The Microchip in the Vaccine

[Gondwanaland]

They've shifted the herd immunity goalposts again:
https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/e...w-90-due-delta

Speaking at the Center for Strategic and International Studies on Tuesday, Dr. Anthony Fauci inadvertently hinted at why moving the goalposts on herd immunity is important to the Biden Administration's strategy for mandating vaccines. Because now once the FDA grants final approval for the jabs (already a foregone conclusion), it will give businesses and colleges the green light to start mandating vaccinations for workers and patrons alike.

Now that 70% of adults have been vaccinated, the government is only going to continue ramping up its campaign. "I'd settle for 70% or 80%, but I'd love to see 90%," Dr. Fauci said.

In terms of how it might inspire more people to get vaccinated, Dr. Fauci insisted that FDA approval would be a "game-changer" for the vaccine (Despite survey data showing more than half of those who haven't been vaccinated are firmly skeptical of vaccines).

Despite what the administration has said about giving people the freedom of choice on vaccines, Dr. Fauci revealed that the Biden Administration is depending on vaccine mandates to coerce 100% of Americans to accept the vaccine.

The only way to get to this level is via local mandates, Dr. Fauci pointed out. And that's exactly what people should expect.

"... to get to the 93 million unvaccinated people, we are going to need local mandates".

In other words: First you get the mandates, then you get the jump in vaccinations. We're already seeing the trend in states like Florida that are seeing the most new cases.

"I think you're going to see more people get vaccinated and you're also going to see enterprises feeling much more confident in local mandates for the vaccines... you're going to see more universities...places of businesses, once they get the cover of the mandate...you'll start seeing more vaccines. 
 "Because if you get the majority of the people vaccinated, we wouldn't be having this conversation now."

Dr. Fauci also criticized governors who have given orders making it illegal to requiring masking or vaccinations. "If everybody got vaccinated we wouldn't be arguing about masks...the need for masks would be reduced dramatically," Dr. Fauci said.

If that's true, then why do the vaccinated people need to wear masks?
As a growing number of companies carry out the government's bidding by either demanding staff get vaccinated, demanding that customers mask up (even those who have been vaccinated) or both - Chipotle is the latest to order workers to wear masks and "encourage" customers to wear masks while Microsoft joined the growing number of tech firms requiring employees to get vaccinated - an organization of infectious disease experts are attempting to move the goalposts for herd immunity.

Bloomberg reports that delta's spread has pushed the estimate for herd immunity "well over 80% and potentially approaching 90%" according to the Infectious Diseases Society of America, which announced the change during a briefing on Tuesday.



That's a much higher bar than previous estimates of 60% to 70%. But the key here is Dr. Anthony Fauci and other policymakers will likely automatically treat the 90% number as a threshold for vaccination, not immunity - in other words, in their calculations, they exclude the millions of Americans who have been infected with COVID, but haven't consented to vaccination.

Yet, plenty of academics are already jumping on the bandwagon. Richard Franco, an assistant professor at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, told BBG that "[i]t is becoming clear that this is a very dangerous, way more dangerous virus than the original one."

Earlier today, NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio leaked plans to require gyms and restaurants to collect proof of vaccination via a vaccine passport app being utilized by the city. Unfortunately, these passports will disregard tests showing the presence of antibodies in the already infected. Some research has shown that antibodies produced by natural infection are at least as effective as certain vaccines.

The problem with the IDSA's new herd immunity target is that some academics say we've already reached the 80%+ immunity, and that COVID will never be able to threaten the American population like it did last spring, when immunity was virtually zero.

Just take a look at the latest chart of cases vs. deaths. The media has relentlessly touted the fact that cases have eclipsed levels from last summer...even as deaths have barely budged.

covid0803.jpeg?itok=7eCy3v_b.jpg
Dr. Marty Makary has repeatedly spoken out in editorials published by WSJ urging experts to "level with the public" about the "good news", and that Dr. Fauci needs to "put up or shut up" regarding his fearmongering.

Here's an excerpt from Dr. Makary's latest op-ed for WSJ, where he describes the real power of science and the power of natural immunity:

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.

...

Without accounting for natural immunity, we are far from Anthony Fauci’s stated target of 70% to 85% of the population becoming immune through full vaccination. But the effect of natural immunity is all around us. The plummeting case numbers in late April and May weren’t the result of vaccination alone, and they came amid a loosening of both restrictions and behavior.

...

