Variants that have emerged in Britain, South Africa, Brazil and now India have all been the focus of fears of implications for the COVID-19 pandemic Photo: AFP/File
health

Contagious and concerning: What we know about COVID-19 variants

20 Comments
By Paul RICARD

Fast-spreading coronavirus variants have ignited global concern over whether existing vaccines will be able to protect the world from a virus that is constantly mutating.

Variants that have emerged in Britain, South Africa, Brazil and now India have all been the focus of fears of implications for the COVID-19 pandemic.

Here's what we know.

How many variants?

Viruses continually mutate as tiny errors are introduced each time they replicate cause new variants to appear. The SARS-CoV-2 virus is no different, and has already undergone several thousand mutations since it emerged in humans in late 2019.

Of the current known variants, three are particularly worrying: those initially detected in southeast England, South Africa and in travelers from Brazil arriving in Japan.

They circulate respectively in 139, 87 and 54 countries, according to an April 27 update from the World Health Organization.

It has designated them "variants of concern" because of their increased transmissibility and/or virulence, which worsens an epidemic and makes it more difficult to control.

The WHO also listed seven "variants of interest" in its April update -- up from three a month earlier.

These are under surveillance because of potentially problematic genetic characteristics.

The latest variant added to this list is the one initially spotted in India, where a huge surge of cases in recent days has swamped hospitals. It has now been recorded in at least 17 countries.

The other variants of interest were initially detected in Scotland, the United States, Brazil, France, and the Philippines.

And there are others circulating and being tracked by the scientific community through genetic sequencing.

"The coming weeks and months will tell us whether they fall into the worrying category of variants that spread rapidly, or if they will remain as variants that circulate weakly," Etienne Simon-Loriere, head of viral evolution at France's Pasteur Institute, told AFP.

More contagious?

The three "variants of concern" are all understood to be more infectious.

But for now, estimates of transmissibility are largely based on observations about how fast a variant spreads and given this can depend on various factors, such as social distancing measures, it can be difficult to pinpoint the increase in contagiousness.

The WHO estimates that the English variant is between 36 percent to 75 percent more contagious, while the South African strain is thought to be 1.5 times more transmissible.

It said data for the Brazil variant, known as P.1, is still preliminary, but a recent study of health data in the city of Manaus where the variant has spread widely had suggested it could be 2.5 times more contagious than previous strains.

In recent days there have been increasing suspicions that the Indian variant may also spread more quickly, as case numbers rocket.

The WHO says this transmission could partly be explained by shortfalls in public health measures, as well as several large public meetings that have been allowed to go ahead, "including mass gatherings during cultural and religious celebrations, and elections".

Millions of pilgrims, mostly without masks, have attended the recent Kumbh Mela religious gathering in the country's north.

But the variant also has a combination of mutations potentially associated with increased transmissibility.

Mutation

All variants are categorised according to the mutations they have acquired. Each occupies its own spot in the genetic family tree of SARS-CoV-2.

It's a tree that is constantly growing branches, as more variants emerge.

Unlike viruses themselves, variants do not have a recognized international naming system, so their official titles tend to be somewhat technical.

For example, the strain that appeared in England is called 501Y.V1 or VOC202012 / 01 and belongs to the line B.1.1.7.

People have thus resorted to the snappier terms "English variant", "South African variant" and so on, although this has raised concern that certain countries will be stigmatised.

Most mutations will not have "a direct benefit to the virus or other public health impacts", according to the WHO.

But some can alter how it spreads or interacts with the immune system.

The English, South African and Brazilian variants all share a particular mutation -- named N501Y -- that is thought to increase infectiousness.

The mutation occurs on the virus' spike protein, which makes it more effective at binding with human receptor cells.

And the South African and Brazilian variants carry another mutation, E484K, suspected of reducing the immunity acquired either by a past infection (with therefore an increased possibility of reinfection), or by vaccines.

More dangerous?

Most of the research so far on this question has been on the English variant.

British authorities said in January that the strain that emerged in England was up to 40 percent more deadly, based on a number of studies in the UK.

One of these, which was published in the BMJ medical journal in March, found that the variant was 64 percent more deadly than pre-existing strains.

