Before you begin...
Take a moment and breathe.Place your hand over your chest area,near your heart.Breathe slowly into the area for about a minute,focusing on a sense of ease entering your mind and body.Click here to learn why we suggest this.
What Happened:News of fully vaccinated individuals testing positive for COVID seem to be making headlines everywhere.For example,six people who tested positive in a Sydney hotel quarantine had already been fully vaccinated.According to data from NSW Health's weekly COVID-19 surveillance report,between April 10 and May 1,six people in quarantine who reported being fully vaccinated were among the 150 overseas cases recorded.One had received a one-shot vaccine,such as Johnson&Johnson,and the remaining cases had received both doses of a two-shot vaccine,such as Pfizer,AstraZeneca or Moderna.University of Sydney epidemiologist Dr.Fiona Stanaway said,given no COVID-19 vaccine is 100 percent effective,it was to be expected that some people who have been vaccinated test positive.
简介:关于完全接种疫苗的个体检测结果呈阳性的消息似乎成为各地的头条新闻。例如，在悉尼旅馆检疫中呈阳性的六个人已经完全接种了疫苗。根据新南威尔士州卫生部每周2019冠状病毒疾病疫苗监测报告的数据，在4月10日至5月1日期间，在海外记录的150例病例中，有6名检疫人员报告完全接种了疫苗。其中一个病例接受了一次性疫苗，如强生公司，其余病例接受了两次性疫苗，如辉瑞公司、阿斯利康公司或现代化公司。悉尼大学的流行病学家 Fiona Stanaway 博士说，没有接种2019冠状病毒疾病疫苗是100%有效的，可以预期，一些接种过疫苗的人检测呈阳性。
The New York Yankees recently announced that they had two coaches and one support staff member test positive for COVID despite all of them being fully vaccinated.In Seychelles,East Africa,the World Health Organization(WHO)said that on Tuesday it was reviewing coronavirus data in the region after the health ministry said more than a third of people who tested positive for COVID-19 in the past week had been fully vaccinated.
These are a few of many examples,but it shouldn't come as a surprise as people have been warned throughout the pandemic that the full dosage of COVID vaccines will not be 100 percent effective.Canada's Chief Public Health officer Teresa Tam,for example,recently reminded Canadians on Saturday that even those who are fully vaccinated are susceptible to COVID.She did say,however,that the risk of asymptomatic transmission is far lower for anyone who is fully vaccinated,but how much lower?What about asymptomatic individuals who are not vaccinated?
这只是许多例子中的一小部分，但是它不应该令人惊讶，因为人们在整个流行期间都被警告说，所有剂量的 COVID 疫苗不会100%有效。例如，加拿大首席公共卫生官员 Teresa Tam 最近在周六提醒加拿大人，即使是那些完全接种疫苗的人也容易感染 COVID。然而，她说，对于完全接种疫苗的人来说，无症状传播的风险要低得多，但是低多少呢？那些没有接种疫苗的无症状者呢？
According to Dr.Jay Bhattacharya from Stanford University's School of Medicine,
根据斯坦福大学医学院的 Jay Bhattacharya 博士的研究,
The scientific evidence now strongly suggests that COVID-19 infected individuals who are asymptomatic are more than an order of magnitude less likely to spread the disease to even close contacts than symptomatic COVID-19 patients.A meta-analysis of 54 studies from around the world found that within households–where none of the safeguards that restaurants are required to apply are typically applied–symptomatic patients passed on the disease to household members in 18 percent of instances,while asymptomatic patients passed on the disease to household members in 0.7 per cent of instances.A separate,smaller meta-analysis similarly found that asymptomatic patients are much less likely to infect others than symptomatic patients.
Asymptomatic individuals are an order of magnitude less likely to infect others than symptomatic individuals,even in intimate settings such as people living in the same household where people are much less likely to follow social distancing and masking practices that they follow outside the household.Spread of the disease in less intimate settings by asymptomatic individuals–including religious services,in-person restaurant visits,gyms,and other public settings–are likely to be even less likely than in the household.(source)
Something to think about.
It's hard to say.In the United States,for example,the CDC makes it quite clear that"there will be a small percentage of people who are fully vaccinated who still get sick,are hospitalized,or die from COVID-19"and that"symptomatic breakthrough cases will occur,even though the vaccines are working as expected.Asymptomatic infections among vaccinated people also will occur."
But the concern here is the fact that the CDC recently announced the following,
As previously announced,CDC is transitioning to reporting only patients with COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough infection that were hospitalized or died to help maximize the quality of the data collected on cases of greatest clinical and public health importance.That change in reporting will begin on May 14,2021.In preparation for that transition,the number of reported breakthrough cases will not be updated on May 7,2021.
This means that people who get infected with COVID after being vaccinated will not be reported unless they are hospitalized or died.It begs the question,how can any appropriate data in the United States,for example,be collected regarding the effectiveness of the vaccine if those who test positive and have had the vaccine are not being reported?
这意味着在接种疫苗后感染了 COVID 的人不会被报告，除非他们住院或死亡。它回避了一个问题，例如，如果那些检测呈阳性并已接种疫苗的人没有被报告，那么如何在美国收集有关疫苗有效性的适当数据？
It is a bit confusing,because the CDC is requiring that clinical specimens for sequencing should have an RT-PCR Ct value≤28 when conducting tests for vaccinated individuals."Ct"refers to cycle threshold.A common occurrence when using this test is a Ct value greater than 35,which makes the probability of"false positives"quite high.Why are they all of a sudden specifying a Ct value for vaccinated individuals?You can read more about that,in depth,here.
这有点令人困惑，因为疾病控制和预防中心要求临床样本测序时，对接种疫苗的个体进行测试时，RT-PCR Ct 值应该≤28。"Ct"是指周期阈值。使用此测试时，常见的情况是 Ct 值大于35，这使得"假阳性"的概率相当高。为什么他们突然为接种疫苗的个体指定一个 Ct 值？你可以在这里阅读更多关于这方面的内容。
Why This Is Important:Prior to the rollout of these vaccines,the vaccine manufacturers claimed to have observed a 95 percent success rate.Dr.Peter Doshi,an associate editor at the British Medical Journal,published a paper titled"Pfizer and Moderna's"95%effective"vaccines—let's be cautious and first see the full data."Even today,there is still not enough data to tell how effective the vaccine is.
为什么这很重要:在这些疫苗推出之前，疫苗制造商声称已经观察到95%的成功率。《英国医学杂志》(British Medical Journal)副主编彼得·多西博士(Peter Doshi)发表了一篇题为《辉瑞和现代人的"95%有效"疫苗——让我们谨慎行事，首先看看完整数据》(Pfizer and Moderna's"95%effective"vaccine--let's be guarding and first see the full data)的论文即使在今天，仍然没有足够的数据来说明疫苗的有效性。
A paper recently published by Dr.Ronald B.Brown,School of Public Health and Health Systems,University of Waterloo,outlines how Pfizer and Moderna did not report absolute risk reduction numbers,and only reported relative risk reduction numbers.
滑铁卢大学公共卫生与卫生系统学院 Ronald b.Brown 博士最近发表的一篇论文概述了辉瑞和现代人为何没有报告绝对风险降低数字，而只报告了相对风险降低数字。
Unreported absolute risk reduction measures of 0.7%and 1.1%for the Pfzier/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines,respectively,are very much lower than the reported relative risk reduction measures.Reporting absolute risk reduction measures is essential to prevent outcome reporting bias in evaluation of COVID-19 vaccine efficacy.
未报告的 Pfzier/BioNTech 和 Moderna 疫苗绝对风险降低措施分别为0.7%和1.1%，远远低于报告的相对风险降低措施。报告绝对风险减少措施是必不可少的，以防止结果报告偏倚评估2019冠状病毒疾病疫苗的效力。
Brown's paper also cites Doshi's paper which makes the same point,"As was also noted in the BMJ Opinion,Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna reported the relative risk reduction of their vaccines,but the manufacturers did not report a corresponding absolute risk reduction,which appears to be less than 1%."
布朗的论文还引用了 Doshi 的论文中的相同观点，"正如《英国医学杂志意见》中指出的那样，辉瑞/BioNTech 和 Moderna 报告了他们疫苗的相对风险降低，但是制造商没有报告相应的绝对风险降低，似乎低于1%。"
Absolute risk reduction(ARR)–also called risk difference(RD)–is the most useful way of presenting research results to help your decision-making,so why wouldn't it be reported?(source)
Omitting absolute risk reduction findings in public health and clinical reports of vaccine efficacy is an example of outcome reporting bias.which ignores unfavorable outcomes and misleads the public's impression and scientific understanding of a treatment efficacy and benefits…Such examples of outcome reporting bias mislead and distort the public's interpretation of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine efficacy and violate the ethical and legal obligations of informed consent."–Brown
忽略在公共卫生和疫苗效力的临床报告中的绝对风险降低结果是结果报告偏倚的一个例子。这样的结果报告偏见的例子误导和扭曲了公众对2019冠状病毒疾病 mRNA 疫苗效力的解释，违反了知情同意的道德和法律义务。"布朗
Furthermore,there are a variety of other factors that may be responsible for a drop in cases that we are likely to see in combination with the rollout of these vaccines.One of those factors is previous infection,as there is evidence suggesting that previous infection is more efficient than the vaccine when it comes to creating immunity.
I'm not aware of any vaccine out there which will ever give you more immunity than if you're naturally recovered from the illness itself…If you've naturally recovered from it,my understanding as a doctor level scientist is that those antibodies will always be better then a vaccine,and if you know any differently,please let me know.–Dr.Suneel Dhand,an internal medicine physician based in the United States
我不知道有任何一种疫苗会给你更多的免疫力，如果你从疾病中自然康复......如果你已经自然康复，我作为一个医生级科学家的理解是，这些抗体总是比疫苗更好，如果你知道任何不同，请让我知道。年的今天，Suneel Dhand 博士，一位美国的内科医生
Vaccine expert and Harvard professor of medicine Dr.Martin Kulldorff recently tweeted that,"After having protected themselves while working class were exposed to the virus,the vaccinated Zoomers now want Vaccine Passports where immunity from prior infection does not count,despite stronger evidence for protection.One more assault on working people."
There are multiple studies hinting at the point the professor makes,that those who have been infected with covid may have immunity for years,and possibly even decades.For example,according to a new study authored by respected scientists at leading labs,individuals who recovered from the coronavirus developed"robust"levels of B cells and T cells(necessary for fighting off the virus)and"these cells may persist in the body for a very,very long time."
有多项研究表明，这位教授提出的观点是，那些已经感染了结肠炎的人可能已经有了几年甚至几十年的免疫力。例如，根据一项由顶尖实验室的权威科学家撰写的新研究，从冠状病毒中康复的人体内的 b 细胞和 t 细胞(抵御病毒所必需的)达到了"强健"的水平，而且"这些细胞可能会在体内存活很长很长时间。"
With all of this said,there is also evidence suggesting that the vaccines are indeed working.22 renowned scientists published an article titled"The vaccine worked,we can safely lift lockdown."It was pertaining to the United Kingdom.Many of these scientists have also been quite vocal about their belief that not everybody needs to be vaccinated,and the fact that this is indeed the message we are being bombarded with is suspicious given the fact that this messaging does not,as one of the Professors,Dr.Sunetra Gupta of Oxford University explains,does not align with the science.All this is expressed by her,and others,while maintaining their belief that the vaccine can be used as a great tool for focused protection,on those who are vulnerable and who need it the most.
尽管如此，也有证据表明疫苗确实有效。22位知名科学家发表了一篇题为《疫苗起作用了，我们可以安全地解除封锁》的文章它是属于联合王国的。这些科学家中的许多人也一直直言不讳地表示，他们认为并不是每个人都需要接种疫苗，而事实上，这确实是我们正在被狂轰滥炸的信息，这是可疑的，因为事实上，这些信息并不像其中一位教授，牛津大学的 Sunetra Gupta 博士解释的那样，与科学不一致。她和其他人都表达了这一切，同时坚信疫苗可以作为一种有针对性的保护工具，用于那些易受伤害和最需要它的人。
In the article,they explain,
It is time to recognize that,in our substantially vaccinated population,Covid-19 will take its place among the 30 or so respiratory viral diseases with which humans have historically co-existed.This has been explicitly accepted in a number of recent statements by the Chief Medical Officer.For most vaccinated and other low-risk people,Covid-19 is now a mild endemic infection,likely to recur in seasonal waves which renew immunity without significantly stressing the NHS.
现在是时候认识到，在我们基本上接种过疫苗的人群中，2019冠状病毒疾病将在30种左右的呼吸道病毒性疾病中占有一席之地，而人类在历史上曾与这些疾病共存。首席医务干事最近的一些声明明确接受了这一点。对于大多数接种过疫苗的人和其他低风险人群来说，2019冠状病毒疾病现在是一种轻微的地方性感染，可能会在季节性波动中复发，这样就可以恢复免疫力，而不会给 NHS 带来重。
Covid-19 no longer requires exceptional measures of control in everyday life,especially where there have been no evaluations and little credible evidence of benefit.Measures to reduce or discourage social interaction are extremely damaging to the mental health of citizens;to the education of children and young people;to people with disabilities;to new entrants to the workforce;and to the spontaneous personal connections from which innovation and enterprise emerge.The DfE recommendations on face covering and social distancing in schools should never have been extended beyond Easter and should cease no later than 17 May.Mandatory face coverings,physical distancing and mass community testing should cease no later than 21 June along with other controls and impositions.All consideration of immunity documentation should cease.
The Takeaway:Regardless of how effective the vaccine is at preventing the spread of COVID,and more,there are a number of valid scientific reasons why freedom of choice and informed consent should always remain.A number of"pro-vaccine"scientists who believe and point to the idea that these vaccines are indeed working are also pointing out that they believe mandatory vaccines for travel,employment,and school are unscientific and unethical.If this vaccine was completely safe and effective,travel mandates,for example wouldn't be needed,everybody would be rushing to get one.Do we really want to give governments the power to implement health mandates when it goes against the will of so many people,doctors,and scientists?Is it not enough to simply promote and recommend people receive the vaccine instead of using measures to coerce the entire population to do so?Why are certain viewpoints,opinions,research and evidence of so many experts in the field being completely ignored and in some cases ridiculed if they oppose the common narrative we receive from governments and mainstream media?
摘要:不管疫苗在阻止 COVID 传播方面有多么有效，还有更多，有一些有效的科学理由说明为什么选择自由和知情同意应该永远保留下来。一些"支持疫苗"的科学家相信并指出这些疫苗确实有效，他们也指出，为旅行、就业和上学而强制接种疫苗是不科学和不道德的。例如，如果这种疫苗是完全安全和有效的，那么就不需要旅行，每个人都会争先恐后地去购买。我们真的想要给予政府实施卫生法令的权力吗，当它违背了这么多人、医生和科学家的意愿？仅仅促进和建议人们接种疫苗，而不是采取措施强迫全体人民接种，这难道不够吗？为什么这么多该领域专家的某些观点、意见、研究和证据完全被忽视，有时甚至被嘲笑，如果他们反对我们从政府和主流媒体得到的共同叙述？