1/ An excellent new paper from Denmark that tracks every vaccination given to nursing home residents there shows an 40% RISE in infections immediately after the first @pfizer dose and no efficacy at any point. Protection in this population after “full” vaccination is 64%...

2/ The researchers also tracked health-care workers, the other group in Denmark to receive the vaccine first. They actually had an even LARGER rise in infections immediately following dose 1, but overall higher protection at “full” vaccination (a week after dose 2) - 90%...
3/ This paper is the best yet (because it’s the least political). It is also in line with the Israeli and English data show once you wade through their spin. The takeaways are: The vaccine is much less effective in the people who need it most and DON’T DELAY THE SECOND SHOT...
4/ By the way, i#depending on how long the vaccine provides protection, its OVERALL effectiveness will be below whatever the peak figure is, maybe well below - you need a lot of good weeks to make up for that bolus at the beginning - but I don’t even want to go there.
5/ This paper also shows why the raw Israeli numbers are trash - if infections are declining overall (as they were in Israel and Denmark in February) looking at infections in the vaccinated population without adjusting for that trend markedly overestimates the vaccine effect.
6/ One last point: vaccine efficacy is also overestimated on a population basis because the Israeli and Danish data show about 10% of elderly people get one dose but not the second, presumably because they couldn’t tolerate it. So they get all the downside and none of the upside.
7/ They are also not counted as fully vaccinated, which makes the vaccine numbers look better.

Source: https://t.co/RtyNiWlfXL

More from Category c19

1/: The inventor of the corona PCR-Test @c_drosten is one of the #protagonists of the current crisis. He is known for involving himself in contradictions. In 2014, he gave a legendary #interview to @wiwo (https://t.co/jzTRh5Suhc) that I will address in this ⬇️short thread⬇️.


2/: The interview is significant because @c_drosten made totally sane statements back then that follow the principle of common sense. Considering his involvement in the "genesis of the current pandemic", his assertions appear in an entirely different


3/: In 2014, for instance, washing the hands was sufficient against being infected by coronaviruses. Several years he demands measures that destroy national economies and social life worldwide.


4/: Young @c_drosten also severely criticized the fact that Saudi Arabia used the PCR method to detect potential infections. From his point of view, that specific method could lead to many irrelevant cases. Nowadays, his view shifted his opinion towards 'collective punishment'.


5/: Whereas he demands "testing, testing, testing" nowadays and spreads panic and fear via (social) media, he heavily condemned that behaviour of Saudi media in 2014. On top of that, he expressed his concern that medial panic could increase the number of lab tests significantly.

You May Also Like

"I lied about my basic beliefs in order to keep a prestigious job. Now that it will be zero-cost to me, I have a few things to say."


We know that elite institutions like the one Flier was in (partial) charge of rely on irrelevant status markers like private school education, whiteness, legacy, and ability to charm an old white guy at an interview.

Harvard's discriminatory policies are becoming increasingly well known, across the political spectrum (see, e.g., the recent lawsuit on discrimination against East Asian applications.)

It's refreshing to hear a senior administrator admits to personally opposing policies that attempt to remedy these basic flaws. These are flaws that harm his institution's ability to do cutting-edge research and to serve the public.

Harvard is being eclipsed by institutions that have different ideas about how to run a 21st Century institution. Stanford, for one; the UC system; the "public Ivys".
Trump is gonna let the Mueller investigation end all on it's own. It's obvious. All the hysteria of the past 2 weeks about his supposed impending firing of Mueller was a distraction. He was never going to fire Mueller and he's not going to


Mueller's officially end his investigation all on his own and he's gonna say he found no evidence of Trump campaign/Russian collusion during the 2016 election.

Democrats & DNC Media are going to LITERALLY have nothing coherent to say in response to that.

Mueller's team was 100% partisan.

That's why it's brilliant. NOBODY will be able to claim this team of partisan Democrats didn't go the EXTRA 20 MILES looking for ANY evidence they could find of Trump campaign/Russian collusion during the 2016 election

They looked high.

They looked low.

They looked underneath every rock, behind every tree, into every bush.

And they found...NOTHING.

Those saying Mueller will file obstruction charges against Trump: laughable.

What documents did Trump tell the Mueller team it couldn't have? What witnesses were withheld and never interviewed?

THERE WEREN'T ANY.

Mueller got full 100% cooperation as the record will show.