U.S. study: Pfizer, Moderna COVID-19 vaccines highly effective after first dose | ANC

Rundown: Pfizer and Moderna's COVID-19 vaccines can reduce the risk of infection by 80% at least two weeks after a person gets the first dose, according to a U.S. study.

For more ANC interviews, click the link below:

For more COVID-19 videos, click the link below:

For more Rundown videos, click the link below:

Subscribe to the ANC Youtube channel!

#ANCNews
#ANCHighlights
#COVID19

[solomonkane]

Just got the first dose. Only thing I felt was extremely nervous before and after. I took a 1-2 mile walk and I forgot everything and feel amazing now. Next dose in 3 weeks.

[DAxt-schm]

I just got my 1st Moderna shot yesterday. There must've been something nefarious in that syringe, because now I get 5G coverage and I've got this inexplicable concern for income inequality (except as it might apply to myself, of course).

[Baard]

Some remarks after doing a little bit of digging in the papers of this study.

1) why on earth did they exclude persons who already had an infection ?? It would have been a small effort to research possibillity of re-infection, and or the naturally immunized people would sometimes carry the virus by pcr test.

2) from the big pcr test pilot in a town nearby it appeared quickly that roughly 30 percent of tested people had no symptoms but tested positive. ( roughly 15 to 20 percent of this county took a test, so quite representative for population) That high percentage of tested positive WITHOUT symptons shows that more people are exposed to corona then expected. That is probably also an indication for herd immunity. But as no immune tests were performed that is not certain.

Why I mention this test pilot is that more people then expected are already exposed. ( at least in the Netherlands) The same is seen in the study of the CDC, amongst primary health care workers infections were only 18 on a group of app 890 whereas other first responders ( firemen, etc) had a much higher infection rate app 60 to 70 despite the vaccination on group of about 900-1300. It looks like that primary health care workers have had more exposure, which can be logical, to the corona virus without getting symptoms and thereby already creating an immune response BEFORE getting vaccinated. And after 1th vaccination shot their immunesystem is better in defense then who has not been exposed to corona virus before vaccination. This maybe could support the exosome theory .

3) when looking at hours worked it appears that the unvaccinated group of 932 people worked , according to numbers in the study 116.000 working days, which are 125 working days. But the vaccinated group of 2961 people worked ( in total) 119.900 working days which are 40, 50 working days in the period of this study. That means that the vaccinated group worked app. 3 times less days in the trial. And was, probably, also exposed 3 times less to people infected with covid which also would lower chance getting infected. With such huge difference in the amount of days worked it is highly necassary to know or the unvaccinated group worked more hours in, for example the second wave compared to the vaccinated group.

4) if the above at point 3 is not corrected for then the table from which the incident rate of infection is estimated cannot be used. Because they worked many more days and exposed more to corona then the vaccinated group. Therefore the part of the table should be used where only cases of infection are mentioned.

That is 161 infections for the unvaccinated group. And a total of 11 infections in the vaccinated group. ( correct me if wrong) . But the unvaccinated group worked 3, 1 times more days. That, very unscientific, would equal 11*3, 1=34 infections in the vaccinated group.

A short conclusion would be then that the vaccine lowers the chance on infection app 4 times instead of the calculated 25 times lower incident rate. ( incident rate unvaccinated 1.38 per 1000 working days, 1 time vaccinated 0.2 per 1000 working days, 2 time vaccinated 0.04 per 1000 working days)

The above puts this study in a whole different perspective. To be very blunt, if the word vaccine would have been replaced with, e.g. , IVERMECTIN, in this research paper, and exactly the same results were achieved, it would have been butchered by many.

I am not saying there are no results, but as many other studies on non regular medications are butchered for smaller flaws, ending up as called : there seems to be a positive thingy but : too small placebo group, uncertainty of sample taking, uncertainty of other drugs interaction or profylaxis effect of drugs, etc so no conclusions can be made....What should I think of this study???

[agibu]

Wy then the 2nd dose with all the side effects? 🥴