60% Of All New COVID-19 Cases Are Occurring In People Who Were Already Vaccinated

[Doomsday Dallas]

https://humansarefree.com/2021/04/60...accinated.html

Dr. Harvey Risch, a professor of epidemiology at Yale University, has calculated that upwards of 60 percent of all new “cases” of the Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) are occurring in people who were already “vaccinated” for the disease.

“I think the American public has been sold on the vaccine by the research that shows that they reduce the infection of mild to moderate symptomatic infection by somewhere between 60-90% depending upon age and vaccine … however, that is not the measure that public health infrastructure, administration, and Dr. [sic] Fauci are using to look at the efficacy of the vaccine,” he added.

interesting

[Manny98]

Vaccine definition

a substance used to stimulate the production of antibodies and provide immunity against one or several diseases, prepared from the causative agent of a disease, its products, or a synthetic substitute, treated to act as an antigen without inducing the disease.

So this isn't even a vaccine going by the official definition of what a vaccine is

[AirBonner]

Vaccine definition

a substance used to stimulate the production of antibodies and provide immunity against one or several diseases, prepared from the causative agent of a disease, its products, or a synthetic substitute, treated to act as an antigen without inducing the disease.

So this isn't even a vaccine going by the official definition of what a vaccine is

It’s a shot like the flu shot. Vaccines actually last years

[diamenz]

if this is indeed true, or even anywhere close to 60%, it should be interesting seeing the response from fauci & co.

[AirBonner]

Not true. Otherwise half my coworkers would be out

[bladefd]

https://humansarefree.com/2021/04/60...accinated.html






interesting

First, what is that source? Other sources I found say the exact opposite. It's called breakthrough infection.

"It's pretty darn rare," Dr. Shira Abeles, an infectious disease specialist at UC San Diego Health, said of breakthrough cases. "I think it'll remain that way," she added.

Recent real-world studies have confirmed that low breakthrough rate. Research that Abeles helped conduct in Southern California between December 2020 and February 2021, found that less than 1% of the 36,600 health care workers who were studied tested positive for COVID-19 after being fully vaccinated, meaning both doses plus two weeks for the immunity to build -- with the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines.

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/expect...ry?id=76682629

Another study had 417 people get both vaccines as part of the study. 2 people got breakthrough infection out of 417 (that's a tad below 5% of those who was fully vaccinated). So certainly it seems to happen. No vaccine is 100% effective so you should expect some breakthrough infections. Pfizer/Moderna are 95% effective in initial couple months so this study's numbers of breakthrough infections are right where you should expect. Btw both people had mild symptoms and were not hospitalized.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2105000

CDC noted 7,157 breakthrough infections out of 87mill people who were fully vaccinated in USA. That's about 0.008%. That's as of April 20, 2021.
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-1...ugh-cases.html

Your source off some random blog says the majority of all new cases are breakthrough infections. Your source and others I cited above both certainly cannot be correct.

Why should I take your random blog source more seriously? Do you have any other sources to backup that point that 60% of all new cases are breakthrough infections? Extraordinary claims require more than one source, who btw is not even a frontline doctor. His source is not even himself, but rather it's what "other" clinicians have been telling him.

“Clinicians have been telling me that more than half of the new Covid cases that they’re treating are people who have been vaccinated,” Risch told Bannon.

Who are these other clinicians telling him privately, and why are they not saying it publicly? Why doesn't CDC's hospital data show the same or similar data? All these sources I posted including the CDC could certainly be lying and involved in a vast conspiracy, but what reason do I have to take your blog more seriously than say the CDC's data from hospital or other researchers who did first hand studies on it?

[Code Breaker]

As Trump would say fake news.

[Doomsday Dallas]

Why should I take your random blog source more seriously?

Doctor Harvey Risch... from Yale..... that is my source. Not the CDC or ABC whom have agendas.

I think the video would've made it to twitter or youtube... but you know how those big tech companies like to do things.

[bladefd]

Doctor Harvey Risch... from Yale..... that is my source. Not the CDC or ABC whom have agendas.

I think the video would've made it to twitter or youtube... but you know how those big tech companies like to do things.

