Topic: How effective is covid vaccine in protecting against contacting the virus (Read 462 times)

Contract stipulates they must have x amount of sale. Countries have different contracts with the "vaccines" manufactures.

Dont you happened to have statistics or info, after how many days effectiveness drops to a critical percentage? Lets say 50%. If Pfizer has lost 14% after 120 days, in 240 days it will be 63%, 360 days (1 year) - 49%. Can calculations be like that? Or effectiveness drop is not linear? I just try to understand why some countries set vaccination certificate validity date of 270 days only.

In a recent study that from two weeks after recipients received a second dose to four months later, the Pfizer vaccine was 91% more effective in preventing hospitalization.

However, after 120 days, the effectiveness drops to 77%. The Moderna Vaccine showed no decrease in protection over the same period of time. Well Moderna's vaccine was 92% effective at preventing hospitalization four months after full vaccination, a rate nearly identical to the 93% effectiveness in the original study.

Based on the CDC's research, an analysis of approximately 3,700 adults who were hospitalized across the United States from March to August 2021.
Ages 60 years and over do not know about the effectiveness of the vaccine itself.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbcindonesia.com/tech/20210920093824-37-277531/jangan-panik-ini-studi-as-soal-efektivitas-vaksin-pfizer/amp

Having the impression that the covid-19 vaccine will protect us from contracting the virus while we are too careless is an irresponsible impression because we also have good health hygiene to follow to protect ourselves completely.
The effectiveness of the covid-19 vaccine in protecting every individual depends on individual immune system level and good health hygiene practice.

It's really not something to get outraged about, and it's not likely to be something that would encourage anyone who didn't want to get vaccinated to 'switch sides'. It's simply one study that has presented some interesting findings. It is extremely unlikely to change anything, and I can't see any hidden agenda here at all. It doesn't have anything to say about the question of serious side effects, simply that some instances of mild side-effects might be psychological in origin.

If someone doesn't want the vaccine 'because blood clots', then this does nothing whatsoever to change their mind.
The people whose mind it might change simply don't exist, these are the (hypothetical) people who think serious side effects are vanishingly unlikely, and are vaccine-hesitant simply because they don't want to get a brief headache.

It's simply not the case that every single study or piece of research ever conducted has some sinister underlying motive.



People are afraid of blood clots. And I'll concede that some people may for some reason be scared of a headache. But I'd argue that the subset of people who aren't scared of blood clots but are scared of headaches is so small as to effectively be nonexistent.

Nice example of the 'scissors method' of creating a point to make.  Writing off 'side-effects' of the jab to psychological issues because people were afraid of them is exactly the 'nocebo effect' that I saw being pumped in the trash mainstream media propaganda.

No, that's not true. The 'nocebo' effect that has been in the news recently says absolutely nothing about vaccine efficacy. You're not stupid, so I'll assume you're just being a little disingenuous here.

It's simply the results of a study that show an interesting manifestation of the placebo effect. This relates specifically to individuals who experience mild side-effects after taking the Covid vaccine. I don't have the precise figures to hand, but it's something like 45% of people who have the Covid vaccine experience mild side effects... what the study shows is that around 30% of people who are told they are having the Covid vaccine, but in fact are simply receiving an inactive salt solution still experience the same side effects. So it would appear that a sizeable proportion of people who experience mild side effects (headache, fatigue etc) after receiving the Covid jab are not actually suffering from a side-effect, but rather are suffering due to their anticipation of suffering. It's nothing earth-shatteringly important, simply an interesting (if, in retrospect, predictable) observation. It says nothing about vaccine efficacy, and nothing about rare but serious side-effects.

Story has it that two new variants have emerged, Convoy-19 and Coward-19

The Covidian Cult has 'new science' which they are calling 'nocebo'.  The basic idea is that if 'believe' in the so-called 'vaccine' then it will work.  If you don't believe in the gene therapy because us bad bad 'antivaxers' are allowed to speak on the internets, only then will you have 'side-effects'

The solution is obvious:  Criminalize the act of criticizing anything about whatever Big Pharma labels 'vaccines'.  Or criticizing Big Pharma themselves or the corp/gov bureaucracy chain which brings the cornucopia of of bio-chemical-electromagnetic goodness to humanity.

One 'passport' will be the key to both ensuring that you dutifully consume the Pharma nectar and also that you use your 'internet privileges' responsibly and don't spread 'mis-information'.  Or even think unauthorized thoughts about things like this...or 'antisemitism'.  The Chinese already did the R&D and their 1,300,000,000 herd is well under control and pose no threat to TPTB at all.  Good source of organs and blood too!  Will work even better with better merging of the technology and biology.

