Enthusiasts of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) seem remarkably often those who deny the evidence related to the dire consequences of a COVID-19 infection. Consequently, they also deny the value of COVID vaccinations. Because on this blog we have had so many examples of this phenomenon, let me today show an interesting study that might give them food for thought.
The cardiovascular complications of acute coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are well described, but the post-acute cardiovascular manifestations of COVID-19 have not yet been comprehensively characterized. The authors of this study used national healthcare databases from the US Department of Veterans Affairs to build a cohort of 153,760 individuals with COVID-19, as well as two sets of control cohorts with 5,637,647 (contemporary controls) and 5,859,411 (historical controls) individuals, to estimate risks and 1-year burdens of a set of pre-specified incident cardiovascular outcomes.
The results show that beyond the first 30 d after infection, individuals with COVID-19 are at increased risk of incident cardiovascular disease spanning several categories, including cerebrovascular disorders, dysrhythmias, ischemic and non-ischemic heart disease, pericarditis, myocarditis, heart failure, and thromboembolic disease. These risks and burdens were evident even among individuals who were not hospitalized during the acute phase of the infection and increased in a graded fashion according to the care setting during the acute phase (non-hospitalized, hospitalized, and admitted to intensive care).
Risks and 12-month burdens of incident post-acute COVID-19 cardiovascular outcomes compared with the contemporary control cohort.
Outcomes were ascertained 30 d after the COVID-19-positive test until the end of follow-up. COVID-19 cohort (n = 153,760) and contemporary control cohort (n = 5,637,647). Adjusted HRs and 95% CIs are presented. The length of the bar represents the excess burden per 1,000 persons at 12 months, and associated 95% CIs are also shown.
The authors concluded that the results provide evidence that the risk and 1-year burden of cardiovascular disease in survivors of acute COVID-19 are substantial. Care pathways of those surviving the acute episode of COVID-19 should include attention to cardiovascular health and disease.
I know, this is a case-control study and correlation is not causation. But to investigate the possibility of a causal link further, the authors also tested the robustness of results in several sensitivity analyses involving the outcomes of MACE and any cardiovascular outcome. The sensitivity analyses were performed in comparisons involving COVID-19 versus the contemporary control and COVID-19 versus the historical control and, additionally, COVID-19 by care setting versus both controls.
(1) To test whether the inclusion of additional algorithmically selected covariates would challenge the robustness of study results, they selected and used 300 high-dimensional variables (instead of the 100 used in the primary analyses) to construct the inverse probability weighting.
(2) They then also tested the results in models specified to include only pre-defined covariates (that is, without the inclusion of algorithmically selected covariates) to build the inverse probability weighting.
(3) They changed the analytic approach by using the doubly robust method (instead of the inverse weighting method used in primary analyses) to estimate the magnitude of the associations between COVID-19 exposure and the pre-specified outcomes.
All sensitivity analyses yielded results consistent with those produced using the primary approach. This means that it is likely that the cause of the outcomes was the COVID-19 exposure.
How often have we seen advocates of SCAM argue against vaccination by pointing to the risk of myocarditis and other cardiovascular conditions, no matter how minuscule that risk truly is? This study quantifies the relative risk of several different cardiovascular outcomes after COVID-19 infection and the risk of myocarditis clearly stands out. I hope that the findings of this important study will make the COVID deniers reconsider their attitude.
47 Responses to Long-term cardiovascular outcomes of COVID-19 infections
Leave a Reply to R. Daneel Cancel reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Please explain HR and Excess Burden
HR= hazard ratio
excess burden is self-explanatory
HR = hazard ratio
excess burden is self-explanatory
@ Edzard
Pls correct me if i am wrong, but the historical (non-vaccinated) control group looks a bit better compared to the contemporaneous (vaccinated) control group, when accounting for the vaccine risk [Tab.21-24]. 61.93% of the covid positive group was vaccinated! The potential influence of the vaccine on the observed harms attributed here to Covid alone cannot be ruled out. One should also assume a potential bad synergistic effect of vaccine in connection with an infection (!), which apparently doesnt occur in vaccinated persons without covid in the control group. This would go well with the discussed and associated immune suppressing effects and the prevailing breakthrough cases.
