"Nearly everyone dying of the virus now is unvaccinated."
That has been the trope of anyone who has a platform or a modicum of power in America the past few months. And indeed, that is what we would expect from a vaccine that is as effective as the ones our government has traditionally endorsed. The problem is that a new CDC analysis, when coupled with Israel's experience of waning immunity, demonstrates that this statement is already untrue and will only become more obvious in the coming weeks.
"Population-based hospitalization rates show that unvaccinated adults aged ≥18 years are 17 times more likely to be hospitalized compared with vaccinated adults," concluded CDC researchers in a new analysis of COVID hospitalizations from Jan. 1 to June 30. That sounds very compelling, but when you look at their chart on page 23, it offers a very different perspective and is an ominous sign for the coming weeks.
Throughout the past two months, politicians have repeated the line ad nauseum that 97% of the people in the hospital are unvaccinated. Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan (R), who oversees one of the 13 states studied by CDC, claimed that 100% of all deaths in June were among the unvaccinated. But this analysis from the CDC states that instead, 76.6% of hospitalizations were unvaccinated, and that was in June before this wave got really bad. Given the rapid acceleration of waning immunity, inquiring minds would like to know what that number will look like heading into September.
As a stagnant percent of efficacy against critical illness (they've already given up on stopping transmission), this would not be a bad record for the vaccines. But given what we already know from Israel, our government needs to be honest with us about where things stand now.
Israel has already concluded that there is a "significant increase of the risk of infection in individuals who received their last vaccine dose since at least 146 days ago, particularly among patients older than 60." The CDC in this study also recognized that older people — who are both more vulnerable and were vaccinated earlier — composed a greater share of the vaccinated hospitalizations. So again, what is the true percentage of hospitalizations that are from vaccinated individuals, especially among seniors, as it stands now? Unlike in Israel and the U.K., our government refuses to publish that data, other than exaggerate with anecdotal numbers that are already contradicted by their own data from June.
According to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, as of earlier this week, "the percentage who have been fully vaccinated ranges between 7% and 40%, doctors say, depending on the time period measured." If I were a betting man, I'd say the time period means the more recent it is, the higher the percentage of vaccinated.
Another important point to keep in mind is that the CDC has instructed vaccinated people not to get tested in most circumstances. As such, there is a massive differential between the number of mild cases that are picked up incidentally in the hospitals among those who are unvaccinated (but automatically tested when they come in for surgeries or other ailments) and those who are vaccinated. Keep in mind that during a period of prolific spread, it is very likely that people coming to the hospital for non-COVID issues will either pick up the virus there or have just gotten over it but can still test positive.
It's also important to note that although the CDC found a much higher hospitalization rate among the unvaccinated, once they were hospitalized, the number and proportion of fully vaccinated persons admitted to the ICU or who died were similar to unvaccinated persons. Furthermore, "Median length of stay was significantly longer in fully vaccinated persons (median 5 days (IQR 3–8) v. 4 days (IQR 2–9), respectively." That might be due to the vaccinated cohort being more weighted toward older people, but again, these are the people who needed the vaccine the most.
If it is the position of our government, like in Israel, that everyone will need a booster, then it raises the obvious question: Who says that it will even work as well for the next five months as the first one did, and what is the cost-benefit analysis, given the widespread side effects of the shots and the fact that there are other early treatments available that are being suppressed? Meaning, now that vaccines do not stop symptomatic illness and their protection against critical illness wears off over time, we need to revisit the four most important questions:
1) What is the true extent of the side effects from the vaccine? Just in the VAERS system alone, there is a 98-fold greater risk of dying from the COVID vaccine than from the flu vaccine, and the FDA admits in its approval letter (p. 6) that VAERS "will not be sufficient to assess known serious risks" like myocarditis and pericarditis.
2) Once we know the vaccine wears off, why is there no concern about the leaky vaccine creating viral immune escape and allowing the virus to become stronger and more durable, inducing a vicious cycle of mass vaccination and antibody dependent disease enhancement reinforcing each other with each subsequent booster? This is what happened with the leaky chicken vaccine that induced Marek's disease, in which the vaccinated chickens were temporarily spared from serious symptoms but carried a much greater viral load, compared to those who weren't vaccinated. With Israel having vaccinated 80% of its adults, 25% of whom have been given boosters, they now have the highest case per capita rate in the world. How is this not a concern about some form of vaccine-induced viral immune escape?
Israel now has the highest current case rate in the entire world. Oddly, Israel was also the first country to vacc… https://t.co/DLxUkgABUR— PLC (@PLC)1630437327.0
3) We are already seeing people hospitalized for COVID in Israel after the third shot, and data suggests that, just like with the first shot, people are actually more vulnerable to the virus in the week or so after getting the booster before it kicks in. Why are we not concerned about boosting during a period when the virus is circulating prolifically?
4) Given the censorship of dozens of potentially lifesaving preventive and early treatments with a much better safety record – from monoclonal antibodies on down – isn't that a better route to pursue?
On that last point, it's important to keep in mind that the "vaccine" is the one form of preventive that is being sanctioned. So, by definition, those who don't have it will be hospitalized more because they have zero options outside the hospital. Were we to even up the score with safer and more effective treatments, we'd be seeing a very different split in the hospital numbers. Then again, those who are vaccinated also need early treatment.