health

COVID shots still work but researchers seek new improvements

34 Comments
By LAURAN NEERGAARD

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2022 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

34 Comments
Login to comment

Waste of time! People who have caught Covid now know the Omicron variant isn’t worth the risk of an adverse booster event! Maybe for the elderly and sick but no one else need worry anymore!

0 ( +13 / -13 )

a total of three shots — “gets you set up” and ready for what may become an annual booster,

I don't remember this being in the brochure when the first shot was rolled out.

All I remember is "this (one shot) is 95% effective and once you get it (the one shot), you will no longer get corona and pass it on.

Kamala Harris tested positive less than a month after her 4th shot and had to be isolated to keep her from passing on the virus to others.

4 shots !!! and still needs to isolate.

I'm not participating in this farce.

1 ( +12 / -11 )

Kamala Harris tested positive less than a month after her 4th shot and had to be isolated to keep her from passing on the virus to others.

4 shots !!! and still needs to isolate.

And even the protection against serious ilness is in doubt as most people dying or getting seriously sick already had 2-3 shots in the 80%+ vaccinated countries. It’s the time effect…

7 ( +14 / -7 )

and ready for what may become an annual booster,

Basically I am OK with an annual booster. (Same as the influenza shot)

But what is really necessary is, to reduce the side effects.

The side effects of this vaccine are too strong.

It makes no sense that people are tough sick up to 3 days or more after taking this vaccine.

So this must be improved a lot.

But “we’re going to have a difficult time stopping transmission with the current systemic vaccines," Diamond added.

Absolutely!

“We have all learned that.”

Unfortunately not all.

There are still people around who do not understand that.

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

Waste of time! People who have caught Covid now know the Omicron variant isn’t worth the risk of an adverse booster event! Maybe for the elderly and sick but no one else need worry anymore!

Sorry but a nameless person on the internet saying the experts are wrong (about a group of people still receiving important benefits from a booster) is not a valid argument, nor believable. Show your data that contradicts them.

I don't remember this being in the brochure when the first shot was rolled out

Variants appearing is what cause this, how many variants were already out when the first shot was rolled out?

Pretending nothing changed in the time the vaccines have been used is just a terribly bad attempt of disinformation.

This may surprise you but when experts report the results of clinical trials they do not have access to time machines to include data from the future, by definition they report what is found in the trial, this should not be so difficult to grasp.

And even the protection against serious ilness is in doubt as most people dying or getting seriously sick already had 2-3 shots in the 80%+ vaccinated countries. It’s the time effect…

No, it is not in doubt, the people getting seriously sick and dying are a tiny proportion of the rates observed before the vaccine, and unvaccinated people are still at a much higher risk. If everybody is already vaccinated it is natural to see the majority of the cases to be of vaccinated people, those cases are still a much lower number.

Unfortunately not all.

There are still people around who do not understand that.

Mostly they are people trying disinformation to blame vaccines for anything they can think of, people by now understand without problems that the variants are much more contagious and that a coordinated effort is necessary to slow down transmission. This includes (not exclusively) vaccinating.

-6 ( +10 / -16 )

Rather than getting an ineffective and potentially lethal 'vaccine', I'm just going to take zinc because it's been demonstrated to be one of the most useful for fighting viruses https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-of-nutrition/article/antiviral-and-immunological-activity-of-zinc-and-possible-role-in-covid19/21DD0E9EDABC96DC94715DB30BAB11DE

It's sunny again now so I don't really need vitamin D

0 ( +10 / -10 )

Rather than getting an ineffective and potentially lethal 'vaccine', I'm just going to take zinc because it's been demonstrated to be one of the most useful for fighting viruses

When the scientific and medical consensus say the vaccines are effective and safe but an anonymous person on the internet say they are all wrong it should be easy to know which side is actually mistaken.

Zinc is no replacement for the protection offered by the vaccine, "replacing" one thing with another just shows a personal antiscientific bias that is dangerous and irresponsible because it can mislead people into making the mistake of not vaccinating,

-2 ( +9 / -11 )

There is another report on JT here today which says,

the health ministry said 555 people died at home from January to March when the sixth wave of the coronavirus struck Japan. Of those, 39 percent had received the second shot of the COVID-19 vaccine.

39 percent out of 555 people who died, even they are double vaccinated, is very very high.

People should not think that the vaccine protects you from dying.

We are told day in day out from the experts, that the risk of dying and hospitalization is very low if we take the vaccine, but 39 percent out of 555 is not a low number.

That is really high!

0 ( +7 / -7 )

39 percent out of 555 people who died, even they are double vaccinated, is very very high.

You also have to consider that most of the deaths are among people who are suffering from autoimmune disorders and are taking immunosuppressants.