Did I miss an exact comparison of the 38% non-vaccinated covid infected patients with the 44% of the non-vaccinated control group?
Or, putative side effects from vaccination that don’t show up until years later. So, “to be safe”, they want to wait for years before (possibly) getting vaccinated.
From a good interview with a doctor,
To be sure, one is likely to feel somewhat off for 2-3 days after getting the vaccine, but that and the effort to get it is about all there really is so far as a downside.
This is an importantly study, The resultat is not surprising.
What is just as importantly now, is to see This same research in vaccinated group vs un vaccinated. And not count those who get ill two week after vax as unvaccinated.
By doing This we can see potensial diffeences in long term illness in vaccinated vs unvaccinated.
Are you aware of amy such research?
And people who are fully vaccinated for Covid are less likely to get the disease, and if they do get it, they’re less likely to become seriously ill.
So they’re less likely to be at risk of severe long-term effects, as this paper discusses.
@Laura
Absolutely, that is the key takeaway from this study and strengthens evidence in favor of vaccinations, social distancing, mask wearing and any common sense task that reduces the risk of infection. Also, of all the long-term effects the study analyzes, relative risk of COVID infection induced myocarditis looms large.
@ R. Daneel
“Billing data”
CEO of BKK ProVita insurance, Andreas Schöfbeck, had the data of millions of insured persons of the BKK group analyzed and writes in a fire letter to the Paul Ehrlich Institute:
“The data available to our institution give us reason to believe that there is very substantial underreporting of suspected cases of vaccine adverse events following Corona vaccination.”
“If these figures are extrapolated to the whole year and to the population in Germany, probably 2.5-3 million people in Germany have been under medical treatment for vaccine side effects after Corona vaccination.
“We see this as a significant alarm signal that must be taken into account in the further use of vaccines.”
“This means that 3 million suspected cases of vaccine side effects require approximately 1.5 million hours of work by physicians. That would be nearly the annual workload of 1,000 physicians.”
“Since the risk to human life cannot be excluded, we ask you to ….”
https://today.in-25.com/news/2322.html
@DanLucas
An alarmist letter from some CEO where absolutely no evidence was presented to support their assertions is not evidence that vaccines are risker than covid infection. Try again!
@Laura
First of all, those that were previously infected with covid and survived are NOT more likely to get the disease than those vaccinated. The immunity gained is equal or greater than what the vaccines provide.
For those under thirty years of age, the vaccine presents a greater risk than the disease…. yes.
@concerned patient
NO.
In the US alone, Covid-19 killed 20,014 people up to the age of 35, or about 2.2% of the total amount of deaths (almost a million to date). To the best of our knowledge, vaccination has NOT killed a single person in that age group.
And then there’s this: between 10% and 20% of younger people who contracted Covid-19 are suffering from long-term effects from the disease (post covid syndrome). Vaccination does NOT cause ANY detrimental long-term effects.
When you dissuade people from getting vaccinated, you are putting them at unnecessary risk of death, regardless of their age. So please sod off with your endless antivaccine lies. And that’s asking politely.
@Richard Rasker
First of all Richard, the study you linked references no ages, at least that I could find.
Beyond that, the linked article from EE also admits that the conclusions are derived from correlation. a standard of means that is not highly regarded here, unless it works to the benefit of supporting an argument representing the moderator. Why you linked that study is beyond me, it doesn’t pertain specifically to the under 30 population.
The USA covid battle faired very poor, among some of the worst countries in the world, so I’ll use it as the example. In the USA the death rate posted is .0.8% of the total covid CASES, that puts the risk level of death very low for the average youth.