Natural immunity is durable. Researchers from Washington University in St. Louis reported last month that 11 months after a mild infection immune cells were still capable of producing protective antibodies. The authors concluded that prior Covid infection induces a “robust” and “long-lived humoral immune response,” leading some scientists to suggest that natural immunity is probably lifelong. Because infection began months earlier than vaccination, we have more follow-up data on the duration of natural immunity than on vaccinated immunity.

...

Researchers from the Cleveland Clinic published a study this week of 1,359 people previously infected with Covid who were unvaccinated. None of the subjects subsequently became infected, leading the researchers to conclude that “individuals who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection are unlikely to benefit from COVID-19 vaccination."

What’s the harm of underestimating or disregarding the protection afforded by natural immunity? It almost certainly cost American lives by misallocating vaccine doses earlier this year, and is still doing so in countries where Covid is prevalent and shots are scarce. It continues to delay full reopening and prolongs the state of fear that has many people wearing masks even when there’s no mandate, or reason, to do so.

Dr. Fauci said last Aug. 13 that when you have fewer than 10 cases per 100,000, “you should be able to open up safely and clearly.” The U.S. reached that point in mid-May. It’s time to stop the fear mongering and level with the public about the incredible capabilities of both modern medical research and the human body’s immune system.

Furthermore, movement in the US outbreak's 'R' rate has lagged similar trends in the UK, and some public health experts, including Dr. Scott Gottlieb, expect the current wave in the US to wane by the end of next month.

But by then, the millions of Americans who refuse to get vaccinated might be thoroughly excluded from society.
https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/e...w-90-due-delta

[rogue06]

It typically takes years (up to a full decade in many case) for full FDA approval. Full approval after a year is extremely fast.

FWIU, full approval of a vaccine already under priority review only takes about half of a year

[TheLurch]

Large portions of your post are simply false. I'm going to go through and offer corrections.

Um, maybe - but not if it's continuing to mutate at breakneck speed - the next several variants will muck up that picture if they are also infectious (is variant isn't necessarily the same as will be infectious - although it'd be expected in most).

This is only a minor technical correction. Coronaviruses pick up mutations at a relatively slow pace compared to most other viruses, because its polymerase has a built in proof reading function that corrects errors while replication is in progress. The frequent appearance of new strains is largely a function of its population size, which is incredibly large because we as a global society have done an absolutely horrific job of adapting the measures that could contain it.

As long as they aren't high risk themselves - and they are in limited cases - sure. But only because we foolishly shoved all our eggs in the vaccination basket and spent very little on treatment - other than to refute a president.

This is completely false. I follow the literature, and there are typically dozens of papers every month of groups that have tested existing drugs and compound panels against coronavirus proteins. A lot of that work is government funded. Pfizer has indicated it already has a drug in safety trials. It's safe to assume that if they do, other companies have some in the pipeline as well. Drug development has gone on at a rapid pace, and three different ones received Emergency Use Authorizations before any vaccines did.

It's been done so much that already back in January people were analyzing the lessons learned from the early efforts in the hope of improving the success rate. And it hasn't stopped since.

Treatment - when available - is the gold standard for outbreak intervention. Vaccination programs take much, much longer than treatment interventions do.

Outbreak intervention, sure. Pandemic control, less so. Public health authorities from the start have indicated that a vaccine would be necessary to control this pandemic. This is especially true because the virus spreads extensively prior to the onset of symptoms, and most people would not even know they needed treatment before spreading the virus. This would again keep the viral population large, and increase the probability that drug resistant strains would evolve.

There's no question that it would be great to have a COVID treatment. But it's clear that the experts in this area feel we need both, and it's not hard to see why. And, in the absence of an effective treatment, it shouldn't be in the least bit surprising that vaccines are the focus. I fail to understand why you seem to object to that.

You're over extending here - that's not something that can be definitive in such a short period - it's just barely past six months. And they aren't rare - not even close when compared to other vaccines that were pulled with a fraction of those poor outcomes..

What side effects are not rare? What vaccine has been pulled for side effects that are more rare? Specifics please, not vague, unsupported generalizations.

As for the rest, there's now tens of millions of people who are several months out from the shot. Unless you're proposing that side effects will develop six months after all the vaccine components have been cleared from the body, then we have sufficient data to conclude that side effects are rare. Remember, the FDA was able to identify an extremely rare blood clotting issue with the J&J vaccine even though it's the least frequently used vaccine in the US.

There's literally no way to know that.

Blatantly false. We have data from numerous countries, including the US, that clearly indicates this. Here's one example of many: "88% effectiveness against hospitalization and 91% effectiveness against severe illness." Here's another: "CDC: Less than 1% of COVID-19 breakthrough cases led to hospitalization or death."

