how protease inhibitors and coronavirus replication works so existing treatments are allowed to be deployed while magic bullets are aggressively refined that do what they do more specifically.
I think that something extremely perverse happened regarding treatments.
I think that politicians went ham on vaccinating everyone because western governments have codified human rights and coercing just the elderly and sick and disabled would have been shot down in court. Attacking everyone equally and repeating lies and propping up epidemiologists to feign misunderstanding of their own discipline as a white lie to get the few who should be treated treated. Not that they gave much of a fuck past hiding the embarrassing low capacity of our health systems to absorb hundreds of extra critically ill people on a national scale. The PHO's mandates were to keep healthcare from breaking. Saving people and not persons.
You are source trolling against basic evolutionary and life science principles. The ideas of epitopes, enzymes(catalysts), protein synthesis, erroneous transcription, viral stability VS replication errors AS WELL as the physics of thermodynamics (entropy and enthalpy) AND the mathematical idea of weighted causalities.
There's something called the 'Parachute Paradigm' to address people like you. It goes like this:
"This observation has come to be known as the parachute paradigm: We tend to accept the claim that parachutes reduce injury among people who leap from airplanes, but this effect has never been proved in a randomized study that compares an experimental parachute group to an unlucky parachuteless control".
You are dismissing long established theories, and in some case LAWS, because they haven't been repeated in a narrow context. It's akin to arguing that you might fall up instead of down when entering or exiting a newly designed vehicle. There could be confounding variables that might cause this or the appearance of it (wind tunnel? electromagnetism?) but we wouldn't retread the path and study it before the anomaly happened.
A highly mutable coronavirus stabilizing and never escaping the evolutionary pressure of ubiquitous vaccination that offers bloodborne resistance without mucosal resistance would be the anomaly. This is before getting into the pathology of COVID-19 where it fuses cells into multinucleated masses instead of lysing them which allows for more replication before detection. This is before considering animal reservoirs. And, of course, immunocompromised people who will get infected and allow for many more replication cycles (rolls of the dice) before the host immune system gets ahead of the infection. In these cases, the winning roll will be the one that alters the spike protein without crippling the virus's ability to enter cells to the point that it loses the race against the host's immune system.
It isn't. Vaccines exert evolutionary pressure favouring variants that escape vaccine induced antibodies. Whether or not that pressure results in an escape variant falls to chance but this chance is weighted. For example, say a variant has a geometric change brought about by different nucleotides in its spike but this change costs more to synthesize, this variant would be outcompeted in most situations. But say that more expensive sequence (less favourable enthalpy and entropy) happens to evade the antibody 90% of people have, well it has become incalculably more competitive and has an easier time passing between hosts.
Is it guaranteed to happen? No. Are there human created pressures favouring it? Yes.
Most people know how this works from paying some attention to antibiotic resistant bacteria. Same principle. Ubiquitous antibiotics applied evolutionary pressure. It took a long time but viruses get more rolls of the dice in less time.
This isn't even getting into the vaccinee's immune response to variants. If an antigen is similar to something you've encountered many times, the body tends to produce a best fit. Sort of. We're back to entropy and enthalpy. The path of least effort. If the body has thousands of flathead screwdrivers, it's going to try to screw in the Philips with a flathead instead of putting Philips heads into production. Unless something is so different that it doesn't register, such as a hexagonal screw.
The worry here is that a variant escapes enough to replicate relatively unhindered while highly boosted individuals are unable to mount a suitable response due to flooding the body with the answer to 2019's spike. The one we applied massive selectors against the existence of because we didn't restrict vaccines to comorbid and/or elderly groups. Presumably because Canada was greasing its way past human rights violations by mandating against everyone instead of singling out the people who needed it.
I want to say that there's a correlation between age and doses but we did spend a year and a half ignoring this correlation to make the public hysterical and rally them against unvaccinated people. I'd also put money on the increased dose groups being mentally stressed, vitamin-D deficient, and more prone to blood clots and autoimmune disease than the control group.