Even this statistic of deaths is misleading, as we know that that number included patients that died WITH covid, where covid was NOT the actual cause of death.
Furthermore, there ARE patients under 30 years of age that have co-morbidities that put them at risk to death. Therefore yes, patients of any and all ages that have underlying health conditions should be those that would likely benefit from vaccination….. no argument at all.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1254488/us-share-of-total-covid-deaths-by-age-group/
I think the total US death count under 30 years of age is approx. 5600 patients. You only want to count deaths from vaccine as a negative.
Those vaccinated and effected by permanent side effects dwarf covid deaths among youths.
Richard, stop the spread of dis-information…. you’re putting lives at risk.
concerned patient: stop the spread of dis-information…. you’re putting lives at risk
@concerned patient
My apologies, I somehow inserted the wrong link and neglected to verify it after posting. Here’s what I was referring to:
https://data.cdc.gov/widgets/9bhg-hcku
This shows thousands of Covid deaths in the younger age groups.
However, my mistake does not change the fact that you keep spreading lies, misinformation, and nonsense. Regardless of age, Covid-19 causes far more deaths and long-term suffering than vaccination – which causes no deaths or long-term problems in any significant numbers.
And even if a significant number of those dead children and young adults were also suffering from co-morbidities making them extra vulnerable, most of them they would still be alive if they had been vaccinated.
So what you’re basically saying is that those thousands of dead young people and hundreds of dead children are perfectly acceptable and not a problem at all, and we should not bother trying to prevent other youths from getting sick in the first place.
Well, thank you for once again sharing your disgusting stupidity, and reminding us that there are people out there for whom their personal convictions (and the spreading thereof) are more important than other people’s lives.
@Richard Rasker
Thanks for responding to this. I was getting tired of it.
@Richard Rasker
“So what you’re basically saying is that those thousands of dead young people and hundreds of dead children are perfectly acceptable and not a problem at all, and we should not bother trying to prevent other youths from getting sick in the first place.”
No, not my words, your words.
What I’m saying is that the long lasting side effects from the EUA mRNA vaccines are not worth the risk for healthy young people with no underlying health conditions. The chance of death is almost nothing. It’s all about the risk/benefit ratio… right sir ? …. which happens to make more sense for the elderly to be vaccinated (with an unapproved vaccine)….only since the elderly are more vulnerable.
@concerned patient
You are very wrong. Please get the following into your dim head:
By their very nature, mRNA vaccines do not and cannot have any long lasting side effects.
And once again you are quite wrong. Please get the following into your dim head:
Almost nothing ≠ nothing.
Of all Covid-19 deaths, about 1% happened in people under 30 years of age – almost all of whom chose NOT to get vaccinated as a result of lies and misinformation from the likes of you, and almost all of whom sorely regretted this choice on their unexpected deathbed. This adds up to many thousands of young people. Vaccination has NOT killed ANY young people. So once again please get the following into your dim head:
These thousands of young people mostly died because they were unwise enough to listen to stupid yet arrogant dimwits like you. YOU contributed to killing these people, by spreading FUD about vaccination and promoting ineffective treatments.
And now please sod off.
@Edzard: perhaps it is time for this confused patient to be discharged from this institution, if you catch my drift.
@Richard
I second your opinion.
lol… the cancel culture has spoken, the thought police have arrived.
Go ahead, cancel me…
DONE!
the rest of your post was full of your usual lies and thus deleted
@concerned patient
One parting comment:
And once again you are rather amusingly wrong. All your comments up to date are most definitely not cancelled and are still visible for anyone to see. And I’m pretty certain that any new comments from you will be accepted again if those are on-topic, informative and supported by proper scientific evidence – the latter especially in case you make factual statements that fly in the face of scientific consensus.
