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

A brief tutorial in health education to show you how sound health education models have been used for manipulation instead of creating health awareness during the COVID 19 pandemic. We'll uses masks as an example of a health behavior.
Are you ready to explore? 1/n

The Health Belief Model (HBM) consists of 5 components: perceived threat (lethality + Susceptibility),
perceived benefits,
perceived barriers and
cues to action.

Familiarise yourself with the definition of each concept in this table. 2/n
https://t.co/1tOz1cJFvc


Study this diagram to understand how the components are interrelated. 3/n
https://t.co/iUoaqNkgyP


Now let’s apply this to the COVID 19 pandemic.
Review this diagram to see how the HBM applies to the behaviour of mask-wearing.
“perceived susceptibility appeared to be the most significant factor determining compliance” 4/n
https://t.co/xF6uwUx12N


Part I: The HBM
Increase the perceived threat of a disease
1) increase perceived severity: Confusing the general public with CFR & IFR- 2 indicators that are an order of magnitude apart.
People understood wrongly that the fatality rate of C19 is
It's all here folks...How the CoVid Con was 37 years in the marking

3/4
https://t.co/WBAnAUO0UU

You May Also Like

1. Project 1742 (EcoHealth/DTRA)
Risks of bat-borne zoonotic diseases in Western Asia

Duration: 24/10/2018-23 /10/2019

Funding: $71,500
@dgaytandzhieva
https://t.co/680CdD8uug


2. Bat Virus Database
Access to the database is limited only to those scientists participating in our ‘Bats and Coronaviruses’ project
Our intention is to eventually open up this database to the larger scientific community
https://t.co/mPn7b9HM48


3. EcoHealth Alliance & DTRA Asking for Trouble
One Health research project focused on characterizing bat diversity, bat coronavirus diversity and the risk of bat-borne zoonotic disease emergence in the region.
https://t.co/u6aUeWBGEN


4. Phelps, Olival, Epstein, Karesh - EcoHealth/DTRA


5, Methods and Expected Outcomes
(Unexpected Outcome = New Coronavirus Pandemic)