30 Percent of New COVID Cases in Connecticut are Fully Vaccinated per CT Dept of Public Health

In what might be described as a blow to Groton-based drugmaker Pfizer, an advisory panel to the Food and Drug Administration recommended that coronavirus vaccine booster shots need only be administered to the elderly or infirm. The FDA is expected to make a decision based on the advisory committee's recommendations soon.

The decision Friday came after a review published in top medical journal, The Lancet, earlier in the week cited data insufficient to support any benefit of boosters to the general population.

Why get a booster? Studies earlier this year suggested vaccine protection against infection is waning, although the vaccines were still highly effective against hospitalization.

Story Here

For the record I am pro-vaccine choice.

If you're like my in-laws, elderly and infirm (one has Multiple Sclerosis), then by all means get vaccinated.

If you're young and healthy you should have the choice to vax or not.

Nobody should be forced to vaccinate, and for those that like to play word games, YES, holding one's career, ability to travel, ability to participate in social events over vaccination status is forcing people to take these medications.

We are seeing in real-time the narrative evolving over the value proposition of the shot.

First it was touted as 90% effective (which it was probably close to immediately after inoculation) and highly preventative against transmission by the vaccinated. We even had members here trying to sell the idea that the vaccines would have multi-year if not semi-permanent efficacy, which was a complete joke.

Then the narrative needed "re-calibration" after it was shown (as many here claimed was the case) that getting the vaccine DOES NOT prevent transmission.

Now we are seeing that the 90% efficacy against symptomatic cases of COVID has a shelf life, as explored in the linked article.

My recollection is that Biden claimed that (paraphrasing) "if you get the vaccine you won't get COVID".

Falsehood.

That being said, it wouldn't surprise me if Biden's handlers actually meant for that statement to be a bit more nuanced, with some qualifying facts, but Joe did what Joe does, and that is bumble the messaging.

NOW the narrative calibration is entering a new phase, which is:

YES, you CAN "infect gramma" even if you are vaccinated.

YES, you CAN contract the virus even if you are vaccinated.

but but but IF you contract the virus, being vaccinated will diminish the length and severity of the symptoms, and possibly keep you out of the hospital.

I actually believe this ("being vaccinated will diminish the length and severity of the symptoms, and possibly keep you out of the hospital."), but the question is, why wasn't this level set as the original narrative from the jump of the vaccine??.

Essentially we are seeing a vaccination program similar in purpose and effectiveness as for influenza, but it is being treated as a necessity in the vein of inoculation against, say, small pox, which is much more severe and potentially lethal ailment

Again, I think on balance, the development of the vaccine is a positive, but it has been leveraged and manipulated to a level WAY above what is warranted by government officials across the globe.

I am forecasting that, when the dust settles, we will see many officials be sacked and possibly even prosecuted for abuse of authority over this vaccination drive. The constantly shifting narrative, including the facts cited in the linked article, should be enough to neuter efforts to make vaccination compulsory.

If this doesn't materialize, and governments are allowed to force vaccinations without any pushback or consequences, that will confirm that the NWO is imminent.

Time will tell.

a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened

Follow the money, I had mistrust right off the bat it seemed to rushed and ready (they were chasing those guaranteed dollars), then as the narrative shifted media never spoke about any other potential vaccine, I have yet to have a doctor I spoke with have a clue about novavax.

Head of the FDA resigns in April I think it was to get a job at Pfizer 6 months later right before FDA approval, think someone here posted a link to Congressional investments in the market, bunch of them are heavily invested in Pfizer.

Add in the CDC throwing out money for covid care and covid deaths to hospitals, AFTER banning "elective" procedures (I put quotes around it because diagnosed with cancer after a certain date, ooo sorry to bad thats elective treatment), skewing the numbers of cases and deaths.

I am not sold on Agenda 21, This I think is just an example of pure old fashioned greed which leads to grabbing power by default to ensure you can continue getting more money. (IMO)

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened

Follow the money, I had mistrust right off the bat it seemed to rushed and ready (they were chasing those guaranteed dollars), then as the narrative shifted media never spoke about any other potential vaccine, I have yet to have a doctor I spoke with have a clue about novavax.

Head of the FDA resigns in April I think it was to get a job at Pfizer 6 months later right before FDA approval, think someone here posted a link to Congressional investments in the market, bunch of them are heavily invested in Pfizer.

Add in the CDC throwing out money for covid care and covid deaths to hospitals, AFTER banning "elective" procedures (I put quotes around it because diagnosed with cancer after a certain date, ooo sorry to bad thats elective treatment), skewing the numbers of cases and deaths.

I am not sold on Agenda 21, This I think is just an example of pure old fashioned greed which leads to grabbing power by default to ensure you can continue getting more money. (IMO)

I agree, the financial implications of the vaccines have been allowed to dictate policy, and that is insane.

There is a far too cozy relationship between the national "gate keepers" of health policy (CDC/FDA) and Big Pharma.