But your endlessly repeated PRATTs have devolved into a stream of trolling that we can do without – if only because those comments are consistently off-topic. They do not address the item at hand, but are just antivaccine and anti-science rubbish from all the informational sewers that you care to dredge up. In addition, you usually ignore any evidence of you being wrong.
Or to make a long comment short: Good Riddance.
@ Richard Rasker
Can you kindly take note that you cannot exclude potential long-term effects and for that reason cannot be sure what risks may still lie ahead, especially not after multiple injections? That is also Prof. Ernst’s stance, btw. For the sake of an open, fruitful and, above all, scientific discourse, it is advisable not to close the book!
As you might have noticed, the spike protein production induced by vaccination was still going on after 60 days and for instance the spike antigen and mRNA persist for weeks in lymph node germinal centers:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2022.01.018
And that the spike seems to have the potential to impair DNA damage repair and inhibit V(D)J recombination, since demonstrated in vitro:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8538446/pdf/viruses-13-02056.pdf
Professor Nikolai Petrovsky from Flinders University, an immunologist, who has developed more than 20 vaccines himself, was interviewed by Dr. Maryanne Demasi:
“With the genetic vaccines,…the amount of spike protein being made is unknown. This spike protein may interfere with normal cellular functions and also may go to the nucleus. After all this is what the virus itself does, which is to express spike protein inside your cells as part of its takeover of your cellular machinery,” he said. “In addition to potentially interfering with cellular functions, including blocking important anti-viral defenses such as interferons, the spike protein will also be presented on the surface of that cell, where it will be recognised and attacked by killer T-cells, potentially resulting in death of the spike protein-expressing cells.” – These utterances are reminiscent of the prevailing breakthrough infections aka vaccine failures and are therefore consonat with the associated immune surpressing effects and the actual post mortem findings of Prof. Arne Burkhardt and Prof. Lang as auto-immune attacks, etc.
https://maryannedemasi.com/publications/f/is-spike-protein-%E2%80%9Ctoxic%E2%80%9D
It doesn’t cut it when you discredit Robert Malone, the father of mRNA & DNA vaccines, for being anti-vaccine, of course he bases himself on studies (emphases added):
“Using these vaccines, which include pseudouridine WITHOUT FULLY UNDERSTANDING the IMPLICATIONS and WITHOUT the FDA requiring a complete pre-clinical toxicology regulatory package, including long-term follow-up, as is done with any other unique chemical or adjuvant additive is SHOCKING. Then there is the novel use of the unique nano particles being used in these vaccines, which also were only marginally assessed, as shown by the Japanese Pfizer data.
Protein expression is not being turned off, because the immune response against the mRNA/pseudouridine complex is either not happening or is ineffective. It may also be that the mRNA/pseudouridine complex has a longer half-life than normal mRNA. The In either case, this is regulatory nightmare.
I do not know how to write this more strongly. THIS TECHNOLOGY IS IMMATURE.”
https://rwmalonemd.substack.com/p/a-health-public-policy-nightmare?s=r
These utterances are reminiscent of the prevailing breakthrough infections aka vaccine failures and are therefore consonat with the associated immune surpressing effects and the actual post mortem findings of Prof. Arne Burkhardt and Prof. Lang like auto-immune attacks, etc. – So, all in all, enough not to close the book prematurely!
Back with your usual antivaxxer BS DanLucas?
The above paper earned an expression of concern, you can read all about it here: https://retractionwatch.com/2022/01/13/covid-19-spike-protein-paper-earns-an-expression-of-concern/
I bet that is the reason why you posted the PubMed link to the PDF instead of the actual PubMed page: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC8538446/ that show expression of concern.
Sneaky DanLucas!