Patients taking immunosuppressants can NOT be given any vaccines thus it skews the data and it appears that unvaccinated people are dying in droves.

Covid primarily hits immunocompromised people who are disproportionally unvaccinated because they can't be because of being on immunosuppressants.

Healthy unvaccinated individuals like myself are not at serious risk.

-3 ( +7 / -10 )

People should not think that the vaccine protects you from dying.

It is fine to think that, the same as thinking seat belts and air bags protect drivers from dying in traffic accident.

What should not be thought is that the protection is perfect and absolute, but that applies to everything else in life.

but 39 percent out of 555 is not a low number.

Unless you know the demographics it can actually be a low number. For example if the people that were vaccinated are in the high risk group they would normally be over 99% of the deaths if not for the vaccine. The 60 percent (340 people) that remains would remains the same (not fully vaccinated because they are not in a priority or can't be vaccinated) but if the people in high risk had not been vaccinated then the deaths may not be 220 (the 39%) but 2200, that would have made them almost the 95% of the deaths.

The risk of complications and deaths is much lower after vaccination, it may not be a perfect protection but still much better than not vaccinating.

-1 ( +8 / -9 )

Covid primarily hits immunocompromised people who are disproportionally unvaccinated because they can't be because of being on immunosuppressants.

Any reference to prove this? what numbers are you talking about? the people in immunosupressants are not automatically in a medical exception from vaccines (nor they represent a fraction of the population large enough to be noticeable in the reports of cases and deaths). Without evidence of this being the case this is just some idea that you have.

-4 ( +7 / -11 )

Unless you know the demographics it can actually be a low number

Demographics is here completely irrelevant.

220 people out of 555 died, even 2x vaccinated, and that is a lot!

To play down the high number of 220 people, by saying they are probably in the high risk group, makes no sense, because that is just your speculation.

And speculations don't change the reality:

220 people out of 550 people died even they are 2x vaccinated.

And everyone do agree that 220 people out of 555 is a lot.

And additional, it doesn't matter if they are at a high risk group, because according the experts, the vaccine also protects the high risk groups.

But as so far we do not know anything about these 220 peoples health situation or age or any further information about the circumstances, so yes...you can continue to speculate.

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

"Not the one who parrots the same, debunked lies and disinformation with no evidence supplied, even when challenged."

Lies and disinformation like 15 days to slow the spread, you cannot catch or spread covid after being vaccinated, 4 million deaths from covid, children should wear masks, or that science somehow serves the greater good? Are those the lies you're referring to?

-1 ( +7 / -8 )

To play down the high number of 220 people, by saying they are probably in the high risk group, makes no sense, because that is just your speculation.

I am giving you a rational and perfectly believable reason why your judgment can be completely wrong, do you think people dying are not from the high risk group? that is what would be baseless speculation, this is the population that by definition is at a higher risk of death, and also the population that is vaccinated with priority everywhere (as long as vaccines are available). To say this number is "too high" without having any basis to eliminate this possibility is invalid.

220 people out of 555 died, even 2x vaccinated, and that is a lot!

But much less than death rates from the time where vaccination was not yet possible, if next year 22 out of 55 people die it would be still the same 39%, but the deaths would be 10 times less, you are just assuming these deaths would be in the same league without vaccines, which can be demonstrated as false.

And additional, it doesn't matter if they are at a high risk group, because according the experts, the vaccine also protects the high risk groups.

Yes it does matter, because the reduction of risk is not absolute, so having 200 deaths instead of 2000 or 20,000 in the same group thaniks to the vaccines means the high risk group deaths no longer are 99.9% or 95% percent of the deaths, now they are just half of that 0.1 or 5%, it is a huge reduction.

But as so far we do not know anything about these 220 peoples health situation or age or any further information about the circumstances, so yes...you can continue to speculate.

We know they have been vaccinated, and that in Japan the people at high risk were prioritized for vaccines, unvaccinated people on the other hand are mostly young and healthy (that feel they are not at risk) that would point to a very clear reason different from the one you though.

-3 ( +8 / -11 )

"you are just assuming these deaths would be in the same league without vaccines, which can be demonstrated as false."

Please demonstrate. Please provide solid evidence that despite the milder strains of the virus and growing natural immunity that more people definitely would have died without a vaccine program. I don't think you can.

-1 ( +7 / -8 )

Lies and disinformation like 15 days to slow the spread, you cannot catch or spread covid after being vaccinated, 4 million deaths from covid, children should wear masks, or that science somehow serves the greater good? Are those the lies you're referring to?

No.

1 ( +7 / -6 )

Please demonstrate. Please provide solid evidence that despite the milder strains of the virus and growing natural immunity that more people definitely would have died without a vaccine program. I don't think you can.

