• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

An Introduction to vaccines!

James Lemon

Well-known member
Global efforts to reduce the impacts of emerging diseases are largely focused on post-emergence outbreak control, quarantine, drug, and vaccine development3. However, delays in detection of or response to newly emerged pathogens, combined with increased global urbanization and connectivity, have resulted in recent EIDs causing extensive mortality across cultural, political, and national boundaries (e.g., HIV), and disproportionately high economic damages (e.g., SARS, H1N1). Efforts to identify the origins and causes of disease emergence at local scales, and regions from which novel diseases may be more likely to emerge, are valuable for focusing surveillance, prevention, and control programs earlier in the chain of emergence, containing EIDs closer to their source, and more effectively limiting their subsequent spread and socioeconomic impacts.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-00923-8
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
We knew that already, James!

Dont worry!

We will be over this current bout in lest than 5 years!

Asher
 

James Lemon

Well-known member
We knew that already, James!

Dont worry!

We will be over this current bout in lest than 5 years!

Asher
Obviously we keep making the same mistakes; are we stupid ? People really need to wake up and ask why we are in this mess?

The disease COVID-19 is caused by the virus SARS-CoV-2, which is a zoonosis that is likely acquired by the consumption of wild animals for food (Malik et al. 2020) and/or the interaction between residents of rural areas and the wild animals in those areas (e.g. Li et al. 2020a). Markets that sell wildlife illegally and without food handling biosafety measures, are considered high-risk sites for the emergence of zoonotic diseases, since they increase the likelihood that pathogens will jump hosts and infect humans (Bonilla-Aldana et al. 2020; Hui et al. 2020). The Chinese government has indicated some restrictive measures on the use of wildlife as a food source in response to the COVID-19 outbreak, but these measures may only be temporary (Li et al. 2020a). While the main interest of this policy must be the avoidance of risk of this and other epidemic outbreaks of zoonotic origin, it inherently involves a rethinking of our relationship with nature, its administration, and its use.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001706X20316934?via=ihub
 
Last edited:

James Lemon

Well-known member
Again, we know that!

.....we knew that a year ago!
We knew this almost 20 years ago Asher and nothing was done and yet the world is focused on Vaccines to solve these types of crisis. This has happened 3 times now in the last 19 years. Do you see the problem here? Ignoring it and relying on miracle cures is not just dumb but insanity. Vaccines, masks, and basic personal hygiene are mere Band-Aid remedies.

On 16 November 2002, an outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) began in China's Guangdong province, bordering Hong Kong. The first case of infection was traced to Foshan. This first outbreak affected people in the food industry, such as farmers, market vendors, and chefs. The outbreak spread to healthcare workers after people sought medical treatment for the disease. The People's Republic of China notified the World Health Organization (WHO) about this outbreak on 10 February 2003, reporting 305 cases including 105 health-care workers and five deaths. Later it reported that the outbreak in Guangdong had peaked in mid-February 2003. However, this appears to have been false because subsequently 806 cases of infection and 34 deaths were reported. Italian physician Carlo Urbani was the first to identify SARS as probably a new and dangerously contagious viral disease.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002–2004_SARS_outbreak

The new coronavirus isn't just attacking the lungs: New research shows it's causing harm to the gastrointestinal tract, especially in more advanced cases of COVID-19.

A variety of imaging scans performed on hospitalized COVID-19 patients showed bowel abnormalities, according to a study published online May 11 in Radiology. Many of the effects were severe and linked with clots and impairment of blood flow.

https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20200514/covid-19-can-infect-and-harm-digestive-organs#1
 
Last edited:

James Lemon

Well-known member
New vaccines based on current techniques can be updated in 48 hrs with a production lag of 2 weeks and building up stock
to ship of 1 months approx.

However, we will need better and better broader spectrum antibodies produced and another mutant might arise that multiplies in the mouth and suddenly increases spread or lethality ten-fold.

So the key is hard-shut downs and authoritarian command and vaccination by law before there are mutants we can’t deal with!

Asher
Can you please explain how vaccinaton programs will ‘solve’ the pandemic: whether and when herd immunity will be achieved, highly infectous variants will be under control and Covid-19 cases will abate and degrade into yet another ‘common cold’?
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
James,

The vaccine will solve only the acute threat to health services where they were being overwhelmed. That has been 100% successful in California. Hospitals now have only a few beds with Covid patients.

Also in Israel, and about ten other entire countries.

California is now now mostly opening sports, gyms and restaurants. Schools in a few months.

However the poor majority of countries have received lest than about 1.2% of thr millions of vaccine doses manufactures so far in the world

.....and where the virus is now rampant and at an uncontrolled level with new carisnts hospitals are totally totally overwhelmed such as Japan and India.