At least this undermines their rationale for what they did to us. If they weren't good little goldfish brained wannabe stasi they'd realize that age >>>>>> other factors and age == not affected by employment mandates and extremely sick + age == eligible for emergency medically necessary travel or unable to travel at all. So congrats to the pieces of shit who carved out 1 in 10 Canadians so they could enjoy playing ignorant medical fascists.
They treat requests for antibiotics like requests for tar heroine, so yes. Not far off except that you might be allowed some salvage surgery before you end up in the box.
They love it. They're the party of the economy and Canada's economy is predicated on debt yoking new comers and having them use that to keep things churning. If we weren't increasing the number in perpetuity that impetus to keep things moving would have to come from something other than offering up that future economic potential.
We'd need a revitalized manufacturing and extraction base to start weening ourselves off of that and it isn't going to happen because we're so far down this rabbit hole that special interests are entrenched and the majority of the electorate that can be fucked to vote is either addicted to valueless churn through real estate speculation, land lording and farming TFWs via franchises or full of adulation and apologies and waiting for inheritances from those who do.
The PPC talks about lowering the number to 150,000 - 180,000 and have been lauded as xenophobic bigots for wanting to discuss it. Canada is in fact so terrified of having this discussion that we overnighted the PPC vote share from 5.0% to 4.9%. Keeping them a hair away from being able to table this and government overreach at future debates.
You might get some noise from fringe elements of the CPC but it's doubtful. The full weight of our media would drop on them and distort their message until they had to be cut from the party.
Hilariously funded by fossil fuel companies.
He stayed silent right up until he detected an easy win denouncing Trudeau for conflating everyone at the protest with the guy waving the nazi flag. He might have inadvertently been the cause of things getting extended out till June because, Trudeau being the opportunistic piece of shit that he is, decided that he could conflate the CPC with that guy waving the nazi flag. Then ending mandates became a CPC cause and the CPC can never be right, so even the NDP group pushing for an end to mandates ended up voting 100% to continue them at every opportunity. To show PP and the CPC.
Pierre has been nothing but opportunistic. It's just he's our opportunist now and he's made his bed. If mandates return, PP inherits anti-mandate centrists. Trudeau doesn't want that. Because he's an opportunistic piece of shit and there's no opportunity in mandates now. A consolation prize for PP probably costing us 2 extra months of travel ban. Probably also the federal employment ban continuation too.
IMO, today, PP is a good thing. He's a bannerman for anti-mandate people who are too chicken shit to be seen with the People's Party.
I advised my mother to take it in August 2021. Mostly because she is venerable and has Bronchiolitis Obliterans Organizing Pneumonia (unknown origin). Neither her nor I expect her to be around in 10 years AND she has such extensive lower lung scarring that anything could push her over the edge. The calculus on her is extremely different and she's the exact demographic that an experimental treatment exists for. In fact pushing a non-sterilizing vaccine on everyone creates a selection pressure that will see COVID-19 either end (not a chance) or give rise to a strain that removes that advantage people like my mother stand to gain.
I, myself, am not vaccinated and was willing to endure job loss over it. My organization went with a "don't ask don't tell" policy and banned vaccination status as a topic of discussion in the workplace. Had it come to it, I'd have left my career over this.
DO NOT DO THIS. THE SPECIFIC STRESS ON THE BODY COULD CAUSE GREAT HARM IF YOU HAVE PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS AND IS EXTRAORDINARILY HARD ON THOSE WHO DON'T. I might have taken the AstraZeneca (CoviShield?) vaccine as a cop out but I would have practiced prophylactic treatment against it. Interestingly, ivermectin is extremely strong here. My protocol would have been Ivermectin + Lysine (10+grams) + Wet Fasting. For 3 days prior to injection and for 4 days after. I'd likely have dosed vitamin C and D also but these wouldn't have a direct effect. In essence a protease inhibitor that has an additional mechanism of action on chimpanzee adenovirus. Then fasting + a very high dose of lysine to reach a level of mild arginine inhibition (coin toss here as we're creating a situation of high vascular constriction but greatly interfering with replication of the spike protein) - I would do this if I were forced to take an mRNA vaccine. You are primarily fasting to prevent yourself from consuming an amino acid profile that will offset arginine inhibition. If you have access to an arginine inhibitor there's no point in doing this. The fasting has a side benefit of reducing insulin (increasing human growth hormone) and inducing autophagy (self-eating). Vitamin C and D just generally help with viral infection. D to signal your body against turning off for winter. C for mild acidification though I don't know if it'd help here.