Why would you think that? if the experts everywhere keep saying vaccines reduce the risk even from Omicron how did you figured you must know better than them? their job is to see the evidence collected to make recommendations. The article you are commenting in specifically says it.

https://ukhsa.blog.gov.uk/2022/02/10/how-well-do-vaccines-protect-against-omicron-what-the-data-shows/

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2202826

-2 ( +8 / -10 )

@Monty

39 percent out of 555 people who died, even they are double vaccinated, is very very high.

The percentage rate of vaccinated dying sounds very high, but you need to factor in the very high levels of vaccination in the population. As an example, let's say we have a population of 1000 people (800 are vaccinated and 200 unvaccinated). Then 100 people die at home. Of the 100 dead, 39 were vaccinated and 61 were unvaccinated. That means 4.8% of vaccinated population died, but 30% of unvaccinated population died. Extrapolating this, if all had been unvaccinated 300 would have died instead of 100.

2 ( +7 / -5 )

The (very) slow walkback by media is happening before our eyes.

These small questions and admittances were simply not tolerated a year ago.

Will be interesting to see what will be admitted a colander year from now.

Very interesting indeed.

-1 ( +7 / -8 )

"if the experts everywhere keep saying vaccines reduce the risk even from Omicron how did you figured you must know better than them?"

Because the experts being deferred to for policy making are corrupted by ulterior motives. As with many policy making institutions.

Here's a study that support my argument.

https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-22-104613

-1 ( +6 / -7 )

People should not think that the vaccine protects you from dying.

Yes, many have been saying this for a long time. And now a recent Danish study shows that these mRNA vaccines offer no protection against death (overall mortality).

Rather than getting an ineffective and potentially lethal 'vaccine', I'm just going to take zinc because it's been demonstrated to be one of the most useful for fighting viruses

@ Wobot

I do that too (with quercetin) and I too try to spend time in the sun on a regular basis. But you might also want to look at copper. I recently came across info on the importance of the zinc to copper ratio, and that taking large quantities of zinc can mess up that balance...

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

@jeffb

despite the milder strains of the virus

I agree with what you wrote but the extent of what's going on is even worse than people realise. A list of 182 FOIA requests to govts and health institutions in 30 countries asking for proof of virus isolation.

https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/68-health-science-institutions-globally-all-failed-to-cite-even-1-record-of-sars-cov-2-purification-by-anyone-anywhere-ever/

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

The (very) slow walkback by media is happening before our eyes.

What a forced interpretation, again it is not the media the one saying things but the experts and their opinions and recommendations reflect what is being found by science in reality, if the risk is reduced that is what is going to be included. Making up conspiracies to explain something so simple makes no sense.

Yes, many have been saying this for a long time. And now a recent Danish study shows that these mRNA vaccines offer no protection against death (overall mortality).

You mean the "study" that has been heavily criticized for being antiscientific and with invalid conclusions because it had to make up arbitrary inclusions of causes of death and segments of population when they found out that COVID related deaths are actually decreased importantly by the vaccine (so they end up including everything even if obviously has no relationship with the vaccine)? because that is worse than using no argument at all, I mean, the simple fact that the authors choose to ignore the effect of vaccination in reducing the risk on the population in general is very telling.

-1 ( +7 / -8 )

I agree with what you wrote but the extent of what's going on is even worse than people realise. A list of 182 FOIA requests to govts and health institutions in 30 countries asking for proof of virus isolation.

Flat earthers have a more credible claim of conspiracy, when every laboratory that study the disease have published proof of virus isolation it becomes terribly obvious that the problem is that people are in denial of reality and choose not to think too much about the conspiracies they make up.

The truth will be revealed. 

The last exit of people that have to recognize they have no argument nor evidence to support their beliefs is making baseless predictions that some time in the future everything will be different Thinking like that is much more indicative of people that refuse to accept reality. A little common sense would indicate that having no evidence for something and having mountains of evidence of the contrary can be explained much more simply by accepting the belief being held is simply false.

-1 ( +7 / -8 )

Amid mounting evidence of low efficacy (even negative efficacy) and serious side effect, Denmark has officially announced that they are suspending their vaccination program until further notice.

-3 ( +6 / -9 )

Amid mounting evidence of low efficacy (even negative efficacy) and serious side effect, Denmark has officially announced that they are suspending their vaccination program until further notice.

Completely false, in fact the opposite is what has been published as the reason, vaccination (and other measures) have been so successful in controlling the spread that it is no longer necessary to make an extra effort to vaccinate most of the people (but vaccines are still being recommended for people with elevated risk, clearly contradicting your comment).

