Quackery

[Paul A]

Natural immunity and vaccine immunity.

Rand Paul has left out critical details in his statements when citing studies as evidence regarding natural immunity.

 

 

The Israeli study Rand Paul is referring to in the video.

https://www.factcheck.org/2021/09/scicheck-instagram-post-missing-context-about-israeli-study-on-covid-19-natural-immunity/

Posted on September 2, 2021 | Updated on September 8, 2021

 

According to its authors, a study conducted in Israel demonstrated that natural immunity from a prior infection with SARS-CoV-2 provided “longer lasting and stronger protection” against the highly transmissible delta variant than vaccine-induced immunity from two doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine.

The study found even greater immunity against the delta variant for people who got a single shot of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine and had an infection with the novel coronavirus that causes COVID-19.

 

It’s true that in many cases, natural immunity can provide better protection from certain diseases than immunity from vaccination, as we’ve written before. But we’ve also written about scientific studies that show the benefits of vaccination for those who contracted the coronavirus and then recovered from infection.

 

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also recommends that people still get vaccinated regardless of whether they already had COVID-19, because it’s not known how long someone is protected from getting COVID-19 again after recovering from the disease. A small proportion of people who had an infection may not develop much immunity at all.
 

In addition, experts say that people should not interpret the Israeli study’s findings as an endorsement to intentionally get infected as a way to obtain natural immunity. That would be extremely risky, as more than 633,000 deaths have been attributed to COVID-19 in the United States alone. Even some who survive an infection experience so-called “long COVID,” which is when symptoms from the disease last for weeks or months.

 

The retrospective observational study is the largest to compare natural immunity and vaccine-induced immunity, according to its authors. It was posted Aug. 25 to the medRxiv preprint server, which means it has not been peer-reviewed and “has not yet been accepted or endorsed in any way by the scientific or medical community.”

 

Importantly, though, the researchers also found that previously infected people benefited from vaccination, as those who received a single dose of the vaccine were about half as likely (0.53 fold) to be reinfected as those who did not get the shot. The single dose vaccinees also had fewer recorded cases of symptomatic disease (16) than their unvaccinated counterparts (23).

 

Furthermore, the authors of the study acknowledged that it had several limitations.

For one, they said that the analysis only assessed protection from the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine “and therefore does not address other vaccines or long-term protection following a third dose, of which the deployment is underway in Israel.” As of Aug. 31, about 62% of Israel’s population was fully vaccinated and about another 6% were only partially vaccinated, according to the University of Oxford-based project Our World in Data.

The authors also said that because they conducted an “observational real-world study,” where polymerase chain reaction, or PCR, screening for the coronavirus was not required, “we might be underestimating asymptomatic infections, as these individuals often do not get tested.”

The testing aspect was perhaps “the biggest limitation of the study,” according to Natalie Dean, an Emory University biostatistician, who was quoted in an Aug. 26 Science article about the study. “That means, she says, that comparisons could be confounded if, for example, previously infected people who developed mild symptoms were less likely to get tested than vaccinated people, perhaps because they think they are immune,” Science reported.

 

It’s worth noting that two other studies have come to different conclusions about the relative potency of natural versus vaccine-induced immunity, although each is also subject to its own limitations and is not definitive.

One unpublished paper that has yet to be peer-reviewed, from researchers at Oxford University, found that the protection against any kind of confirmed infection with delta by the two-dose Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine was slightly better than natural infection.

Another study, published in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report in August, found that unvaccinated residents of Kentucky who were infected with the coronavirus in 2020 were more than twice as likely to become reinfected in May and June 2021, compared with those who were previously infected and fully vaccinated.

 

And on Twitter, Alessandro Sette of the La Jolla Institute for Immunology wrote that the question is not “should I get COVID or be vaccinated?”

“COVID is associated with high disease burden, risk of death and long-lasting health issues (long COVID), in contrast with the excellent safety profile of vaccination,” he tweeted. “The question is ‘should I get vaccinated even if I previously had covid?’ People that were infected and then vaccinated develop a powerful immune response, called ‘hybrid immunity’, which exceeds what is seen with either natural infection or vaccination.”

_______________________________________________________________

[Paul A]

There are also other reputable academic/scientific journal sources of medical information that examine studies on natural immunity, vaccine immunity, re infections, length of effective immunity etc.

 

[Freeforester]

https://on.ft.com/3iqlQM2
 

Amazing - the inventor/developer of ivermectin comes up with an equally effective but commercially worthless new treatment for Covid, which is so effective it need not be trialled further, and guess what - they’re in the money, big time! 
 