It boggles the mind how the organization in charge of infectious disease protocols for the US is not a fully-fledged governmental agency, entirely funded by tax dollars (ahem CDC Foundation), and with firewalls in place to prevent influence from Big Pharma.

a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened

I actually believe this ("being vaccinated will diminish the length and severity of the symptoms, and possibly keep you out of the hospital."), but the question is, why wasn't this level set as the original narrative from the jump of the vaccine??.

The only reasons I can come up with is. It was a honest mistake with the vaccine data, or the data was intentionally manipulated. Either way, why did they not decide to err on the side of caution? As one or two studies is not the definitive on any pharmaceutical concoction.

I am forecasting that, when the dust settles, we will see many officials be sacked and possibly even prosecuted for abuse of authority over this vaccination drive.

Nice thought but I wouldn't hold my breath. Just look at the history of the FDA and drug makers, No one gets jailed, no matter how many they kill maim or addict. Just look at the Sackler family. They walked away with billions and immunity.

a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened

The issue is that public policy is not being driven by facts and logic. This is why everything seems so disjointed and makes no sense.

I suspect public policy is being driven by an attempt to cover up the origin of Covid while at the same time protecting the public.

I think the government doesn't want to acknowledge that Covid is in fact a man made virus, nor do they want to acknowledge any direct or indirect involvement. In other words, C19 is a massive screwup on a global scale. Basically, a global disaster. At the same time, they do want to protect the public.

This is why they seem so hell bent on getting every vaccinated. It also explains why they were able to get the media and big tech to start censoring people who were questioning the narrative.

No one I know has said you can't get Covid once you're vaccinated. Of course you can, but from the article:

"Although coronavirus deaths in Connecticut have declined markedly since February, it is important to note that death — and hospitalization — rates have consistently been higher among unvaccinated persons compared to fully vaccinated persons.

According to DPH, unvaccinated residents have a 5-times higher risk of being infected with, an 8-times higher risk of dying from, and are six times more likely to be hospitalized over COVID-19, compared to people vaccinated against the virus."

And the articles first sentence reads, "According to DPH, unvaccinated residents have a much higher risk of being hospitalized and dying from COVID-19 than vaccinated people."

All the vaccine does is give your body a jump start in identifying the virus when it enters your system. Instead of waiting for your immune system to figure out it's a virus, send that info to the B cells, so they can make antibodies and start the process of eliminating the threat. It just give you more time to fight the virus, and to fight it as soon as it enters your system. That's all.

a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened

originally posted by: MiddleInsite
No one I know has said you can't get Covid once you're vaccinated. Of course you can, but from the article:

"Although coronavirus deaths in Connecticut have declined markedly since February, it is important to note that death — and hospitalization — rates have consistently been higher among unvaccinated persons compared to fully vaccinated persons.

According to DPH, unvaccinated residents have a 5-times higher risk of being infected with, an 8-times higher risk of dying from, and are six times more likely to be hospitalized over COVID-19, compared to people vaccinated against the virus."

And the articles first sentence reads, "According to DPH, unvaccinated residents have a much higher risk of being hospitalized and dying from COVID-19 than vaccinated people."

All the vaccine does is give your body a jump start in identifying the virus when it enters your system. Instead of waiting for your immune system to figure out it's a virus, send that info to the B cells, so they can make antibodies and start the process of eliminating the threat. It just give you more time to fight the virus, and to fight it as soon as it enters your system. That's all.

a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened

There is circular logic problem though with the vaccine mandates and masking.

1) The vaccine just prevents you from maybe getting as sick if infected with Covid
2) Vaccine doesn't stop you from spreading covid.

If the above is true, then there is no reason to fear the unvaccinated.

The only risk of unvaccinated is that they themselves could potentially get sicker if they are infected.

At some point though, people have to manage their own risk.

We also know that vast majority of c19 cases involve the elderly. So unless someone is over 65 and has co-morbidities, there is no logical or statistical reason to be concerned about masks, vaccines, etc. NONE.

The CDC data on hospitalizations and deaths is pretty clear.

With 67% of the state vaccinated, how does the math work out on this?

originally posted by: GravitySucks
With 67% of the state vaccinated, how does the math work out on this?

Roughly 50 % of the people vaccinated if 33% of all sick are the vaccinated. The data seems to support that a log of people vaxxed are dying from either the shot or the CV they get after the shot.

a reply to: Justoneman

That does not sound correct. Doesn't it say that breakthrough deaths are 8.2% of all cases since February 4?

originally posted by: GravitySucks
With 67% of the state vaccinated, how does the math work out on this?

This is probably best thought of in terms of Relative Risk Ratio (RRR). The RRR in this case is how likely are you to end up in the hospital if you are unvaccinated compared to how likely you are to end up in the hospital if you are vaccinated.