I believe strongly enough against taking the vaccine at my age and overall health that I'm not only willing to experience job loss over it. I'm also willing to practice a theoretical protocol if I were forced to take it. Like if it was the only way I'd be allowed to visit my dying wife. Something of that magnitude.
I still contend that the main issue with mRNA vaccines is in the delivery mechanism. The delivery materials, in my opinion, are going to play the role of the 1000 carcinogens in cigarettes and the industry used to say that part out loud as little as 5 years ago. It's going to be the asbestos of the millennial and late Z generations. There are specific issues with the spike protein too, but the lipid nanoparticles (LNP) are going to be the thing that proliferates to other vaccines and protein (mRNA) therapies. In some cases this may be fine. Where a LNP is delivery mRNA that just synthesizes a biologic medication. In cases where a LNP is an inflammatory, as with vaccine adjuvants, it's going to add to potential autoimmune injury of tissues the adjuvant is more trophic to. So like cigarettes. A life ending problem for many. Indefinitely fine for a few. Mileage varying by how much smoking is undertaken. But unlike smoking, the autoimmunity isn't just going to resolve when you stop.
Autoimmunity Issues:
My theory is that we are going to start seeing symptoms of autoimmunity in the eyes, ovaries, and adrenal glands. We are going to pretend not to understand it and treat the symptoms. Like we are going to see soaring rates of depression and ennui and blame it on pandemic trauma and long covid but this is actually going to be adrenal fatigue brought about by lipid nanoparticles being more trophic (wanting to glob on at higher concentrations per gram of tissue) to adrenal glands than say spleen tissue or liver tissue.
Same goes for cornea transplant rejection being reported. The eyes of vaccinees have adjuvants pooling in them that provoke the immune system locally which is something you do not want at a transplant site. People will just attribute the vision loss to stress and too much screen time on account of the pandemic.
The ovarian symptoms are showing up in menstrual disruption and that's harder to apologize away. Worse with this is that the menstrual disruptions are "on average" meaning there are women with extremely minor disruption watering down the disruption of women with major or catastrophic damage to their cycles and/or fertility.
Now the spike is it's own thing. Cardiovascular issues. And while the spike is produced by the virus and the vaccine, only the vaccine can potentially vector it to places where it'd normally not be in the concentrations that the vaccine allows for. Like if your medical professional asserts that "aspiration is not indicated!" because they think that it's magic, you might be in for what I'm going to describe. Aspiration was not indicated initially because supplies were limited and it was being rolled out to elderly and immunocompromised people anyway. Aspiration coming up red requires throwing out the dose so that you have a clear syringe with which to aspirate again.
So we're not aspirating. Meaning we can hit blood vessels. And people are just jabbing people every 5-15 minutes. It's tiring. In some cases they're firemen doing it.
When you hit a blood vessel, it's no longer intramuscular. The LNPs enter circulation. Their size is small enough that they should be able to pass through the blood-brain barrier. To say nothing of vascular tissue.
With COVID-19 or adenovirus vaccines, they're not going to be small enough to get through to the brain, except in the kinds of exceptional circumstances that deserve single patient case studies. Like when a common cold gets into the brain and kills or catastrophically injures the patient. It's rare but it happens.
Spike proteins reaching the brain will be incidental in a COVID-19 infection. In a vaccination that misses the intramuscular site, it becomes a strong possibility.