Thank goodness they did not trial it on eg a horse, thus rendering the whole exercise useless. 🤣💰💰💰

[RockyTop]

23 minutes ago, Freeforester said:

Thank goodness they did not trial it on eg a horse, thus rendering the whole exercise useless. 🤣💰💰💰

Last I heard Joe Rogan was drinking hydrogen dioxide. It is a solvent used to clean nuclear reactors. 

[Tawpie]

2 hours ago, RockyTop said:

drinking hydrogen dioxide.

jeepers. At first glance I thought that said dihydrogen oxide. Now that's a public health, safety, and property hazard if ever there was one. 236000 people die each year from just breathing the stuff. Absolutely should be banned.

Edited October 1, 2021 by Tawpie

[RockyTop]

27 minutes ago, Tawpie said:

jeepers. At first glance I thought that said dihydrogen oxide. Now that's a public health, safety, and property hazard if ever there was one. 236000 people die each year from just breathing the stuff. Absolutely should be banned.

 Close enough. They should get rid of both. H20 kills people too. 

[Freeforester]

https://www.biznews.com/undictated/2021/09/17/ivermectin-aldous-mainstream

 

 

[Paulo Mesquita]

2 hours ago, Freeforester said:

https://www.biznews.com/undictated/2021/09/17/ivermectin-aldous-mainstream

 

 

This is just too scary 😳😳😳😳

[Freeforester]

2 hours ago, Paulo Mesquita said:

This is just too scary 😳😳😳😳

For some, it’s rather obvious!

[mrelwood]

6 hours ago, Freeforester said:

https://www.biznews.com/undictated/2021/09/17/ivermectin-aldous-mainstream

ABBA’s “Money, Money, Money” started playing in my head while reading through that article.

[.....]

45 minutes ago, mrelwood said:

ABBA’s “Money, Money, Money” started playing in my head while reading through that article.

Marijuana also leads to death and insanity. Seriously tho. There were TONS of studies about it and an entire generation supported a US government criminalization of it. Oddly, the same govt nowadays is trying to figure out how to corner this same market and become the drug dealers themselves. It had NOTHING to do with money or the cotton industry. Too many professionals did research to promote the 'war on drugs', so it must be true. It aint like money and control are at the root of it at all. Just like there's no way that its even remotely possible that money and control has ANYTHING to do with the covid scare. Big pharma isnt in it for the money, they REALLY want whats best for everyone. Its never been a convincing tactic to take some relevance of truth and stack lies upon it...or has it? It aint like statistics isnt an entire class and/or degree in colleges. I mean hell, numbers are numbers, right?

Edited October 2, 2021 by ShanesPlanet

[mrelwood]

5 minutes ago, ShanesPlanet said:

they REALLY want whats best for everyone.

The heads of the Big Pharma haven’t actually even slept well at all during the Covid, since they can’t stop worrying about each of us ordinary people, and every single minute without rest they’re trying to figure out ways to make the world a better place for every single human being, no matter the toll it would take on them even personally. Because that’s just how much they love you and me and every single soul on this planet.

[Tawpie]

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=reefer+madness+movie&docid=608024806421246324&mid=60748FB1FC78679CC95B60748FB1FC78679CC95B&view=detail&FORM=VIRE

Beware. Dangerous stuff. Until we can figure out how to tax it.

[Paul A]

Ivermectin was developed by Merck in the 1980's.

It is FDA approved and a safe drug, but not as a prophylactic for Covid

Ivermectin is an anti-parasitic drug that is used to treat river blindness and intestinal roundworm infection in humans and to de-worm pets and livestock. Lotions and creams containing ivermectin are also used to treat head lice and rosacea.

Patents last for 20 years and are not renewable.

There is Ivermectin for humans, and Ivermectin for animals.

Oklahoma hospitals were not backed up by patients overdosing on Ivermectin.

________

 

Merck covid pill.

Disturbing that the clinical phase three trials have been stopped early.

Disturbing that peer review has not happened.

Number of participants in trial seem very low in comparison to the vaccine trials.

Developing story, await further information.

Merck executives should be jailed for Vioxx crimes.

 

Merck covid pill seems to be both unnecessary and necessary.

Pill unnecessary in that vaccines are the much better option.  They are preventative, very effective, proven in real world, save recipients from extreme pain and suffering of symptoms pre emptively, prevents death.