By the way, Prof. Petrovsky’s company developed a protein-based vaccine that is not approved yet. Therefore, I am not surprised that he is critical of the wildly successful mRNA-based vaccine technology he and his company are competing against.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/28/questions-over-data-transparency-around-australian-doctors-1m-gofundme-covid-19-vaccine
@ Richard Rasker
I assume you believe Bill Gates since you posted studies sponsored by his foundation (emphases added):
“Sadly, the virus itself, particularly, the variant called omicron, is a type of vaccine, that is, it creates both B-cell and T-cell immunity, and it’s done a BETTER JOB getting out to the world population THAN WE HAVE WITH VACCINES,” the Microsoft co-founder said. “That means the chance of severe disease, which is MAINLY associated with being ELDERLY and having obesity or diabetes, those risks are now dramatically reduced because of that infection, exposure.”
https://gazette.com/news/bill-gates-omicron-did-a-better-job-building-immunity-than-covid-19-vaccines/article_d3ba2c9e-e426-5ef7-8ced-d8ebe48587d3.html
And regarding your previous comment: at the end of November last year, alone among the to Comirnaty attributed 1427 death figures, alone in Germany were 6 children. At least that were the old figures of the Paul Ehrlich Institute…
either you comment meaningfully on topic or you are banned;
I had enough of your anti-vax lies.
Dan
Hello
Not that I would value in high regard the opinion of Mr. B Gates, as his medical and scientific qualifications are rather sparse.
However, since he has a rather large following I will comment. He did publicly state not long ago that the current covid vaccines have failed, and we need better and newer covid vaccines. If his opinion of the spread of the Omicron variant is in fact true, then it would follow that natural immunity (being the immunity developed from getting infected) is the better protection against the virus than vaccination. (at least with the current known vaccines).
are you saying that:
1) you do not trust Gates much
2) but when it is somewhere reported that is makes wild speculations, you listen to him
????????????????????
No, it is not and no one will stop you from believing what a rich tech billionaire (who has no background in virology, immunology, medicine or even biology) has to say about vaccines.
https://respectfulinsolence.com/2022/02/28/about-that-magical-mystical-natural-immunity-against-covid-19/
@DanLucas
Can you kindly take note that you are just an uneducated and misinformed antivaccine person who listens to other antivaccine persons and helps spread their lies? Thank you.
So please allow me to educate you. No, mRNA vaccines cannot and do not have long-term side effects. In the past year literally billions of people have been vaccinated, and there is no sign AT ALL of any long-term detrimental effects. And this is fully to be expected. The mRNA in these vaccines degrades and disappears in a matter of days, and the spike proteins produced are cleared by our immune system. And no, these spike proteins do NOT have any long-term detrimental effects either – otherwise we’d all be dead by now as a result of hundreds of viral infections with viruses featuring the same spike proteins that we had earlier in life. Yes, it is that simple.
And no, Covid vaccines have not killed almost 1500 Germans, including children. Once again, it really is very simple: death after vaccination ≠ death caused by vaccination. If you vaccinate 75+ million people including a couple of million children, then of course you will see deaths shortly after vaccination, and yes, dead children as well.
You know what would actually be strange? If there would be no deaths at all shortly after vaccination. Because that would mean that the vaccine would not just protect people from the disease in question, but also from death in general – which of course would be extremely suspect. Once again, just stop and think about it for a few seconds, and you will see why antivaccine people are wrong.
So please engage your brain for once and stop parroting those other nitwits who don’t know what they’re talking about.
And oh, could you also take note that your antivaccine messages are off-topic here? This blog entry is about cardiovascular sequelae of Covid-19 infections, not about the fact that the vaccines are safe and effective.
(And yes, I realize that by responding to those off-topic messages I am also guilty of off-topic posting – so I’ll stop it here.)
The new study was done in Malaysia. The result: not only did Ivermectin not work, but there was a slightly higher, though nonsignificant, risk of the ivermectin treated patients progressing to the phase that required supplemental oxygen. That is exactly the opposite of what you would expect if some patients were taking placebos, for you might expect that if there’s a placebo effect, then placebo-ingesting patients would do better than those not taking placebos (i.e., the patients in this study). But despite the absence of placebos, there was still no effect of ivermectin in this study using any measure of “disease progression”. More info about placebo effect – net-boss.org/the-power-of-the-placebo-effect-by-randy-baker
@Naomi
The Ivermectin study you refer to from Malaysia was funded by a Pharma known as Beximco Pharmaceutical Limited, Bangladesh.