There's just so much about the mRNA vaccines that I'm uncomfortable with that I can't abide them. These aren't even unknowns. They're just the kinds of things that a general practitioner isn't generally going to be aware of unless they're inclined to dig deep. Same goes for a lot of academics. Most of them aren't eccentric Einstein types or as smart as the geek-blackface Big Bang Theory people portrayed on TV. And some of the brilliant ones are too smart to tie their own shoes or mile deep inch wide types parroting people with impeccable credentials who are parroting people without them.
Our discussion veered into leaky vaccines and the origins of omicron.
My position is that most people should avoid the COVID vaccines at this point in time and that it was irresponsible to push them on everyone. I assume that it was done to cast the net wide in hopes of catching more of the at-risk people who might have become today's problem. We can't discriminate directly against the at-risk. I think it was a medically irresponsible act of cowardice. Because we are dealing with a leaky vaccine that we knew at the time was leaky. Epidemiological models were putting vaccine induced herd immunity above 100% with delta and the Israeli data available to us in Fall 2021 told us we were just trying to slow it down (non-sterilizing).
Initially I only recommended the vaccine to people with the kinds of confounding factors that'd make them high risk for SARS and low risk for any long term unforeseen consequences relating to being dosed with the adjuvant lipid nanoparticles. People over 70. Younger people with many confounding factors (obesity plus cardiopulmonary issues plus diabetes, people with cystic fibrosis, etc.). I did actually recommend it to more than one person who was leaning on me to be their sense or proportionality.
I do think that someone under 50 who is considered to be in good health for their age should avoid the vaccines. Whether it be an mRNA vaccine or the chimpanzee adenovirus based vaccines. The proportionality argument isn't there. And yes there's a "long COVID" argument, but there's always a post-viral syndrome argument and a rare presentation argument. These are rare though and the former is often treatable if you have access to a sane doctor willing to let loose with anti-inflammatories, bloodwork, and temporary visits to nutritionists and dieticians. The latter is so rare that we write case studies when they come up. Like when someone gets a cold and it somehow bypasses the blood-brain barrier and kills the patient.
Today, I think that someone over 70 who has had omicron and dealt well with it shouldn't boost. I think there's a risk of original antigenic sin and they shouldn't be tuning an immune system, already flagging with age, any more toward the wild spike. I'd rather they focus on sleep and getting enough vitamin D. Did you know that waning vitamin D seems to signal our bodies that it's winter now and that we should ramp down our immune systems to save energy since we're probably barely leaving the cave. In the modern era where we collide with each other through 6 degrees of separation, it's a disastrous response. I'd rather someone over 70 supplement to avoid that response than take the same vaccine + one for an infection they've recovered from (bivalent) and have their body knee jerk a defense for a variant that may have escaped what their body is good at.
I guess I'd recommend the bivalent vaccine for an elderly or very at risk person who has not been infected by the omicron variant. Even then, I'd leave it up to them and tell them to manage their risks. Keep an eye on hospital capacity and reduce exposure crowds. If hospitals are triaging COVID-19 patients, then start wearing a respirator and vaccinate if there's a significant difference in outcomes between vaccinated and bivalent boosted people with your preexisting conditions.
Not in those words because I'd want them to understand what the fuck I'm talking about. And if they get belligerent, I'm not getting on my hands and knees to talk them out of it unless it's a healthy child. Their body, their hopefully informed choice.
Literally nauseating.
Concerning the chickens, ALL leaky vaccines need to be handled with care. It's an outcome that shows a worst case with leaky vaccines removing an evolutionary pressure rendering them more deadly. A successful virus balances incapacitation of the host, dormancy period, and transmission vectors. Having a large portion of the population vaccinated to remove "incapacitation of the host" changes the virus' environmental selective pressures. It's dangerous and is why, barring a sterilizing vaccine, we generally do not jab healthy people unless they work in care services. We generally want someone home sick for a few days so we can quarantine them.
There are other cautionary tales in immunology. Dengue fever being another that's not as relevant here.
