Boosters

As far as I can see most people are getting infected with Covid over and over again. It looks like this could be a permanent thing. So there is no need for boosters anymore for healthy individuals.

No . They are getting them ....eventually , as with the previous booster . When they can .

Again we had the rhetoric over the previous winter with the HSE managers wringing their hands about the numbers . But many had already been infected when the boosters were rolled out so had the waiting period.

But if you are working in a high infection risk area you can get infected again before you get chance to get a booster , before your waiting period up ...Not to mention work busy and long , unsocial hours and not being allocated vaccines in the workplace. If they are so concerned roll it out in the workplace as they did in the beginning .

Even as before the incremental increase in healthcare vaccination is steady and will hit a good percentage eventually .

The immunity wanes more quickly with infection as opposed to booster . The two together give the best immunity recovery and booster. The older people over 65s are at 75% atm, second booster , which is good because they don't want to be risking an infection if they can avoid it . Might not come out so well .

They don't discount it , but they don't really know the full numbers . Because the rollout is not being done in a dedicated healthcare rollout , there are people vaccinated in other groups eg high risk medical conditions , who are not being counted as healthcare workers .

The real numbers could be double the official numbers , and with another 10% waiting for recovery time periods to be up.

You would think that it should be a priority for the HSE to find out how many healthcare workers are being infected through their work , or are still sick with Covid , wouldn't you ?

I don't think the HSE really want that though ...they might have to consider making Covid an occupational illness if the real numbers were out there !

Better to fudge the issue with inaccurate numbers boosted and try to blame workers for the system's inadequacies .

Going for my 3 rd booster tomorrow . I was in no rush but decided now to get it

can anyone tell me if all boosters offered now are bivalant vaccines ?

There was a lady today from HSE on radio imploring health care workers to get the 2nd booster. I think she said takeup was 25% despite a push over the last 2 months.

She said they set up specific clinics for healthcare workers to encourage takeup.

Cluedo , the same lady who has been ignoring stats of infected workers ...see my other posts

I don't believe the 25%

This is what I am talking about..

Last half of my reply to Furze99 above.

Night.

I am not saying that the data is inaccurate, jeez, for the third time!

The interpretation by hse managers and what they say on media is what I am talking about.

She said herself previously that they didn't have accurate figures for healthcare workers because they are not giving the vaccines in a dedicated setting by and large so people are not necessarily registering as hcws when they go into a walk in to get their jab.

So they can't say how many if they are not recording..and they certainly are not, rspecially covid infections right now .

It will come out in the wash at the end of the day but the full figures are not there yet.

Sure why do you think Trolleywatch was set up originally? HSE were manufacturing those numbers waiting, hiding patients in dayrooms and cupboards!

I trust the data but after 40 years experience with HSE management and their spin I have more than earned the right to be sceptical of everything they say and especially with regards to their workforce.

Bill G. reportedly said that there is a number of problems with the current mRNA jabs as they don’t block the infection, are not effective against new variants and the protection that they provide is very short-lived. That is actually surprising to see him say that. I would have to think he sold his stock in BioNTech.

The push for vaccines is going to pitter out.

He thinks that the next big thing is going to be a covid inhaler/blocker type of product, which will probably be considered as an alternative to masks. A technology that will be useful as a first protection in the next pandemic.

One would think that the return would be worth it for the numbers that continue to need hospitalisation in the UK given their current crisis in the NHS , which is surprisingly, worse than ours .

But sure number crunchers rarely can see the bigger picture , just the balance sheet .

Same here sure. A HSE manager said yesterday that only 6% of 18-49 year olds had availed of the booster since end Dec. Demand is low and they don't expect it to improve. It explains why most of the healthcare workers in that age bracket have declined the booster.

Ok..no I am not anti-vax.

it’s just a personal observation on my part. People that have all the vaccinations seem to contract the virus more?