This corporation (Beximco) is a generic drug manufacture, with license agreements to produce two covid therapies. It was the first drug company from Bangladesh to sell its products in the US.
In May 2020, the company introduced the world’s first generic Remdesivir for COVID-19 treatment. Beximco Pharma became the first company to obtain production and marketing authorization for Molnupiravir, the first and only specific oral anti covid drug in Bangladesh. Beximco Pharma’s branded generic version of Molnupiravir is being marketed as Emorivir.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beximco_Pharma
Well well well, just follow the money trail.
You can toss that study out the window, Beximco has a dog in the race. in fact two dogs.
@concerned patient
Here is the Malaysian study: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article-abstract/2789362. I haven’t found anything that says this Malaysian study was funded Beximco.
On the other hand, Beximco: https://www.beximco.com/csr does manufacture Ivermectin under the name Ivera: https://go.drugbank.com/drugs/DB00602
Are you following the money yet! ROLF!
Even better, they funded a small study back in 2020: https://www.aa.com.tr/en/asia-pacific/bangladesh-ivermectin-shows-promise-in-treating-virus/2068885 with less than 100 patients whose conclusions were weak sauce: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33278625/.
It sucks to be Beximco, studies they funded on Ivermectin did not pan out. That is probably the reason why they moved on to other therapies.
A good article: Does a past Covid infection protect just as well as vaccines?
Also,
Fact check: COVID-19 vaccines are safe for people in their 20s
Also, if someone actually gets Covid, they’re very likely to make other people sick as well, including others who are more vulnerable. The virus doesn’t considerately ignore people who are overweight, diabetic, old, etc. etc. …
https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj-2021-068993
This one is fresh off the press from the same authors of the Nature paper feature in this blog post.
Here are the conclusions:
@Laura
Speaking of at risk patients… IE underlying health conditions.
Where has there been ANY message in the last two years from CDC WHO FDA … State and local governments, Television news, MD’s, MEDICAL INSURANCE COMPANIES … advising the general population (both obese on the outside, and fat on the inside) to get the general population in better health via exercise and diet in order to reduce or eliminate comorbidities ?
I never heard a word, from my MD or my medical insurance company ! Never a peep from cable news… or anywhere.
ZIPO
NADA
ZILCH
CRICKETS
They knew a solution to curb deaths early on, and said nothing to encourage the public to be in better health to combat covid.
How strange !
@concerned patient
Just because your live under a rock doesn’t mean the rest of the world does the same. Just because your MD and your health insurance company didn’t mention risks of obesity to you specifically doesn’t mean the MDs and insurers in the rest of the world do the same.
I have health insurance thru my employer, and we have several programs and apps thru our health insurance company that encourages us to lead a healthy life. We even get at 20% health insurance premium reductions if we hit specific milestones every year (i.e. maintain healthy weight, blood pressure etc.)
Here is what the CDC has to say about obesity and covid:
https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/obesity-and-covid-19.html
WHO has this to say about obesity and covid:
https://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/health-emergencies/coronavirus-covid-19/news/news/2020/10/obesity-significantly-increases-chances-of-severe-outcomes-for-covid-19-patients
More resources reg. obesity from CDC and WHO:
https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/index.html
https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html
https://www.who.int/health-topics/obesity#tab=tab_3
https://www.nature.com/articles/ijo2008247.pdf?origin=ppub
United Health, one of the largest insurers in US:
https://www.uhc.com/health-and-wellness/nutrition/healthy-weight
https://www.unitedhealthgroup.com/what-we-do/better-health-outcomes.html
Kaiser, one the largest insurers in US:
https://healthy.kaiserpermanente.org/health-wellness/health-encyclopedia/he.obesity.hw252864
BCBS is one of the well-known health insurance companies in US:
https://www.ahealthyme.com/Search/85,P07857
https://www.bcbsnm.com/provider/clinical/clinical-resources/childhood-obesity
@Prof. Ernst
I tried posting this earlier and it didn’t seem to work. I apologize if there are duplicate posts.
