Wise After The Vax


March 8, 2021.



CNN’s New Day.

Host John Berman: “…What’s the science behind not saying it’s safe for people who have been vaccinated – received two doses, to travel?”

Dr Tony Fauci: “You know that’s a very good question, John, and the CDC [The United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] is carefully heading in that direction. You know when [CDC director] Dr Walensky made the announcement a day or two ago about the fact that when you have a couple of people,  two or more people in a family setting, both of whom are vaccinated. Even if it’s someone from another…a friend, it doesn’t have to be a member of the family. That was the first in a multi-step process that they are going to be rolling out.

“They are being careful, understandably, they want to get the science, they want to get data and then when you don’t have the data and you don’t have the actual evidence, then you’ve got to make a judgment call. And I think that’s what you’re going to be seeing in the next weeks. You’re going to see little by little, more and more guidelines getting people to be more and more flexible.

“The first installation of this is what can vaccinated people do in the home setting? Obviously, the next one is going to be what you’re asking. What about travel? What about going out? … That’s all imminently going to be coming out”


When You’ve Been Fully Vaccinated (CDC)



Sponsored Link

34 thoughts on “Wise After The Vax

  1. ian-oG

    Based on my knowledge of viruses, epi & pandemics and general medical knowledge I would just like to say I have no idea.

    Not the most popular thing to say in this era of internet experteez I’m sure but there you go.

      1. Nigel

        You think science always provides simple answers to complex problems, as opposed to providing values, and often ranges of values, to some of the variables that are at play when it comes to determining a course of action? Someone has to take these values and variables and make a decision, and what are they doing if not using their judgement?

      2. Commenter #1

        “They are being careful, understandably, they want to get the science, they want to get data and then when you don’t have the data and you don’t have the actual evidence, then you’ve got to make a judgment call.”

        What else can be done, without actual evidence?

      3. alickdouglas

        I’m trying to figure out if that’s a joke or not bodger? Science–particularly medical science–is all about judgement calls. Clinical trials are there to guide physicians to make the best choice for their patient. At the end of the day the physician is meant to use the clinical trial data generated in a group of people to determine the best course of action for the individual sitting in front of them.

        1. Micko

          Hey Alick,

          You know all about vaccines n stuff.

          So they tell me I only have immunity for 6 months after my Covid infection in Jan.

          How long does the vaccine give you – do ya know?


          1. E'Matty

            Not so Micko. That was some classic misleading of the public by HIQA in a blatant attempt to maintain fear and sustain the argument in favour of vaccination, which actually holds no great weight for anyone under 65 without serious underlying conditions. They have had to make the populace so miserable that they demand the vaccine just to get back to normality, which is never happening anyway. They want everyone vaccinated by next autumn, and are even bringing pregnant women kids into the fold with wonderful scare stories of Covid miscarriages and kids with Long Covid. The supply issues are contrived to increase demand. Supply will massively increase from May on. Here’s a little clip of a CFR discussion about creating a similar artificial shortage back during the H1N1 “pandemic” scare to increase public demand. But they never do that, they say! Lone Simonsen Research Professor at George Washington University and Research Director, Department of Global Health and The Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters stating in black and white the strategy of creating an artificial supply problem to increase demand for vaccines.

            The HIQA 6 month BS flies counter to three studies referenced by Trinity Professor Luke O’Neill recently on Newstalk with Pat Kenny which suggest people who have recovered from coronavirus have a stronger protection against the disease than those who take the vaccine. Almost 100% and possibly for as mcuh as 15+ years! HIQA deceitfully and misleadingly focus on antibodies as if that is the whole story in respect of immunity. Alcik here will confirm that is not the case. Professor O’Neill said a study by researchers in California found that the level of antibodies in the blood started “falling off a bit over time;” however, the B-Cells and T-cells were still going strong as the study concluded.

            He said the B-Cell count is “probably more relevant than measuring the antibodies themselves” when it comes to determining the strength of the body’s protection against the virus. Professor O’Neill referenced a third study in which researchers examined patients who contracted SARS – and were able to detect T-cells 17 years after infection.

            “These cells were persisting for a very long time and again that gives us hope because here we have a similar disease – SARS is obviously in the same family as COVID-19 – and years and years of T-Cells could be detected post-infection,” he said.

            “So, when you put those studies together it gives a very strong case that infection will mean you will be protected.”

            HIQA quite deliberately focus solely on antibodies (a clear deception) and ignore the most relevant elements, the B-Cells and T-cells. This is merely a continuation of the deceit and fearmongering they have enaged in since the beginning of the pandemic. The aim is to scare people into believing no immunity is enjoyed post infection and that only vaccines can protect us from this virus that has a survival rate in excess of 99% and affects almost exclusively people who are seriously ill already and elderly. Everything is about vaccinating the public. This is why they are already talking about vaccine certs and passports, despite the fact they cannot actually tell us what purpose they serve as the holders may still contract the virus and still transmit the virus. It’s all about the vaccines. They want everybody vaccinated no matter how illogical it actually is. Obedience is a virtue. Questioning authority a sin. Welcome to the New Normal.

          2. E'Matty

            and more from Prof Lukie – The first study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine and carried out at the University of Oxford, monitored over 12,000 people, mostly healthcare workers, who picked up the virus last year.

            The study found that people who were previously infected had high antibodies – and did not get infected a second time.

            “That is a very good study,” he said. “That really strongly suggests that if you’ve been infected, there is a very low risk of reinfection.

            “Nobody in the infected group got infected again which means it was better than the vaccine.

            “The vaccine would give say 90% protection but, in this case, infection gave 100% protection in that group of people – so it is a really positive sign.”

            He said there have some indications of reinfection reported around the world through the pandemic, but noted that they remain “very rare.”

            “This study suggests that getting infected could well protect you for quite a while,” he said.

          3. Micko

            Ah jeasus Matty. Thanks for that detailed reply

            So we don’t have a clue how long it lasts then. But good that my immunity is probably superior to a vaccine though.

            On the vaccine passport for domestic travel – I have faith that the Irish government will make a total balls of it and it’ll never get off the ground. ;)

            I hope…

          4. alickdouglas

            Hi Micko. The current data is pretty encouraging. I’m not sure what you’ve read but my interpretation of the data is *not* that you ‘only’ have immunity for 6 months, but rather, data today shows that vaccine recipients are protected in 6 months (95% of them for the mRNA recipients, at least 70 to 80% of them for the Adeno recipients). I’ve not seen any data at all that shows a load of breakthrough after 6 months, it’s simply that there are really only 6 months of data, so it’s not sound (from an evidence perspective) to say that protection lasts longer.

            Unfortunately protection will be driven by which strains are circulating and whether the vaccines elicit immune responses that are potent enough to protect against those ‘variant’ strains. There’s now decent data out that shows that the mRNA vaccines elicit weaker antibody responses against the ‘Brazil’ strain than against the origin strain. However, lower antibody responses do not necessarily mean that you are not protected, and nor necessarily do they mean that your % chance of being protected is lower, simply that a lower proportion of the antibodies that are circulating recognise the variant serotype as a threat.

            I’m thoroughly sick and tired of being lectured by self appointed vaccine experts about cellular immune responses and how important they are. The problem is that the relationship between cellular responses and protection is less clear than the relationship between antibody responses and protection. Furthermore, measuring cellular immune responses is difficult, and measuring antibody responses is (comparatively) easy. The cellular tests are called ‘qualitative’ for a reason; antibody response measurements are ‘quantitative’ because they specifically estimate the number of antibodies present per unit of serum. As a general rule of thumb, more cells = good. But, what is overlooked by the brigade that poo poo antibody responses is that people who have stronger antibody responses tend to have stronger cellular responses (not always–i’ve seen individuals with monstrous antibody responses and crappy cellular responses). In short if you mount a strong antibody response, you likely have a strong cellular response, and you are likely protected. If you have a lower antibody response, you are at greater risk of a shorter duration of protection. And if you are exposed to a ‘significant’ variant, the lower your immune response was, the more likely it is to infect you.

          5. Micko

            Thanks Alick

            A very detailed reply there. With lots of variables and sure I guess it’s hard to know what going to happen.

            All I can say is that I’m not the healthiest chappy, I drink and smoke and occasionally eat veg and I had to be tested to even know I had Covid. Only symptom I had was being a bit tired and a weird metallic taste ;-)

            So, I’m pretty confident if beat it again if I had to. Or I won’t. Either way I’m good. I just want society to get back on track – coz this ain’t living man.

  2. Nigel

    Anyone what? What’s the problem? Apart from the obvious problem of an increasingly vaccinated country coming out of lockdown and the many variables which have to be taken into consideration while maximinsing publlc safety?

  3. Baz

    Time and truth will not be kind to Fauci’s ‘legacy’
    You only have to look at his misadventures with AIDS
    Yes, he has mishandled matters for that long!


  4. Micko

    As I’ve mentioned before, two of the pensioners on my road have had their first jabs.

    Both are bopping all over the place like they are invulnerable now.

    Once the over 70’s are vaccinated there is NO WAY that they are going to stay indoors.

    1. Nigel

      If that ends up being true it could be a bad thing, or it could turn out okay – we still don’t know for sure. We can’t magic away uncertainty. I somehow doubt front line medical staff who’ve been vaccinated are doing much bopping.

      1. baz

        Front line medical staff cant bop because there is so much overtime cash in their pockets they are lucky they can walk

      2. Micko

        Front line medical staff probably don’t only have a decade left to live Nigel. (on average)

        Of course my observations are anecdotal, but I think we won’t be keeping any boomers indoors once they are personally protected.

        They’ll all be out doing the jitterbug or whatever crap was popular in their day ;)

        1. Nigel

          It could be long, it could be short, but there’s a chance it’ll be nothing if they catch covid, or lived with chronic health problems.

      3. E'Matty

        Frontline staff are absolutely sick of lockdowns and half the nurses are just dying to get away for some sun this summer. I know this because my sister is a Senior nurse managing one of the largest outpatient dept’s in the country.

  5. Liam Deliverance

    Have him call our own half a million euro Paul Reid, he’ll know what to do of course.

  6. H

    They could just as easily say that AZ vaccine causes road traffic accidents. It’s the old ice cream causes shark attacks logic, but I suppose they have to investigate whether there is a link to be able to disprove it, and the safest thing to from a legal standpoint is to suspend its use while the investigation is ongoing.

    It hasn’t put me off going back for my second dose.

  7. E'Matty

    Sweden has a lower fatality rate than us when population age profile is taken into account but our media are still trying to vilify their response to the pandemic and sell us lockdowns and vaccines as the only way to deal with this virus. Any comparison not taking account of the size of the over 65 population is irrelevant. Age is the single greatest determinant of effect and outcome in respect of Covid.

    As of March 1st, approximately 92.5% of deaths in Ireland were in the over 65 age range. Sweden sees approximately 95% of its deaths in the over 65s. Clearly, for both countries, it has been the over 65s hardest hit by Covid. If we then compare both country’s fatality rate and factor in the over 65 populations levels, we see Ireland with a worse fatality rate than Sweden.

    Sweden, population – 10 million. Over 65 – 20%. Total population – 2 million. Over 65 pop – Deaths – 13,003. Fatality rate – 0.65%.

    Ireland, population – 4.9 million. Over 65 – 13.32%. Total population- 652k. Deaths – 4,405. Fatality rate – 0.68%.

    93% of 4405 deaths, 4096/652K = 0.628% Ireland
    95% of 13003 deaths, 12,352/2m = 0.6176% Sweden

    Sweden actually better than us despite not imposing anything like the widespread authoritarian restrictions we have imposed.

    1. Nigel

      Can’t get over people arguing that losing that many old people is somehow a mitigating factor.

Comments are closed.