Obviously they don't - seriously, if they did we would not still see even the relatively low numbers of new cases that we are seeing.

There's a number of things wrong here. The first is that there are a huge number of studies that show these measures reduce infection rates. It's not even hard to find; the very top hit for "effectiveness of mask use" is this JAMA summary of multiple studies, which states plainly that "Compelling data now demonstrate that community mask wearing is an effective nonpharmacologic intervention to reduce the spread of this infection, especially as source control to prevent spread from infected persons, but also as protection to reduce wearers’ exposure to infection." And that's from February; further data's come in since.

They do not eliminate infections, so yes, you still see new cases even if these measures are widely adopted. And that last bit is an incredibly important caveat; the US has generally been terrible at adopting basic pandemic control measures of any sort. So, the fact that we are still being new cases wouldn't be an indication of their ineffectiveness anyway.

Finally, i'll point out that what you term "relatively low numbers of new cases" presently involves roughly 1.5x the surge of cases we saw at the beginning of last summer, and just under half the all-time peak in the US. This one you don't even have to click a link, as Google shows the graph on its search results page.

Just stay away from the vulnerable, test if you have to be near vulnerable people and stay home if you're sick - and wash your hands - the rest is pretty well useless.

Actually, the one thing that we have data on is that contact spreading is extremely rare, so washing your hands makes little difference. In contrast, social distancing and mask use is supported by extensive data from multiple countries.



One thing that's striking about all of this is that your entire post is free of corroborating evidence; you just make blanket statements, and expect them to be accepted because you said so. Yet, when checked, nearly every single one of your statements contained an error. Maybe if you spent time trying to find supporting evidence, you'd come across the accurate information.

[TheLurch]

They've shifted the herd immunity goalposts again:

Herd immunity is calculated using a formula that considers the infectiousness of the virus. If you get a more infectious virus, it takes a higher level of protection before you reach herd immunity. It's not goal post shifting as much as basic math.

There's lots of data indicating that vaccines produce a more robust and consistent immune response than infection, largely because the virus encodes proteins that interfere with the immune response. Don't have a reference handy, but can dig one up if you'd like. This is why vaccines are advised for people who have already had infections.

[Cow Poke]

Large portions of your post are simply false. I'm going to go through and offer corrections.


This is only a minor technical correction. Coronaviruses pick up mutations at a relatively slow pace compared to most other viruses, because its polymerase has a built in proof reading function that corrects errors while replication is in progress. The frequent appearance of new strains is largely a function of its population size, which is incredibly large because we as a global society have done an absolutely horrific job of adapting the measures that could contain it.


This is completely false. I follow the literature, and there are typically dozens of papers every month of groups that have tested existing drugs and compound panels against coronavirus proteins. A lot of that work is government funded. Pfizer has indicated it already has a drug in safety trials. It's safe to assume that if they do, other companies have some in the pipeline as well. Drug development has gone on at a rapid pace, and three different ones received Emergency Use Authorizations before any vaccines did.

It's been done so much that already back in January people were analyzing the lessons learned from the early efforts in the hope of improving the success rate. And it hasn't stopped since.


Outbreak intervention, sure. Pandemic control, less so. Public health authorities from the start have indicated that a vaccine would be necessary to control this pandemic. This is especially true because the virus spreads extensively prior to the onset of symptoms, and most people would not even know they needed treatment before spreading the virus. This would again keep the viral population large, and increase the probability that drug resistant strains would evolve.

There's no question that it would be great to have a COVID treatment. But it's clear that the experts in this area feel we need both, and it's not hard to see why. And, in the absence of an effective treatment, it shouldn't be in the least bit surprising that vaccines are the focus. I fail to understand why you seem to object to that.


What side effects are not rare? What vaccine has been pulled for side effects that are more rare? Specifics please, not vague, unsupported generalizations.

As for the rest, there's now tens of millions of people who are several months out from the shot. Unless you're proposing that side effects will develop six months after all the vaccine components have been cleared from the body, then we have sufficient data to conclude that side effects are rare. Remember, the FDA was able to identify an extremely rare blood clotting issue with the J&J vaccine even though it's the least frequently used vaccine in the US.


Blatantly false. We have data from numerous countries, including the US, that clearly indicates this. Here's one example of many: "88% effectiveness against hospitalization and 91% effectiveness against severe illness." Here's another: "CDC: Less than 1% of COVID-19 breakthrough cases led to hospitalization or death."