Pill necessary in that when unvaccinated people contract covid, are hospitalized with possible ICU intervention, the Covid pill treatment will improve their chances of survival.

Pill works by introducing errors into the genetic code of the virus to retard its replication.  Same technique as the Tamiflu pill for treatment of influenza.  An anti viral, it attacks the virus

This strategy has the great weakness in that for effective treatment, the pill needs to be taken at the very onset on infection, around 2-5 days.

Unproven in real world as yet.

 

Prevention (vaccines) rather than treatment (Covid pill) in medicine is the preferred option.

 

People are free to choose what they want to do, including nothing.

______________________

 

Portugal will be the most interesting real world study.

[.....]

45 minutes ago, Paul A said:

People are free to choose what they want to do, including nothing.
 

You keep saying that, but we are finding it not exactly true. If freedom of choice was obvious, there wouldnt be as much worry. Its going to come down to: you are free to choose, but if you dont do what we say,

you dont get groceries,

yuo dont get to walk into a bank,

you don't get an ID or DL issued/reissued,

you don't get to put kids in school,

you dont get to use public facilities you pay for,

you dont get to travel,

you dont get to visit private gatherings,

you dont get to go to church,

you don't get to go out and eat,

you dont get to apply for financial assistance,

you don't get school loans,

you forfeit retirement(no vaccine, no job, no retirement),

you don't get to have a job etc...

you DO get to pay a 'tax/fine' for non-compliance each year.

You do get to be rejected for health care or pay premiums.

But..... nobody is forcing you to do anything. You know, freedom of choice and all.

Some of these already apply, the rest are pending. Some of these rights were already temporarily taken. How long until we get used to complying with temporary infringements, and they just write it into law, permanently?

Edited October 3, 2021 by ShanesPlanet

[Tawpie]

For the record, me and mine are up to date on our shots. Just like our cat. Except he's not eligible for a government paid covid shot, just ivermectin... if I pay. And as a disclaimer, I am located among the coastal elite and I make a comfortable living.

BUT. (warning: this is disorganized and a bit venting, I will make a point somewhere... promise)

I think "we", promogulated by our content creators and governments, are misinterpreting what is meant by "vaccine". Namely, taking a vaccine does not make one immune to getting or transmitting the disease, it simply provides a better antibody response when you do come in contact with the virus so that when you get Covid you don't get as sick. What we have TESTED is whether or not these drugs are a prophylactic treatment for Covid—the studies were designed to prove that it was safe and that it could reduce serious illness and death. To my knowledge, the trials did not explore whether or not the vaccine confers immunity (meaning that post-shot you could hang out in a Covid infested room and not get Covid). Maybe that study has now been done or started, I don't know, but initially at least, immunity was not what they were looking for. And they were not looking to see if vaccination meant you would no longer pass Covid on to others (logically reasonable, but not tested).

So we and our governments, in order to provide hope and calm when it looked like everyone was going to die a horrible death lying in the hallway of a filthy hospital surrounded by piles of dead bodies, seemed to latch onto the notion that the vaccines would somehow make us immune and once enough of us were immune we could go about living our lives. Likewise, we decided that we need to split into the camps of those that believed it's better if everyone has the jab and those that for whatever reason didn't want to get it. And in 21st century style, we weaponized the words we use to group those that don't share our beliefs. Name calling and finger pointing and us-vs-them seems to be our favorite pastime these days.

It's this us-vs-them that I think is so dangerous. We as people tend that way anyway, it's in our DNA and banding together separating out those that are different is and always will be with us because it has had a material bearing on community survival. But we're supposed to be becoming more civilized. Xenophobia in the very early days included excluding people not-from-round-here because they could (and did) bring disease with them (ask the Inca how that worked out). Globally, we're embracing xenophobia—liberals and conservatives alike, for that very same reason. Two years ago we were decrying the rise of nationalism particularly since it was personified in our former president (the weaponized term of choice: racist), now we're all for keeping them damn foreigners out.

