TallGuyJohninBKK

The AZ COVID vaccine was never approved for general use in the United States... The furthest it got was a clinical trials round, and no blood clotting cases surfaced in that U.S. trial. So I'm not sure what the potential U.S. liability might be.... AstraZeneca withdraws US COVID vaccine application, shifts focus to antibody treatments Nov 10, 2022 After missing the boat for emergency use of COVID-19 vaccines, AstraZeneca has finally pulled the plug on efforts to sell its shot in the U.S. AstraZeneca has decided to withdraw its application for COVID vaccine Vaxzevria with the FDA, CEO Pascal Soriot told reporters during a press briefing Thursday. The U.S. market is already well supplied, and the demand for vaccines is declining, Soriot said. https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/astrazeneca-withdraws-us-covid-vaccine-application-focus-shifts-antibody-treatments

Well, Thaksin is the real prime minister for Thailand, right? Ever since the Pheu Thai party abandoned the Move Forward party and allied itself with the former regime, giving PT the catbird's seat. I mean, the other guy is kinda just like a stunt double, filling in for appearances sake until it's time for the lead man to step foward into the limelight again, having miraculously returned from the proverbial death's door.

AFAIK, the data looks at the actual life expectancies at the population level (meaning all) once people got to those advanced ages.

China is always good for accurate, broadly representative COVID data! Especially at the very outset of the pandemic... 🙂 From your source above: Older Statistics Data from initial studies in China ... The Epidemiological Characteristics of an Outbreak of 2019 Novel Coronavirus Diseases (COVID-19) - China CCDC, February 17 2020 Report of the WHO-China Joint Mission on Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) [Pdf] - World Health Organization, Feb. 28, 2020 [emphasis added]

Because the average lifetime ages at birth are totally different than the average age of death once people have survived into their 70s or 80s (meaning they've survived up to that point all that life could throw at them) and still have years left (absent COVID). Three myths about COVID-19 that the data proved wrong Myth 1: ‘Those who die from COVID-19 would have died soon anyway’ In the first year of COVID-19 (5 March 2020 to 5 March 2021), 1.5 million potential years of life were lost in the UK as a result of people dying with the virus. In England and Wales alone this figure is 1.4 million. On average, each of the 146,000 people who died with COVID-19 lost 10.2 years of life. https://www.health.org.uk/publications/long-reads/one-year-on-three-myths-about-COVID-19-that-the-data-proved-wrong

Average Covid-19 victim dies years before they otherwise would The idea that people who die of Covid have lived longer than average fails to appreciate these are the very people who would have been expected to live much longer. As we have written before, people dying of Covid lose about a decade of life, on average. ... An 82-year-old man can expect to live for another 7.4 years on average, while an 85-year-old woman can expect to live another 6.87 years on average. https://fullfact.org/news/boris-johnson-whatsapp-covid-life-expectancy-cummings/

Because a vaccination that reduces the risk of people getting sick and being hospitalized by 40-50% is better than doing nothing, and having all of those extra folks getting sick instead.

The official public health guidance being given at the time was generally correct, both about protecting against illness and reducing transmission. The claims made back at that early point in the pandemic were consistent with what the research at that time was showing: VACCINE DID REDUCE TRANSMISSION "Within months of the vaccine hitting the market, researchers in the UK (https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-health-coronavirus-pfizer-vaccine-tra-idUKKBN2AQ1A7) and Israel (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanepe/article/PIIS2666-7762 , opens new tab(21)00127-7/fulltext) began publishing studies suggesting that the Pfizer vaccine was reducing transmission of the virus. In February 2021, for example, Israeli data (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736 , opens new tab(21)00448-7/fulltext) showed a sharp drop in infections among healthcare workers within 15-28 days of receiving the two-shot Pfizer vaccine series, indicating the vaccine was not just preventing symptomatic disease, but also preventing the virus from being passed from person to person. [emphasis added] “Whether it is 75 or 90 percent reduction doesn’t matter - it is a big drop in transmission,” Michal Linial, a professor of molecular biology and bioinformatics at Jerusalem’s Hebrew University, told Reuters at the time. “It means that not only is the individual vaccinated protected, the inoculation also provides protection to his or her surroundings” (https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-israel-vaccine-int/israeli-studies-find-pfizer-covid-19-vaccine-reduces-transmission-idUSKBN2AJ08J)" https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/preventing-transmission-never-required-covid-vaccines-initial-approval-pfizer-2024-02-12/ Later, as the virus mutated and changed as the pandemic went on, the documented protections against transmission weakened. And the official public health guidance changed accordingly.