So far we haven't had good enough results, either because the vaccine is not very effective or because most people have some concerns about taking the new vaccines, many people have doubts about the side effects of the vaccine because it has not been tested long enough to get Confirmed results, I personally have not taken the vaccine yet because I have concerns about the possible side effects in the long term, especially since some serious side effects have appeared on a number of patients who received the vaccine.

While I see where you're coming from, I still support that it's way safer to simply get vaccinated, you'll have decent protection without taking unnecessary risks with infection. In my case, with the Delta variant, I had pretty mild symptoms and nothing to worry about.

Slim or not, there is still chance of death, even when you're young and healthy. Vaccines have been proven safe and effective, whether we like it or not.

Well, 99%+ survival rate for young people is the proof. Also, if you have been infected, you have better protection than the vaccine. There's no long-term study to determine the "vaccine" side effect, so if you are still young, it makes little sense to take the experimental shot while your risk of death is extremely slim.

If it reaches 7, then people are dumb af. My prediction is 4 at most, and then people realize that they have been scammed. Like my friend who got 3 shots, and yesterday she tested positive

Its only effective if you fully vaccinated and got shot with 7 boosters also. When is your next booster appointment?

My top source of information currently, and for some time, is TLAV who will walk you through info if you need it, but also does a good job with links to his sources of info.  e.g.:

  https://www.thelastamericanvagabond.com/germany-says-false-pandemic-unvaxed-caused-by-glitch-non-covid-deaths-spike-booster-collapse/

What public health agencies say in plain terms is so often highly deceptive if not flat out lies, and I don't trust them at all.  This is extra true for economic basket-case countries like Greece who rely on the likes of the IMF and World Bank for funding because they have no choice but to lie and deceive and make their 'quotas' as instructued.  Greece would be a poster-child for such a phenomenon but there are many others.  To some degree all countries are in this category with the exception of maybe Switzerland and Israel.  Sweden to some degree as well and perhaps some of the money-hiding micro-nations such as Liechtenstein.

When a government's public health screws up and accidentally releases real number and get caught by some sharp-eyed researcher, then pull the info they accidentally released info off the internet and try to bury it, then I figure they probably were saying something resembling the truth.  This happened recently with Alberta getting caught calling jabbed people 'unvaccinated' for headlines when a close view of the data released showed that they were 14-day-after-jab injuries or maybe/maybe not 'covid cases' if there actually is such a thing.

Anyway, based on information I consider most reliable I do plenty of my own formulations, conjectures, projections, predictions, etc.  Sometimes flat out trolling as well.  I don't consider it a 'dirty word' when done correctly because the key to a good troll is that it has something in reality backing it up.  Call it 'artistic license' if you like.  You are obviously free to consider some of the things I say, or don't.  I've said things that have made people rich using the exact same intellectual toolkit.  Most likely some of the stuff I'm saying now will save a bunch of lives.  If/when it does that'll be great in part because these will be the flexibly minded and nimble people who the world could use more of.

I've always wondered from which source you're getting such information,  and make such bold claims. First and foremost, vaccinated people account for the majority of the population in most developed countries, thus, it's not than strange that the number of cases are consisted of  80% of a country's population.

Furthermore, if you take Greece for instance, 80-85% of the people with severe illness in ICUs are unvaccinated.

The problem with the gene therapy 'vaccine' is that it wanes down to the point where you are more likely to get the SARS-cov-2 virus infection if you had the jab than if you have not.  Public health data in various places is now showing that.  More likely to die too.  The most likely thing which is becoming apparent a year in is that the jabbed people have a new form of AIDS and SARS-cov-2 is just one of many things which people succumb to infection of at a higher rate as their immune systems undergo a slow degradation and failure.

It doesn't seem that it is exclusively the social and economic devastation brought on failed corp/gov policy (or 'succeeded' depending on whether you are sheep or a wolf) that is responsible for the skyrocketing excess mortality.  The side-effects of the de-pop shot also seem to be a big and rapidly growing factor.

Hamburg (Germany) is now saying that they were not lying when they tried to say it was the unvaxxed who were getting the covaids.  No, it was a 'software error' responsible for the statistics lies and a result of 'upgrading systems.'  It's more and more clear that the same 'software errors' happened all across Germany and in other parts of the world as well.  The problem with lying is that the lies build on top of one another and eventually it comes time to pay the piper.

