1. Suppose I say "COVID usually only kills those fully vaccinated people who are already severely weakened.". Do you have evidence that the 'usually' is more so for the flu, and by a significant margin?Loren Pechtel said:Flu usually only kills those already severely weakened. If the flu didn't get them chances are something else soon would.
To put it in other words, do you have good evidence that the flu is less dangerous than COVID is to fully vaccinated people, and also by a margin that would justify radically different treatments.
Further, suppose you add face masks - good and properly used. Do you think COVID poses overall a significantly greater risk to fully vaccinated people when unvaccinated people are wearing good masks, than the flu?
2. Even if they are severely weakened, it does not mean something else will get them - especially not if respiratory illnesses are not around.
1. Again, evidence?Loren Pechtel said:No. Prior infection provides stronger immunity than the vaccine. The vaccine provides broader immunity. They are different things. If you get the virus your resistance to that strain is very high--but you don't have very good protection against other strains and thus reinfection is likely. This is why we have never had a coronavirus vaccine before--they're too good at evading. Only the vaccines based on targeting a reasonably stable part of the virus have worked.
2. Delta makes up nearly all cases. If someone has stronger immunity against delta than they'd get with the best vaccines, it does not seem to make sense not to count them as immunized.
3. Sinopharm's vaccine targets the whole virus. And it's not as good as viral vector vaccines or mRNA vaccines - though it's unclear which immunity's might last longer -, but it does work. It was made with the original strain. And it still works against Delta - else, we would not be opening up pretty much everything over here, while fatalities continue to fall.
Well, I posted some evidence. I found no replies debunking it, and good reviews from other scientists. It's not conclusive, and I said it was not and the jury was still out. So, yes, I am careful enough.Loren Pechtel said:Be very wary of anything on medrxiv. That's a pre-print server, there is no verification of what's posted. The death cultists have been publishing all sorts of crap on there recently, elementary math errors, outright fabrication and the like, then they point to the articles as if they have scientific merit.
Do you have something better?
Evidence?Loren Pechtel said:The jury came back long ago, it's just the death cultists are trying to pull a 1/6.
Actually, I posted much earlier the results of a local study, which was far larger than the original trials.Loren Pechtel said:IIRC it's about 50%. Useful at a population level, not much protection at the individual level.
Link (in Spanish, but you can use Google translate if you want): https://www.lanacion.com.ar/socieda...acunas-que-se-aplican-en-el-pais-nid01072021/
At least over here, it's 61.6% first dose, 84% after two (that was before Delta, but still vs. variants, mostly Gamma and Lambda at the time, even though it's based on the original strain; Delta now dominates, but things are getting better rather than worse). But that is the protection against symptomatic infection. It is far higher against serious cases including death.
I think you may have been thinking about Sinovac's vaccine, which is also a dead-virus vaccine, but for some reason it's proven considerably less effective than Sinopharm's from what I read. Perhaps the people making the former messed up at some point.
How so?Loren Pechtel said:Politics.
Are you saying they're trying to be friendly with China?