Experts say changes to CDC’s vaccination definition are normal CLAIM: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has changed its definition of vaccination because COVID-19 vaccines are ineffective. AP’S ASSESSMENT: Missing context. The CDC has altered the language in the definition of vaccination on its website, including after the development of COVID-19 vaccines, but the changes were made to prevent potential misinterpretations, and did not alter the overall definition, according to the agency. Experts confirmed to The Associated Press that the changes reflect the evolution of vaccine research and technology. ... The CDC told the AP in a statement that it made the language shifts to add detail and increase transparency. “While there have been slight changes in wording over time to the definition of ‘vaccine’ on CDC’s website, those haven’t impacted the overall definition,” the statement said, noting that the previous definition “could be interpreted to mean that vaccines were 100% effective, which has never been the case for any vaccine.” https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-976069264061

Dunno what particular vaccinations you've had, but the broader evidence says otherwise. Examples: Flu vaccine effectiveness: 2022-2023 flu season for ages 18-64 Vaccine effectiveness was 45 percent against E.D./critical care visits(moderate disease) for adults under age 65. Effectiveness against hospitalization (severe disease) was 23 percent. Flu vaccine effectiveness: 2022-2023 flu season for ages 65 and older Vaccine effectiveness was 41 percent against both flu-associated E.D./urgent care visits (moderate disease) and hospitalization (serious disease) for this age group. https://www.news-medical.net/news/20240219/CDC-studies-show-effectiveness-of-flu-vaccines-across-all-age-groups.aspx Study confirms significant waning of original shingles vaccine over 10 years The original vaccine against shingles — Zostavax, a live shingles vaccine no longer used in the U.S. — is effective in the first year after vaccination but wanes significantly over the following decade, according to a study by Kaiser Permanente’s Vaccine Study Center published in the journal BMJ. ... The study found strongest effectiveness against shingles in the first year (67%), [emphasis added] which dropped to 50% the second year, 27% the eighth year, and 15% after 10 years. https://divisionofresearch.kaiserpermanente.org/waning-original-shingles-vaccine/

No one I'm aware of ever claimed that mask wearing alone would entirely halt/stop COVID. However, in keeping with your China example, reputable sources posted here reported that face masking together with other measures (social distancing, lockdowns, etc.) could make significant impacts in doing so. Lockdowns and face masks ‘unequivocally’ cut spread of Covid, report finds Royal Society review looks at non-pharmaceutical interventions when applied in packages of several measures Measures taken during the Covid pandemic such as social distancing and wearing face masks “unequivocally” reduced the spread of infections, a report has found. Experts looked at the effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) – not drugs or vaccines – when applied in packages that combine a number of measures that complement one another. The Royal Society report, called Covid-19: examining the effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions, reviewed the evidence gathered during the pandemic for six groups of NPIs and their effectiveness in reducing transmission. ... When assessed individually, there was positive – if limited – evidence of transmission reduction from many of the NPIs used in the pandemic, the review found. However, evidence of a positive effect was clear when countries used combinations of NPIs. (more) https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/aug/24/lockdowns-face-masks-unequivocally-cut-spread-covid-study-finds

I thanked you for publicly acknowledging the documented truth. Sorry if you take offense at that. If you've acknowledged that here publicly before, perhaps you can point me to your prior posts saying so.

Thanks for finally acknowledging here what the scientific community has long known and reported: Face mask effectiveness: What science knows now October 29, 2023 "In an interview for 60 Minutes, CBS News chief medical correspondent Dr. Jon LaPook posed that question to Linsey Marr, a Virginia Tech university professor specializing in aerosol science. "They are very helpful in reducing the chances that the person will get COVID because it's reducing the amount of virus that you would inhale from the air around you," Marr said about masks. No mask is 100% effective. An N95, for example, is named as such because it is at least 95% efficient at blocking airborne particles when used properly. But even if a mask has an 80% efficiency, Marr said, it still offers meaningful protection. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/face-mask-effectiveness-what-science-knows-now-60-minutes/