It's notable that many of the Jonestown people drank the Kool-aid even while dead bodies were filling up the paths and lawns.  I don't expect it to be any different for the Covidian cultists.  Would be nice if we could just get it over with and move on the the next phase in the battles because, unlike in with Jim Jones, the perps are not going to pack it in.  They are just getting started.

That's correct, and first and foremost, if you do end up infected with Covid, chances are that you'll have pretty mild symptoms, even lesser than the flu. I was infected a month ago, and trust me, I've been through way worse illnesses. It's pretty pointless to count on natural immunity, when you can simply get vaccinated and be done with it, on top of that, you can't predict how your sickness will progress, if you are infected as an unvaccinated person.

Yes, the data show that the protection from vaccination wanes over time. The data also show that protection from previous infection wanes over time (the lower part of the chart I shared). I'm sure that some of the reason the protection drops in both scenarios is that we are dealing with new variants. It may be that protection against the previous variant persists more strongly... but this is moot as we are making a relative comparison between the protection conferred by vaccination and that conferred by previous infection. Both offer protection that wanes over time. The advantage of vaccination is that you get that protection without contracting the virus. Protection through contracting the virus is stupid - you catch it so that you won't have to catch it.

I think the data shows that the vaccine initially provides some protection against infection (although it is possible the specific protection is that it will help your body defeat infection quickly without incident), but this protection wanes over time. Relying on the vaccine to prevent infection that only lasts a limited time is not a sustainable, nor realistic solution.


Relative to if not as many (or none) people were vaccinated. The vaccine appears to result in fewer hospitalizations (, serious cases and deaths) per infection. Omicron, despite being a very scary name, also has a lower hospitalization rate per infection, but this fact is separate from the vaccine fact.

Hospitalizations are up, but not as much as the actual number of cases. Further, the percentage of actual cases that are being reported is likely lower than previous strains due to the testing shortage (among other things).

Unfortunately, public health officials have lost a lot of credibility that will likely take at least a generation to get back. 

The effectiveness of natural immunity is yet to be proven, at least in a prolonged time period. I don't get why people are being so supportive of it, claiming that they'd rather be infected to acquire immunity, rather than getting vaccinated, the risk of having severe symptoms is way higher than having vaccine side effects.

I was infected a few weeks ago, but I'll also receive the third dose in April.

In my opinion, covid vaccine only helps people to get high immune system to their body. Vaccine doesn't prevent you from covid.

However, you have to take precautions such as physical distancing, wash your hands and face, and never going to crowd places such as shopping mall and anywhere else.

The more so-called 'vaccine' they pump into arms, the bigger the 'covid waves' become.  In that sense the 'vaccine' is 'effective.'

This is exactly as I said would happen after I studied the results of the early trials data and realized that they didn't even have the ability to do anything about the coronavirus.  I figured that the gene therapy would at least work a little bit as a 'vaccine', but in the trials we saw that they didn't even do that.  Of course one had to look at the study design and the details; obviously the mainstream media and the 'public health' rodents would tell a different story, but their information is was degraded to worthlessness long before the plandemic was kicked off.

The carnage and death brought on by the de-pop shot are not 'side effects.'  They are 'effects'.  Just as I confidently predicted, they would ramp up and be blamed on the bad bad SARS-cov-2 which was blamed for the 'covid-19' disease back before it went extinct and in fact did very little of anything.  The heavy-lifting of killing off folks in the early days to get the numbers was primarily accomplished by paying off a corrupt sub-set of hospitals with some BIG bucks to do the hits.

No. FFS. Have a look at the link that mu_enrico provided. The point about waning efficacy is very relevant. If you've had the third (booster) shot, your chances of symptomatic infection are reduced by 63%. The link is a summary of UK data from late November to mid-December. The chart I shared earlier in this thread covers UK data for the second half of December, and might be easier for you to understand as it's a picture rather than a table. The best protection against testing positive for Omicron is having contracted Delta. Second best is having had the third shot. But obviously the "second best" protection comes with the added benefit that you don't have to have contracted Covid previously.

Protection can be conferred either through previous infection or through vaccination, which is both overwhelmingly safe and hugely effective. This really shouldn't be a difficult choice.

With other words what you say. Your chances of chatching a cold is reduced by 2% the risk of a earlier death (unknown long term consequences from toxic injection) increases by 98%
https://rumble.com/embed/vqqmda/?pub=4
The pandemic started a long time ago with the virus in the brain.