But in mid-April, another study found that this variant did not cause more serious forms of COVID-19 -- although it focused on patients already in hospital, so could not show whether the variant increased hospitalisation across the general population.

Are vaccines still effective?

Several studies have shown that while vaccines maintain their effectiveness against the English variant, they might have a weaker effect against the South African and Brazilian strains, because of the E484K mutation.

The Indian variant raises the same fears because of a nearby mutation -- known as E484Q -- but more research is needed.

A small preliminary study made public found that the Covaxin vaccine, from the Indian laboratory Bharat Biotech, remains capable of neutralizing it although its efficacy was reduced.

This is an important nuance that applies to the other variants as well -- even if vaccines are less effective against them, it does not mean that they do not work at all.

Also, most studies focus on a single response of the body -- the production of antibodies.

They often do not assess other parts of the potential immune response, such as from memory T- and B-cells.

One recent study by researchers from the US National Institutes of Health gave cautious reassurance.

While they said more research was needed, the NIH said the work suggested the T- cell response in people who have been infected -- and possibly those who have been vaccinated -- was "largely not affected" by the mutations in the English, South African and Brazilian variants and "should offer protection against emerging variants".

Meanwhile, manufacturers are working on updated vaccines, tailored to the variants.

As long as case figures remain high globally, the chances of significant mutations will also stay elevated.

This is why, experts say, it is crucial to vaccinate as many people as quickly as possible.

And measures such as distancing and mask wearing will continue to be vital, even as more and more people receive a vaccine.

© 2021 AFP

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.


20 Comments
Login to comment

Well written article that hopefully will help informing people about the variants, one thing that may be added is that contrary to what some anti-scientific conspiracies say there is no relationship demonstrated between any kind of treatment and the appearance of variants. The only thing that has been correlated is the extremely long infection time that can happen in some patients with immunity problems, this long time of infection makes the virus replicate under reduced pressure from the immune system, enough to neutralize the virus that have the common sequence but leaving new variants still able to keep the infection, become predominant and then infect other people.

The important part is that even for the new variants the immunity against the original virus is still active and do help, so it is not like there is a possibility of generalized re-infections at this point. This possibility of course exists, so great efforts are being made to immunize as much people as possible to avoid it.

6 ( +15 / -9 )

One of the expert's who's worked at GAVI has pointed out of transmission isn't stopped by the vaccines then it increases the chance of mutations, which needs monitoring for: https://youtu.be/BNyAovuUxro

There are precedents for such things happening too:

In pigs - https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-swinefever-vaccines-insight-idUSKBN29R00X

In chickens - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/tthis-chicken-vaccine-makes-virus-dangerous

We don't want to make the problems worse after all

-9 ( +4 / -13 )

One of the expert's who's worked at GAVI has pointed out of transmission isn't stopped by the vaccines then it increases the chance of mutations, which needs monitoring for: https://youtu.be/BNyAovuUxro

There are precedents for such things happening too:

That is very misleading, cases have happened for veterinarian vaccines, which have much lower requirements for both efficacy and safety, but it has never happened for any human vaccine.

For COVID-19 the risk from vaccines is even less important because the natural infection is by itself the equivalent of a "leaky vaccine", being infected, becoming immune but then testing again as positive later, which means they could transmit the disease to other people.

If the vast majority of the population is immunized the decrease of the risk of appearance of variants is much more important (thanks to the interruption of spreading) than the theoretical possibility of the increase of that same risk. This is specially true for a disease where many people (specially asymptomatic patients) have lower levels of protection than what is developed after vaccination.

7 ( +12 / -5 )

@Virus: If one has an immune issue, should they get a vaccine or just hide and wait for herd immunity to solve it?

4 ( +8 / -4 )

How many variants and how many experimental, non-effective vaccines need to be produced for each variant?

Pharma already knows that the experimental COVID vaxxes are ineffective for COVID19 itself (final safety and efficacy studies finish in 2022-2024) AND especially ineffective for every variant.

IVERMECTIN works for COVID19 as well as ALL VARIANTS and is well tolerated

Pharma will do anything to bury any emerging news on Ivermectin as a prophylaxis and for treatment. It is highly effective and will cover ALL VARIANTS as an antiviral drug already in use for over 40 years repurposed for COVID19. There is absolutely ZERO money to be made by Pharma in using Ivermectin. Pharma needs a novel product to keep their shareholders happy. Amazing FDA approved drug that can and will end this entire pandemic but Pharma will make no money from it and will take every opportunity to discredit it for their vaxxes.