The COVID vaccines were never approved on those bases. They were approved based on their ability to significantly reduce the risk of a vaccinated person becoming ill with COVID, which in fact they have done to varying degrees over the life of the pandemic. Fact Check: Preventing transmission never required for COVID vaccines’ initial approval; Pfizer vax did reduce transmission of early variants February 13, 2024 "To get emergency approval, companies needed to show that the vaccines were safe and prevented vaccinated people from getting ill. They did not have to show that the vaccine would also prevent people from spreading the virus to others. Once the vaccines were on the market, independent researchers in multiple countries studied people who received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine and did show that vaccination reduced transmission of variants circulating at the time." https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/preventing-transmission-never-required-covid-vaccines-initial-approval-pfizer-2024-02-12/

If it really had been "everybody," many more people would be alive today. https://data.who.int/dashboards/covid19/vaccines?m49=764&n=c https://data.who.int/dashboards/covid19/vaccines?m49=840&n=c COVID vaccines saved 20M lives in 1st year, scientists say "The researchers used data from 185 countries to estimate that vaccines prevented 4.2 million COVID-19 deaths in India, 1.9 million in the United States, 1 million in Brazil, 631,000 in France and 507,000 in the United Kingdom. An additional 600,000 deaths would have been prevented if the World Health Organization target of 40% vaccination coverage by the end of 2021 had been met, according to the study published Thursday in the journal Lancet Infectious Diseases." https://apnews.com/article/covid-science-health-england-54d29ae3af5c700f15d704c14ee224

I lived in Thailand throughout the pandemic, and as best as I recall, no one here ever forced or required me to obtain a COVID vaccine, nor my Thai wife. And in my case along with many other foreigners here, it also was never made a requirement in order to renew people's annual extensions of stay to continue living here. Perhaps next time, you should reconsider posting such unsourced and unsubstantiated nonsense as:

AFAIK, contrary to your claim above, COVID vaccines were never "mandated" "for EVERYBODY irrespective of their age," not in the UK, not in the US, not in Thailand, etc. The loud proclamations here of various posters boasting that they were never vaccinated and never will be attest to that -- not to mention the global statistics showing that only about two-thirds of the global population ever received the basic original two-dose COVID vaccinations. And rates for youngsters are far less than that. So clearly there was no "EVERYBODY" mandate. There were, OTOH, many RECOMMENDATIONS. https://data.who.int/dashboards/covid19/vaccines?n=c What there were, in various places to varying extents hardly involving "EVERYBODY", were selective requirements by some employers that their employees needed to be vaccinated if they wanted to continue in their jobs, especially in the health care sectors, and mandates by various countries at various times to show proof of vaccination if one wanted to travel internationally during the worst of the pandemic.

I don't think lightning strikes, or whatever other irrelevancies you may produce, are quite in the same league: "Cumulative figures since the start of the current year are COVID new hospitalizations (13,057) & COVID deaths (93)." --501 current COVID patients hospitalized in serious condition (pneumonia symptoms), up 111 / 28.5% from the prior week (dark purple) https://aseannow.com/topic/1311049-weekly-thai-ministry-of-public-health-covid-reports/?do=findComment&comment=18893197

A good, and not unexpected, example of misrepresenting what statistics really mean: Average Covid-19 victim dies years before they otherwise would What was Claimed: The average age of Covid-19 deaths is higher than the average life expectancy, which means that people who get Covid live longer. Our Verdict: This isn’t how life expectancy works. Life expectancy is an average, pulled down by people who die young. As you age, your life expectancy increases. People dying from Covid-19 lose about a decade of life on average. A set of data called the National Life Tables, produced by the ONS, shows how life expectancy adjusts as a person ages. An 82-year-old man can expect to live for another 7.4 years on average, while an 85-year-old woman can expect to live another 6.87 years on average. https://fullfact.org/news/boris-johnson-whatsapp-covid-life-expectancy-cummings/

Or this: Estimating the effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions on COVID-19 in Europe Published: 08 June 2020 "Here we study the effect of major interventions across 11 European countries for the period from the start of the COVID-19 epidemics in February 2020 until 4 May 2020, when lockdowns started to be lifted. ... We estimate that—for all of the countries we consider here—current interventions have been sufficient to drive Rt below 1 (probability Rt < 1.0 is greater than 99%) and achieve control of the epidemic. We estimate that across all 11 countries combined, between 12 and 15 million individuals were infected with SARS-CoV-2 up to 4 May 2020, representing between 3.2% and 4.0% of the population. Our results show that major non-pharmaceutical interventions—and lockdowns in particular—have had a large effect on reducing transmission. Continued intervention should be considered to keep transmission of SARS-CoV-2 under control. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2405-7#article-info

1.5 million potential years of life lost to COVID-19 in the UK, with each life cut short by 10 years on average New analysis reveals ‘devastating’ scale of loss, with UK response ‘falling short in key areas’ 23 March 2021 New analysis from the Health Foundation's REAL Centre has set out the huge loss of life from COVID-19 one year on from the first lockdown. With 146,000 deaths due to COVID-19 in the UK, up to 1.5 million potential years of life have been lost, with those who died losing up to 10 years of life on average. Almost three quarters of those who died were aged over 75, with people in this age group losing an average 6.5 years of life. ... When compared with flu, the researchers found that despite misconceptions early in the pandemic, COVID-19 has been much deadlier, even with full scale national lockdowns in place. In an average year around 30,000 people die from flu and pneumonia, with around 250,000 years of life lost. This is just a sixth of the years lost to COVID-19, or a quarter when comparing with deaths of over 75s. https://www.health.org.uk/news-and-comment/news/1.5-million-potential-years-of-life-lost-to-covid-19

Study finds more than 28 million extra years of life lost in 31 countries in 2020 Over 28 million more years of life were lost than expected in 2020 in 31 upper-middle and high-income countries, finds a study published by The BMJ today. Except for Taiwan, New Zealand, Denmark, Iceland, Norway, and South Korea, all other countries examined had more premature deaths than expected in 2020, with a higher rate in men than women. The highest rates of excess premature deaths were in Russia, Bulgaria, Lithuania, and the US. Understanding the full impact of the covid-19 pandemic requires not only counting excess deaths (difference between observed and expected numbers of deaths from all causes), but also analysing how premature those deaths are. https://www.bmj.com/company/newsroom/study-finds-more-than-28-million-extra-years-of-life-lost-in-31-countries-in-2020/

Or this: Study: Physical distancing better at stemming COVID-19 than US/Mexico border closure A genomic analysis of SARS-CoV-2 in San Diego and Mexico reveals that physical distancing was more effective than international border closures in containing the virus. Scripps Research scientists and colleagues sequenced more than 82,000 SARS-CoV-2 samples gathered from routine genomic surveillance in San Diego and the state of Baja California, Mexico, to reconstruct viral spread dynamics from March 2020 to the end of the first Omicron surge in December 2022. ... Mandate relaxation led to more distant travel During stay-at-home and physical distancing mandates early in the pandemic, SARS-CoV-2 spread primarily within and between adjacent counties. But as mandates eased, people started to travel farther, and COVID-19 spread from distant locations rose. https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19/study-physical-distancing-better-stemming-covid-19-usmexico-border-closure

Or this: What We’ve Learned About So-Called ‘Lockdowns’ and the COVID-19 Pandemic "Plenty of peer-reviewed studies have found government restrictions early in the pandemic, such as business closures and physical distancing measures, reduced COVID-19 cases and/or mortality, compared with what would have happened without those measures. ... In the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, as the virus spread around the globe, many countries implemented restrictions on movement and social gatherings in an effort to flatten the curve — or reduce sharp spikes in caseloads to avoid overwhelming health care facilities. Without vaccines or evidence-based treatments, these non-pharmaceutical interventions, or NPIs, were the only public health measures available for months to combat the pandemic. ... There have been a lot of studies assessing whether and to what extent so-called “lockdowns” and various NPIs have been effective, and plenty of research that has concluded these measures can limit transmission, or reduce cases and deaths. https://www.factcheck.org/2022/03/scicheck-what-weve-learned-about-so-called-lockdowns-and-the-covid-19-pandemic/

Remember this? Earlier lockdown could have saved lives of 30,000, Hancock tells Covid inquiry Tens of thousands of lives could have been saved if the UK had locked down three weeks earlier, Matt Hancock has told the Covid inquiry, as he described the operation of Boris Johnson’s Downing Street as undermined by a “culture of fear”. The former health secretary said his staff were abused by Dominic Cummings and that Johnson’s then chief adviser attempted to exclude ministers and even Johnson himself from key decisions at the start of the pandemic, hampering the government’s response. ... Hancock argued that in retrospect the ideal date for a first lockdown would have been three weeks earlier than the eventual date of 23 March 2020, saying this could have prevented about 90% of the death toll in the first Covid wave, or more than 30,000 lives. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/nov/30/hancock-tells-covid-inquiry-of-toxic-culture-in-johnson-government