The point with the chickens is that it's a similar situation. Not 100% because of how herpes will hang around in reservoirs in the host and so the non-sterilizing aspect is more extreme where in COVID-19 most people clear the infection so we're talking weeks of replication instead of small scale reservoir replication for however long a factory farm chicken lives. But the sheer number of COVID-19 hosts gives us a vast number of per cell replication hours. Especially compared to the biomasses of infected tissue in the respective hosts.
Here is why I assume omicron was not a regular mutation:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5247(22)00120-3/fulltext
I'm not pulling the precise reference on a quick pass but here's one from the Lancet explaining variant evolution being driven in immunocompromised patients being treated with sotrovimab.
among 100 patients infected with the delta (B.1.617.2) variant and treated with sotrovimab monotherapy, four were immunocompromised and rapidly developed resistant mutations in the spike protein at positions 337 or 340, or both. These mutations are associated with prolonged excretion and in-vitro resistance
I read a ways back from South African clinicians that the same thing was going on right where the first cases of omicron were detected. Impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt because they weren't intentionally keeping their patients in a clean room and testing them 24/7 for evolved strains, but the correlation was common sense. Now, I'd not expect to see it trumpeted in the press because this would make people go off on monoclonal antibodies, but someone with an immunological background or an understanding of microbiological evolution knows that this is a risk.
Same principle as antibiotics being used in situations where 99.9% sterilization leaves 0.1% to reproduce. If there isn't a second sterilization pass either by a host immune system or a cleaning solvent or what have you, there is now a super bug. That super bug probably dies off outside of a body before it can parasitize, but in an immunocompromised body or a hospital where not everyone has intact skin, things happen.
Omicron is more an issue with insufficiently specific monoclonal antibodies. But these antibodies are identical or similar to vaccine induced antibodies depending on which one we're looking at and result in an analogous situation to leaky vaccines. A leaky COVID-19 wild spike monoclonal antibody (we wouldn't typically use this term with monoclonal antibodies) is phenotypically similar or identical to a leaky COVID-19 vaccine induced antibody.
I can't see winning you over on believing that this has already occurred, but it might be worth following for people on here who read up on Mareck's and are interested in how and why this is an issue and how our wild spike round peg square hole approach to monoclonals and vaccines creates risks. Mareck's is a vaccinology equivalent of cautioning people against jumping from the second story of a building. Sometimes you land it. Sometimes you break something. Once in awhile you die. You usually advise against doing it unless absolutely necessary and, in COVID-19 terms, doing young people and children was like jumping out of your window because there's a rat in your apartment. Reckless.
An immunocompromised individual who was vaccinated and treated aggressively with monoclonal antibodies is supposedly where omicron happened. Worth noting is that these antibodies and whatever the patient's immune system produced by way of vaccination were not specific enough to clear the infection on their own.
Remember rebound COVID with Paxlovid? It's a similar principle. The patient's immune system isn't up to detecting and clearing the last of the infection's reservoir and so it comes back. Part of coming back is viral replication and this is an imperfect process.
A leaky vaccine just forgives mutations that'd retard transmission by way of incapacitating or killing an unvaccinated but not vaccinated host. This is only possible when the vaccine is not sterilizing. Whether this be because of an immunocompromised vaccinee or, as is the case with COVID-19 vaccines, we're producing bloodborne immunity to a something that can replicate in the upper respiratory tract to a degree that it's still contagious AND we're vaccinating against an ancestral strain that's already escaped dependence on the wild spike.
In the case of omicron, we ended up with a variant that's over 70x better at replicating in upper respiratory tissues. These have far poorer bloodborne antibody coverage than lower lung tissues which are constantly encountering large volumes of blood flow. This would be why, with wild spike antibodies interfering with covid replication, the lower lung tissue still proved a poor host to delta/omicron. Though omicron is already poor at lower lung replication, it bears bringing up that delta is more specific to the lower lungs + has a closer surface geometry (epitope) to the wuhan strain than omicron does. The vaccines worked far better for delta but were leaky.