What you should know:
- The "vaccine" reduces the risk of people contracting and spreading the virus, but it's not 100%* since it's related to (1) efficacy, (2) waning effect, (3) age/natural immunity, and (4) COVID variant. For perspective, even if you were double jabbed, you'll have as low as 2% less risk for omicron.
- You can still spread the virus even you aren't infected (or tested negative). The virus can stay on your clothes, hair, mask, etc.

*I don't want to mention exact number since the data collected can be garbage, it's not as simple as counting death/hospitalization.

I agree, my only issue is purpose of vaccination. If the goal of someone getting vaccinated is to prevent a serous case of COVID, I don't take an issue with it. However, if the they (by they, I mean doctors, public health experts, government officials) suggest that the vaccine and boosters are a way to prevent infection, then it's just a flat out lie. And so the target really should be older folks without a good immune system. They must be the focus of the vaccines, not young people or children who are not at risk for a severe case.

You must have said it right. Vaccines are a preventive measure to increase the recipient's immune system from viral attacks, not as a drug. It is wrong for people to think that vaccines are drugs to cure infections and they should know what vaccines are for.

Since 2020 until now I have received 3 doses of the vaccine recommended by the government and my work agency. The first and second doses were Sinovac while the third dose was Moderna (in recent months). The first 2 doses are not very effective at preventing infection as some people are still infected after get those 2 doses, but I have not heard that those who have taken 3 doses have also been infected.

These people have already decided that Covid doesn't exist, and they're offering 1.5m to anyone who can prove it exists. Who determines whether or not this proof is valid? Why, the people who've decided it doesn't exist and who are "offering" a prize, of course. Utterly moronic.




He certainly should face criminal charges, and I really hope he does. The man is incompetent, self-serving and as corrupt as they come... but this is a separate issue.

I think the vaccine is for prevention and not for curing the deadly disease. The only way one can protect his/herself is to take some certain health measures by isolating self from a crowded environment.

The reward of €1.5 Million euro is still up for grabs for scientific proof the virus exists (we know it exist in idot box). Sick people does not profe a virus exist.
https://www.samueleckert.net/isolate-truth-fund/

Injecting some toxins does not protect against anything, you just die early.
The VACCINATED are infected at alarming rate
https://i.imgur.com/D473DC3.mp4

The toxic Cocktail sure is not save



Boris Johnson Could Face Criminal Charges, Says Barrister
https://www.lotuseaters.com/boris-johnson-could-face-criminal-charges-says-barrister-26-01-2022

Of all that could be said about the Covid-19 pandemic and all the evolving strains and vaccines in our world today, this is the only spoken truth that seems to have worked just fine. A pandemic not yet proven extensively and still people are encouraged to take vaccines against the Covid-19 without directing it towards any particular strain is just something scary. Most pereon don't even understand what they are rong or the vaccines they are being served. All that is know is, the vaccine is for Covid-19 and that's it. Uey the disease continues to persist.

Looks like 'omicron' is just one of the candidates from earlier lab work which wasn't chosen for the initial release:

  https://www.bitchute.com/video/sccIh1ckPz5l/

Logic dictates that there are probably hundreds of these which can be pulled off the shelf for use in one circumstance or another.

Since there is zero interest in tracking down where any of them came from the cycle of new releases and quarterly boosters is likely to repeat to infinity.  Or until the population gets down to where the folks running this thing wish it to be.  Likely well below half a billion based on various statements, writings, monuments, etc.

I hope you've recovered by now. I did heard in the news that Delta confers some resistance to the Omicron variant, let's just hope that that is really the case.

Pfizer is approved in the US though, surely? Do you disagree with the chart I shared a couple of posts before yours? Data from the UK are pretty conclusive that vaccines do slow transmission.



Reduce relative to what?

To what the strain would have been if no-one had been vaccinated? This is clearly not the case, see above.

Or to what the strain was with the previous wave, with a variant that produced (on average) more severe symptoms? Well, maybe, a lower percentage risk is one factor, but we also need to consider overall case numbers, yes? Which vaccination helps to reduce.
Hypothetical figures to illustrate the point:
If Delta has a 10% chance of hospitalisation, and 10m people catch it, then 1m hospitalised.
If Omicron has a 5% chance of hospitalisation, and 30m people catch it, then 1.5m hospitalised, so greater strain on the system despite a lower percentage risk.