Can you even bring a source where officials mention this supposed "negative efficacy" as the reason?

1 ( +8 / -7 )

Flat earthers have a more credible claim of conspiracy, when every laboratory that study the disease have published proof of virus isolation ..

Oh, you mean those published papers where ‘proof of isolation’ was derived from a toxic soup of monkey kidney cells (aka vero cells), antibiotics (poisonous to said vero cells), fetal bovine serum and all the rest of the gunk the virologists add to the cell culture? The cells are also starved of nutrition so, all in all, you have nothing in the end except dead or dying particles which the virologists label ’SARS-COV-2’. This does not prove a virus is present, it only shows that the cells have been poisoned and the responses from govt affiliated laboratories and universities asking for a purified sample of the virus in the link I gave substantiates that.

Btw, a German microbiologist, Stefan Lanka, did a control experiment last year using the same methods and ingredients as the virologists. Instead of using a lung sample taken from a patient alleged to have covid-19 he used yeast instead. When looked at under the microscope the result was the same. That is, he ‘found’ the SARS-COV-2 virus without it ever being present.

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

Oh, you mean those published papers where ‘proof of isolation’ was derived from a toxic soup of monkey kidney cells (aka vero cells), antibiotics (poisonous to said vero cells), fetal bovine serum and all the rest of the gunk the virologists add to the cell culture? 

No, those papers where the virus produce cell toxic effect while the toxic soup from your imagination doesn't, or disease on experimental animals, or that can be purified to get viral particles that can be analyzed and identified with antibodies that come from infected animals or even human patients.

In short, all those things you clearly ignore but are done routinely in every laboratory of the world (from all kinds, not only government associated). What evidence do you have to contradict this evidence coming from countries around the world? that you want to believe in a conspiracy? well, that is not an argument, that is only you trying to push a personal belief as a fact.

Btw, a German microbiologist, Stefan Lanka, did a control experiment last year using the same methods and ingredients as the virologists. Instead of using a lung sample taken from a patient alleged to have covid-19 he used yeast instead. When looked at under the microscope the result was the same.

What is "the same"? specific immuno reactivity? sequencing results from the supernatant? serial passage showing infectivity? How about a scientific reference to be able to judge the methods followed? at this point this is only you saying something was done, some results obtained but showing absolutely no proof of it.

1 ( +8 / -7 )

“When I think about what would make me get a second booster, I actually would want to prevent infection,” said Dr. Grace Lee of Stanford University, who chairs CDC’s immunization advisory committee. “I think we need to do better.

Sounds like not all the medical experts in the world recommend the covid booster shot.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

Sounds like not all the medical experts in the world recommend the covid booster shot.

Why would they? they do recommend being vaccinated, or even boosted once. They also recommend a second booster to those people for whom the benefit is clear. The argument was never that the experts recommended endless amount of boosters for anybody but that they do recommend the vaccine as safe and effective.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

The vaccines don’t prevent infection and it is difficult to comprehend how more booster shots are necessary when the present mutated virus doesn’t even warrant a day in bed.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

The vaccines don’t prevent infection and it is difficult to comprehend how more booster shots are necessary when the present mutated virus doesn’t even warrant a day in bed.

Vaccines do prevent infections and even transmission in the same way that seat belts and air bags prevent vehicular accident deaths, pretending the prevention can only be something done 100% of the time or else it doesn't exist is deeply flawed and illogical, because nothing in the world does.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Vaccines do prevent infections and even transmission

No they don't. Even Pfizer's CEO said multiple times that they have very little effect on infection and transmission.

Natural infection produces significant and long-lasting production IgA antibodies and memory lymphocytes at the site of entry. The vaccine do not do that, that is why they only offer a few weeks to months of reduction of symptoms.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

No they don't. Even Pfizer's CEO said multiple times that they have very little effect on infection and transmission.

A declaration is not a valid counterargument against well validated scientific information that proves vaccines have an importan effect preventing both infection and transmission even against infections by variants different from the one used to formulate the vaccines. This is just an invalid appeal of authority where you want a pharmaceutical CEO opinion to triumph scientific data, this is obviously invalid.

Natural infection produces significant and long-lasting production IgA antibodies and memory lymphocytes at the site of entry. The vaccine do not do that, that is why they only offer a few weeks to months of reduction of symptoms.

This personal belief of yours is irrelevant until you can find data to prove it, and no, this is not "common sense" nor a clear cut conclusion from curren immunologic knowledge, many vaccine candidates against respiratory diseases have been tried that work at point of entry and producing IgA, at this point none of them have been able to surpass the protective effect from the injected vaccines. This fact is enough to prove that this is not something automatically true but needs to be proved first.

-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