health

Global herd immunity remains out of reach because of inequitable vaccine distribution

22 Comments
By Maria De Jesus

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

© The Conversation

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

22 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

Meanwhile countries are receiving vaccines that are not effective, wasting vaccines they do receive, distributing fake vaccines to the public, etc.—and all because something as crucial as universal healthcare is not a thing in some countries. The corrupt officials who think saving people's lives should come at a price only do it because it doesn't affect them personally. Yet, when the tables turn, they turn the other cheek and ask for what they never gave out when others needed it. The human race puts a price tag on life because they are too cheap to come up with something better.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Last year, researchers at Northeastern University modeled two vaccine rollout strategies. Their numerical simulations found that 61% of deaths worldwide would have been averted if countries cooperated to implement an equitable global vaccine distribution plan, compared with only 33% if high-income countries got the vaccines first.

This is a huge ethical problem, but solving it remains utopic, For example in Japan there was some negative reactions for the donations the country made of AstraZeneca doses to other countries, even when there is no chance this vaccine is going to be used in the near future in the Japanese population.

This is complicated by the way developing countries roll out their own vaccination programs. For example, corruption and unequal distribution would spoil efforts made by rich countries to help with immunizations, so countries that are perceived to "waste" vaccines this way would get less support.

The pandemic is by definition a global problem, and it requires global cooperation to be solved efficiently. Until everybody understand that we will keep having delays and unnecessary deaths as it has happened with HIV and many other infectious diseases.

-1 ( +8 / -9 )

Public health experts estimate that approximately 70% of the world’s 7.9 billion people must be fully vaccinated to end the COVID-19 pandemic.

70% vaccinated?!!! They used to say 70% had to be immune through either natural infection or vaccination, but now it's only through vaccination. It seems Big Pharma has gotten to these "experts".

According to a recent study you need to vaccinate 200-700 people to prevent one case of Covid-19, and you need to vaccinate 9000-50,000 people to prevent one death from Covid-19. And when considering the vaccine adverse reactions, they stated: “For three deaths prevented by vaccination we have to accept two inflicted by vaccination. Conclusions: This lack of clear benefit should cause governments to rethink their vaccination policy.

https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/9/7/693/htm

What they should do is encourage the vulnerable to vaccinate and open everything to let the young and healthy get natural immunity. And make certain safe and effect drugs (hydroxychloroquine+azithromycin, ivermectin,...) available to whoever catches the virus.

-2 ( +6 / -8 )

70% vaccinated?!!! They used to say 70% had to be immune through either natural infection or vaccination, but now it's only through vaccination. It seems Big Pharma has gotten to these "experts".

Vaccination produce a much more uniform and easy to evaluate immune response that can be said to be effective from to the point where the first volunteers were immunized, people that have been infected may not have enough protection to prevent disease or transmission to the same levels, specially against variants, that is why immunization is the standard. It is also a much safer option compared with letting more people get infected, which is the whole point.

 “For three deaths prevented by vaccination we have to accept two inflicted by vaccination. Conclusions: This lack of clear benefit should cause governments to rethink their vaccination policy.

This paper even if recent has been already subjected to very serious criticism because of problems in their methodology that make their conclusions completely invalid.

1) Repeating the calculations from the original data show completely different numbers than what they report which is a huge problem that contradicts their conclusion.

https://twitter.com/AviBittMD/status/1408867612285677571

2) Their calculations of NNV are wrong because of a well known source of bias that the authors tried to simply ignore, this also would contradict completely their conclusions.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X12017495

3) More importantly the authors simply assumed anything reported on VAERS was directly caused by the vaccines, which is of course false, if they actually did correct calculations and included only those cases that have been at least confirmed to happen in vaccinated people and that are in excess of the expected incidence the conclusions of their study would be the opposite.

These terribly serious problems explain how the authors could get results that contradicts the scientific consensus, and the MDPI editorial reputation would explain why the paper was published without peer reviewers noticing these extremely obvious defects.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDPI

What they should do is encourage the vulnerable to vaccinate and open everything to let the young and healthy get natural immunity.

According to the best experts in the world this is a recomendation contradicted by the evidence that would cause many more unnecessary deaths, in this case it is much safer to go with the scientific consensus than with your personal opinion.

-1 ( +7 / -8 )

Public health experts estimate that approximately 70% of the world’s 7.9 billion people must be fully vaccinated to end the COVID-19 pandemic.

