At the China Law Blog Dan Harris says that now would be a very good time to panic about supply chain disruption:
Per the Fortune Magazine article, one in five container ships is now stuck at ports worldwide, with 30% of this backlog “coming from China.†And here’s the kicker: we have not seen the half of it yet, as “the full impact of China’s policies will only begin to reveal itself over the coming weeks.†The article then notes that even if China lifts its strict lockdowns (which has about a 2 percent chance of actually happening, pent-up cargo created by reopened Chinese factories and will cause “higher freight rates . . . and worsen congestion at ports worldwide. The next effect will likely be felt in the U.S. West Coast’s ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach as the pent-up demand reaches themâ€:
He then goes on to describe how unprepared China is for the COVID-19 omicron variant:
In a December 31 post, we wrote on this blog that Omicron, coupled with China’s lack of preparedness for it and its Zero-COVID policy would crush China supply chains. That article delved into the science of COVID/Omicron to explain why the facts compelled this conclusion…
The facts as he see them are that 1) the Chinese vaccine is not as effective against the omicron variant as the Pfizer, Moderna, or J&H and 2) the tests they use don’t detect it. Add to that the large number of asymptomatic cases and nothing short of widespread and highly enforced lockdowns will reduce its spread in China and that will have a dramatic effect on production.
I don’t know what his prescription for dealing with the supply chain crunch is but IMO if companies have not been looking for alternative sources they haven’t done due diligence. Heads should roll; they probably won’t which will just encourage future feckless decision-making.
Just to correct some facts.
Chinese vaccines can be as effective as Western vaccines. A reputable study from Hong Kong showed Chinese vaccines are 95% effective at preventing death against Omicron, vs 98% for Pfizer. Western vaccines are somewhat more effective then Chinese vaccines when its only 2 shots and particularly more effective for 1 shot.
But in truth, all epidemiologist / virologists recommend people take 3+ shots if possible; on that basis, Chinese vaccines are surprisingly as effective as Western vaccines. It rolls my eyes when Americans / Europeans keep repeating mRNA is superior without looking at the actual data.
As for China’s unpreparedness; their main issue is the relatively low % of the elderly who have 3 shots. The vaccination rate among the working and total population is high (88%); but among the 60+ it was only 80% and among 80% it was 55%. I can only describe the lockdowns as a last ditch effort to buy time to avoid what happened to Hong Kong.
On supply chains, my suggestion would be to coordinate at the government level between China/South Korea/Japan/US to minimize disruptions from COVID; but given the geopolitical tone in the last few weeks, that is a pipe dream.
A substantial part of the world population is vaccinated, and in the First World everyone who is willing or able to be coerced is vaccinated, over half the population. Yet, omicron is spreading so rapidly that I have to believe the effectiveness of the various vaccines is zero, despite claims to the contrary.
However, this variant seems to be mild compared to the earlier ones. Yes, it is more lethal than the seasonal flu, but you have to be pretty sick already or very old to die from that.
A nothing burger. Where’s the meat?
I can’t vouch for CO’s stats, or Bob’s citation of zero effectiveness. But in what is the ultimate anecdotal evidence, though frequently cited, after being vaxed and boosted I’ve managed to get omicron and a serious upper respiratory infection.
Just sayin”
Vaccines are not very effective preventing infection or transmission beyond 90 days from the last shot. They are effective against hospitalization/death for longer — at least 6 months.
The problem is given China was successful in preventing COVID for 2 years and its massive population; there are a lot of lives at stake if they “Live with COVID” now vs doing it after boosting their vaccination rate by 5%. My estimate is a “Live with COVID now” will result in 1.4 million deaths in a span of 3 months. If they can get the elderly unvaccinated to take their shots in those 3 months, and then “Live with COVID”; perhaps 250K-500K will die. Literally a million lives are at stake here.
TBH, Omicron was not “mild”. In the US, it probably killed 200K. Only in comparison to the wave of the winter of 2020/2021 that it can be considered mild.