Part of the reason the US can't have sweeping federal mandates and uber coordinated responses is that many of us here believe that local control is better than federal control. What works and is appropriate for us in our tech-financed ivory towers ain't gonna work for a worm farmer in West Texas. He never sees anyone, I have hordes of strangers around me all the time. His grocery store is 25 miles away, mine is 6 blocks. He puts real, and heavy stuff like dirt in his truck, I carry air in mine… aaaand a fair trade vegan 2019 Ark'teryx mid-weight goretex rain jacket in charcoal heather with reflective piping. It's made from ocean plastic. (well actually, I don't have a truck). His family has owned and worked that patch of land for 6 generations, I still owe a mortgage company for 22 more years and folks think I've been here a loooong time. I read the actual clinical trial paperwork, he might have heard something about a trial on the TV. I was still in school at 22, he'd been running the entire operation for two years already. His last flu shot in 2009 put him in bed for three days, the one I got last summer made a small pinkish spot on my arm—neither of us has had the flu. I spent 4-5 hours looking into what an mRNA vaccine was and how it worked, he was gathering and boxing worms. I got the jab, he doesn't see any need. And besides, he can't take that much time to drive 70 miles into the big city.

He is definitely a them.

Does that mean I have permission to call him ugly names? Consider him less enlightened? Look down on him as easily misguided? Refuse him entry to a baseball game? Say "of course he did, dumb sack of $@^&, serves him right" if he suffers and dies of Covid?

I would hope the answer is categorically, always: no. But it's not.

I need to keep growing up.

(oh. On a lighter note I do have one very significant decision advantage over all y'all younger folks... if "them" turn out to be right and mRNA has some side effect that waits 50 years and becomes the zombie apocalypse, I'll probably be dead and won't have to deal with it. So I'm all for the jab for everyone cuz it meets MY immediate, shorter term, selfish, personal needs)

Edited October 3, 2021 by Tawpie

[mrelwood]

1 hour ago, Tawpie said:

warning: this is disorganized and a bit venting

I will ask the owner of the forum if he’d let me give you 20 likes for that post. I love the way you think, and I so wish there were more of you. (Instead of them…)

[Freeforester]

3 hours ago, Tawpie said:

For the record, me and mine are up to date on our shots. Just like our cat. Except he's not eligible for a government paid covid shot, just ivermectin... if I pay. And as a disclaimer, I am located among the coastal elite and I make a comfortable living.

BUT. (warning: this is disorganized and a bit venting, I will make a point somewhere... promise)

I think "we", promogulated by our content creators and governments, are misinterpreting what is meant by "vaccine". Namely, taking a vaccine does not make one immune to getting or transmitting the disease, it simply provides a better antibody response when you do come in contact with the virus so that when you get Covid you don't get as sick. What we have TESTED is whether or not these drugs are a prophylactic treatment for Covid—the studies were designed to prove that it was safe and that it could reduce serious illness and death. To my knowledge, the trials did not explore whether or not the vaccine confers immunity (meaning that post-shot you could hang out in a Covid infested room and not get Covid). Maybe that study has now been done or started, I don't know, but initially at least, immunity was not what they were looking for. And they were not looking to see if vaccination meant you would no longer pass Covid on to others (logically reasonable, but not tested).

So we and our governments, in order to provide hope and calm when it looked like everyone was going to die a horrible death lying in the hallway of a filthy hospital surrounded by piles of dead bodies, seemed to latch onto the notion that the vaccines would somehow make us immune and once enough of us were immune we could go about living our lives. Likewise, we decided that we need to split into the camps of those that believed it's better if everyone has the jab and those that for whatever reason didn't want to get it. And in 21st century style, we weaponized the words we use to group those that don't share our beliefs. Name calling and finger pointing and us-vs-them seems to be our favorite pastime these days.

It's this us-vs-them that I think is so dangerous. We as people tend that way anyway, it's in our DNA and banding together separating out those that are different is and always will be with us because it has had a material bearing on community survival. But we're supposed to be becoming more civilized. Xenophobia in the very early days included excluding people not-from-round-here because they could (and did) bring disease with them (ask the Inca how that worked out). Globally, we're embracing xenophobia—liberals and conservatives alike, for that very same reason. Two years ago we were decrying the rise of nationalism particularly since it was personified in our former president (the weaponized term of choice: racist), now we're all for keeping them damn foreigners out.