I am vaxed but not boosted. I have had my flu shot for this year. Yet my friends (who are all vaxed and boosted to the max) have had covid 3 and four times. I have had it once? I do take precautions on public transport, planes, etc…I still meet with many people on a daily basis…

am I lucky or is something else going on?

Did Bill Gates say this?

54:32 – 54:46

"...We also need to fix three promises of vaccines. The current vaccines are not infection blocking, they are not broad, so when new variants come up you lose protection, and they have very short duration, particularly in the people that matter, which are old people...".

Or did he not?

To me you don't need to fix something that performs as expected. You fix and improve product that either you and/or your customer is not happy with.

I do not see how what he said word for word is much different to what my recollection of what he said was.

In his speech he was also on about the gigantic market of cancer treatments, which is what he is after - mass application.

My comment on the fact that the push for vaccines will die off is my own opinion. Everyone is entitled to have one.

You are scrambling badly to deflect from what he clearly said.

I did not quote him, what I wrote was my interpretation of the information he provided. I have right to do that, whether you like it or not.

His words are out there and everybody is free to interpret what Bill himself thinks about the current vaccines performance. 

Direct quote is " ... ".

I did not think it would trigger the attack from you. I did not think you care much what Bill G. says.

Anyways, at best I was thinking you would go: 'hey he is just a software guy, he knows nothing' followed by 'strawman without foundation', which in the hindsight would have gotten you further down the path to deflect from the gravity of what he said. It would have been a better tactic on this particular occasion, I'd say.

It's true. 3 studies have found the same thing now. Here is a graph from the latest one. More shots = more likely to test positive. People tried to say that vaccinated are more likely to test, but this was 51,000 employees of the Cleveland clinic who were required to test if they wanted paid time off and the authors of the study even stated they don't believe this skewed their findings. Anecdotally, it's also true in my circle, the boosted and to a lesser extent double vaccinated people seem to be on a constant roundabout of COVID and other illnesses and ailments.

"The risk of COVID-19 also varied by the number of COVID-19 vaccine doses previously received. The higher the number of vaccines previously received, the higher the risk of contracting"

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.12.17.22283625v1.full.pdf

The study addresses this:

"This potential effect should be somewhat mitigated in our healthcare cohort because one needs a NAAT to get paid time off, providing a strong incentive to get a NAAT if one tested positive at home. Even if one assumes that some individuals chose not to follow up on a positive home test result with a NAAT, it is very unlikely that individuals would have chosen to pursue NAAT after receiving the bivalent vaccine more so than before receiving the vaccine, at rates disproportionate enough to affect the study’s findings."

If a study of 8 mice was good enough to authorize the booster, a study of over 51,000 people should be good enough, preprint or not but ok, keep your fingers in your ears

I am from a family of 7.

I am the only one who got no boosters.......just got the original vaccine in 2021.

All of my boosted siblings have since contracted Covid, 3 of them got it twice. My sister who also got the flu vaccine in November and all her Covid boosters got incredibly sick with the flu in January and was hospitalised. Its almost like her immune system isn't working.

I am the only one in the family of 7 who never got boosters, and the only one who never got Covid...(I worked in a Vaccination Centre during Covid and since then in a busy job dealing with the public so I am in touch with germs all the time). Strange isn't it?

Why are you quoting stuff from 2020? This is a more recent study.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X22010283

That's for 2 shots, boosters will be even higher given the known cumulative risk of adverse events. Given that according to UK authorities own figures, almost a million non at risk 40-49 year olds need to be boosted to prevent just one hospitalisation due to severe covid, how does the risk benefit analysis make any sense? It would cause more harm than good.

The study you linked is the one which misrepresents adverse events in comparison with actual patients. A single patient can have multiple SAEs. It does not compare like with like.

It also is not the case that all SAEs in that studys criteria lead to hospitalization.

The reason why I linked a study from 2020 was the question asked about both boosters and vaccines.

The study on boosters was from 2021 or did you miss that?

Or that the study you linked in a reanalysis of data from... what year?

Well what year is your studys data from?