How effective is covid vaccine in protecting against contacting the virus

[Cnut237]

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.

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.

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.

[tvbcof]

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.

[PreciousH]

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.

[Ultegra134]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Quickseller]

The covid vaccines approved for use in the US [...] are not going to slow down transmission.

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.

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.

The reduced risk of serious illness should reduce the strain on the hospital and healthcare system.

Reduce relative to what?

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).

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.

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.

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

[Cnut237]

I think the data shows that the vaccine initially provides some protection against infection [...] 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.

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.

[Ultegra134]

I think the data shows that the vaccine initially provides some protection against infection [...] 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.

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.

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.

[tvbcof]

I think the data shows that the vaccine initially provides some protection against infection [...] 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.

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.

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.

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.

[Ultegra134]

I think the data shows that the vaccine initially provides some protection against infection [...] 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[tvbcof]

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.

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.

[Tash]

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

[mu_enrico]

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.

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.

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

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

[Ultegra134]

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.

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.

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.

[yhiaali3]

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.

[tvbcof]

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.

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.

[Tash]

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

[Cnut237]

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.

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.

[tvbcof]

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.  <un-snip>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'

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.
...

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.

[Cnut237]

Nice example of the 'scissors method' of creating a point to make.

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.

Writing off 'side-effects' of the jab to psychological issues because people were afraid of them is exactly the 'nocebo effect' that I saw

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.

[suzanne5223]

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.