I replied to you below.
The actual downsides to getting a Covid vaccine, at least one of the good ones, are that it’s going to take a small amount of one’s time and be a minor hassle; and that people often are mildly sick for 2-3 days after, with fatigue, possibly fever etc.
Well well
As it turns out now, the evidence that the vaccines are not so effective are showing up in the numbers. Please stop telling us that it’s a pandemic of the unvaccinated…. STOP ALREADY !
““A pandemic of — and by — the unvaccinated is not correct. People still need to take care in terms of prevention and action if they became symptomatic.”
https://worldnewsera.com/news/finance/stock-market/omicron-caused-spike-in-deaths-in-vaccinated-people-analysis-finds-though-unvaccinated-remain-most-at-risk/
The article didn’t give the specific delta between the vaccinated deaths and unvaccinated…. just stated that the unvaccinated were MORE at risk, whatever that means.
Furthermore, they didn’t even attempt to speculate or give statistics of how the death rates of those vaccinated with the failed vaccines are comparing to those that gained immunity via being infected with covid and survived.
More time will bring even more bad news about the failed vaccines.
@James Joromat
This is what that means:
https://fortune.com/2022/02/04/fully-vaccinated-93-percent-less-likely-covid-death-compared-unvaccinated/
Vaccines are by no means perfect. Your brain is by no means perfect.
So let me ask you: would you say that you have a failed brain?
Well, RG, I reckon it probably means that the unvaccinated are more at risk. Of death, in this case. As has been shown time and time again. Much to the frustration of witless antivax loons like yourself who have to further tie themselves in knots to try to justify their faith-based position.
@Richard Rasker
I did qualify my phrase “whatever that means” by preceding it with the statement that they did not provide the delta in the morbidity statistics.
My point was that they came to a conclusion that it’s NOT a “pandemic of the unvaccinated”, but they failed to give us the statistical data to allow us to draw our own conclusion…. hmmm.
In other words, if the unvaccinated risk of death is less than … let’s say five percent higher than the vaccinated. I will argue that the delta in not very meaningful, some might argue ten percent is not that significant. For all we know, the delta could have been one percent, which would imply no statistical difference. They failed to inform us.
Then add to the scenario that many of the unvaccinated were not accepting to the forced jabs due to the fact that they had already been infected and recovered from the virus.
So Richard, I’m not really buying the 93% statistic. If that were the case in the more recent article, why didn’t they give us the statistic so we could be clearly convinced ?
Of course you aren’t. You are an antivaccine person who will never admit to being wrong about vaccines, even though this 90+% reduced death rate in vaccinated people is found independently all around the world. E.g. here is CDC data with a very similar conclusion: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e2.htm
“crude VE [Vaccine Effectiveness] for deaths was 95% during April–May, 94% during June, and 94% during July–November.”
Our Dutch figures paint much the same picture.
There are of course some caveats, mostly due to waning protection and mutated virus variants: from what I understand, some 6 months after vaccination or infection, immunity has dropped off by about half. And yes, that also goes for ‘natural immunity’.
So the facts are quite clear: people unwise enough to reject vaccination are on average 10-20 times more likely to become seriously ill and die when infected with Covid-19 than sensible people who get vaccinated. And after 6 months, the relative risk is still an order of magnitude greater for unvaccinated people.
@Richard Rasker
Sir, you keep calling a vaccinated patient antivax…. lol I’ve been vaccinated. Furthermore, I was covid infected four months before I was vaccinated. I only took the jab because I perceived correctly that mandates were coming.