The unvaccinated account for .7 of the cases and make up only .33 of the population, so the fraction of cases divided by the fraction of the population represented by unvaccinated people is (.7/.33 = 2.12)

The vaccinated account for .3 of the cases and make up .67 of the population, so the fraction of cases divided by the fraction of the population represented by the vaccinated people is (.3/.67 = .448).

The RRR of ending up in the hospital is 2.12/.448 = 4.7 if you are unvaccinated as compared to vaccinated.

originally posted by: MiddleInsite
No one I know has said you can't get Covid once you're vaccinated.

“You’re not going to get COVID if you have these vaccinations.”

-Joseph Robinette Biden

www.politifact.com...




when the very first thing you say is a lie, what else is a lie?

originally posted by: 1947boomer

originally posted by: GravitySucks
With 67% of the state vaccinated, how does the math work out on this?

This is probably best thought of in terms of Relative Risk Ratio (RRR). The RRR in this case is how likely are you to end up in the hospital if you are unvaccinated compared to how likely you are to end up in the hospital if you are vaccinated.


The unvaccinated account for .7 of the cases and make up only .33 of the population, so the fraction of cases divided by the fraction of the population represented by unvaccinated people is (.7/.33 = 2.12)

The vaccinated account for .3 of the cases and make up .67 of the population, so the fraction of cases divided by the fraction of the population represented by the vaccinated people is (.3/.67 = .448).

The RRR of ending up in the hospital is 2.12/.448 = 4.7 if you are unvaccinated as compared to vaccinated.

But neither group is really all that at risk... it is literally like saying if you are more likely to get killed by a shark or lightening. Neither is particularly high odd but one may be more likely than the other.

originally posted by: SleeperHasAwakened
For the record I am pro-vaccine choice.
...
If you're young and healthy you should have the choice to vax or not.

So, you need to clarify... it sounds like you're only pro choice 'if you're young and healthy'?

I actually believe this ("being vaccinated will diminish the length and severity of the symptoms, and possibly keep you out of the hospital."), but the question is, why wasn't this level set as the original narrative from the jump of the vaccine??.

So, you understand they lied and obfuscated from the beginning - yet you still believe them?

No, the question is... why? Why the frack would you believe anything out of these liars mouths???

Unbelievable.

I don't believe a crap-crud thing any of these people say, and never, ever will.

They all need to hang. Literally.

Again, I think on balance, the development of the vaccine is a positive,

Yeah? Other jabs have been pulled from the market really quickly after far far - by orders of magnitude - fewer adverse reactions than have been reported for this thing.

A positive? REALLY?

I am forecasting that, when the dust settles, we will see many officials be sacked and possibly even prosecuted for abuse of authority over this vaccination drive.

Abuse of authority?

Suppressing the fact that there were potentially effective therapeutics - and actively lying about their potential and forbidding their use (HCQ, Ivermectin and Fluvoxamine) just so they could get their EUA for Remdesivir and their jabs was massively criminal, and people should HANG for what they did.

originally posted by: GravitySucks
a reply to: Justoneman

That does not sound correct. Doesn't it say that breakthrough deaths are 8.2% of all cases since February 4?

Meant to type "of all deaths"

a reply to: 1947boomer

Thanks!

The percentage of vaccinated people going to the hospital keeps increasing because the vaccines are wearing off.

originally posted by: MiddleInsite
No one I know has said you can't get Covid once you're vaccinated. Of course you can, but from the article:

Not even 2 months ago the official narrative everywhere was "breakthrough infections are extremely rare" when they stopped being so rare, the narrative mutated to "Breakthrough infections do occur, but hospitalization and death are extremely rare," now that we are starting to see that a growing percentage hospitalized are "fully vaccinated" we're on to just deaths being extremely rare.

Keep in mind these are symptomatic cases. The majority of covid cases are asymptomatic and never get tested. The actual number of cases is several times more than reported tested cases.

originally posted by: TauPhiLambda
Keep in mind these are symptomatic cases. The majority of covid cases are asymptomatic and never get tested. The actual number of cases is several times more than reported tested cases.

Not saying you're wrong, so then ... if the majority of COVID cases are asymptomatic...why the constant fear p0rn about "cases cases cases CASES".

There has been and continues to be widespread data uncertainty with how cases, fatalities, hospitalization, etc basically anything related to the pandemic is tallied.

Nobody that died in car accident should be counted as COVID fatality.

People admitted to hospitals for acute health problems, strokes, heart attacks, advanced cancer shouldn't be counted as a "case" unless they are very apparently symptomatic, and even then, they weren't being admitted for COVID, so that should really go in a separate category.

We also witnessed a startling drop in the number of influenza deaths (from many thousands in the year prior to like a few hundred nationwide??) in 2020 while there was a spike in COVID fatalities. That is huge HUGE red flag in my book.

I would like to see a post-mortem/audit of COVID case/fatality data at some point in the future, by independent statisticians and medical professionals with 0 ties to the FDA, CDC or BigPharma. We deserve to know how severe this pandemic really was.