Disinformation at its best ! "must be fully vaccinated" should read "needs to be immune" so suddenly natural immunity does not exist anymore for those who already got the covid19 for thos "health expert" ? No better vaccine than the natural disease. No surprise they are losing all their credibility.

-1 ( +6 / -7 )

Disinformation at its best ! "must be fully vaccinated" should read "needs to be immune" so suddenly natural immunity does not exist anymore for those who already got the covid19 for thos "health expert" ? No better vaccine than the natural disease. No surprise they are losing all their credibility.

Read my previous comment, immune status for previously infected patients is not easily measured and could be much shorter than vaccinated people.

And no, natural infection is not better than the vaccine, not only because of the huge variation on immune levels but because it comes with much higher risks that can be avoided with the vaccine.

0 ( +7 / -7 )

Vaccination produce a much more uniform and easy to evaluate immune response

Yeah, uniform because the immune response is only against the spike protein, while natural immunity is against the entire virus and therefore less affected by variants.

Investigation of natural immunity, even from asymptomatic infection, shows that it appears to be as long lived as that conferred by vaccination.

According the group of Didier Raoult, who has tested several 1000's, natural infection so far appears to give slightly better protection than vaccination.

-3 ( +6 / -9 )

Yeah, uniform because the immune response is only against the spike protein, while natural immunity is against the entire virus and therefore less affected by variants.

And this is a disadvantage, because the only neutralizing immune response being found until now is the one directed to the spike. What use is to have antibodies directed to proteins that are not on the surface of the virus?

Investigation of natural immunity, even from asymptomatic infection, shows that it appears to be as long lived as that conferred by vaccination.

It can be, but not necessarily so, specially for less symptomatic cases, with vaccination there is a clear date where the immunity began, but for infections detected serologically this date is unknown, so it would require periodic determinations to even know if the immunity is being maintained or is already decreasing.

According the group of Didier Raoult, who has tested several 1000's, natural infection so far appears to give slightly better protection than vaccination.

Unfortunately he has not presented data to confirm those conclusions scientifically, and with the complete lack of reliability his publications have been discovered to have thanks to manipulations and fabrications, and the contrary information provided by several other labs in the world, at the moment it is much safer to consider him mistaken until he can satisfactorily prove his point (hopefully without recycling images and data from old unrelated studies).

0 ( +7 / -7 )

Herd immunity has not been lost. Logic , proper management of public health, and selective distribution of the experimental drug where it’s needed has been lost. In fact, it was never been here in the first place.

The concept of vaccinating the young and healthy is nothing more than a flagrant money grab.

https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/9/7/693/htm

Result: The NNTV is between 200–700 to prevent one case of COVID-19 for the mRNA vaccine marketed by Pfizer, while the NNTV to prevent one death is between 9000 and 50,000 (95% confidence interval), with 16,000 as a point estimate. The number of cases experiencing adverse reactions has been reported to be 700 per 100,000 vaccinations. Currently, we see 16 serious side effects per 100,000 vaccinations, and the number of fatal side effects is at 4.11/100,000 vaccinations.

For three deaths prevented by vaccination we have to accept two inflicted by vaccination. 

And the long term side effects of these EUA vaccines is still not known.

Conclusions: This lack of clear benefit should cause governments to rethink their vaccination policy.”

And the vaccine damage occurs mostly on the young and healthy largely unaffected by Covid-19 , while the virus predominantly preys on the old, unhealthy, and already sick.

What a reckless trade off. What a debacle.

The Covid-19 herd immunity will come naturally regardless of these experimental vaccines.

-1 ( +7 / -8 )

Unfortunately he has not presented data to confirm those conclusions scientifically, and with the complete lack of reliability his publications have been discovered to have thanks to manipulations and fabrications, and the contrary information provided by several other labs in the world, at the moment it is much safer to consider him mistaken until he can satisfactorily prove his point (hopefully without recycling images and data from old unrelated studies).

Is this some sort of attempt at comic relief?

-3 ( +5 / -8 )

The concept of vaccinating the young and healthy is nothing more than a flagrant money grab.

This article was already presented and it has terrible methodological problems that make all their conclusions invalid, I would really recommend you to read the comments to avoid bringing the same flawed references as previous users. People may think you are using debunked/mistaken information even after knowing it is wrong.

You can of course read my comment about it, but in short the paper have basic calculations mistakes when compared with the original data it is supposedly based on, did not control for a well described source of bias and more importantly invalidly assume any and all reports of problems and deaths after vaccination as if they were already proved to be caused by the vaccines, which is a deeply irrational approach (specially when the events are in expected incidence in unvaccinated people).

