I actually saw brief references to each of these studies a few days ago, but they seem to be attracting more attention today--and I have a bit more time.
The first was a study done at a major Vietnamese hospital for infectious diseases. Karl Denninger has winkled out the details and their implications. These are things that KD has hammered at for a long time. What the study showed was that the fully vaccinated staff had a high rate of "breakthrough" infection. Those infections were with the Delta variant--with a twist:
[The infections among healthcare workers] all belonged to the Delta variant, and were phylogenetically distinct from the contemporary Delta variant sequences obtained from community transmission cases, suggestive of ongoing transmission between the workers.
Which, of course means that hospitals staffed by vaccinated healthcare workers are hotbeds of transmission, especially since--as is common with such people--their viral loads were extremely high.
KD draws the "reasonable conclusions":
Reasonable conclusions drawn from this data:
- The vaccines do not prevent health care workers from getting infected; the antibodies are ineffective.
- When health care workers get infected post-vaccination with Delta they are not becoming infected from the community; they are passing it among each other.
- Their viral loads and thus infectiousness are extremely high; in other words they become a reservoir of extreme infection risk to other employees in the facility and, it must be assumed, to the patients in their care.
- A reasonable hypothesis (but not proved) is that the vaccines are in fact potentiating viral replication via ADE-type effects, specifically given the paper I pointed to yesterday. That is the act of encouraging or even forcing medical workers to take the jabs is leading to higher viral loads and thus greater infectiousness -- that is, greater risk to patients rather than less.
Congratulations folks -- you just turned hospitals into death traps for anyone who is medically compromised, particularly if they were either unable to be vaccinated themselves for medical reasons or, far worse, they were vaccinated but due to immune compromise failed to build an effective response.
PS: Want to know why this sort of study hasn't -- and won't -- be done here? Because the instantaneous freak-out factor, never mind the nasty words "malpractice" or even "depraved indifference" -- would start getting thrown around immediately, that's why.
Sobering, to say the least. Why didn't anyone else see this coming? Or did they? Michael Yeadon, in a recent video, has made similar observations regarding the effects of the vaxxes on nursing homes.
The second study had to do with the effect of the Covid Regime on child development--again, the results were widely predicted among people possessed of common sense, and so come as no surprise. Zerohedge, via Paul Joseph Watson, as usual, does a good job putting it all together--Study Finds Children Born During Lockdown Have Lost IQ Points, Impaired Cognitive Functioning. Note that Watson is drawing pretty exclusively from highly liberal sources:
A new study has found that mean IQ scores of young children born during the pandemic have tumbled by as much as 22 points while verbal, motor and cognitive performance have all suffered as a result of lockdown.“With limited stimulation at home and less interaction with the world outside, pandemic-era children appear to have scored shockingly low on tests designed to assess cognitive development,” reports the Guardian.
The study was conducted by researchers at Brown University and included 672 children born both before and after the pandemic began in March 2020.“In the decade preceding the pandemic, the mean IQ score on standardised tests for children aged between three months and three years of age hovered around 100, but for children born during the pandemic that number tumbled to 78,” the study found.
Researchers concluded that the primary reason for the impairment on cognitive functioning was lack of stimulation and interaction at home.
Watson goes on to quote from another commentary on this study, which expands on what's going on--or not:
“Children born over the past year of lockdowns – at a time when the Government has prevented babies from seeing elderly relatives and other extended family members, from socialising at parks or with the children of their parent’s friends, and from studying the expressions on the faces behind the masks of locals in indoor public spaces – have significantly reduced verbal, motor and overall cognitive performance ...
He concludes, as if that weren't bad enough:
Whose lives matter?