He is not a clinician with first-hand knowledge. He says other clinicians have been telling him. That would make him a 2nd hand source, and it is also something no other clinician across the country is saying. Is every other clinician lying & in on a vast conspiracy? Hell, if most of the new covid cases/people being treated for covid in hospitals were those fully vaccinated, it would be the case across the world and not just in America. Are there any other clinicians from across the world making that claim? It would be breaking news in other countries. Are other countries out there in a vast conspiracy too?

Anyways, where are these other clinicians, and why aren't they front and center to say their experience & number of breakthrough infections is much different than what is being reported by the CDC, the infectious disease specialist at UC San Diego Health I cited, and the other peer-reviewed study? It would be their duty to shout it publicly based on their own first-hand experience if it contradicts the data out there.

[Axe]

Vaccine definition

a substance used to stimulate the production of antibodies and provide immunity against one or several diseases, prepared from the causative agent of a disease, its products, or a synthetic substitute, treated to act as an antigen without inducing the disease.

So this isn't even a vaccine going by the official definition of what a vaccine is

Looking forward to manny's vaccination

[ZenMaster]

First, what is that source? Other sources I found say the exact opposite. It's called breakthrough infection.

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/expect...ry?id=76682629

Another study had 417 people get both vaccines as part of the study. 2 people got breakthrough infection out of 417 (that's a tad below 5% of those who was fully vaccinated). So certainly it seems to happen. No vaccine is 100% effective so you should expect some breakthrough infections. Pfizer/Moderna are 95% effective in initial couple months so this study's numbers of breakthrough infections are right where you should expect. Btw both people had mild symptoms and were not hospitalized.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2105000

CDC noted 7,157 breakthrough infections out of 87mill people who were fully vaccinated in USA. That's about 0.008%. That's as of April 20, 2021.
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-1...ugh-cases.html

Your source off some random blog says the majority of all new cases are breakthrough infections. Your source and others I cited above both certainly cannot be correct.

Why should I take your random blog source more seriously? Do you have any other sources to backup that point that 60% of all new cases are breakthrough infections? Extraordinary claims require more than one source, who btw is not even a frontline doctor. His source is not even himself, but rather it's what "other" clinicians have been telling him.



Who are these other clinicians telling him privately, and why are they not saying it publicly? Why doesn't CDC's hospital data show the same or similar data? All these sources I posted including the CDC could certainly be lying and involved in a vast conspiracy, but what reason do I have to take your blog more seriously than say the CDC's data from hospital or other researchers who did first hand studies on it?

1) The blog is bad, but if the person making the claim is a Doctor from Yale, then he's a Doctor from Yale. Could he be lying for money? Sure, but so could any physician theoretically.
He says from where he gets his numbers, I guess it's up to people to decide for themselves whether or not that's believable.

2) The blog is bad because it misquotes the Dr. It's from that misquote you argue against it.

He said that he's been told by physicians that upwards of 60% of new covid cases they're seeing to treat, is coming from people who's been vaccinated, and not that all new covid cases are in people who's been vaccinated. Remember, probably less than 1% of people with covid seeks treatment. Per Worldometer, 99.6% of all covid infections only see none or mild symptoms.
The only reason to go to a hospital with covid if you have none or mild symptoms, is if you can't isolate at home - but I guess that's a reality in quite a few households.

Edit: Just thinking about it again, am I wrong in this logic? Or do anyone with a positive test go for some sort of treatment? He doesn't make that clear.

3) I don't know if there are numbers on people who are now coming in for treatment against covid, if whether or not they've been vaccinated. But you're a stats guy right? Maybe you can figure that out.

4) The numbers from the study are from pre dangerous new mutations entering the US, I think so but not sure, so feel free to correct me on that.

5) Potential reasons for those physicians not coming forward themselves: They'd only be able to give their information to publishers that aren't allowed to be shared on Facebook and other social media, like this blog. And they'd probably get banned from treating covid patients as well.

[ZenMaster]

And since we're talking about government studies, what do you think about this one?