Yes all viruses change over time. By their nature they actually change countless times in a single individual, but like someone born with their lungs outside their body or without genitals, almost all changes are not evolutionarily beneficial. Most are going to interfere with the virus gaining entry to a cell and/or hijacking the environment to assemble itself. They are best thought of as a self-assembling biotoxin with features that exploit entropy and enthalpy to increase their chances of landing them in the right place and time to do that self-assembly. They are not alive.
There'd have been little reduction unless you're talking about a what if where we contravened our Charter and forcefully discriminated against the sick, disabled, and elderly. We didn't do this. We applied mandates that they mostly wouldn't care about. Someone too sick to travel and too old to work is who we were most worried about.
In the beginning, short of putting gas tents over care homes and deploying the military to live in staff them, there isn't much we could have done after the head start we gave it. We'd have had to have done a 2002-2003 style quarantine on at-risk facilities.
Now, a sane response would have been to control airports as we did in SARS-2002. A saner response would have been to denounce the WHO's use of our SARS report to browbeat countries into keeping their airports open. That report more or less said that questioning people on the honour system catches too few cases per dollar spent. But Tam's name is on that report and maybe she was too enamored of something she contributed to being recognized internationally to speak out against it. That'd take a level of respect for epidemiology and resolve that she doesn't have. In 2002-2003 we reduced the damage to a thousands of cases and a double digit death toll and we were by far the most affected western country. A similarly infectious strain. Everyone did something right.
The report definitely did NOT say that airports should just be left open during the early stages of a spread. I say spread because there was fuckery early on with the word "pandemic". I'm assuming it has to do with pandemic bonds and having to liquidate and hand them over to the international poor once one is officially declared. But I digress. Any epidemiologist, especially one that worked and published on the SARS 2002-2003 pandemic knew what to do.
The alpha variant wasn't much more infectious than the 2002 strain in terms of R0. It needed a massive head start to become what it did and the WHO did that. And Canada actually produced 'The Science' that allowed for that particular.
For the nat geo article, there's also a study that shows lower viral loads being passed on and surmising that the reduced inoculum (initially transmitted viral load) can allow for natural immunity to get started in unvaccinated chickens before the more severe symptoms kick in. It can go a lot of ways but it's highly probably that that version of chicken herpes exists because of a leaky vaccine. The consequences today are that a partially vaccinated flock might be fine. A naïve flock not so much.
It both reduces the impact of the virus and likely allowed for the existence and dominance of the more fatal strain in the first place.
https://health-infobase.canada.ca/covid-19/vaccination-coverage/
Figure 2 is the important one. The 18+ group is at 59.4% booster uptake. You'll need to change the filter to see it.
70% uptake is where they got emboldened to announce mandates. It's interesting to set the graph to 18+ and look at the 1 and 2 dose uptake last year. There is a surge when threats start dropping in August/September then an increasingly slow capitulation as travelers and each employment group is threatened. Around January, the gains are insignificant. A month after that we have the Convoy.
Now compare this to the run to February 20th for boosters @ 54%. After this the increment drops to a crawl. It dies off so quickly that we stop updating the stat on weekly intervals. Then we go from biweekly to monthly.
Keep in mind that at 12% of adults being subjected to mandates, we had mass protests. We'd be at over 40% if we were mandated today. All of last year's mandates pushed 5% of adults into vaccination. Anticipation of mandates was another 5%. I'm looking at changes in the at least one dose numbers.
It'd be utter insanity to try and bully that 59.4% to around 70% and try to deal with 250% of the number of not "up to date" as last time. While they have political representation and have had time out in the general population to talk about the last year.
And anyways, the economy is crashing on track and elites aren't swinging from the lampposts so we're where he needs us to be. The piece of shit is just gaslighting.
Does Vice work for you for the omicron origin? https://www.vice.com/en/article/xgddw4/omicron-variant-interview-with-south-african-doctor
National Geographic has a light article on Marek's here, https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/leaky-vaccines-enhance-spread-of-deadlier-chicken-viruses
I'm going to explain the concept of leakiness and hopefully personalize it some.
