re: Study: MRNA Vaccines Increase Risk of Contracting COVID-19; Each Booster Shot Raises Risk

quote:

---

Sort of the way you Covidians have been caught lying time and time again, but still present your narrative as gospel truth and destroy the lives of credible professionals who refuse to toe the Branch Covidian line?

---

At least you understand the rules of the game.

I’m shocked

So shocked

quote:

---

Do we really need a better vaccine?

---

Yes, if the CFR is elevated above 0.1%, and there is a worldwide distribution, then a vaccination campaign is needed. There are other measures you could take in the cases of those pathogens, but we aren't going to even take the simplest ones, so all that is left is vaccination.

quote:

---

he mutations that the virus is undergoing and moving toward a less and less virulent strain and as the virus becomes endemic...

---

I don't know where this notion comes from, but it isn't exactly correct. Viruses like COVID will undergo what is called cyclical virulence. There is absolutely no guarantee that it will become less virulent, especially given its mutation rate.

quote:

---

Respiratory viruses are really difficult to induce long last immune response to even with natural infection. Thus, like the past 2 years, vaccines effectiveness would drop dramatically after only a few months.

---

This isn't strictly a respiratory virus. It is a virus that can be transmitted by respiratory means. Smallpox was another similar systemic illness that was transmitted through airborne droplets or through mucosal secretions. It invaded the mucosa of the respiratory tract, producing a prodrome of symptoms indistinguishable from a cold. Characteristic signs and symptoms didn't start appearing until several days with symptoms. COVID is a systemic illness with manifestations in areas other than the respiratory tract. A recently published article in Nature found active COVID replication in the brain. You are thinking too narrowly about this virus.

I don't even think the claim that respiratory infections can be controlled by vaccination is true generally, as measles is another virus that was effectively controlled with vaccination, as it was extremely virulent.

quote:

---

So, the question is: who on this board have had CoVID already... if the first infection didn't kill us, the second infection will be milder, the third will be milder still...

---

And if viral infection shows persistent immune system dysfunction like has been suggested with dendritic cell deficiency, among other disruptions, then what?

quote:

---

If people are really trying to increase their chances of surviving CoVID, the answer is not a better vaccine.

---

At a population level, with an elevated CFR, you are talking about a demographic disaster.

quote:

---

The answer is: you need to take care of your co-morbidities, control your hypertension, lower your BMI, eat a healthier diet, control your diabetes, and lower your lipids... not only will this benefit CoVID survival but will also benefit other long-term health issues.

---

Great. You can do both what's good for an individual and what's good for a population at the same time. They aren't mutually exclusive.

quote:

---

Do we really need a better vaccine?

---

Baw, we get a new flu shot every fall to deal with the antigenic changes with flu in the animal populations. If this becomes an endemic disease, it'll be alright. Every pandemic involves a panic and a counter-panic. They start rapidly but they drag onnnnnnn raggedly and eventually we'll probably consider this to be a boring and unremarkable part of our lives like with other vaccines.

quote:

---

throughout all the variants and mutations for the past 3 years CoVID has NEVER demonstrated to cause more severe illness

---

False

There were some variants that produced more severe disease (lambda) but they were quickly pushed out by the less virulent more contagious variants

quote:

---

lambda

---

How many people did lambda kill?

And where is the lambda wave?

All studies and epidemiological data indicate that lambda was more capable of evading antibodies from the vaccines and previous infection, but no reports that it caused more severe illness.

quote:

---

WTF is a branch covidian?

---

You really don’t get that?

quote:

---

Give us the long story. I have time. Tell us exactly why the study is shite.

---

It’s shite because it hasn’t been peer reviewed yet. It even says that it should not be used for clinical decision making.

quote:

---

Those who chose to receive the bivalent vaccine might have been more worried about infection and might have been more likely to get tested when they had symptoms, thereby disproportionately detecting more incident infections among those who received the bivalent vaccine. This risk is mitigated by the time-dependent treatment of bivalent vaccination, because with such treatment, risk of disproportionate detection is actually in the opposite direction. If individuals received the bivalent vaccine thinking it would reduce their risk of infection, they would have been less inclined to get tested for the same symptoms after getting the vaccine (bivalent vaccinated state) than before getting the vaccine (non-bivalent vaccinated state), providing greater opportunity to detect infection in the non-boosted than the boosted state, thereby having the effect of overestimating vaccine effectiveness. Those who chose to get the bivalent vaccine were also more likely to have lower risk-taking behavior with respect to COVID-19, having the effect of a higher risk of COVID-19 in the non-boosted state

---

There are so many confounding variables and unanswered questions that this study is not strong enough to be used for clinical decision making even if it was peer reviewed.

Even though the study is shite, the gateway pundit’s and the OP’s interpretation of the study are even shittier.

quote:

---

The risk of COVID-19 also varied by the number of COVID-19 vaccine doses previously received. The higher the number of vaccines previously received, the higher the risk of contracting COVID-19 (Figure 2).

---

They are focusing in on one line of the study to make their point and ignoring or not understanding the rest of the data presented in the study.

Here is the next section of the study.

quote:

---

In a multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression model adjusted for age, gender, hire cohort, job category, number of COVID-19 vaccine doses prior to study start, and epidemic phase when the last prior COVID-19 episode occurred, a bivalent vaccine provided some protection against COVID-19 (HR, .70; 95% C.I., .61-.80; P-value, <.001). Point estimates and 95% confidence intervals for hazard ratios for the variables included in the unadjusted and adjusted Cox proportional hazards regression models are shown in Table 2. The calculated overall vaccine effectiveness from the model was 30% (95% C.I., 20% – 39%).

---

So the vaccine did work. It did not work as well as expected but it did work.

The GP and the OP also ignored the study’s reasoning for the higher number of doses being associated with an increased risk of infection.

quote:

---

And I’m not saying OP is right or wrong. I’m just saying it’s amusing to watch OP come on here saying “Look at the studies” after years of saying the science is fake news.

---

I'd bet anything a lot of the folks using this study as their proof laughed at the studies in the past that weren't peer reviewed.


This is a political issue. This is the nature of politics. When you're so far gone on your side of the political spectrum, the facts are no longer primary or even secondary, they simply don't matter at all.

My stance has always been we never should have shut down the entire country, and do whatever you want with respect to the vaccine or how you treat yourself for Covid, don't care.