Efficacy of facemasks
The physical properties of medical and non-medical facemasks suggest that facemasks are ineffective to block viral particles due to their difference in scales [16], [17], [25]. According to the current knowledge, the virus SARS-CoV-2 has a diameter of 60 nm to 140 nm [nanometers (billionth of a meter)] [16], [17], while medical and non-medical facemasks’ thread diameter ranges from 55 µm to 440 µm [micrometers (one millionth of a meter), which is more than 1000 times larger [25]. Due to the difference in sizes between SARS-CoV-2 diameter and facemasks thread diameter (the virus is 1000 times smaller), SARS-CoV-2 can easily pass through any facemask [25]. In addition, the efficiency filtration rate of facemasks is poor, ranging from 0.7% in non-surgical, cotton-gauze woven mask to 26% in cotton sweeter material [2]. With respect to surgical and N95 medical facemasks, the efficiency filtration rate falls to 15% and 58%, respectively when even small gap between the mask and the face exists [25].

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7680614/

A meta-analysis among health care workers found that compared to no masks, surgical mask and N95 respirators were not effective against transmission of viral infections or influenza-like illness based on six RCTs [28]. Using separate analysis of 23 observational studies, this meta-analysis found no protective effect of medical mask or N95 respirators against SARS virus [28]. A recent systematic review of 39 studies including 33,867 participants in community settings (self-report illness), found no difference between N95 respirators versus surgical masks and surgical mask versus no masks in the risk for developing influenza or influenza-like illness, suggesting their ineffectiveness of blocking viral transmissions in community settings [29].

[bladefd]

1) The blog is bad, but if the person making the claim is a Doctor from Yale, then he's a Doctor from Yale. Could he be lying for money? Sure, but so could any physician theoretically.
He says from where he gets his numbers, I guess it's up to people to decide for themselves whether or not that's believable.

2) The blog is bad because it misquotes the Dr. It's from that misquote you argue against it.

He said that he's been told by physicians that upwards of 60% of new covid cases they're seeing to treat, is coming from people who's been vaccinated, and not that all new covid cases are in people who's been vaccinated. Remember, probably less than 1% of people with covid seeks treatment. Per Worldometer, 99.6% of all covid infections only see none or mild symptoms.
The only reason to go to a hospital with covid if you have none or mild symptoms, is if you can't isolate at home - but I guess that's a reality in quite a few households.

Edit: Just thinking about it again, am I wrong in this logic? Or do anyone with a positive test go for some sort of treatment? He doesn't make that clear.

3) I don't know if there are numbers on people who are now coming in for treatment against covid, if whether or not they've been vaccinated. But you're a stats guy right? Maybe you can figure that out.

4) The numbers from the study are from pre dangerous new mutations entering the US, I think so but not sure, so feel free to correct me on that.

5) Potential reasons for those physicians not coming forward themselves: They'd only be able to give their information to publishers that aren't allowed to be shared on Facebook and other social media, like this blog. And they'd probably get banned from treating covid patients as well.

There is only 1 other possibility I can think of. It is possible that the location of those clinicians is in 1 hospital covering one area. In that area, a specific variant is having a breakout, and that the current vaccines are not able to combat that localized variant breakout.

It doesn't seem to be the case across the nation though. The CDC data and other clinicians say something very different.

[Hey Yo]

There is only 1 other possibility I can think of.

Racism??

[bladefd]

And since we're talking about government studies, what do you think about this one?



https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7680614/

It would be true if covid viruses were flying around by themselves. They fly around in droplets and masks are effective in stopping those droplets.

Here's an article explaining it better with sources from epidemiologists: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...es/5343537002/

And of course, n95 are not 100% effective. They are called n95 because of 95% effectiveness against particles around 300 nanometers.

Li et al. [43] mentioned that by taking advantage of tests on physical properties, it could be represented that N95 respirators had a lower air-water vapor permeability than surgical masks undoubtedly. Those N95 respirators can protect better against viruses, but it is not comfortable like surgical masks. The in-vivo filtration tests, despite that N95 respirators, can filter 97% of potassium chloride (KCl) solution, while surgical masks are able to filter 95%. Also, in the nano-mask, no difference in usability, comparing with normal N95 and surgical masks, has been observed, but it can indicate more robust water repellency and antibacterial activities [43].

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...52199X20301481

COVID virus might be 60 to 140 nanometers by itself, but as I said, they don't usually fly around solo. They are typically traveling in droplets or aerosols with multiple virus particles lodged together, which masks are effective against. Of course, it wouldn't be 100% effective. Nothing is perfectly 100% effective. That study above says even the P100 respirator masks are 99.97% effective against aerosols. Perhaps only the self-contained breathing apparatus like scuba divers or firefighters can be 100% effective, but that's about it.