There are millions of people worldwide…. just like myself that are anti-vaccine MANDATE. Just like the 90% of Canadian Truckers that were already vaccinated but joined the protest against the Canadian government on behalf of those who did not want to take the jab.
Now, about the 93% statistic. That is pure poppycock Richard.
The science has already revealed to us that natural immunity via infection is just a effective as the jab, if not more.
How many people in the highly vaccinated countries have already been infected with covid and recovered ? … many. The CDC just informed us that 60% of the US population has already been infected with covid virus. To have that amount of the population already infected adds virus resistance to both groups. So 60% of the population got infected in spite of the vaccine, or they gained immunity via infection. Either way, you can’t have 93% of the population with no risk simply due to vaccination alone. We all know patients that both got infected and died after vaccination.
C’mon Richard, vaccine protection wanes after only two months. How effective can it be ?
Richard, here is the real outlier that determines death from the virus, not vaccinated or unvaccinated.
There is your outlier, vaccinated or not. (all Trusted News Initiative sites)
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/03/04/health/obesity-covid-death-rate-intl/index.html
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/08/covid-cdc-study-finds-roughly-78percent-of-people-hospitalized-were-overweight-or-obese.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/02/08/obesity-and-covid-deaths/
https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/obesity-and-covid-19.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/08/health/covid-fat-obesity.html
@James Joromat
Your claims and attitude towards vaccination determine whether you are antivaccine or not. Vaccination status is immaterial.
Fine, I can understand that. But your opinion about vaccine mandates has nothing to do with simple facts such as vaccine efficacy.
So ALL national health agencies of ALL countries around the world and ALL scientists are lying? And ALL those figures about numbers of infections and outcomes versus vaccination status are wrong? And not just that, they are ALL equally wrong? Sorry, but a far more likely explanation is that antivaccine people such as you are wrong.
Yes, and …? This goes for almost all vaccine-preventable diseases. You are committing a horrible yet very common antivaccine fallacy here, which tells us is that you apparently do not or cannot understand what vaccines are supposed to do: prevent illness, suffering and death. And that is what Covid-19 vaccines do. When comparing a million Covid-19 cases in vaccinated people with a million Covid-19 cases in unvaccinated people, it turns out that the latter group has 20 times as many deaths, cases of severe illness and even long Covid. If you want to dispute these figures, you will have to come up with some very good evidence as to why those figures are wrong – and why they are equally wrong all over the world.
Yes, obesity is a well-known risk factor for death and serious illness from Covid-19. But it does not explain why unvaccinated people are 20 times as likely to die from Covid-19 than vaccinated people. Unless of course most unvaccinated people are obese, while most vaccinated people are not.
The fact that vaccination prevents severe infection and, generally, shortens the duration of illness, as well as the transmissibility, has an important consequence that you are missing. Even if you get immunity and don’t die during an infection while unvaccinated, you nevertheless give the virus more time and chances to mutate and spread around its new variants.
Do you understand what mutate means in that context? It is the public hazard that mass vaccination programs aim to prevent. Unvaccinated people may survive the infection but they spread more viral particles and also allow the virus to “explore” a wider “genetic landscape” (read: mutate) in its “quest” to become (potentially) more malicious. Not-vaccinating has a quality that is relatively rare compared to other “health choices” you can make that only affect yourself… that is, it is egoistic. Infectious emergencies of the order of a pandemic can be really problematic in that sense. It is a rather hard slap in the face to realise that you are not the sole controller of your health and safety, it actually also depends on the health of all others around you as well.
I am sorry for not adding links to “support” my comments with evidence, but I feel it is getting truly tiresome to add even more of it. Links to published studies and all sorts of conclusive evidence of all this have been posted in this chain from other users literally time and again.
I guess we should also advise people to take up chain-smoking, too. We all know of some heavy-smoking centenarians after all.