This virus pandemic therefore will be controlled like a “draw” in sports, in economically advanced privileged societies, while the majority of the planet will be ravaged with loss of life, employment and disruption of trade!

But with ruthless China and privileged Europe and Middle East getting a relatively protected vaccine bubble around them, we will manage in our great established dominant societies and gradually, other countries will suffer all sorts of degrading consequences until we have senses to produce free oral or nasal spray vaccine that requires no refrigeration!

Otherwise we will suffer when the worse variants eventually break through to come over to hurt us!

Asher
 

James Lemon

Well-known member
James,

The vaccine will solve only the acute threat to health services where they were being overwhelmed. That has been 100% successful in California. Hospitals now have only a few beds with Covid patients.

Also in Israel, and about ten other entire countries.

California is now now mostly opening sports, gyms and restaurants. Schools in a few months.

However the poor majority of countries have received lest than about 1.2% of thr millions of vaccine doses manufactures so far in the world

.....and where the virus is now rampant and at an uncontrolled level with new carisnts hospitals are totally totally overwhelmed such as Japan and India.

This virus pandemic therefore will be controlled like a “draw” in sports, in economically advanced privileged societies, while the majority of the planet will be ravaged with loss of life, employment and disruption of trade!

But with ruthless China and privileged Europe and Middle East getting a relatively protected vaccine bubble around them, we will manage in our great established dominant societies and gradually, other countries will suffer all sorts of degrading consequences until we have senses to produce free oral or nasal spray vaccine that requires no refrigeration!

Otherwise we will suffer when the worse variants eventually break through to come over to hurt us!

Asher
it must be a new virus.
 

James Lemon

Well-known member
Explain? What must be a new virus?
There are a number of different recent outbreaks around the world. https://www.who.int/emergencies/disease-outbreak-news

On 13 January, 2021, a child under 18 years of age in Wisconsin developed respiratory disease. A respiratory specimen was collected on 14 January. Real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing conducted at the Wisconsin State Laboratory of Hygiene indicated a presumptive positive influenza A(H3N2) variant virus infection.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
There are a number of different recent outbreaks around the world. https://www.who.int/emergencies/disease-outbreak-news

On 13 January, 2021, a child under 18 years of age in Wisconsin developed respiratory disease. A respiratory specimen was collected on 14 January. Real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing conducted at the Wisconsin State Laboratory of Hygiene indicated a presumptive positive influenza A(H3N2) variant virus infection.
Of course, new influenza viruses appear every year. We expect that. Also there are germ warfare laboratories in China and Russia trying to convert Omsk Hemorrhagic Fever, Ckikungunya virus etc to aerosol born weapons.

.......we can expect these to escape too!
 

James Lemon

Well-known member
Well they are more far effective in giving strong and broad immunity to newer subtypes as well as the earlier variants. Astra Zeneca delivers about 65% immunity from infection but the mRNA vaccines reach 98 to 99% with two shots.


Asher
First nobody has a 100% chance of getting covid and second your numbers are bias and reflective of relative risk reduction and not absolute risk reduction. However they do get people into tents.

Relative risk reduction and absolute risk reduction measures in the evaluation of clinical trial data are poorly understood by health professionals and the public. The absence of reported absolute risk reduction in COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials can lead to outcome reporting bias that affects the interpretation of vaccine efficacy. The present article uses clinical epidemiologic tools to critically appraise reports of efficacy in Pfzier/BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 mRNA vaccine clinical trials. Based on data reported by the manufacturer for Pfzier/BioNTech vaccine BNT162b2, this critical appraisal shows: relative risk reduction, 95.1%; 95% CI, 90.0% to 97.6%; p = 0.016; absolute risk reduction, 0.7%; 95% CI, 0.59% to 0.83%; p < 0.000. For the Moderna vaccine mRNA-1273, the appraisal shows: relative risk reduction, 94.1%; 95% CI, 89.1% to 96.8%; p = 0.004; absolute risk reduction, 1.1%; 95% CI, 0.97% to 1.32%; p < 0.000. Unreported absolute risk reduction measures of 0.7% and 1.1% for the Pfzier/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines, respectively, are very much lower than the reported relative risk reduction measures. Reporting absolute risk reduction measures is essential to prevent outcome reporting bias in evaluation of COVID-19 vaccine efficacy.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33652582/
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Great link James!

It’s quite simply explained in the excellent article.

The risk of a bad event is the real absolute risk of getting struck by lightening, by a car in crossing a freeway or by an angry storekeeper if you are stealing gold jewelry in a bazaar!