Part of the reason the US can't have sweeping federal mandates and uber coordinated responses is that many of us here believe that local control is better than federal control. What works and is appropriate for us in our tech-financed ivory towers ain't gonna work for a worm farmer in West Texas. He never sees anyone, I have hordes of strangers around me all the time. His grocery store is 25 miles away, mine is 6 blocks. He puts real, and heavy stuff like dirt in his truck, I carry air in mine… aaaand a fair trade vegan 2019 Ark'teryx mid-weight goretex rain jacket in charcoal heather with reflective piping. It's made from ocean plastic. (well actually, I don't have a truck). His family has owned and worked that patch of land for 6 generations, I still owe a mortgage company for 22 more years and folks think I've been here a loooong time. I read the actual clinical trial paperwork, he might have heard something about a trial on the TV. I was still in school at 22, he'd been running the entire operation for two years already. His last flu shot in 2009 put him in bed for three days, the one I got last summer made a small pinkish spot on my arm—neither of us has had the flu. I spent 4-5 hours looking into what an mRNA vaccine was and how it worked, he was gathering and boxing worms. I got the jab, he doesn't see any need. And besides, he can't take that much time to drive 70 miles into the big city.

He is definitely a them.

Does that mean I have permission to call him ugly names? Consider him less enlightened? Look down on him as easily misguided? Refuse him entry to a baseball game? Say "of course he did, dumb sack of $@^&, serves him right" if he suffers and dies of Covid?

I would hope the answer is categorically, always: no. But it's not.

I need to keep growing up.

(oh. On a lighter note I do have one very significant decision advantage over all y'all younger folks... if "them" turn out to be right and mRNA has some side effect that waits 50 years and becomes the zombie apocalypse, I'll probably be dead and won't have to deal with it. So I'm all for the jab for everyone cuz it meets MY immediate, shorter term, selfish, personal needs)

I’d recommend you do not administer ivermectin to your cat. It wouldn’t end well.

[Paul A]

Think the best scenario to eventuate that will please everyone would be:

There will be enough people taking the vaccine to reach the so called herd immunity.

Those who do not take the vaccine will not contract Covid.  If they do contract covid, that they will successfully fight it off to achieve hopefully very strong natural immunity, strong and long lasting enough to prevent re-infection.

If and when herd immunity is achieved, then there will be no need for mandates, no discrimination of freedoms to the unvaccinated.

 

Those who are willing to take the vaccine, speed is of the essence. 

As well as protecting yourself, you will be speeding up the time to reach herd immunity, which will help to protect the unvaccinated.

 

Thanks to everyone for sharing all their viewpoints, we all benefit from it.

__________________________

 

Following is a video posted today of Royal Melbourne Hospital ICU Nurse Unit Manager Michelle Spence.

Everyone please take care of each other.

 

 

 

[KiwiMark]

13 hours ago, Paul A said:

Think the best scenario to eventuate that will please everyone would be:

There will be enough people taking the vaccine to reach the so called herd immunity.

 

This would be difficult:

There is evidence that people that have had Covid can contract it again, especially the Delta strain.

Those that are fully vaccinated can contract Covid and pass it on, but with less severe symptoms and likely a shorter contagious period.

 

A perfect vaccine that completely stopped infection and infectiousness for a virus with an R value of 6.0 would need to have 83% of the population to be immunised to achieve herd immunity.  For a less than perfect vaccine like what we have available today, it is likely we would need over 90% of the population to be vaccinated to have a chance of herd immunity.

[KiwiMark]

22 hours ago, ShanesPlanet said:

You keep saying that, but we are finding it not exactly true. If freedom of choice was obvious, there wouldnt be as much worry. Its going to come down to: you are free to choose, but if you dont do what we say,

you dont get groceries,

yuo dont get to walk into a bank,

you don't get an ID or DL issued/reissued,

you don't get to put kids in school,

you dont get to use public facilities you pay for,

you dont get to travel,

you dont get to visit private gatherings,

you dont get to go to church,

you don't get to go out and eat,

you dont get to apply for financial assistance,

you don't get school loans,

you forfeit retirement(no vaccine, no job, no retirement),

you don't get to have a job etc...

you DO get to pay a 'tax/fine' for non-compliance each year.

You do get to be rejected for health care or pay premiums.

But..... nobody is forcing you to do anything. You know, freedom of choice and all.

Some of these already apply, the rest are pending. Some of these rights were already temporarily taken. How long until we get used to complying with temporary infringements, and they just write it into law, permanently?

I have no problems with this.  I think that people that want to participate in society have some societal obligations.  But people are free to withdraw from society if they want to.  Just because you are free to make your own decisions, it does NOT mean that you are free from the consequences of those decisions.

So yeah, you don't have to get vaccinated.  Just like the restaurant doesn't have to let you in and serve you.  Just like the airlines don't have to let you travel on their planes.  Just like employers don't have to give you a job. etc. etc. etc.

Why should you be free to do what you want, but employers, schools, restaurants, movie theatres, airlines, etc. are not free to do what they want?   Are you only wanting freedom for yourself, while denying it to others?

[mrelwood]

4 hours ago, KiwiMark said:

Why should you be free to do what you want, but employers, schools, restaurants, movie theatres, airlines, etc. are not free to do what they want?

Companies that offer services to the public such as restaurants and movie theaters can only deny service in clear cases where the customer is a severe disturbance to others. They can’t for example choose not to serve me just because they don’t like my noggin or the coat I’m wearing that day. There are laws in place for this, to make sure that they can’t operate for example on racist principles.

 Just like your employer can’t fire you whenever they want for any reason.

 Whether a restaurant can deny service due to the customer not being vaccinated is not freely up to the restaurant, it has to be passed by the government first. I’m actually not sure if the discussions even went very far in my country.

I would expect the US to have a similar legal stance about this.

[.....]

8 hours ago, KiwiMark said:

I have no problems with this.  I think that people that want to participate in society have some societal obligations.  But people are free to withdraw from society if they want to.  Just because you are free to make your own decisions, it does NOT mean that you are free from the consequences of those decisions.

So yeah, you don't have to get vaccinated.  Just like the restaurant doesn't have to let you in and serve you.  Just like the airlines don't have to let you travel on their planes.  Just like employers don't have to give you a job. etc. etc. etc.

Why should you be free to do what you want, but employers, schools, restaurants, movie theatres, airlines, etc. are not free to do what they want?   Are you only wanting freedom for yourself, while denying it to others?

You are also not free to withdrawl from society. Even on ShanesPlanet, I am forced to pay taxes on things I will never and have never used.  Its a slippery slope when you are comfortable with denying people things they have and are paying for. Airlines have used govt money many times in the past, so doesnt that constitute some kind of rights to patron as a tax payer? Schools have been funded with taxes as well. Resturaunts typically get tax breaks and some have gotten refunds or dividends from tax programs. Farmers have gotten bailouts, car companies too. Banks have been bailed out.  Next up, you can be denied these things you mention for some other random reason.

What about rights to medical privacy? Do we forget all about those and require someone show their medical vaccination status at every corner? How do we do that, without having to check identification? So, its just fine and dandy that people can now have to show proof of ID to travel around, as ID proves your vax card is yours? How long until walking paths and travel lanes for pedestrians also include a stop and ID/medical check? Slippery slope and it scares me that I'm the only one who's scared. It aint the virus or even death I'm so scared of. Its the future I will be living in and the people controlling it, that worry me. I fear the fear of the masses and promises of safety...

 

Edited October 4, 2021 by ShanesPlanet

[Freeforester]

Speaking of quackery, 

Uttar Pradesh (population 200 plus million) now declared Covid free;

Ivermectin home packs (US $2.75 each) were distributed wherever anyone there in had come into contact with any person who had tested positive, the action of the ivermectin to prevent reproduction of the virus among the population affected (anti-viral reduction, unlike vaccines);

Merck, erstwhile developer of ivermectin, have now released a comparatively less effective antiviral drug, at a cost of US$700.00 (seven hundred) per course of ten tablets. 
 

It would appear that there are still those who view the USA (funding the contract to buy to the tune of over US$ one BILLION ($1.12bn, one thousand one hundred and twenty million) as yet being ‘a land of opportunity’..

if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, it could just be a $700 duck…

 

 

[Paul A]

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/lucknow/covid-caseload-in-31-up-districts-falls-to-zero/articleshow/86741028.cms

 

The Times of India

October 4, 2021.

Over 40% districts in Uttar Pradesh declared Covid free; 13 test positive in 24 hours.

"It has happened because of emphasis on strict screening, proper treatment and aggressive vaccination," the government's official statement read on Sunday.

UP (Uttar Pradesh) is also close to administering 11 crore vaccine doses, leading the country's vaccination drive on a war footing.

*A crore denotes ten million in the South Asian numbering system.

_________________

 

https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/lucknow-news/33-districts-in-uttar-pradesh-are-now-covid-free-state-govt-101631267966925.html

Hindustan Times

September 10, 2021

33 districts in Uttar Pradesh are now Covid-free: State govt

On the vaccination front, around 7 crore people in the state have received their first dose of the jab. The vaccination coverage in the state has exceeded 8.47 crores, out of which, 12 lakh people have been inoculated in the last 2 hours.

*A lakh is a unit in the Indian numbering system equal to one hundred thousand.

 

Edited October 4, 2021 by Paul A
addition of numbering definitions