"research and develop lifesaving protocols for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 in all stages of illness" -- "Ivermectin has recently discovered anti-viral and anti-inflammatory properties and a rapidly growing published medical evidence base demonstrating its unique and highly potent ability to inhibit SARS-CoV-2 replication."

"prophylaxis and in early outpatient treatment, for those who test positive for COVID-19"

There are doctors in the USA and around the world that understand Ivermectin's effectiveness for COVID patients and will prescribe it. Reach out to them to find out the truth if you are hesitant about injecting you or your family.

https://covid19criticalcare.com/covid-19-protocols/medical-evidence-and-optional-medicines/

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

From the very doctors you link...

Marik and Kory say they're frustrated that their work is now being championed by the political right, and that it's become politicized at all. The group has had to distinguish itself from America's Frontline Doctors, which gained notoriety for its pro-hydroxychloroquine, anti-lockdown rhetoric last summer.

"This is not a political issue and it should never be," Marik said. "We are driven by the science and the data, not by politics or anything else."

"It angers me, when I hear that it's a conspiracy, that this virus doesn't exist, that there aren't that many deaths," he added. "You have to come to the ICU and see that people are dying to realize this is no hoax, this is real."

Marik finds it particularly disappointing that his work has been misinterpreted as potentially undermining vaccination.

"That's complete nonsense," he said. "I was vaccinated yesterday and I believe this is a bridge to vaccination," noting that slow vaccine roll-outs, vaccine hesitancy, and vaccine quality will likely mean the world will be dealing with COVID-19 for a long time to come.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Data from Israeli vaccination program (Dec20 -Mar10) suggest that the number of deaths per person per day increases for vaccinated people:

Unvaccinated (population 358454) dead/day/total per 100000: 0.53

1st dose (population 51571) 21

2nd dose 7days (population 4622) 7.95

So these vaccines might protect healthy people, but weaker people seem to be dropping dead.

Now, imagine what may happen when you are told to take the vaccine for the third, fourth... time

(to "protect" you from another mutant)...

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

The short thing about this is, variants are nothing more but mutations, they happen in many viruses, including influenza, and it's nothing new at all, the main variant of SARS-CoV-2 has been changing, for example, the original SARS-CoV-2 that appeared in Wuhan is not the same variant as the one that became dominant in Europe back in march of the last year.

One of the points that the media and fear mongers have been pushing is this idea that variants are somehow deadlier, more contagious, ineffective against the vaccine and many other things that make it somehow "worse".

The truth of the matter is, even thou there are some variants that do appear to be more contagious, and that do appear to be less effective at avoiding complete contagion from person to person after vaccinated, none of the known variants are actually deadlier, or are not affected by vaccination.

I repeat, vaccines are still very effective against ALL known variants. Some of them are a little less effective, in the sense that you might actually get some minor symptoms, but your chances of actually getting a serious infection become extremely low, and the same thing with death, which is the most important role of the vaccines.

Also, because the main vaccines have already been developed, developing specific vaccines for a variant would be extremely easy, so EVEN IF, and I repeat, this has NOT YET HAPPENED, but even if a variant would somehow escape the current vaccines, creating a new vaccine against that variant would be very simple.

In other words: "Variants" are normal, there is really nothing among current variants that is of mayor concern to the general population.

-3 ( +5 / -8 )

@Virus: If one has an immune issue, should they get a vaccine or just hide and wait for herd immunity to solve it?

That depends on the issue, the best thing is to go and see a specialist that knows about the case to get a personalized recommendation, it may be that the immune issue can make vaccination not an option but it can also be that it makes COVID-19 a much higher risk than usual so vaccination would be even more necessary.

How many variants and how many experimental, non-effective vaccines need to be produced for each variant?

Sorry but once again you are repeating false information from a site made to manipulate people, it would be much better if you used much more trustworthy sites.

From the very doctors you link...

Well, the last time the user tried to prove chickenpox vaccine was bad he copy-pasted and article that said completely the opposite and ended up recommending the adoption of the vaccine, that should be enough to show how much understanding about the topic is there.