Taking shelter in a storm, crossing the freeway fast, being more sly in stealing jewelry all decrease the risk of a bad outcome for those tempting fate!

We see a few percent of getting ill from Covid and some of these end up hospitalized, very sick!

With such an infection, by what percent could we decrease the risk of infection?

That’s the relative effectiveness of any protective measure.

imagine for a moment a bulletproof proof vest and a bulletin proof shield. Obviously the policeman had an infinitely low risk of being shot and killed while at home or in the police station. By contrast, in a bank heist with gun toting robbers, the risk of police being shot and killed is higher, much higher.

We dont need to actually MEASURE that, just sense danger

.....use the vest at ANY very likely obvious high risk of gun use by criminals, such as being called to reinforce police at a major bank robbery.

What we DO NEED TO KNOW ACCURATELY, is how effective the bullet proof vest or shields are in protecting police officers UNDER FIRE.

One figure, the relative rush decrease is all we need as it applies NO MATTER HOW DANGEROUS the location is.

So no matter the reason for calling reinforcements with armor, the same 99.9% protection from bullet hazards applies.

Similarly with vaccines. No matter what the incidence is at the time, we get the same level of protection from that absolute incidence!

That's why we use we use relative efficiency in protection, whether its body armor, protecting from bullets, vaccines protecting from infection, insulation preventing loss of heat or condom preventing pregnancy or venereal disease spread.


Asher
 

James Lemon

Well-known member
Great link James!

It’s quite simply explained in the excellent article.

The risk of a bad event is the real absolute risk of getting struck by lightening, by a car in crossing a freeway or by an angry storekeeper if you are stealing gold jewelry in a bazaar!

Taking shelter in a storm, crossing the freeway fast, being more sly in stealing jewelry all decrease the risk of a bad outcome for those tempting fate!

We see a few percent of getting ill from Covid and some of these end up hospitalized, very sick!

With such an infection, by what percent could we decrease the risk of infection?

That’s the relative effectiveness of any protective measure.

imagine for a moment a bulletproof proof vest and a bulletin proof shield. Obviously the policeman had an infinitely low risk of being shot and killed while at home or in the police station. By contrast, in a bank heist with gun toting robbers, the risk of police being shot and killed is higher, much higher.

We dont need to actually MEASURE that, just sense danger

.....use the vest at ANY very likely obvious high risk of gun use by criminals, such as being called to reinforce police at a major bank robbery.

What we DO NEED TO KNOW ACCURATELY, is how effective the bullet proof vest or shields are in protecting police officers UNDER FIRE.

One figure, the relative rush decrease is all we need as it applies NO MATTER HOW DANGEROUS the location is.

So no matter the reason for calling reinforcements with armor, the same 99.9% protection from bullet hazards applies.

Similarly with vaccines. No matter what the incidence is at the time, we get the same level of protection from that absolute incidence!

That's why we use we use relative efficiency in protection, whether its body armor, protecting from bullets, vaccines protecting from infection, insulation preventing loss of heat or condom preventing pregnancy or venereal disease spread.


Asher
The absolute risk reduction (ARR), which is the difference between attack rates with and without a vaccine, considers the whole population. Furthermore based on the following information J&J vaccine is more efficient but according to you and your bias numbers Pfizer is more efficient and that not true. The point is people have a right to make informed decisions about these matters and only looking at one sided bias numbers is not transparent.

Anyone who thinks that these vaccines are somehow going to radically reduce infections is seriously deluded. You should just admit that they are not a true picture instead of trying to justify it.



ARR is also used to derive an estimate of vaccine effectiveness, which is the number needed to vaccinate (NNV) to prevent one more case of COVID-19 as 1/ARR. NNVs bring a different perspective: 76 for the Moderna–NIH, 78 for the AstraZeneca–Oxford, 80 for the Gamaleya, 84 for the J&J, and 117 for the Pfizer–BioNTech vaccines. The explanation lies in the combination of vaccine efficacy and different background risks of COVID-19 across studies: 0·9% for the Pfizer–BioNTech, 1% for the Gamaleya, 1·4% for the Moderna–NIH, 1·8% for the J&J, and 1·9% for the AstraZeneca–Oxford vaccines.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
James

The various differences in the effectiveness of the vaccine is not as significant YET as the CURRENT limiting factors in fighting the virus is not brand of vaccine or their differences in effectiveness. What dominates public health decision making and making ANY vaccine available on the planet are as follows:

1. Availability

2. Cost

3. How fast it can be manufactured

4. Temperatures required for distribution.

Until there is sufficiency worldwide. Individual “choices” are last on the list for a Public Policy!