The presumably anecdotal claim is that practically all of the people who have died of the omicron variant had not been vaccinated.
claim is that practically all of the people who have died of the omicron variant had not been vaccinated……….
THATS not so, but what is so is that hospital’s reserve Antibody treatment for the unvaxed.
Limited supplies.
Vaccines are life-savers; but they don’t prevent all deaths.
About 30% of deaths during last Winter were in the vaccinated, roughly 70K. Which is a tragedy; but better then 700K if there were no vaccines.
Lancet study suggests Chinese vaccine may not hold up as well. In Hong Kong I think most of the people who had the 3rd shot had it pretty recently. Otherwise I think CO has it right. (The bad rap came, I think, based upon early results. Against the early variants the m-rna vaccines were reported 95% effective against transmission and the chinese only 50%.)
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/ebiom/article/PIIS2352-3964(22)00088-3/fulltext#%20
Steve
â€https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2021/06/24/doctors-from-yale-and-ucla-there-are-concerns-about-the-vaccine-officials-may-not-be-telling-you-about-n2591466â€
Just this past weekend Dr. Gottlieb admitted the vaccines had an efficacy rate of less than 40% – a rate below the standard 50% that had to be met in order to allow these vaccines to be approved under the EUA. This is a problem if original guidelines are to be followed. How many, though, are interpreting this protection number as the “vaccines don’t work.â€
Furthermore, I find the information being propagated and fed to the public by the corporate led, pharmaceutical-financed CDC, NIH, FDA are suspect. Anecdotal experiences, proclaiming the futile protection and risks these vaccines pose, are numerous, considering how reticent and fearful most are in reporting post vaccine abuses. Doctors, who are actually involved with on-the-ground care and treatment seem far more authentic, knowledgeable and empathetic in helping people avoid serious consequences of COVID infection by treating the virus early, effectively, and with a cocktail of drugs addressing whatever the virus presents as problems – inflammation, respiratory issues, blood clots etc. Anti-inflammatory drugs and steroids seem to be the ones most emphatically used, creating the best results with fewer side effects. The vaccines, however, neither protect against getting the virus or passing it onto others. And, repurposed drugs like remdesivir, used earlier to treat Ebola, had a high fatality rate. Nonetheless, they are now being pushed onto patients, doing more harm than good because of it’s high toxicity- especially in the liver and kidneys.
Just to save people wasting time, her article is from Jan 2021. They draw their data directly from VAERS, which people who do research know not to do. All the individual outcomes they cite have had follow up studies and are not the concerns they portray. Also, no citation so who knows what Gottlieb really did say.
Steve
So, using a government-created site for vaccine adverse reactions is not a valid research source. But, taking the CDC’s dishonest, erratic manipulation of data for counting new COVID cases, deaths, hospitalizations is a valid source! Such an approval of one source (CDC) over another (VAERS), despite how inaccurate the testing has been; how the primary cause of death was usually not on a death certificate, becoming a COVID death if someone simply tested COVID positive, i.e., my bother-in-law, a stage 4 brain cancer patient, was labeled a COVID death because he tested positive while in the hospital; or how hospitalizations were counted as COVID admissions despite the initial reason for being hospitalized was for another medical issue.
The Lancet study is looking at correlates of protection; while the study by HK epidemiologists is based on clinical outcomes.
The clinical outcomes are more meaningful in the real world.
In a certain sense; when the mRNA vaccines trials ended early it was unfortunate. They ended at the peak effectiveness of the vaccines and left us not knowing the long term effectiveness of the vaccines that caused all kinds of nuisances (confusion about booster; superiority of mRNA vaccines; etc)
The trials were ensconced in corrupted data, dismissal of the usual safety protocols, not following the outcomes of control groups, disappearance of people participating in the trials without reasons, having uneven gender ratios (3/4 male to,1/4 female), 9 pages of adverse reaction citations hidden in Pfizer’s clinical trial data, creating circumstances of a stark uninformed consent climate for those taking these shots.