One of the points that the media and fear mongers have been pushing is this idea that variants are somehow deadlier, more contagious, ineffective against the vaccine and many other things that make it somehow "worse".

in this article it is very clear that the attention to the variants is because they are concerning, that comes from preliminary data that indicates higher degree of infectiousness and higher number of hospitalizations and complications or reduced efficacy from the immune system. Even if this turned out to be false the concern is justified until they are cleared. It is much better to report concerns first, letting people and governments prepare than just wait weeks or months until the findings are confirmed but also the opportunity to react timely is lost.

Another thing is that being more contagious do make variants deadlier simply because they would produce a higher amount of patients even if the rates of death and complications remain the same.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Correcting false information that is in the comments is not pushing vaccines, which is not the "only" option to get immunity from the disease, they are simply the much safer option, even if some sites try to deceive with false information about it.

If you ran out of arguments and have to try to discuss people this may be an indication your personal beliefs about vaccination are wrong.

Vaccines have been already proved to be effective in protecting even agains the variants, some people will still be infected, that is expected since no vaccine is 100% effective, but that still means anybody vaccinated is at a lower risk of complications and death and you have provided no evidence of the contrary.

"Big pharma" is just an excuse, the vaccines efficacy and safety are vouched by the scientific and medical community in general, nothing ever depends on any company. This is as easy as searching what is the official opinion of any well recognized institution that deals with human health, every one will contradict what you wrote.

Ivermectin is the opposite, at this point the research has not demonstrated any specific benefit from it, but antivaxxer propaganda is desperately trying to push it as an alternative for the vaccine, hiding that even in very preliminary studies that appeared to show some benefits they never got even close to the reduction of risk from vaccines.

Can you provide a source that supports your comments from well recognized hospitals, universities, etc? if you don't that should make things clear.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Ivermectin? Ivermectin is for treating parasites. it's taken internally for intestinal worms and in topical form for head lice and rosacea. It is given to animals to treat heartworm and some other internal parasites. It has no anti-viral qualities.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

It has no anti-viral qualities.

Actually, Ivermectin does have antiviral properties.

"Ivermectin is an FDA-approved broad-spectrum antiparasitic agent with demonstrated antiviral activity against a number of DNA and RNA viruses, including severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7539925/

And please note that the current vaccines have not yet received FDA approval, other than for emergency use...

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

6Actually, Ivermectin does have antiviral properties.

Literally hundreds of things have shown antiviral properties, but as with ivermectin the problem is that those properties end up not being clinically significant, that is why none of them are recommended for treatment.

Vaccines are also safe and effective enough to be used in the general population they have showed usefulness in preventing disease and death that are simply hugely more important that the "best" reports for ivermectin.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Vaccines are also safe and effective enough to be used in the general population they have showed usefulness in preventing disease and death that are simply hugely more important that the "best" reports for ivermectin.

If you happen to have severe side effects you cannot sue vaccine producers. You will have to deal with...

"Housed in a nondescript building in a Washington, D.C., suburb, the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program has just four employees and few hallmarks of an ordinary court. Decisions are made in secret by government officials, claimants can’t appeal to a judge and payments in most death cases are capped at $370,376."

https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2020/12/29/595414.htm

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Correcting false information that is in the comments is not pushing vaccines, which is not the "only" option to get immunity from the disease, they are simply the much safer option, even if some sites try to deceive with false information about it.

They are the much safer option? Regardless of the negative adverse events happening with ZERO long term studies? I commend your allegiance and confidence in pharma's novel COVID vaxxes. They are lucky to have you represent them. Knowing how corrupt Pharma is I don't share your confidence one bit.

As of 4/24/2021 - 3,486 DEATHS in the U.S. Following COVID Injections in 4 Months: More Vaccine Deaths Recorded Than the Past 15 Years COMBINED

The CDC announced this week that deaths reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), a U.S. Government funded database that tracks injuries and deaths caused by vaccines, following experimental COVID injections, have now recorded 3,486 deaths since December of 2020, when the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID shots were given emergency use authorization (EUA) by the FDA.

8,430 DEAD 354,177 Injuries: European Database of Adverse Drug Reactions for COVID-19 “Vaccines”

Remember that a little over 1% is voluntarily reported. 80% being women as men are less likely to report it. Multiply those results by 99x and I know you're still not convinced and still have confidence in their vaccines.

in this article it is very clear that the attention to the variants is because they are concerning, that comes from preliminary data that indicates higher degree of infectiousness and higher number of hospitalizations and complications or reduced efficacy from the immune system.

And unfortunately COVID vaxxes WILL NOT work for the variants. They are already ineffective against COVID as well with negative adverse events and the vaccinated even contracting COVID months after being vaccinated:

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/health-departments/breakthrough-cases.html

It is unfortunate that pharma only promotes one narrative: Lockdown. Mask up. Injection of their products (annually - YES, Pfizer and Moderna CEOs are pushing for annual COVID vaxxes).

For those who are not interested in getting injections or even hesitant to inject their family members they can speak to a doctor about Ivermectin use with COVID19 for prevention and treatment - if one family member contracts COVID19 everyone can take it and other family members WILL NOT GET INFECTED - it halts replication of the SARS-COV2 virus within 24-48 hours:

https://covid19criticalcare.com/ivermectin-in-covid-19/how-to-get-ivermectin/

Inject if you want. Your body your choice. I commend your faith in Pharma. Pharma would be happy if you complied regardless of the experimental consequences.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

If you happen to have severe side effects you cannot sue vaccine producers. You will have to deal with...

No, you don't have to sue vaccine producers, you don't need to prove the vaccines are the only possible cause of damage anymore, just prove it is a possibility. Proving the damage could only come from the vaccines is in most cases impossible realistically.

They are the much safer option? Regardless of the negative adverse events happening with ZERO long term studies?

Yes they are by much according to all the scientific and medical consensus, even without long term studies precisely because COVID already produced long term and permanent problems while the vaccines haven't, that makes them safer on the short, middle and long term.

And again, the same as when your comment was deleted before you reposted it, my confidence is not on the vaccines but on the science and medicine vouching for them. You have still failed to produce any respected medical or scientific organization in the whole world that don't contradict you completely.

As of 4/24/2021 - 3,486 DEATHS in the U.S. Following COVID Injections in 4 Months: More Vaccine Deaths Recorded Than the Past 15 Years COMBINED

Again, the same as your previously deleted comment when this misleading information was posted. This represent NO increase on the rate of death and important negative side effects when compared with the population that has not been vaccinated. Why you keep trying to hide this very important information. Maybe this is why your comments keep getting deleted.

Let me copy again the rest of my reply for the rest of your deleted and re-copied comment. You were unable to refute anything about it before and just repeated the same failed arguments.

Vaccines have been already proved to be effective in protecting even agains the variants, some people will still be infected, that is expected since no vaccine is 100% effective, but that still means anybody vaccinated is at a lower risk of complications and death and you have provided no evidence of the contrary.

Vaccines have been already proved to be effective in protecting even agains the variants, some people will still be infected, that is expected since no vaccine is 100% effective, but that still means anybody vaccinated is at a lower risk of complications and death and you have provided no evidence of the contrary.

"Big pharma" is just an excuse, the vaccines efficacy and safety are vouched by the scientific and medical community in general, nothing ever depends on any company. This is as easy as searching what is the official opinion of any well recognized institution that deals with human health, every one will contradict what you wrote.

And again, there is no need to for faith, much less on any kind of industry in particular, science and medicine have already proved vaccines are safe and effective, that is much more evidence that a nameless person using false information on the internet to "prove" the contrary.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Ivermectin is the opposite, at this point the research has not demonstrated any specific benefit from it, but antivaxxer propaganda is desperately trying to push it as an alternative for the vaccine, hiding that even in very preliminary studies that appeared to show some benefits they never got even close to the reduction of risk from vaccines.

Why are you saying antivaxxer propaganda? Not antivaxxer propaganda but real safe solutions that actually save lives, prevent infection, prevent transmission and prevent deaths....which the current experimental COVID vaccines DO NOT. They do not prevent infection, transmission or deaths. "Breakthrough cases" are even recognized by the CDC. Anything out of the ordinary is accepted as "normal" or they'll say it's an "immune response" LOL. Anaphylaxis? Deadly blood clots? Miscarriage? Great immune response! Have all happened with Pfizer, Moderna, Astra Zen and J&J. But these experimental COVID vaxxes are 500% safe right? Gimme a break.

In that case I would say pharma is pushing their "pharma propaganda" desperately trying to PUSH VACCINES AS THE ONLY OPTION LEFT and dismissing and downplaying the effectiveness of non-pharma injectable options that actually work and save lives.

Ivermectin HAS demonstrated incredibly effective benefits which is being ignored as it presents no profitability for Pharma and its shareholders. They simply would make pennies and would control only limited markets as the patent has expired and generics can be produced in any country. Pharma as a has no market share on Ivermectin.

Listen to Dr. Pierre Kory on Ivermectin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C293FxZBK9w

Again, if you want to inject Pharma's experimental product you have the freedom to do so. Just don't be swayed by Pharma's propaganda to see it as the only option. There are other options they want to bury to protect their profits (non-working, annual "boosters" are coming soon because of these scary "variants").

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

Yes, it is antivaxxer propaganda the one that is trying to make it appear as if ivermectin is a viable option instead of vaccination, even where there is no study where it shows even a significant fraction of the protection that vaccines offer. The reality is that the best studies show no effect

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2777389

https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/who-advises-that-ivermectin-only-be-used-to-treat-covid-19-within-clinical-trials

You have provided no source whatsoever to say that vaccines do not protect from infection, transmission or death, even when asked repeatedly. I am sorry but just you repeating it do not makes it true, at this point every medical and scientific institution of the world clearly says the vaccines are effective in all those things, contradicting you completely.

There are plenty of examples of cheap drugs that are recognized as effective against COVID, if the supposed conspiracy to hide good drugs were true none of them (like dexamethasone) would be in use, but they are so the conspiracy is still completely false.

Again, if you cannot find even one single recognized medical or scientific institution that supports you that means you are wrong in your beliefs (obviously its impossible every single one is on the conspiracy, right?)

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Again, if you cannot find even one single recognized medical or scientific institution that supports you that means you are wrong in your beliefs (obviously its impossible every single one is on the conspiracy, right?)

CDC itself recognizes it BUT will not disclose the details of what they are seeing in VAERS data (https://medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?TABLE=ON&GROUP1=CAT&EVENTS=ON&VAX=COVID19).

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/effectiveness/why-measure-effectiveness/breakthrough-cases.html

"If you get COVID-19 after vaccination, your symptoms might be less severe

*Even though a small percentage of fully vaccinated people will get sick**, vaccination will protect most people from getting sick. There also is some evidence that vaccination may make illness less severe in people who get vaccinated but still get sick. Despite this, some fully vaccinated people will still be hospitalized and die. However, the overall risk of hospitalization and death among fully vaccinated people will be much lower than among people with similar risk factors who are not vaccinated."*

Wait a minute...so we can still get COVID regardless of vaccinating while risking negative adverse reactions FROM THE INJECTIONS (2 shots + Annual Booster 6 months later)? I thought they were safety tested during their ultra short trials? ZERO LONG TERM STUDIES? Seeing how many injuries and deaths have happened AND vaccinated people still getting COVID infections well after vaccinating we already know the last sentence to be untrue.

Like I said...Inject if you believe these guinea pig experimental vaccines to be a godsend you were looking for, totally safe for you and your family and disregard VAERS data. Pharma is counting on it. Just reading some of the individual cases and you'll realize you're playing Russian roulette (5 out of 6 players say that it's totally safe). Especially if you have 2 or more comorbidities. Good luck.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

CDC itself recognizes it BUT will not disclose the details of what they are seeing in VAERS data (

Sorry but its the opposite, the CDC recognizes only that vaccines are safe and effective, but antivaxxer propaganda actively tries to hide this by pretending only vaccinated people have troubles. In reality it will simply not disclose that these rates are the same in unvaccinated people.

People vaccinated will get protected from the problems of COVID while not increasing the rates of problems from the general population. That is the opposite of what you keep commenting. You can reject them as you seem fixed into doing, but that does not make it a correct decision or a rational one, you are choosing (and misleading others to choose) the option with higher risks for no advantage.

This thread needs a vaccine, sigh/

I guess moderation also travel during golden week.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites