The original goal for vaccination was prevention of infection. The vaccine was seen as a panacea to save the world from this pandemic. Get vaccinated and not infected. This objective has since been proven a big failure with the Delta Variant having a ball of a time in the USA and UK and many parts of the world. The infection rate has exploded to a level that no one would ever think of playing it down or concealing this fact. It is officially admitted by the medical professionals all over that both the mRNA and inactivated virus vaccines are equally ineffective against the Delta variant.
The 95% efficacy of mRNA vaccines against the 70% efficacy of inactivated virus vaccines is now moot, irrelevant.
The other goal of the vaccines is that after vaccination, the illness would be less severe. In this regard, it was acknowledged that Sinovac vaccines are more effective in the prevention of hospitalisation and death. The new narrative for vaccination today is about prevention of falling too ill with vaccination.
Both the mRNA and inactivated virus vaccines are experimental drugs and approved for emergency use only with the former posing the threat of unknown adverse effects in the future and the latter less so. Given the new facts, that the vaccines are ineffective to prevent infection against the more infectious Delta variant but still useful to prevent serious illnesses, the narrative to be vaccinated is still the same. mRNA vaccines are preferred as they are more effective? Really?
The new surges and uncontrollable spread of the virus in the whole of the USA and UK are making a statement that even fully vaccinated with mRNA vaccines have proven futile. Does this ring a bell?
Should not a new narrative be in favour of Sinovac's inactivated virus vaccines for being more effective in the prevention of hospitalisation and death? Why stick to the gun that mRNA vaccines are still the preferred and recommended vaccines? At the very least, both vaccines are equally effective and should be recommended with Sinovac being the better of the two.
Why is the myth that mRNA vaccines are more effective still being perpetuated when it is no longer the case? If it is just to achieve a political end, it is a deadly end, a dead end for many that are prevented from using the more effective Sinovac vaccine.
What do you think? Dead mindset, dead end, which is more deadly?
And why keep flogging a dead horse, that unvaccinated people are more likely to spread the virus when the vaccinated are equally vulnerable to the virus and equally capable of spreading the virus?
20 comments:
Let's pretend that mRNA vaccines are effective and those vaccinated are safer than those unvaccinated, or luckier than those unvaccinated.
Ooops, just believe. When you have faith, and believe the manufacturers and their salespersons, it will work.
And the more people got vaccinated by mRNA vaccines, then it must be the real thing because so many people have been forced to be jabbed by these vaccines.
But please do not forced the non believers to be jabbed by what your belief.
The recent COVID deaths of elderly people wouldn't have happened if they had been vaccinated with 2 doses of Sinovac. We are furious with the PAP 4G elites MTF !
Washington Post article in the MSM today said vaccinated are more likely to be infected in new data.In a dance floor in Massachusett, 469 cases of infections were recorded and 3/4 of them were vaccinated.
Though they still tried to lie that since more people have been vaccinated, so more vaccinated people would be infected.
Two errors in this comment.
1. Vaccinated people are supposed to be less likely to be infected.
2. The USA has only vaccinated about 50% of their population as many refused to be vaccinated. So the argument that since more were vaccinated, so more should be infected does not hold water.
The data said vaccinated are more likely to be infected is the new reality. Why they did not know and are worried and trying to find out.
Now who is lying that unvaccinated are more at risk and discriminating against the unvaccinated?
The proof of the pudding is in the eating.
Let us see how well Singapore holds up by opening widely to outside people brining in present and future variants, and how being the most vaccinated country on earth is going to be the guinea pig, to prove to the rest of the world, how we live or die with the virus.
It is early days yet and deaths are going to be a daily routine. How fast it will mount is still unknown.
We now have two camps, the American camp advocating living with the virus and opening up its economy. Singapore is following this path.
China and some countries that are more successful in controlling the virus like Australia and New Zealand are for zero tolerance, to stop the virus in their countries.
They would not open up and live with the virus and infection.
Which camp will survive and do better eventually? The zero tolerance camp would not let those from countries that chose to live with the virus to enter their countries freely for sure.
The Singapore-American camp advocating living with the virus and opening up their economies are morally repugnant as they are willing to sacrifice the lives of senior citizens for economic benefits - benefits that don't accrue to the vulnerable old folks thrown open to risk of death . .
Hahaha
Sacrificing the oldies is quite an idea, as pioneer benefits for oldies get less and less. This is unlike GST that hangs with a person from cradle to the grave and beyond.
Pioneer benefits ends when oldies pass on. The burden gets lesser over the years. COVID19 accelerates the process.
More oldies die means less strain on the national health budget as less subsidies to be make, in line with the rookie health minister's objective to crimp government costs.
The recent COVID deaths of elderly people wouldn't have happened if they had been vaccinated with 2 doses of Sinovac.
That's very optimistic. They were 91 and 87 years old with multiple pre-existing conditions including one who had cancer previously. That weakens the body immensely. They were not healthy individuals to begin with.
So, is it a good idea to open up with oldies already pushing the door to the next realm. Does vaccination weakens the frail body further is the question.
@Anon 12.30 That is a valid question. We are still learning about Covid19 complications and all the vaccines are still considered experimental, even if they have been approved for emergency use. It may be years before the vaccines' effects are fully understood.
The question of when to open and how much interaction to allow is a question for all governments. There is no right answer. Each government will have to make a decision to balance lives against the economy. Any decision will elicit negative responses from both groups depending on the state of the economy, the healthcare system, the value placed on lives, and the extent to which they think they can manage some of the outcomes.
Hi Redbean, I know you prefer the introduction of SinoVac for use in Singapore. If one prefers it, then go for it. Just pay. Maybe you are pro-China and anti-West, but it is dangerous to spread your opinion constantly. This is dangerous, don't you think?
Virgo49 - "All just groping in the dark and just hope for the best."
Hahaha. Sounds like my last KTV session.
Anon 2:43pm, there are two narratives, one for and one against mRNAs. Both are supported by experts in this field, not Ah Beng like you who just chose to believe without much knowledge about the vaccines.
Who do you think is more dangerous, hyping one narrative and ignoring the other narratives when the truth is still out there? Who is more irresponsible?
While one camp is hyping one narrative, it would be fair that others must share the other narratives so that laymen like you and me are well informed and know both sides of the coin. This is called being informed. But many unthinking believers like you would just want to believe in one narrative and refused to listen to the other side.
You so sure the narrative you believe in is the truth?
BTW, I can afford to pay for it. But when public money are used to pay for non citizens while citizens have to pay for the vaccines, it pissed me off.
Everyone should be pissed off when foreigners don't have to pay but citizens have to pay.
What kind of government is this, gave our money to foreigners but not to citizens?
RB @ 3.51 pm. Tough to see citizen have to pay for SinoVac. But no harm in giving free vaccine to foreigners because your PAP govt has invited them into the Red Dot to create jobs for Singaporeans. If you think that is not right, then cast your vote wisely in the next GE. HaHaHa
To be fair, Sinovac should be subsidised like the others. But isn't the treatment smacks of anti China and pro West bias.
How is that not seen as equally dangerous when the MSM keeps blaring every day about advantages of Pfizer and Moerna compared to Sinovac. In between there are pros and cons affecting both, but which vaccines are the MSM obviously promoting, and favouring one over the other is not dangerous?
When you voted traitors in charge of you, you will be treated like enemies, and your enemies will be treated like loved ones.
Luc Montagnier, a French virologist and recipient of the 2008 Nobel Prize in Medicine for his discovery of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), has recently exposed the dangers of the COVID-19 vaccines. Montagnier discussed the issue in an interview with Pierre Barnérias of Hold-Up Media earlier this month, which was exclusively translated from French into English for RAIR Foundation USA.
The vaccines don’t stop the virus, argues the prominent virologist, they do the opposite — they “feed the virus,” and facilitate its development into stronger and more transmittable variants. These new virus variants will be more resistant to vaccination and may cause more health implications than their “original” versions.
During the interview, professor Montagnier referred to the vaccine program for the coronavirus as an “unacceptable mistake.” Mass vaccinations are a “scientific error as well as a medical error,” he said.
Copied from an article in TRE.
Post a Comment