The Covid-19 herd immunity will come naturally regardless of these experimental vaccines.

But with vaccines the complications and deaths are much lower, which is the whole point. Letting a house burn or calling the firemen will both end up stopping the fire, just with different amount of losses.

0 ( +7 / -7 )

Is this some sort of attempt at comic relief?

The opposite, a researcher has been found to systematically falsify data from dozens of his studies to personally profit, putting at risk countless patients whose treatments actually depend on the science he willingly polluted. That is not source of amusement but of genuine concern about the full extent of the deceiving practices.

The scientific community is understandably at the point that anything that this researcher presents is seen as dubious until it has been corroborated by independent sources, much more when he don't present any data to support his conclusions.

As presented in a previous article, his harassment of the whistle blower that identified the problems instead of trying to defend his papers have actually made him someone deeply disliked by the scientific community as well.

0 ( +7 / -7 )

The opposite, a researcher has been found to systematically falsify data from dozens of his studies to personally profit, putting at risk countless patients whose treatments actually depend on the science he willingly polluted. That is not source of amusement but of genuine concern about the full extent of the deceiving practices.

As more time goes by, we’ll see how the “data” you refer to (but never produce) holds up. Leave alone the data you discard and likely don’t even understand. That’s what happens when false narratives are examined and questioned.

You have repeatedly revealed yourself as misinformed. And not open to any science other than what you prefer to advertise.

The herd immunity now unfolding in the drop in Covid casualties has little to do with the vaccines. Covid-19 largely impacted a small minority of sick and old. So vaccinating everyone has little impact. The virus is running its course as all viruses do.

Did you even notice that on June 25, the FDA said that it would add revisions to its patient and provider fact sheets about the “increased risks of myocarditis (inflammation of the heart muscle) and pericarditis (inflammation of the tissue surrounding the heart) following vaccination” using the Pfizer or Moderna COVID-19 shots?

https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/coronavirus-covid-19-update-june-25-2021

Probably not. It wasn’t until just a few weeks ago that you even realized that these medicines are in fact experimental under an EUA classification . After posting for months they were not, and that these drugs were fully approved. No need for me to post that admission here.

It’s a real shame that it took so long for the FDA to acknowledge anything. Being a dysfunctional institution funded largely by Big Pharma. But I suppose that’s what mass experimentation with exemption from liability will produce.

In 18 months since this Covid debacle began, ZERO deaths and serious injury of kids 12 to 18 in this country. Why would anyone even consider vaccination of millions of kids now with an experimental concoction with health risks like the FDA is now grudgingly admitting? If one kid suffers serious vaccination side effects, it’s more than anything the Covid-19 virus. Process that data.

Please don’t pontificate about long term data either . You don’t have any. And you’ve never revealed anything other than that of industry sponsored medical journals that do more scrambling these days to retract their previous claims..

And finally, when does this fictional emergency actually end? When no one dies of flu or pneumonia? Are we going to see it extended forever because of seasonal sickness.

Because by definition, ending the emergency will end EUA. And that’s how this will be moderated with reason.

0 ( +7 / -7 )

By your logic are you suggesting that it’s medically prudent to vaccinate millions of kids with an experimental drug with documented serious side effects, when there has been no casualties to date? You don’t experiment with peoples lives because YOU BELIEVE there will be no serious damage or loss of life. You vaccinate to save lives. That an indefensible position.

No EUA experimental gene therapy drug should be deployed in the absence of an emergency. And I define the absence of an emergency as no casualties or serious illness in the under 20 demographic since this supposed pandemic began in Japan.

And then the victim that was not at risk from Covid-19 will have to endure the additional comment that “being open to mistaken, false or invalid arguments is actually something desirable” - in the presence of a completely avoidable injury or death.

That’s not responsible science or medicine . That’s know as medical malpractice.

-3 ( +5 / -8 )

June 8  10:01 pm JSTPosted in: Town hit by threats, complaints over COVID vaccination program for youth  See in context

Sure, corrected, they are being considered experimental by the FDA, the main point I make (that people are not participating in any experiment but being inoculated for the therapeutic value of the vaccine) does not change.

Those are Virusrex own words down playing the fact that his repeated claims that these vaccines were not experimental in nature for months was an insignificant oversight .

After subjecting readers to countless “scientific” counter arguments , a core aspect of his whole argument was undermined by this complete oversight of a basic fact.

-3 ( +5 / -8 )

By your logic are you suggesting that it’s medically prudent to vaccinate millions of kids with an experimental drug with documented serious side effects, when there has been no casualties to date? 