There's a number of things wrong here. The first is that there are a huge number of studies that show these measures reduce infection rates. It's not even hard to find; the very top hit for "effectiveness of mask use" is this JAMA summary of multiple studies, which states plainly that "Compelling data now demonstrate that community mask wearing is an effective nonpharmacologic intervention to reduce the spread of this infection, especially as source control to prevent spread from infected persons, but also as protection to reduce wearers’ exposure to infection." And that's from February; further data's come in since.

They do not eliminate infections, so yes, you still see new cases even if these measures are widely adopted. And that last bit is an incredibly important caveat; the US has generally been terrible at adopting basic pandemic control measures of any sort. So, the fact that we are still being new cases wouldn't be an indication of their ineffectiveness anyway.

Finally, i'll point out that what you term "relatively low numbers of new cases" presently involves roughly 1.5x the surge of cases we saw at the beginning of last summer, and just under half the all-time peak in the US. This one you don't even have to click a link, as Google shows the graph on its search results page.


Actually, the one thing that we have data on is that contact spreading is extremely rare, so washing your hands makes little difference. In contrast, social distancing and mask use is supported by extensive data from multiple countries.



One thing that's striking about all of this is that your entire post is free of corroborating evidence; you just make blanket statements, and expect them to be accepted because you said so. Yet, when checked, nearly every single one of your statements contained an error. Maybe if you spent time trying to find supporting evidence, you'd come across the accurate information.

Wow, thanks for taking the time and effort!

[Mountain Man]

FWIU, full approval of a vaccine already under priority review only takes about half of a year

Yeah, like I said, it's extremely fast, and based on what I've read, the FDA seems to be playing fast and loose with the rules that typically govern priority review.

[rogue06]

Yeah, like I said, it's extremely fast, and based on what I've read, the FDA seems to be playing fast and loose with the rules that typically govern priority review.

But apparently no faster than normal.

[Gondwanaland]

Herd immunity is calculated using a formula that considers the infectiousness of the virus. If you get a more infectious virus, it takes a higher level of protection before you reach herd immunity. It's not goal post shifting as much as basic math.

Yeah, no. It's simply a value they will continue to shift to try to increase mandate usage.

There's lots of data indicating that vaccines produce a more robust and consistent immune response than infection, largely because the virus encodes proteins that interfere with the immune response. Don't have a reference handy, but can dig one up if you'd like. This is why vaccines are advised for people who have already had infections.

Actual real world data from the entire country of Israel, and from a massive Cleveland Clinix study indicates no such difference in robustness of immune response. Indeed they indicate the same or better response in naturally infected.

I know at least one other study indicates that robustness of natural immunity is large and there doesn't even seem to be a difference between the amount of viral load they had to fight off, in giving that robustness.

In addition there is at least one study indicating that following such advice can actually inhibit t-cell response in people that were naturally inflected and then receive the vaccine.

[Gondwanaland]

But apparently no faster than normal.

A year is incredibly faster than normal....

[rogue06]

A year is incredibly faster than normal....

Again, FWIU, full approval of a vaccine already under priority review only takes about half of a year

[Gondwanaland]

Again, FWIU, full approval of a vaccine already under priority review only takes about half of a year

Which, again, is incredibly faster than normal. Superdooperfastpriorityapproval is by definition, not the norm.

[rogue06]

Which, again, is incredibly faster than normal. Superdooperfastpriorityapproval is by definition, not the norm.

If "normal" is taking about half a year, then how can taking nearly a year be incredibly faster than normal?

[Mountain Man]

But apparently no faster than normal.

But what's the rush, anyway? We already have emergency use authorization for the most vulnerable citizens. China flu hospitalizations and deaths are way down. Infection rates waver, but so what? That has never been an important metric, certainly nowhere as important as the public is led to believe. There doesn't seem to be any need not to undertake the full testing regime before full approval.

[rogue06]

But what's the rush, anyway? We already have emergency use authorization for the most vulnerable citizens. China flu hospitalizations and deaths are way down. Infection rates waver, but so what? That has never been an important metric, certainly nowhere as important as the public is led to believe. There doesn't seem to be any need not to undertake the full testing regime before full approval.

Hospitalizations are rapidly rising FWICT.

[Gondwanaland]

If "normal" is taking about half a year, then how can taking nearly a year be incredibly faster than normal?

Half a year OR a year for approval is not normal. Both are faster than normal. This isn't hard to grasp. Why are you being obtuse on this?