Also, the actual trend:


https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/30/covid-uk-coronavirus-cases-deaths-and-vaccinations-today

The covid vaccines approved for use in the US have shown to reduce the risk of serious illness and death. So they are not totally useless, but they are not going to slow down transmission. The reduced risk of serious illness should reduce the strain on the hospital and healthcare system.

Thank you, that's good news, I thought I would be susceptible to the Omicron variant, due to being infected with the Delta previously, don't know why but it sounded plausible in my head. Omicron is currently sweeping the country here too, but till a few weeks ago, the analogy between Omicron and Delta was said to be 60/40 -70/30. Chances are, it has increased dramatically now.

The chart above is from the UK, from the second half of December, when Omicron was sweeping the country. You can see that the factor that conferred the highest protection (from Omicron) for this dataset was having had previously contracted the Delta variant... so if Omicron sweeps through your country soon, then it looks like you should have some decent protection. So that's some good news.

Anyway, most important is that you've recovered.

I was to receive the third dose in late January or early February, unfortunately, Covid got the best of me and now I can't. Certainly, the most important thing about vaccines is to prevent serious illness, which could potentially even lead to hospitalisation in an ICU unit or even death.

I was found to have contracted the Delta variant, hopefully, the symptoms weren't that bad, I've honestly felt worse with past sicknesses.

The chart below demonstrates the extent to which vaccines have prevented infection in the UK, and also demonstrates quite clearly how protection wanes over time. As with a lot of Covid charts, there are many complicating factors, and arguably the dimensions on the second chart should be flipped vertically to retain the time trend from the top chart... but it's all quite clear in any case.

It's interesting that people who had a first vaccine more than 6 months ago, but never followed it up with a second vaccine are more likely to contract Covid than someone who is unvaccinated. This is interesting, and I'd like to see more detail. I suspect this might be a very small group, of whom a disproportionate percentage have since moved into the 'too vulnerable to vaccinate' category, and so would be at higher risk regardless of vaccination status... but this is supposition, and I have no data on it.

One thing - perhaps the most important thing - is not covered on these charts, and that's hospitalisation by vaccination status, the data for which isn't available from the ONS. But data from elsewhere, as I've presented previously, have certainly indicated that the risk of severe symptoms is much lower if you've been vaccinated.

Another factor, again supposition, might be that people are more likely to be tested if they are symptomatic. If vaccines protect against symptoms, then they would also reduce the likelihood of you taking a test, in which case the vaccine protection would actually be greater than that presented on those charts.

@Ultegra134 - your second Pfizer jab ~6 months ago, with no third jab, would seem to protect you slightly against infection... but as I say, the protection from severe symptoms is perhaps more important.


https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/articles/coronaviruscovid19/latestinsights

According to Center for Disease Prevention and Control (CDC), vaccines do prevent infection, however, it is not guaranteed, while the preventive protection dies down after a few months. They certainly assist in preventing severe illness/symptoms or even death.

I was vaccinated with two doses of Pfizer, the second one was received approximately 6 months ago. I got infected but only developed mild symptoms, some fever (~38 C), sore throat, a little cough and that's about it.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/effectiveness/why-measure-effectiveness/breakthrough-cases.html

They offer you little to no protection against contracting and transmitting the virus regardless if you are fully vaccinated or boosted with one or two boosters.

See Israel's new cases - https://graphics.reuters.com/world-coronavirus-tracker-and-maps/countries-and-territories/israel/

Roughly 80+ of the population is fully vaccinated with large portions of the population receiving boosters, yet they are experiencing the worst peak since the start of the pandemic, adding 50k+ cases as of late. Israel also conducted a study administering a 4th shot which saw no clinical efficacy in stopping COVID transmission, one of the first in the world.

Some speculation that ADE can arise when administering vaccines - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41564-020-00789-5


Add this issue on top of omicron being so genetically distant from the original strain, you have useless vaccines in terms of stopping transmission.

Vaccines do not protect you from contracting the virus.  What they do help with is the body's immune response to the infection.

The only way to protect yourself against contracting the virus is to avoid situations where you might get in contact with it.
Practice physical distancing, wash hands and face after each exposure, wear PPE everywhere when in public.  
Do not eat or drink in public, etc.

The covid 19 virus have gained a new height with various variance, and most countries around the world are placing restrictions on citizens and drafting majors to lower the contraction of the virus, covid vaccine was introduced to bursting the immune of human against the virus but there have been lots .of politics around the vaccines policy around the globe. With country placing vaccines restrictions on travelers and public workers, how effective is the vaccine against the contractions of the virus?