The measure of vaccine "leakiness" is the extend to which it fails to be sterilizing in vaccinees as they encounter the pathogen. VS the alpha variant, sure, there was a reasonable expectation that the average (young + healthy) vaccinee's infection wouldn't hit viral loads high enough to allow for a extensive transmission. Amongst the kinds of people you want vaccinated, it wasn't good enough. See outbreaks of alpha in care homes. But this isn't unexpected since a vaccine requires a healthy immune response.
Where this starts to become a huge problem is with the fall delta wave. Where vaccination is no longer specific for the strain going around AND vaccinees are starting to be 3-6 months out from their last dose. We're dropping from 80-95% reductions in transmission to 60-80 and 40-60 ( go back through these https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-vaccine-weekly-surveillance-reports if you care to dig into it it's usually around page 13 depending on the week but the post omicron studies cited aren't great but we're not really talking about those ).
Anyway, when you have replication toward transmission occurring in significant numbers of vaccinees, you create a situation where "leaky vaccines" start worrying people.
The vaccinee is rarely going to experience reduced severity. This protects an evolved strain from rendering itself non-transmissible on account of causing worse symptoms. With a virus, there comes a point where it incapacitates the host to such a degree that it's easily detected and/or the host is in no position to carry it to new hosts. There are social exceptions like Ebola and some African funeral customs, shitty PPE, etc. But here we'd have someone like yourself maybe getting delta and maybe not really knowing. Perhaps you're young and healthy and motivated to go about your day after thinking you just under slept or ate something off. Being delta, your body's vaccine head start isn't good. It starts replicating. Millions of replications occur. Many on point. Most dead ends. Maybe a small handful are beneficial.
But some of those symptom increasing dead ends aren't dead ends for you. You're now a reservoir for a new deadlier strain of covid-19. Not noticeably deadlier to young, healthy, vaccinees but perhaps it does noticeably more damage older and less healthy vaccinees and definitely lays out unvaccinated people. And before you say GOOD!, unvaccinated people are primarily small children.
This is why we traditionally restrict non-sterilizing vaccination to those who need it. The old, the unwell, and those who will be exposed often having to deal with higher initial viral loads. These people are going to be brought low by infection or will be in medical environments where contact tracing will be possible.
*There's a caveat here that the deadlier strain being passed along by the vaccinee will likely be in a reduced number of particles and so they might need to expose an immunocompromised intermediary. It's a gas + match situation.
Immunologists went with this. It's not complicated. Vaccine and treatment leakage is credited with giving us patient zero for omicron in South Africa. An immunocompromised person whose system just couldn't purge the remaining reservoirs of virus after treatment with monoclonal antibodies. Natural selection being what it is, we got what we got.
Do you not recall the many Marek's allegories or are you just gaslighting?
Obviously not. The only consolation prize is that he's chained his party to Justin's and is alienating entire generations. The NDP is going to have to reinvent and age out their old guard after him and they fucking deserve it.
TLDR; The spike protein suppressed the "DNA damage response" in the tested cancer cell lines (tumors that continue replicating long after the patient from who they were harvested died).
Without the "DNA damage response" an immune system cannot see the damaged cells.
Part of the "DNA damage response" being undermined in the way the study says it's being undermined is that the signal to slow down cell growth and replication does not occur. When this exact factor is missing, it confers chemotherapy resistance and is a driver of cancer formation.
Disclaimer; When cells fuse instead of bursting, as is the case with SARS-CoV-2, that "DNA damage response" can go off in the fused cells because they are not supposed to be fused. So this does not necessarily represent a live model. But, they should probably follow this up with a statistical study of which types of cancers are becoming "turbo". We'd expect to see it everywhere but the kidneys and testis. Modified for the tissue specificity of the vax (eyes, ovaries, adrenal glands, spleen).
Hope this helps. It's crazy that the same person is here chasing cars and seems to have learned little doing it.
From the study: