Coronavirus: Thread

[grarpamp]

The Chinese regime is implementing a “zero-COVID” policy, using mass
tests to go after every virus case regardless of economic or
psychological costs.
“Our building was sealed off yesterday but our residential compound
has been sealed off for four days,”
“The government doesn’t care if its people are alive or dead. I don’t
have any money and I am stuck at home,”
Chinese authorities placed Baoshan under “seal-off management” from
March 26 to 28.
“The Chinese [regime’s] governing principle is not about ensuring
people’s livelihood at all,” she said. “In the name of serving the
people, it actually works for money.”
https://www.theepochtimes.com/shanghai-residents-struggle-to-obtain-food-and-medicine-as-citywide-lockdown-continues_4371504.html



https://www.theepochtimes.com/giving-the-right-name-to-the-virus-causing-a-worldwide-pandemic-2_3277200.html



Pandemic Lessons Learned: CDC Versus Natural Immunity

https://www.theepochtimes.com/pandemic-lessons-learned-cdc-versus-natural-immunity_4364541.html
https://www.theepochtimes.com/pandemic-lessons-learned-omicron-vs-bill-gates_4302529.html
https://www.johnlocke.org/bill-gates-gives-omicron-more-credit-than-vaccines-in-battling-covid/
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/pdfs/mm7104-h.pdf
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8241483/pdf/ciab495.pdf
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciimmunol.abn8014
https://www.theepochtimes.com/author-joe-wang

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is one of the
U.S. government’s major operating components, an agency under the
Department of Health and Human Services.

The CDC’s mission statement reads, “CDC increases the health security
of our nation. … CDC saves lives and protects people from health
threats.”

The agency also pledges to the American people that it will “base all
public health decisions on the highest quality scientific data that is
derived openly and objectively.”
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention headquarters is seen in
Atlanta, Ga., in a file photo. (Tami Chappell/Reuters)

Well, COVID-19 has been the nation’s largest health threat for the
past two years. It has had a huge impact on the lives of every
American. During those two years, thousands of scientists and
health-care researchers have studied COVID and accumulated a huge
amount of information on the disease.

We’ve now gradually come to realize that the most effective force that
would eventually end the pandemic is natural immunity. Even Bill Gates
has admitted that “the virus itself, particularly the variant called
Omicron, is a type of vaccine.” With the rapid spread of Omicron and
with many asymptomatic infections, millions of people have developed
natural immunity, which is driving COVID-19 out of its pandemic stage
and into endemicity.

With its $15.4 billion annual budget, one would think the CDC would
have done a good job providing taxpayers with data on COVID-19. If
cutting edge research is too challenging for the CDC, they at least
should have provided the public with basic surveillance data, such as:

    Who was infected with SARS-CoV-2, when, which variant, and what
were the symptoms?

    Who was vaccinated, with which vaccine, when, and were there any
side effects?

    Who was vaccinated, got infected, when, and recovered?

    Who was never vaccinated, and never infected (never tested, or
never tested positive)?

The CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) published on
Jan. 28 presented some very interesting information from California
and New York comparing immunity against COVID-19 from four groups of
people, indicating natural immunity alone provides the best
protection.

Since then, I have been anxiously waiting for more data, as there are
48 other states, and even for California and New York, important data
like this should be updated monthly, if not weekly.

To my surprise and disappointment, I have not been able to find any
more data on natural immunity from the MMWR since Jan. 28. I am sure
they have the data—they just don’t want to share it with us.

I’m beginning to wonder if CDC stands for Center for Data Control.
Those Recovered From COVID Are Best Protected

On March 1, the scientific journal Clinical Infectious Diseases
published a peer-reviewed article titled “Risk of reinfection after
seroconversion to SARS-CoV-2: A population-based propensity-score
matched cohort study.” This Swiss study “observed a 94% reduction in
the hazard of being infected among SARS-CoV-2 seropositive
participants, when compared to seronegative controls, >8 months after
serology assessment.”

This level of protection (natural immunity) from SARS-CoV-2 infection
(94 percent) is comparable to that of the Pfizer vaccine but lasts
longer (eight months and counting).

In a peer-reviewed article published in the journal Science Immunology
on Jan. 25, scientists from Oregon Health & Science University showed
in raw data that antibodies derived from previous COVID-19 infection
are at least 10 times more potent than that generated by vaccination
alone. They still concluded, however, that “Vaccination is highly
effective at preventing the most severe outcomes from COVID-19 and
should be provided regardless of previous infection status and age.”
I’m confused by their conclusion, but happy to see the raw data.

Similarly, in my Feb. 5 article “Pandemic Lessons Learned: Scientific
Debate Silenced, With Deadly Consequences,” I wrote: “Now, the U.S.
Centers for Disease Control admits in a report released on Jan. 28
that natural immunity against COVID-19 is superior to any of the
available vaccine regimens.”

A reader commented that she “looked all over the CDC site and could
find no such info. … Now who’s being ‘subjective’?”

The reader was right. I should have explained in my article that the
conclusion I drew was not a direct quote but rather my own summary
based on the CDC’s raw data.

The CDC’s Jan. 28 report included the following chart but neglected to
provide a summary comparing protection between vaccinated people
without natural immunity and unvaccinated people who recovered from
COVID and now have natural immunity.

It seems that it’s necessary to dive a little deeper into the data to
elaborate my point, as the authors of the report did not conclude the
very obvious. Please bear with me.

The above CDC chart shows data from California on protection against
COVID-19 collected from four groups of people between May 30, 2021,
and Nov. 20, 2021:

1) The unvaccinated, with no previous COVID-19 diagnosis (top solid line)
2) The vaccinated, with no previous COVID-19 diagnosis (broken line
below the solid line)
3) The unvaccinated, with previous diagnosis
4) The vaccinated, with previous diagnosis

It is obvious that the lines representing 3) and 4) are superimposing
on one another, indicating that vaccination had virtually no impact on
protection when a person has recovered from COVID-19 infection,
meaning natural immunity dominates protection over vaccination to a
level that made vaccination irrelevant.

Although the biggest difference lies between the unvaccinated with no
previous infection and everyone else, the second biggest difference,
however, is between the “Vaccinated, no previous COVID-19 diagnosis”
line (vaccine immunity) and the “Unvaccinated, previous COVID-19
diagnosis” line (natural immunity), with the natural immunity line
having a much lower “hazard rate,” meaning better protection.

The report also revealed similar findings for New York state.
Is CDC Censoring Data on Natural Immunity?

The CDC’s MMWR is a weekly report. The chart above is part of the
report for the last week of January, and it was for only two of the 50
states, California and New York. When I was writing my Feb. 5 article,
I thought that maybe it was a benign omission that the CDC did not
conclude the obvious. For sure, more data would be coming from the CDC
in February and March, I thought, as it would teach us so much more
about natural immunity.

However, it hasn’t materialized. Since Jan. 28, there have been 10
MMWR reports published on the CDC website, totaling 29 articles in
all. They cover topics ranging from vaccination by geographic
locations, to vaccine confidence by sexual orientation, to isolation
strategy for fully vaccinated NFL players, and so on. So far, the Jan.
28 report was the only one that included “unvaccinated, with previous
diagnosis” in the data, and that’s unfortunate. All the other reports
were to re-enforce the conclusion that vaccines are effective, with
almost nothing about natural immunity. Here is a screenshot of the
MMWR website:

For example, one of CDC’s latest reports, published on March 18,
includes the following chart:

Here, hospitalization data was plotted against 1) unvaccinated people,
2) vaccinated without a booster, 3) vaccinated with a booster. There
is no information about people who had recovered from COVID-19. In
other words, information on natural immunity is censored.

According to the CDC’s own information, the United States has had
about 80 million COVID-19 cases. The vast majority of patients
recovered from the disease. This huge part of the U.S. population now
enjoys natural immunity. This is also true for Canada and many other
parts of the world.

It seems that the CDC is avoiding anything and everything related to
natural immunity. But why?

Maybe the CDC is like Bill Gates, who said at the Munich Security
Conference last month: “Sadly, the virus itself, particularly the
variant called Omicron, is a type of vaccine. That is, it creates both
B-cell and T-cell immunity.” What he meant was it would be a sad thing
if it is natural immunity, not Big Pharma’s vaccines, that defeat
COVID-19.

Let the CDC and Mr. Gates feel sad. The rest of us are ready to move
on with our lives.