el gato malo: thanks for all the work you put into these posts. On a somewhat related note, what effects are you noticing for folks who were previously infected, but then got vaccinated? Does the vaccine negate, reverse or undermine protections afforded by natural immunity? (my wife and I are both military, thus being forced to take this crap, but we've both had previous infection and been perfectly fine....we are holding out as long as we can w/o losing our jobs, and are nervous that this will undermine our natural protections, or unnecessarily cause other issues).
I share your cynicism, yet we still have to try and fight back in any which way possible. The religious objections have been successful thus far. Maybe sanity and the rule of law will prevail despite the putrid rot we're surrounded by. throwing up your hands and succumbing is just not an option.
Federal employees are covered under RFRA. Despite the government's posturing, they have to respect religious objections. So far, religious objection lawsuits against these mandates have been very successful. The key is to not let them intimidate you and make you believe you have no options.
Below is a copy of a letter, written by an attorney as an aid for anyone wanting to contest their employer mandates. The religious objection outlined in this letter, was just successfully used in NYC by medical professionals. You can use the letter in it's entirety or amend it in any way might think useful.
Employer Letter Example: Vaccine Mandate Objection
No authorship claim or copyright asserted...
Dear Boss,
First, I request a religious exemption. "Each of the manufactures of the Covid vaccines currently available developed and confirmed their vaccines using fetal cell lines, which originated from aborted fetuses. ( https://lozierinstitute.org/an-ethics-assessment-of-covid-19-vaccine-programs/ ) For example, each of the currently available Covid vaccines confirmed their vaccine by protein testing using the abortion-derived cell line HEK-293. ( https://lozierinstitute.org/an-ethics-assessment-of-covid-19-vaccine-programs/ ) Partaking in a vaccine made from aborted fetuses makes me complicit in an action that offends my religious faith. As such, I cannot, in good conscience and in accord with my religious faith, take any such Covid vaccine at this time. In addition, any coerced medical treatment goes against my religious faith and the right of conscience to control one’s own medical treatment, free of coercion or force. Please provide a reasonable accommodation to my belief, as I wish to continue to be a good employee, helpful to the team.
Equally, compelling any employee to take any current Covid-19 vaccine violates federal and state law, and subjects the employer to substantial liability risk, including liability for any injury the employee may suffer from the vaccine. Many employers have reconsidered issuing such a mandate after more fruitful review with legal counsel, insurance providers, and public opinion advisors of the desires of employees and the consuming public. Even the Kaiser Foundation warned of the legal risk in this respect. (https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/issue-brief/key-questions-about-covid-19-vaccine-mandates/)
Three key concerns: first, informed consent is the guiding light of all medicine, in accord with the Nuremberg Code of 1947; second, the Americans with Disabilities Act proscribes, punishes and penalizes employers who invasively inquire into their employees' medical status and then treat those employees differently based on their perceived medical status, as the many AIDS related cases of decades ago fully attest; and third, international law, Constitutional law, specific statutes and the common law of torts all forbid conditioning access to employment, education or public accommodations upon coerced, invasive medical examinations and treatment, unless the employer can fully provide objective, scientifically validated evidence of the threat from the employee and how no practicable alternative could possible suffice to mitigate such supposed public health threat and still perform the necessary essentials of employment. As one federal court just recently held, the availability of reasonable accommodations like accounting for prior infection, antibody testing, temperature checks, remote work, other forms of testing, and the like suffice to meet any institution’s needs in lieu of masks, public shaming, and forced injections of foreign substances into the body that the FDA admits we do not know the long -term effects of.
For instance, the symptomatic can be self-isolated. Hence, requiring vaccinations only addresses one risk: dangerous or deadly transmission, by the asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic employee, in the employment setting. Yet even government official Mr. Fauci admits, as scientific studies affirm, asymptomatic transmission is exceedingly and "very rare." Indeed, initial data suggests the vaccinated are just as, or even much more, likely to transmit the virus as the asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic. Hence, the vaccine solves nothing. This evidentiary limitation on any employer's decision making, aside from the legal and insurance risks of forcing vaccinations as a term of employment without any accommodation or even exception for the previously infected (and thus better protected), is the reason most employers wisely refuse to mandate the vaccine. This doesn't even address the arbitrary self-limitation of the pool of talent for the employer: why reduce your own talent pool, when many who refuse invasive inquiries or risky treatment may be amongst your most effective, efficient and profitable employees?
This right to refuse forced injections, such as the Covid-19 vaccine, implements the internationally agreed legal requirement of Informed Consent established in the Nuremberg Code of 1947. (http://www.cirp.org/library/ethics/nuremberg/ ). As the Nuremberg Code established, every person must "be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision" for any medical experimental drug, as the Covid-19 vaccine currently is.
Second, demanding employees divulge their personal medical information invades their protected right to privacy, and discriminates against them based on their perceived medical status, in contravention of the Americans with Disabilities Act. (42 USC §12112(a).) Indeed, the ADA prohibits employers from invasive inquiries about their medical status, and that includes questions about diseases and treatments for those diseases, such as vaccines. As the EEOC makes clear, an employer can only ask medical information if the employer can prove the medical information is both job-related and necessary for the business. (https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/questions-and-answers-enforcement-guidance-disability-related-inquiries-and-medical). An employer that treats an individual employee differently based on that employer’s belief the employee’s medical condition impairs the employee is discriminating against that employee based on perceived medical status disability, in contravention of the ADA. The employer must have proof that the employer cannot keep the employee, even with reasonable accommodations, before any adverse action can be taken against the employee. If the employer asserts the employee’s medical status (such as being unvaccinated against a particular disease) precludes employment, then the employer must prove that the employee poses a “safety hazard” that cannot be reduced with a reasonable accommodation. The employer must prove, with objective, scientifically validated evidence, that the employee poses a materially enhanced risk of serious harm that no reasonable accommodation could mitigate. This requires the employee's medical status cause a substantial risk of serious harm, a risk that cannot be reduced by any another means. This is a high, and difficult burden, for employers to meet. Just look at the all prior cases concerning HIV and AIDS, when employers discriminated against employees based on their perceived dangerousness, and ended up paying millions in legal fees, damages and fines.
Third, conditioning continued employment upon participating in a medical experiment and demanding disclosure of private, personal medical information, may also create employer liability under other federal and state laws, including HIPAA, FMLA, and applicable state tort law principles, including torts prohibiting and proscribing invasions of privacy and battery. Indeed, any employer mandating a vaccine is liable to their employee for any adverse event suffered by that employee. The CDC records reports of the adverse events already reported to date concerning the current Covid-19 vaccine.(https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/vaers.html )
Finally, forced vaccines constitute a form of battery, and the Supreme Court long made clear "no right is more sacred than the right of every individual to the control of their own person, free from all restraint or interference of others." (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/141/250)
i was a federal civilian manager. the mandate has to get through the unions, be announced in the federal register etc.
the unions should be blocking any new condition of employment not vetted in the legal manner. 5 usc covers civil service, 10 usc includes the ucmj covers military.
i was also officer in usaf. the president can order go to war ,but regulate the military is congress' power!
Thanks Ed. The AGFE union has said that they can't fight it but are hoping to negotiate. All actual decision are being made by the Safer Federal Task Froce, and they say Nov. 22 is the deadline. (Why? Why that date? It's not in the EO?) My whole agency is full-time teleworker -- no public or co-worker contact. zero. This mandate will protect no one. The accommodation that people will request is to continue to work remotely as they have been for two years.
yes, thank you. lots of good info in there. honestly I don't think anybody actually wants these Fed vax madates. They will do nothing to protect anyone's health and will just cause disruption in the work force.
Yeah, we are not happy about this. My wife's doc, a 30-year veteran and (go figure) an infectious disease expert who worked on previous "pandemics" (H1N1, SARS, MERS), told her that this mandate response is completely against data. He and many other docs are raising their concern, only to be shut down and told to comply. He has never seen that kind of response in 30 years; blatant disregard for truth. Plus, he guarantees my wife will have a significant reaction based on her history. She is deployed and I can do nothing for her....we are so mad about this ultimatum.
Dr. Kendrick, a NHS doctor, who has had to deal with a few "Covid Karens", has a post about possible mechanistic action of Covid spike particle and how aspirin just may prove beneficial to those (un)fortunate to endure a jab (or two).
Sure, they have both medical and religious exemptions. However, the Active Duty folks are pretty much being told that an approved exemption will lead to a "non worldwide deployable" status, followed by a likely chance that they'll go for a medical board/line of determination (i.e. kick you out).
My wife and I have 18/17 years in...that's a compelling reason to not get kicked out.
I've still got a few to go...don't think I can take the stupidity that much longer. One of the WORST things about all this is that "they" change their rules/guidance/story/lies so often that I no longer trust them AT ALL. Today they say you have an exemption, tomorrow they will change their minds. No boosters today, boosters required next week. Last week masks and testing was an option, now it's not. It makes you crazy!
VA employee (NP) here at a large tertiary-care VA in a university-based, liberal city. I was able to be granted a religious exemption with no questions about my religious beliefs. Try it!
I mentioned above that NYC ( NY prohibits religious objections in their vaccination edict) healthcare workers won on religious objections grounds. Going to post the link to the injunction here, for anyone who's interested.
That's good to know. I will certainly ask. The "funny" thing is that our whole agency (5,000 nationwide) is mandatory telework -- full-time. Zero contact with the public or co-workers. Zero. AND they actually closed our local office building (1,000 people), so there is literally no building to go back to. So I will be forced to get vaccinated in order to sit alone in my kitchen as I have for two years already. Yes, typical government logic.
85% of my day is working face to face in a subspecialty surgical outpatient clinic. 15% in telehealth. With a predominately elderly population. I’d estimate 90% are vaxx’d. Three of 8 employees including myself have asked and been granted a religious exemption. A medical exemption would have been much tougher to get-the VA strictly follows only the CDC guidelines.
There is a great AMA on reddit LockdownSkepticism today that is directly related to your question. Dr Aaron Kheriaty is suing the University of California because its vaccine mandate does not allow for exceptions for people who have already had covid and therefore have natural immunity. Dr Kheriaty has already had covid and is suing. People on reddit asked questions of Dr Kheriaty and he answered many of them here: https://www.reddit.com/r/LockdownSkepticism/comments/pq5d16/i_am_aaron_kheriaty_md_as_me_anything/
Simple answer, Delta has a lower CFR, the increase in apparent deaths is from vaccine injury, most of which occurs in the first two weeks after injection, and just coincidentally I'm sure, deaths or cases occurring in the two weeks after vaccine injection (most of which are in actuality vaccine injury), are counted as "unvaccinated".
Gato pointed this out earlier. Crazy. Get the first jab, contract covid and die, and the event serves to promote the vaccine and demonize the unvax'd. A foolish and preventable "fox hole death" despite being gunned down in an open field running towards the bunker.
That might be the case but wouldn't the families of the people dying in this manner (within x days of being vaccinated) be up in arms and screaming about it? It is hard to believe that all these thousands of people in FL and the other southern states are dying within a week or three of getting the vax would not be questioned by the families. Something is not adding up (understatement) but intuitively I cannot believe that vaccine caused deaths so close to the vax date would not have generated an outcry.
They are screaming, they just have to get through the smothering wall of censorship. This facebook thread has hundreds of thousands of replies, most of them attesting to vaccine injury. https://www.facebook.com/80221381134/posts/10158207967261135/?d=n Notice, the intent of WXYZ-TV was to tell stories of unvaccinated deaths and instead they opened up a floodgate of story, after story of horror from the vaccinated.
Problem is -- how do you know the vax caused the death? It doesn't make people immediately turn blue, grow an extra head and float off into space. There are lots of stories going around, and lots of reports to VAERS, but officially, "these events are not related to the vaccine." That's what they tell the families. It's just a coincidence.
Because officially, the vaccine cannot kill you, right? And it's not a poison that strikes immediately, it produces a spike protein which would kill you the exactly the same way as COVID, or cause any number of "natural-looking" deaths. If you die of COVID-like symptoms, its COVID, not the vax. If you die of heart attacks or strokes, it's not the vax. If you die of blood clots, or sepsis, or an allergic reaction, or any number of rare events, it's just bad luck , not the vax. Because the public-health authorities do not believe that the vaccine is harmful, they do not, and will not, attribute these events to vaccine. It's like if you don't believe in ghosts, than nothing can ever be caused by a ghost, right? If you are religious, than good things are caused by God, and bad things by the devil. Personally, I have not idea if it's harmful or not. Obviously, it doesn't kill you on the spot, and most millions of people seem to be surviving just fine. Just like COVID.
I'm not sure if you're asking me to convince you or if you're asking more generally about how to convince others. No one can be convinced of anything unless they want to be convinced. Generally it's a matter of weighing the risks versus the benefits. Personally, I was just as scared and confused at first when we saw those first videos from China of people dropping in the streets as anyone. We didn't know what we were facing. But, once we knew that even in the worst case scenario, an individual's chance of survival was over 99%, weighing that against the risk of an experimental gene therapy and becoming a lab rat for the largest medical experiment in the world, my decision was simple. It's not safe because we don't have any long term studies.
I don't watch TV anymore, haven't for years. But when I did, I remember laughing at all the dug advertisements that inundated the airwaves. They'd describe how this miracle cure was going to change your life, and then the fast-talking disclaimer: might cause sudden urge to gamble; causes sudden explosive diarrhea (just two of the more memorable ones). And invariably, months or years later, these were followed by an advertisement from a law firm: Were you prescribed Shityourpants? You might be entitled to legal compensation.
Anyway, each person has to make the decision individually. From what I've seen since the time of the roll-out, from the initial hard-sell ( free fries! get a chance to win a million!), to the take the jab or we'll punish you so severely you won't be able to feed your family, has only hardened my position. Whatever is these injections, the way they're pushing them is frightening. Nothing that is actually beneficial requires such a hard-sell. And remember, once injected, whatever damage this thing might cause, cannot be undone.
Oh, I agree with you completely. And the hard-sell marketing tactics are not helping them move those shots. I suppose I was just lamenting that the way the "system" is currently set up, it will be impossible to convince anyone that the shots are in any way possibly harmful who doesn't already lean that direction. And then, of course, even if someone admits they "might" cause "rare" events, the counter argument is just "still better than COVID!" (Well, no, but whatever. Sigh.)
I also have not watched TV in many years, which is the secret to not being afraid of... well, anything, really, lol. I was just recently at a cafe that had "the news" on their TV, and even with the sound off it was all scary pictures about COVID (deaths! hospitals! lab coats! shots! tubes! OMG!)
I also haven't been to any doctor for many, many years. knock on wood. I don't want pills or surgery, so what would be the point of paying to have an argument with a doctor? I don't even believe in the "food pyramid" anymore, so even if they just tell me to "eat healthy" we will just have another argument.
I have also read many books on medical history and history generally. Yes, experts are often catastrophically wrong. Very often. And once they pick a wrong position, they tend to stick together and push that wrong idea for many years. Examples are too numerous to count. There's no reason to think experts are now 100% correct on everything, just because it's the year 2021 and not 1921. And I have worked many years for the government. Incompetence rewarded right there. And I am "highly educated" myself. And I am aware that the more I know the more I don't know.
I suppose it all comes down to trust. I trust very few people, and no one or nothing 100%. Do I trust doctors? No. Experts? No. Politicians? No. The Gov't? Get out of town. The "educated?" No. Drug companies? Hell no. Do I believe these believe actually care about me? No. Do they care about "society?" No. Do these groups have HUGE incentives to lie or mislead? Yes.
So, given my druthers, I'd prefer to live my life my own way and not be forced to take the govt mandated shot I don't want, or need, that does nothing to protect me or other people, and may indeed ruin my own health and life. Until just a few weeks ago, I thought that, as an American, this would be possible. What in the world is going on?
Well then , you and I are in complete agreement! Whatever in the world is going on is actually evil and deeply frightening. I hope you fight that mandate. RFRA has very robust religion exemption protections, and as I've mentioned previously, the courts so far have upheld religious objection cases against these mandates everywhere that a case has been brought. If we allow these mandates to stand, what are they going to demand of us next? I want no part of such a tyrannical dystopia. I would do anything to have back the country in which I grew up, and it's being destroyed right before my eyes. I pray, it's not too late and worry that it is.
Agreed, but these aren't normal times. MSM (national & local) seems to be in alignment pitching a narrative, so such stories (unless extreme perhaps) would be ignored. It makes it really hard to know what's going on. It's amazing how much you can mislead without technically lying. MSM is becoming quite skilled at this.
Vaccinated are getting sick and then spreading via massive viral loads, which is having a bad outcome for weaker unvaxxed people. This is why early treatment with Ivermectin, zinc, antibiotics, steroids, ect, is a good idea for anyone that gets infected. Knock that shit down quickly.
Not sure if you follow the weekly webcasts from FLCCC, but on their August 18th, 2021 webcast, Dr. Keith Berkowitz points out that he's seeing vaccinated patients with high antibody counts (>2500) that are coming in with new COVID infections. I think he brings up a good question, namely does the immune response to the mRNA vaccines and the antibody measurements resulting from that provide any meaningful information with regard to efficacy.
I'm still not convinced that the jabs provide protection against serious disease and death. The fully vaxxed are less likely to be infected (but closing the gap), less likely to seek care, less likely to be hospitalized...but more of them died. Something is off.
===================================
SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern and variants under investigation in England/Technical briefing 23/September 17, 2021
Public Health England reports that Delta is the dominant variant in the UK. This variant accounted for 99% of sequenced and 98% genotyped cases from July 25 through July 31, 2021 in England (PHE technical briefing 20/August 8 ).
PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values from routinely undertaken tests in England show that Ct values (and by inference viral load) are similar between individuals who are unvaccinated and vaccinated.
This whole issue of variants is just more gaslighting. The genetic differences among these so-called variants is minuscule. It is so small has to be Insignificant. Anybody who has had natural Covid and recovered will have durable long lasting protection to all the variants.
The whole discussion about variants Is just more fear mongering propaganda
This makes sense..Issue is that nobody worries about veracity and logic anymore. The truth is just too tedious. Find a news article that fits your point of view and wave the accompanying chart in people's faces. This is what guides public health policy these days.
So I am a simpleton - I know. But how is 76% of the deaths in the vaccinated evidence that the vaccines are preventing death? I would have expected that the vaccinated would represent less than 50 % of the deaths if the vaccines were strongly protective?
Unless the 10% of folks not vaxxed over 50 are because they are too frail for the vaccine. That is something Alex Berenson surmised in Israel. BTW, not Delta specific, but I wanted to see how CFR was changing over time as we would expect it to be going down significantly (vax meant to prevent severe disease). You can look at that for the US (slice and dice by region/state/county) at the following link (4th tab). Interestingly the general pattern is a dip in the spring & a rebound in summer, similar to your graph.
unless ... 12% of the vaxxed had prior immunity, (and thus survive) and the actual vax does nada? Frankly, if I'm forced to take it, i hope it's a placebo.
And here is the follow up. The vaccine efficacy of 50% - lets assume this is true is an overestimate - because it must include a number of people tat are covid recovered. So - if 50% of the vax group are covid recovered. Then that takes vaccine efficacy down to -- uh -- almost 0. Frightening.
Is 76% for >50 age? 90% or so of them are vaxxed, so 10% of the population makes up 24% of deaths. The unknown distribution of comorbidities could invalidate that estimate. Anyway, "moderately" protective would be more accurate, but everyone is engaged in messaging nowadays.
Excellent analysis as always. Something I don't quite understand about the "vaccinated superspread hypothesis,” is why would it drive up CFR? It certainly would increase the total case count, and it would in theory promote hotter variants, but delta isn't that. Is the idea that higher viral loads in the vaccinated is resulting not only in higher contagion, but also in more symptomatic disease for the people they spread to? Is there precedent for that?
If vaccines where driving down the CFR, wouldn’t we see a substantial difference in CFR vax vs unvax? Clearly not the case, except in the US, where everyone that is hospitalized or dying of covid are unvaxxed and using their dying words to promote the vaccine. (Insert eye roll)
How does the difference in CFR vs IFR affect this argument? You only have a case if someone gets tested. You could have a whole host of people, vaccinated and not, not getting tested. Of course, IFR is almost impossible to know with any certainty it would seem.
I was always under the impression that the increased transmissibility of Delta with lower fatality rate was an example of that classic example of viral mutations selecting for less severity in order to maximize chances of retaining available hosts. I recently read somewhere (I think an article by a Hawaiian physician) that this is actually a "myth"? I had never heard that before.
But in any case I don't know how you could look at the vaccination curve alongside Delta and conclude vaccines get credit for the (thankfully) still-lower CFR.
Moreover, what about India? Still abysmally (or blessedly) low rate of full vaccination and Delta seems not to be hitting them particularly hard past that first wave.
funny thing about that. there is one province in india (kerala) that has a very high vaccination rate (67% have at least 1). it comprises 33 million people, 3% of india's population.
it currently accounts for 65% of all india's covid cases.
it is also the state that rejected ivermectin.
huh.
Uttar Pradesh:
largest state of 240 million people
roughly 20 cases a day
193 active cases — 33% with one dose of vaccine (and near zero when cases were going down in the spring)
I was wondering about Kerala's situation. RE ivermectin, I tracked down Indian state government roll-outs of in April and May and the coincide with the reversal of the waves in most cases. Kerala's guidelines also recommended ivermectin in April 25, and only counter-indicated for children and pregnant women - https://dhs.kerala.gov.in/ജാഗ്രത-നിര്%E2%80%8Dദേശങ്ങള്%E2%80%8D/ - yet the reversal of the wave (which was later than in other states embracing ivermectin) stalled.
If there was a ban, it's weird that it is not reflected in the guidelines (like happened in Tamil Nadu on May 7).
Could be the vaccines, or the remdesivir (also included in April 25 treatment guidelines). Or they're just having supply chain issues with ivermectin due to being at the bottom of the subcontinent.
Absolutely wild. Do you think the Indian population's relatively good metabolic health could be a factor as well (am I mistaken in my notion that they *have* good metabolic health)? Lack thereof is certainly not helping the US.
But why is delta CFR rising? Your hypothesis about vaccinated super spread makes sense, but that doesn’t affect CFR. Do high viral loads spread super disease? Is there a new variant that hasn’t been identified yet? I can’t see any other possibilities that would cause CFR to go up in both vaccinated and unvaccinated.
Lag most likely. CFR always looks lowest when cases are highest and deaths haven't kicked in. There is about a 3 week difference in cases to reported death.
Excellent work, as always. I'd like to find a way to calculate the protection your work provides against the malfeasance of the Covidians. I think it would be higher than VE against COVID.
I have a question, however. The Delta CFR is, of course, a critical premise of your argument. Do you have a sense of how accurate that number is? I assume it's not based on 100% sequencing of samples, but on some selection criteria for samples to sequence and model assumptions for calculating the overall Delta CFR. Is that correct? Do you think it's reliable?
el gato malo: thanks for all the work you put into these posts. On a somewhat related note, what effects are you noticing for folks who were previously infected, but then got vaccinated? Does the vaccine negate, reverse or undermine protections afforded by natural immunity? (my wife and I are both military, thus being forced to take this crap, but we've both had previous infection and been perfectly fine....we are holding out as long as we can w/o losing our jobs, and are nervous that this will undermine our natural protections, or unnecessarily cause other issues).
There's a class action lawsuit filed in Colorado which addresses just this issue and covers all service members in all branches. https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/military/1031503-military-members-who-survived-covid-19-should-be-vaccine-exempt-class-action-argues/ Try and hold out as long as possible. These mandates are illegal on so many different levels.
the mandates are tyranny on several levels, and the courts should blast them out of the way last week.
not happening the current politicized federal bench would overturn the 13 and 14 th amendments..
a scotus decided dredd scott, and our current courts are as bad.
I share your cynicism, yet we still have to try and fight back in any which way possible. The religious objections have been successful thus far. Maybe sanity and the rule of law will prevail despite the putrid rot we're surrounded by. throwing up your hands and succumbing is just not an option.
Here's a copy of the lawsuit for anyone interested. https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/military-vaccine-mandate-complaint.pdf
Good news. Any delay is good. But about non military Feds? There’s a lot of us.
Federal employees are covered under RFRA. Despite the government's posturing, they have to respect religious objections. So far, religious objection lawsuits against these mandates have been very successful. The key is to not let them intimidate you and make you believe you have no options.
Below is a copy of a letter, written by an attorney as an aid for anyone wanting to contest their employer mandates. The religious objection outlined in this letter, was just successfully used in NYC by medical professionals. You can use the letter in it's entirety or amend it in any way might think useful.
Employer Letter Example: Vaccine Mandate Objection
No authorship claim or copyright asserted...
Dear Boss,
First, I request a religious exemption. "Each of the manufactures of the Covid vaccines currently available developed and confirmed their vaccines using fetal cell lines, which originated from aborted fetuses. ( https://lozierinstitute.org/an-ethics-assessment-of-covid-19-vaccine-programs/ ) For example, each of the currently available Covid vaccines confirmed their vaccine by protein testing using the abortion-derived cell line HEK-293. ( https://lozierinstitute.org/an-ethics-assessment-of-covid-19-vaccine-programs/ ) Partaking in a vaccine made from aborted fetuses makes me complicit in an action that offends my religious faith. As such, I cannot, in good conscience and in accord with my religious faith, take any such Covid vaccine at this time. In addition, any coerced medical treatment goes against my religious faith and the right of conscience to control one’s own medical treatment, free of coercion or force. Please provide a reasonable accommodation to my belief, as I wish to continue to be a good employee, helpful to the team.
Equally, compelling any employee to take any current Covid-19 vaccine violates federal and state law, and subjects the employer to substantial liability risk, including liability for any injury the employee may suffer from the vaccine. Many employers have reconsidered issuing such a mandate after more fruitful review with legal counsel, insurance providers, and public opinion advisors of the desires of employees and the consuming public. Even the Kaiser Foundation warned of the legal risk in this respect. (https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/issue-brief/key-questions-about-covid-19-vaccine-mandates/)
Three key concerns: first, informed consent is the guiding light of all medicine, in accord with the Nuremberg Code of 1947; second, the Americans with Disabilities Act proscribes, punishes and penalizes employers who invasively inquire into their employees' medical status and then treat those employees differently based on their perceived medical status, as the many AIDS related cases of decades ago fully attest; and third, international law, Constitutional law, specific statutes and the common law of torts all forbid conditioning access to employment, education or public accommodations upon coerced, invasive medical examinations and treatment, unless the employer can fully provide objective, scientifically validated evidence of the threat from the employee and how no practicable alternative could possible suffice to mitigate such supposed public health threat and still perform the necessary essentials of employment. As one federal court just recently held, the availability of reasonable accommodations like accounting for prior infection, antibody testing, temperature checks, remote work, other forms of testing, and the like suffice to meet any institution’s needs in lieu of masks, public shaming, and forced injections of foreign substances into the body that the FDA admits we do not know the long -term effects of.
For instance, the symptomatic can be self-isolated. Hence, requiring vaccinations only addresses one risk: dangerous or deadly transmission, by the asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic employee, in the employment setting. Yet even government official Mr. Fauci admits, as scientific studies affirm, asymptomatic transmission is exceedingly and "very rare." Indeed, initial data suggests the vaccinated are just as, or even much more, likely to transmit the virus as the asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic. Hence, the vaccine solves nothing. This evidentiary limitation on any employer's decision making, aside from the legal and insurance risks of forcing vaccinations as a term of employment without any accommodation or even exception for the previously infected (and thus better protected), is the reason most employers wisely refuse to mandate the vaccine. This doesn't even address the arbitrary self-limitation of the pool of talent for the employer: why reduce your own talent pool, when many who refuse invasive inquiries or risky treatment may be amongst your most effective, efficient and profitable employees?
This right to refuse forced injections, such as the Covid-19 vaccine, implements the internationally agreed legal requirement of Informed Consent established in the Nuremberg Code of 1947. (http://www.cirp.org/library/ethics/nuremberg/ ). As the Nuremberg Code established, every person must "be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision" for any medical experimental drug, as the Covid-19 vaccine currently is.
Second, demanding employees divulge their personal medical information invades their protected right to privacy, and discriminates against them based on their perceived medical status, in contravention of the Americans with Disabilities Act. (42 USC §12112(a).) Indeed, the ADA prohibits employers from invasive inquiries about their medical status, and that includes questions about diseases and treatments for those diseases, such as vaccines. As the EEOC makes clear, an employer can only ask medical information if the employer can prove the medical information is both job-related and necessary for the business. (https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/questions-and-answers-enforcement-guidance-disability-related-inquiries-and-medical). An employer that treats an individual employee differently based on that employer’s belief the employee’s medical condition impairs the employee is discriminating against that employee based on perceived medical status disability, in contravention of the ADA. The employer must have proof that the employer cannot keep the employee, even with reasonable accommodations, before any adverse action can be taken against the employee. If the employer asserts the employee’s medical status (such as being unvaccinated against a particular disease) precludes employment, then the employer must prove that the employee poses a “safety hazard” that cannot be reduced with a reasonable accommodation. The employer must prove, with objective, scientifically validated evidence, that the employee poses a materially enhanced risk of serious harm that no reasonable accommodation could mitigate. This requires the employee's medical status cause a substantial risk of serious harm, a risk that cannot be reduced by any another means. This is a high, and difficult burden, for employers to meet. Just look at the all prior cases concerning HIV and AIDS, when employers discriminated against employees based on their perceived dangerousness, and ended up paying millions in legal fees, damages and fines.
Third, conditioning continued employment upon participating in a medical experiment and demanding disclosure of private, personal medical information, may also create employer liability under other federal and state laws, including HIPAA, FMLA, and applicable state tort law principles, including torts prohibiting and proscribing invasions of privacy and battery. Indeed, any employer mandating a vaccine is liable to their employee for any adverse event suffered by that employee. The CDC records reports of the adverse events already reported to date concerning the current Covid-19 vaccine.(https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/vaers.html )
Finally, forced vaccines constitute a form of battery, and the Supreme Court long made clear "no right is more sacred than the right of every individual to the control of their own person, free from all restraint or interference of others." (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/141/250)
With Regards,
Employee of the Year,
Thomas Paine"
i was a federal civilian manager. the mandate has to get through the unions, be announced in the federal register etc.
the unions should be blocking any new condition of employment not vetted in the legal manner. 5 usc covers civil service, 10 usc includes the ucmj covers military.
i was also officer in usaf. the president can order go to war ,but regulate the military is congress' power!
same but a bit different than civilians.
Thanks Ed. The AGFE union has said that they can't fight it but are hoping to negotiate. All actual decision are being made by the Safer Federal Task Froce, and they say Nov. 22 is the deadline. (Why? Why that date? It's not in the EO?) My whole agency is full-time teleworker -- no public or co-worker contact. zero. This mandate will protect no one. The accommodation that people will request is to continue to work remotely as they have been for two years.
Actually, congress is supposed to declare war too but that has been usurped by the unitary executive.
Right. So lets fight.
Thanks for the sample. I have a few others, but this one is pretty detailed.
My pleasure. It was written by arguably one of the best attorneys in the country. Use it, share it. Don't let these bastards grind you down.
yes, thank you. lots of good info in there. honestly I don't think anybody actually wants these Fed vax madates. They will do nothing to protect anyone's health and will just cause disruption in the work force.
I hear you! My spouse and I are in the same boat—fed employees. Prior infections. Wondering the same things. Holding out as long as possible.
Yeah, we are not happy about this. My wife's doc, a 30-year veteran and (go figure) an infectious disease expert who worked on previous "pandemics" (H1N1, SARS, MERS), told her that this mandate response is completely against data. He and many other docs are raising their concern, only to be shut down and told to comply. He has never seen that kind of response in 30 years; blatant disregard for truth. Plus, he guarantees my wife will have a significant reaction based on her history. She is deployed and I can do nothing for her....we are so mad about this ultimatum.
Dr. Kendrick, a NHS doctor, who has had to deal with a few "Covid Karens", has a post about possible mechanistic action of Covid spike particle and how aspirin just may prove beneficial to those (un)fortunate to endure a jab (or two).
https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2021/09/16/covid19-and-cvd-bridging-the-gap/
You’d think a “medical exception” would be possible? We will ask for religious exemption. Not expecting anything to work since it’s an “emergency.”
Sure, they have both medical and religious exemptions. However, the Active Duty folks are pretty much being told that an approved exemption will lead to a "non worldwide deployable" status, followed by a likely chance that they'll go for a medical board/line of determination (i.e. kick you out).
My wife and I have 18/17 years in...that's a compelling reason to not get kicked out.
Agree. I totally get it. I’ve got 22 months until my minimum retirement age. Hoping I can hang on that long.
I've still got a few to go...don't think I can take the stupidity that much longer. One of the WORST things about all this is that "they" change their rules/guidance/story/lies so often that I no longer trust them AT ALL. Today they say you have an exemption, tomorrow they will change their minds. No boosters today, boosters required next week. Last week masks and testing was an option, now it's not. It makes you crazy!
VA employee (NP) here at a large tertiary-care VA in a university-based, liberal city. I was able to be granted a religious exemption with no questions about my religious beliefs. Try it!
I mentioned above that NYC ( NY prohibits religious objections in their vaccination edict) healthcare workers won on religious objections grounds. Going to post the link to the injunction here, for anyone who's interested.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nynd.130098/gov.uscourts.nynd.130098.7.0.pdf
That's good to know. I will certainly ask. The "funny" thing is that our whole agency (5,000 nationwide) is mandatory telework -- full-time. Zero contact with the public or co-workers. Zero. AND they actually closed our local office building (1,000 people), so there is literally no building to go back to. So I will be forced to get vaccinated in order to sit alone in my kitchen as I have for two years already. Yes, typical government logic.
Just goes to show that it has zero to do with public health and everything to do with establishing control over every aspect of your life.
85% of my day is working face to face in a subspecialty surgical outpatient clinic. 15% in telehealth. With a predominately elderly population. I’d estimate 90% are vaxx’d. Three of 8 employees including myself have asked and been granted a religious exemption. A medical exemption would have been much tougher to get-the VA strictly follows only the CDC guidelines.
The thread here has lots of good discussion.
There is a great AMA on reddit LockdownSkepticism today that is directly related to your question. Dr Aaron Kheriaty is suing the University of California because its vaccine mandate does not allow for exceptions for people who have already had covid and therefore have natural immunity. Dr Kheriaty has already had covid and is suing. People on reddit asked questions of Dr Kheriaty and he answered many of them here: https://www.reddit.com/r/LockdownSkepticism/comments/pq5d16/i_am_aaron_kheriaty_md_as_me_anything/
In addition, information about his lawsuit is here: https://www.aaronkheriaty.com/work
Simple answer, Delta has a lower CFR, the increase in apparent deaths is from vaccine injury, most of which occurs in the first two weeks after injection, and just coincidentally I'm sure, deaths or cases occurring in the two weeks after vaccine injection (most of which are in actuality vaccine injury), are counted as "unvaccinated".
Gato pointed this out earlier. Crazy. Get the first jab, contract covid and die, and the event serves to promote the vaccine and demonize the unvax'd. A foolish and preventable "fox hole death" despite being gunned down in an open field running towards the bunker.
That might be the case but wouldn't the families of the people dying in this manner (within x days of being vaccinated) be up in arms and screaming about it? It is hard to believe that all these thousands of people in FL and the other southern states are dying within a week or three of getting the vax would not be questioned by the families. Something is not adding up (understatement) but intuitively I cannot believe that vaccine caused deaths so close to the vax date would not have generated an outcry.
They are screaming, they just have to get through the smothering wall of censorship. This facebook thread has hundreds of thousands of replies, most of them attesting to vaccine injury. https://www.facebook.com/80221381134/posts/10158207967261135/?d=n Notice, the intent of WXYZ-TV was to tell stories of unvaccinated deaths and instead they opened up a floodgate of story, after story of horror from the vaccinated.
Problem is -- how do you know the vax caused the death? It doesn't make people immediately turn blue, grow an extra head and float off into space. There are lots of stories going around, and lots of reports to VAERS, but officially, "these events are not related to the vaccine." That's what they tell the families. It's just a coincidence.
Because officially, the vaccine cannot kill you, right? And it's not a poison that strikes immediately, it produces a spike protein which would kill you the exactly the same way as COVID, or cause any number of "natural-looking" deaths. If you die of COVID-like symptoms, its COVID, not the vax. If you die of heart attacks or strokes, it's not the vax. If you die of blood clots, or sepsis, or an allergic reaction, or any number of rare events, it's just bad luck , not the vax. Because the public-health authorities do not believe that the vaccine is harmful, they do not, and will not, attribute these events to vaccine. It's like if you don't believe in ghosts, than nothing can ever be caused by a ghost, right? If you are religious, than good things are caused by God, and bad things by the devil. Personally, I have not idea if it's harmful or not. Obviously, it doesn't kill you on the spot, and most millions of people seem to be surviving just fine. Just like COVID.
I'm not sure if you're asking me to convince you or if you're asking more generally about how to convince others. No one can be convinced of anything unless they want to be convinced. Generally it's a matter of weighing the risks versus the benefits. Personally, I was just as scared and confused at first when we saw those first videos from China of people dropping in the streets as anyone. We didn't know what we were facing. But, once we knew that even in the worst case scenario, an individual's chance of survival was over 99%, weighing that against the risk of an experimental gene therapy and becoming a lab rat for the largest medical experiment in the world, my decision was simple. It's not safe because we don't have any long term studies.
I don't watch TV anymore, haven't for years. But when I did, I remember laughing at all the dug advertisements that inundated the airwaves. They'd describe how this miracle cure was going to change your life, and then the fast-talking disclaimer: might cause sudden urge to gamble; causes sudden explosive diarrhea (just two of the more memorable ones). And invariably, months or years later, these were followed by an advertisement from a law firm: Were you prescribed Shityourpants? You might be entitled to legal compensation.
Anyway, each person has to make the decision individually. From what I've seen since the time of the roll-out, from the initial hard-sell ( free fries! get a chance to win a million!), to the take the jab or we'll punish you so severely you won't be able to feed your family, has only hardened my position. Whatever is these injections, the way they're pushing them is frightening. Nothing that is actually beneficial requires such a hard-sell. And remember, once injected, whatever damage this thing might cause, cannot be undone.
Oh, I agree with you completely. And the hard-sell marketing tactics are not helping them move those shots. I suppose I was just lamenting that the way the "system" is currently set up, it will be impossible to convince anyone that the shots are in any way possibly harmful who doesn't already lean that direction. And then, of course, even if someone admits they "might" cause "rare" events, the counter argument is just "still better than COVID!" (Well, no, but whatever. Sigh.)
I also have not watched TV in many years, which is the secret to not being afraid of... well, anything, really, lol. I was just recently at a cafe that had "the news" on their TV, and even with the sound off it was all scary pictures about COVID (deaths! hospitals! lab coats! shots! tubes! OMG!)
I also haven't been to any doctor for many, many years. knock on wood. I don't want pills or surgery, so what would be the point of paying to have an argument with a doctor? I don't even believe in the "food pyramid" anymore, so even if they just tell me to "eat healthy" we will just have another argument.
I have also read many books on medical history and history generally. Yes, experts are often catastrophically wrong. Very often. And once they pick a wrong position, they tend to stick together and push that wrong idea for many years. Examples are too numerous to count. There's no reason to think experts are now 100% correct on everything, just because it's the year 2021 and not 1921. And I have worked many years for the government. Incompetence rewarded right there. And I am "highly educated" myself. And I am aware that the more I know the more I don't know.
I suppose it all comes down to trust. I trust very few people, and no one or nothing 100%. Do I trust doctors? No. Experts? No. Politicians? No. The Gov't? Get out of town. The "educated?" No. Drug companies? Hell no. Do I believe these believe actually care about me? No. Do they care about "society?" No. Do these groups have HUGE incentives to lie or mislead? Yes.
So, given my druthers, I'd prefer to live my life my own way and not be forced to take the govt mandated shot I don't want, or need, that does nothing to protect me or other people, and may indeed ruin my own health and life. Until just a few weeks ago, I thought that, as an American, this would be possible. What in the world is going on?
Well then , you and I are in complete agreement! Whatever in the world is going on is actually evil and deeply frightening. I hope you fight that mandate. RFRA has very robust religion exemption protections, and as I've mentioned previously, the courts so far have upheld religious objection cases against these mandates everywhere that a case has been brought. If we allow these mandates to stand, what are they going to demand of us next? I want no part of such a tyrannical dystopia. I would do anything to have back the country in which I grew up, and it's being destroyed right before my eyes. I pray, it's not too late and worry that it is.
I agree. Vax causing a significant number of deaths in this window is possible but it's hard to imagine how this wouldn't be noticed by the families.
Agreed, but these aren't normal times. MSM (national & local) seems to be in alignment pitching a narrative, so such stories (unless extreme perhaps) would be ignored. It makes it really hard to know what's going on. It's amazing how much you can mislead without technically lying. MSM is becoming quite skilled at this.
Vaccinated are getting sick and then spreading via massive viral loads, which is having a bad outcome for weaker unvaxxed people. This is why early treatment with Ivermectin, zinc, antibiotics, steroids, ect, is a good idea for anyone that gets infected. Knock that shit down quickly.
Not sure if you follow the weekly webcasts from FLCCC, but on their August 18th, 2021 webcast, Dr. Keith Berkowitz points out that he's seeing vaccinated patients with high antibody counts (>2500) that are coming in with new COVID infections. I think he brings up a good question, namely does the immune response to the mRNA vaccines and the antibody measurements resulting from that provide any meaningful information with regard to efficacy.
And India, where delta was first noticed, saw the same lower CFR despite being just 2% vaxed (as Americans hoarded vax for non-vulnerable).
I'm still not convinced that the jabs provide protection against serious disease and death. The fully vaxxed are less likely to be infected (but closing the gap), less likely to seek care, less likely to be hospitalized...but more of them died. Something is off.
===================================
SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern and variants under investigation in England/Technical briefing 23/September 17, 2021
Public Health England reports that Delta is the dominant variant in the UK. This variant accounted for 99% of sequenced and 98% genotyped cases from July 25 through July 31, 2021 in England (PHE technical briefing 20/August 8 ).
PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values from routinely undertaken tests in England show that Ct values (and by inference viral load) are similar between individuals who are unvaccinated and vaccinated.
Delta in England as of 9/12/2021...
Unvaxxed: 257,357 cases/722 deaths/0.2805%
Unvaxxed <50: 248,803 cases/132 deaths/0.0531%
Unvaxxed 50+: 8,551 cases/590 deaths/6.899%
Fully Vaxxed: 157,400 cases/1,613 deaths/1.025%
Fully Vaxxed <50: 85,407cases/48 deaths/0.0562%
Fully Vaxxed 50+: 71,991 cases/1,565 deaths/2.174%
58,003 Unlinked Infections
120,812 Partially Vaxxed Infections
157,400 Fully Vaxxed Infections
257,357 Unvaxxed Infections
Partially/Fully Vaxxed infections have surpassed Unvaxxed infections.
1.6 times more infections in Unvaxxed versus Fully Vaxxed.
(1.9 times more infections in Unvaxxed versus Fully Vaxxed as of August 29)
(2.5 times more infections in Unvaxxed versus Fully Vaxxed as of August 15)
(3.2 times more infections in Unvaxxed versus Fully Vaxxed as of August 8)
~63.5% of deaths were in fully vaxxed.
~67.0% of deaths were in fully vaxxed 50+.
~70% of deaths were in fully/partially vaxxed.
891 more deaths of fully vaxxed than unvaxxed.
975 more deaths of fully vaxxed than unvaxxed in 50+ cohort.
1,057 more deaths of fully/partially vaxxed than unvaxxed.
1,124 more deaths of fully/partially vaxxed than unvaxxed in 50+ cohort.
We don’t have the prior health status of those who died in any of the cohorts.
We don’t know the breakdown of “vaccines” taken by the vaxxed.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1018547/Technical_Briefing_23_21_09_16.pdf
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1014926/Technical_Briefing_22_21_09_02.pdf
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1012401/Technical_Briefing_21.pdf
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1009243/Technical_Briefing_20.pdf
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1001358/Variants_of_Concern_VOC_Technical_Briefing_18.pdf
It certainly isn't very effective, otherwise that would stick out in the data like a sore thumb.
This whole issue of variants is just more gaslighting. The genetic differences among these so-called variants is minuscule. It is so small has to be Insignificant. Anybody who has had natural Covid and recovered will have durable long lasting protection to all the variants.
The whole discussion about variants Is just more fear mongering propaganda
This makes sense..Issue is that nobody worries about veracity and logic anymore. The truth is just too tedious. Find a news article that fits your point of view and wave the accompanying chart in people's faces. This is what guides public health policy these days.
So I am a simpleton - I know. But how is 76% of the deaths in the vaccinated evidence that the vaccines are preventing death? I would have expected that the vaccinated would represent less than 50 % of the deaths if the vaccines were strongly protective?
look at over 50's.
556 deaths, 437 vaxxed, so 78.6%.
but 90% of that group are vaxxed. so if vaccines did nothing, you'd expect, all else equal, for 90% of deaths to be in the vaxxed group.
any number below 90% shows efficacy.
Now if we only knew how many of each cohort had previous infection, and therefore natural immunity, we could start doing some real science.
also, we have to assume that the "number vaccinated" is accurate. When stakes are high, there's a reason to fudge numbers.
Unless the 10% of folks not vaxxed over 50 are because they are too frail for the vaccine. That is something Alex Berenson surmised in Israel. BTW, not Delta specific, but I wanted to see how CFR was changing over time as we would expect it to be going down significantly (vax meant to prevent severe disease). You can look at that for the US (slice and dice by region/state/county) at the following link (4th tab). Interestingly the general pattern is a dip in the spring & a rebound in summer, similar to your graph.
https://public.tableau.com/views/CovidbyClimate/CountyVaxTimeSeries?:language=en-US&:display_count=n&:origin=viz_share_link
unless ... 12% of the vaxxed had prior immunity, (and thus survive) and the actual vax does nada? Frankly, if I'm forced to take it, i hope it's a placebo.
yes - thanks.
And here is the follow up. The vaccine efficacy of 50% - lets assume this is true is an overestimate - because it must include a number of people tat are covid recovered. So - if 50% of the vax group are covid recovered. Then that takes vaccine efficacy down to -- uh -- almost 0. Frightening.
Is 76% for >50 age? 90% or so of them are vaxxed, so 10% of the population makes up 24% of deaths. The unknown distribution of comorbidities could invalidate that estimate. Anyway, "moderately" protective would be more accurate, but everyone is engaged in messaging nowadays.
Excellent analysis as always. Something I don't quite understand about the "vaccinated superspread hypothesis,” is why would it drive up CFR? It certainly would increase the total case count, and it would in theory promote hotter variants, but delta isn't that. Is the idea that higher viral loads in the vaccinated is resulting not only in higher contagion, but also in more symptomatic disease for the people they spread to? Is there precedent for that?
Maybe the higher viral load in the vaccinated? Higher dose=more severe disease is what some "public health experts" have tossed against the wall.
If vaccines where driving down the CFR, wouldn’t we see a substantial difference in CFR vax vs unvax? Clearly not the case, except in the US, where everyone that is hospitalized or dying of covid are unvaxxed and using their dying words to promote the vaccine. (Insert eye roll)
How does the difference in CFR vs IFR affect this argument? You only have a case if someone gets tested. You could have a whole host of people, vaccinated and not, not getting tested. Of course, IFR is almost impossible to know with any certainty it would seem.
I was always under the impression that the increased transmissibility of Delta with lower fatality rate was an example of that classic example of viral mutations selecting for less severity in order to maximize chances of retaining available hosts. I recently read somewhere (I think an article by a Hawaiian physician) that this is actually a "myth"? I had never heard that before.
But in any case I don't know how you could look at the vaccination curve alongside Delta and conclude vaccines get credit for the (thankfully) still-lower CFR.
Moreover, what about India? Still abysmally (or blessedly) low rate of full vaccination and Delta seems not to be hitting them particularly hard past that first wave.
funny thing about that. there is one province in india (kerala) that has a very high vaccination rate (67% have at least 1). it comprises 33 million people, 3% of india's population.
it currently accounts for 65% of all india's covid cases.
it is also the state that rejected ivermectin.
huh.
Uttar Pradesh:
largest state of 240 million people
roughly 20 cases a day
193 active cases — 33% with one dose of vaccine (and near zero when cases were going down in the spring)
universal ivermectin use
Kerala:
33 million people
65% of all current cases in India
186,000 active cases
67% with at least one vaccine
banned ivermectin
I think some leaders want mass panic and some don't, and that can explain everything.
Be that as it may, does anyone know a US mail-order pharmacy that fills ivermectin rx? My local one refuses, citing some rule about COVID-coded drugs.
We've have scripts in the queue. Haven't received it yet. They say they have stock, but demand is high.
https://honeybeehealth.com
Frisco Pharmacy (Frisco, TX) or go through Frontline Doctors
https://americasfrontlinedoctors.org/treatments/how-do-i-get-covid-19-medication/
I was wondering about Kerala's situation. RE ivermectin, I tracked down Indian state government roll-outs of in April and May and the coincide with the reversal of the waves in most cases. Kerala's guidelines also recommended ivermectin in April 25, and only counter-indicated for children and pregnant women - https://dhs.kerala.gov.in/ജാഗ്രത-നിര്%E2%80%8Dദേശങ്ങള്%E2%80%8D/ - yet the reversal of the wave (which was later than in other states embracing ivermectin) stalled.
If there was a ban, it's weird that it is not reflected in the guidelines (like happened in Tamil Nadu on May 7).
Could be the vaccines, or the remdesivir (also included in April 25 treatment guidelines). Or they're just having supply chain issues with ivermectin due to being at the bottom of the subcontinent.
Absolutely wild. Do you think the Indian population's relatively good metabolic health could be a factor as well (am I mistaken in my notion that they *have* good metabolic health)? Lack thereof is certainly not helping the US.
I’ve read that India has the highest diabetes rate of all countries?
That would make sense considering the number of non meat eaters and the penchant for eating breads.
I've read that as well. Also, while thin this cohort has a lot of "skinny fat" people as well.
Honestly, not sure. But if so, I bet it would be interesting to cross-reference how much of that is concentrated in Kerala just like COVID. :)
Well, I have a basic question. What is CFR?
Case fatality rate. I had to really search for this one.
Thank you so very much. I very much appreciate you looking for me. Very kind of you. I love this community.
But why is delta CFR rising? Your hypothesis about vaccinated super spread makes sense, but that doesn’t affect CFR. Do high viral loads spread super disease? Is there a new variant that hasn’t been identified yet? I can’t see any other possibilities that would cause CFR to go up in both vaccinated and unvaccinated.
Lag most likely. CFR always looks lowest when cases are highest and deaths haven't kicked in. There is about a 3 week difference in cases to reported death.
Excellent work, as always. I'd like to find a way to calculate the protection your work provides against the malfeasance of the Covidians. I think it would be higher than VE against COVID.
I have a question, however. The Delta CFR is, of course, a critical premise of your argument. Do you have a sense of how accurate that number is? I assume it's not based on 100% sequencing of samples, but on some selection criteria for samples to sequence and model assumptions for calculating the overall Delta CFR. Is that correct? Do you think it's reliable?