In no society are private individuals given choice as to what weapons soldiers are armed with to protect them in war!

I like the article you found. I really do. No point in quoting again huge sections. There’s no point. Just re-read it yourself.

It’s a great article! I refer simply to protecting against hazards.

....... the fact remains that relative risk reduction in any and all hazards we face is ALL we need for understanding “reducing a risk” as its INDEPENTENT of extent of the risk!

THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS: for example rockets launched and on a path aligned perfectly towards civilian populations are targeted and hit ~ 98% of the time by the Iron Dome defensive batteries. If a volley of 500 incoming missiles is on its way to a population area, then the defensive capability of the Iron Dome will be overwhelmed!


Asher
 

James Lemon

Well-known member
James

The various differences in the effectiveness of the vaccine is not as significant YET as the CURRENT limiting factors in fighting the virus is not brand of vaccine or their differences in effectiveness. What dominates public health decision making and making ANY vaccine available on the planet are as follows:

1. Availability

2. Cost

3. How fast it can be manufactured

4. Temperatures required for distribution.

Until there is sufficiency worldwide. Individual “choices” are last on the list for a Public Policy!

In no society are private individuals given choice as to what weapons soldiers are armed with to protect them in war!

I like the article you found. I really do. No point in quoting again huge sections. There’s no point. Just re-read it yourself.

It’s a great article! I refer simply to protecting against hazards.

....... the fact remains that relative risk reduction in any and all hazards we face is ALL we need for understanding “reducing a risk” as its INDEPENTENT of extent of the risk!

THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS: for example rockets launched and on a path aligned perfectly towards civilian populations are targeted and hit ~ 98% of the time by the Iron Dome defensive batteries. If a volley of 500 incoming missiles is on its way to a population area, then the defensive capability of the Iron Dome will be overwhelmed!


Asher
I disagree and anyone with an IQ above 70 would like to see all the facts .
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
I disagree and anyone with an IQ above 70 would like to see all the facts .
Reread the article and what I wrote. Tgere is no disagreement, James.

it’s pointless having folk decide what vaccines to get when they are very lucky to get any.

if you do have a choice, feel free to choose but almost everyone else on the planet doesn’t even have access to ANY vaccine!

Asher
 

James Lemon

Well-known member
Reread the article and what I wrote. Tgere is no disagreement, James.

it’s pointless having folk decide what vaccines to get when they are very lucky to get any.

if you do have a choice, feel free to choose but almost everyone else on the planet doesn’t even have access to ANY vaccine!

Asher
My point is not about what vaccine to use but about the importance of being able to weigh and access risk without bias reporting. Chances are people who do not get a influenza shot probably wont get a covid 19 shot either regardless of brand being promoted.
 
Last edited:

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
My point is not about what vaccine to use but about the importance of being able to weigh and access risk without bias reporting. Chances are people who do not get a influenza shot probably wont get a covid 19 shot either regardless of brand being promoted.
It’s simply a matter of what a community CAN get. Even if it was half as effective it would be a great choice. it’s a public health issue period! That “bias” is not important but it allowed an interesting publication, thats it!


We only need to know for a public entity

1. Availability: when, where and at what price

2. any special risk for certain groups

3. Where incidence is worse and threat greatest to tackle that first!
 

James Lemon

Well-known member
It’s simply a matter of what a community CAN get. Even if it was half as effective it would be a great choice. it’s a public health issue period! That “bias” is not important but it allowed an interesting publication, thats it!


We only need to know for a public entity

1. Availability: when, where and at what price

2. any special risk for certain groups

3. Where incidence is worse and threat greatest to tackle that first!
You should have a chat with Justin and tell him. There is obviously a lot they don't know about this pandemic or the vaccines. What I can tell you is that about 50% of Canadians have received their first dose and only about 3.6% their second. Supply chain issues are a concern for everyone. Many of Canadians do not want their second dose of AstraZeneca because of the few reported clotting issues after the first dose but interestingly there have been no reports of anyone experiencing any adverse effects after receiving the AstraZeneca second dose.

Currently our government is basically telling us they have secured millions of Pfizer doses and yet still have millions of AstraZeneca doses left over and aren't in the plan of being distributed. What's really ridiculous is that they are suggesting we can mix vaccines which is a bad Idea according to some of the top scientists from AstraZeneca because people will get very sick.

Somehow people seem to think that Pfizer is the gold standard? They don't realize heart inflammation, aka myocarditis, associated with the Pfizer vaccine, has been reported in Israel of 62 cases after receiving their second dose and mostly in healthy young men under the age of thirty and two have died.

The public health issue is Justin and his liberal government. He should just fire himself.
 
Last edited:
Top