Coronavirus | Discussion

The amount of administered doses, what is its actual value?
The first ones who officially got the jab have got it not even a complete year ago.
There is a huge amount of data and it takes time to evaluate to get a full and complete 'image' of the vaccines.
And there is huge under-reporting.

I have chosen those 3 drugs and I 'put' my life to them if I should get COVID.
I totally rely on what I know about. I could not trust more in what I know it's finally about my health... there are lots of RCTs about IVM, but no nation related.

RCTs are expensive and you cannot make money with re-purposed drugs! That is a structural issue of capitalism!

Anyway you find observations such as in Japan recently:

 

This is an absolutely unreasonable and irresponsible way to behave and manner to post for an "UK expert"!!!
Solely made to fear-monger.
No expert would post a statement like that that is contrary to the rules of epidemiology without providing a MOA that would reason his statement.

BTW: A contrary MOA would be the fact that there's mass vaccination into an ongoing pandemic.
But funny part then is that the cause for it would be the vaccines themselves, since in the vaxxed the variants spread the more the farer away they have mutated away from the original Wuhan variant.

But what's far more critical is that people are jumping on this bandwagon, without thinking and being resistant to any negative findings about the vaccines.
Whenever there is a new variant found it's always more dangerous, causes more deaths. This repeats as vicious circle all the time and it is heavily propagated that the only way to get out of this is to get the vaccines.
The construct of this viscous circle violates the rules of epidemiology and is therefore illusionary. So this reason to get vaccines is a reason to get out of an illusion. Nothing more.

The rules of epidemiology are: More contagious less dangerous in order to become a dominant variant. Period! An exception would have to be reasoned with a 'new' MOA.

This proper rule is based on logic. IF a variant would be more deadly it would 'kill' its opportunities to become dominant, because the host would become 'unable' to spread it further. The variant would extinct.

Another value that comes along with this set of proper rules is the ICP of the variant. In order to spread more the ICP has to be shortened. A host needs to develop symptoms, preferably at the UPPER respiratory tract such as sneezing and infectious mucous, mucous congestion 'ASAP' in order spread the variant. At delta the ICP has shortened from 5.5 days to 2-3 days after infection.

This also comes along with the fact that being more dangerous = causing more damage = takes more time to occur. (The virus enters body coming from the upper respiratory tract, when it infects there, it can spread easier. The damage there cannot be that dangerous. To cause more harm it goes down to the lower tract, lungs, there it can cause more harm, but from there the spread is not that easy anymore.)

Omicron has 2 alternatives: Becoming the dominant variant while getting more contagious and less dangerous OR becoming more dangerous and finally extinct.

Any other statements are pure rubbish.

The situation became that bad, because the vaccine makers did not update their stuff in time and the politicians (at least here) did not support the health system by raising their capacities in time. It's all about money and making as many profit as possible.

And the guilty ones are spotted easily: Those who are not yet vaxxed.
No, thank you.