You mean because no casualties resulted from the use of the vaccine? that is a perfectly good justification. Again, you fearing for something that has not happened is not a justification to take away from parents that decision, specially with specially vulnerable children.

No EUA experimental gene therapy drug should be deployed in the absence of an emergency. 

And for those children the emergency is real, they are at very high risk from the disease and the vaccine would greatly help to protect them, something that you previously recognized, only to contradict yourself later.

That’s not responsible science or medicine . That’s know as medical malpractice.

The opposite, denying a safe and effective measure that can protect people, especially with preexisting conditions because of unfounded fears is the actual unethical action.

Those are Virusrex own words down playing the fact that his repeated claims that these vaccines were not experimental in nature for months was an insignificant oversight .

Why are you going to quote something without reading it, the population are not being experimented on, they are being treated with the vaccines, which is why the argument still holds, the same as always.

Also, the vaccines have never been demonstrated to be even as dangerous as the infection, in any age group, much less more dangerous.

Using false or mistaken sources, accusing people of imaginary things never to recognize it or apologize for it is a much worse thing that not following the denomination of a foreign country, after all the national authority in Japan is the PMDA, which authorized the vaccines as pharmaceuticals or simply vaccines, no mention of experimental anywhere in the text.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

I ran into a short letter Roault recently submitted to the Lancet regarding vaccinations.

https://www.mediterranee-infection.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/THELANCET-S-21-05441-article-soumis-le-28.05.2021.pdf

One conclusion they made:

"Therefore, in this population [below 60] , vaccination appears more dangerous than COVID itself, not to mention the fact that not all the unvaccinated population will suffer COVID-19."

That is an important point. Not only is Covid19 less dangerous than the vaccine (for below 60 population). If you choose the vaccine, you will 100% get the vaccine. But if you choose not to, you MIGHT get the infection, but you might not. Either way, it's better than getting the vaccine.

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

No EUA experimental gene therapy drug should be deployed in the absence of an emergency. 

And for those children the emergency is real, they are at very high risk from the disease and the vaccine would greatly help to protect them, something that you previously recognized, only to contradict yourself later.

From the under 20's in Japan, no deaths or serious effects from Conid-19 out of almost 85,000 confirmed infections. How can anyone rational say that is an emergency?!!!! Where is the very high risk?

It makes no sense to vaccinate healthy kids.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

That is an important point. Not only is Covid19 less dangerous than the vaccine (for below 60 population). If you choose the vaccine, you will 100% get the vaccine. But if you choose not to, you MIGHT get the infection, but you might not. Either way, it's better than getting the vaccine.

Again, unfortunately he lacks completely credibility, and since he presents no data there is no way if he is still manipulating it to get the results he likes, even when they are completely against what every other scientists obtains. For all anybody knows he is still systematically rejecting any patient that shows symptoms of COVID from his studies as he did before with his hidden exclusion criteria. If you automatically stop following anybody that may complicate or die from the disease it would be natural never to find this happening in your study.

It is better to wait until a) he actually presents some data b) it is reviewed by uninvolved experts and c) it is checked by anti-fraud software before believing that he single handedly proved every single scientific and medical institution of the world completely wrong. Before that the scientific consensus is still much more reliable, at least it is based on much more accesible and trusted data.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

I grew up hearing stories about how horrible the 1918-1920 pandemic was for the global population. That pandemic ended the way pandemics have traditionally ended in our history, by running rampant through the population, killing hundreds of millions, until finally it burned itself out. We humans never developed a vaccine for that viral pandemic.

We have a chance to save many hundreds of millions of lives with the most efficacious vaccines, but one way or another, this pandemic will eventually end.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

From the under 20's in Japan, no deaths or serious effects from Conid-19 out of almost 85,000 confirmed infections. How can anyone rational say that is an emergency?!!!! Where is the very high risk?

It makes no sense to vaccinate healthy kids.

Can you provide data of the number of children with serious predisposing conditions that have been infected? because the argument is that they are the emergency. You can't simply assume they have been infected without problems, specially when their parents understand the risk and in many cases have had to do very important sacrifices to keep those children safe. If the experts (including pediatricians) say they are at very high risk of complications and death, what argument are you using to prove them wrong? They say it makes perfect sense to vaccinate children. No children have died from COVID vaccination in Japan either, does that mean vaccines are also completely safe according to you?

0 ( +5 / -5 )

70%? They need some new batteries for their desktop calculator. lol Now, with those new and more aggressive virus variants you’ll need between 88 and 95%.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites