Skip to main content

Breakthrough Infections, September 27

By September 28, 2021Commentary

Dave Dixon and I have detailed a lot of the issues in trying to decipher breakthrough events in the state.  Even though DOH puts out weekly numbers, the way they report and limitations on their ability to identify who is vaccinated makes it highly likely they are under-reporting, perhaps intentionally.  Here is the chart based on this week’s data.  As I said a few weeks ago, we are heading to 50% of cases being breakthrough.    Look at the bottom chart, we are already over 40% in everything. And we have a ton of deaths in September that I am convinced will largely be in older vaxed persons.

Look at these charts.  Epidemic of the unvaxed my ass.  The DOH has a lot of questions to answer.

Join the discussion 23 Comments

  • J. Thomas says:

    It would really be nice if you stopped referring to what’s in the jabs as a ‘vaccine’. It just further supports the NIH-FDA-CDC 3-Ring circus’s assault on who ever is left standing. I suggest ‘BWSS’, or Bio-Weapon-Symptom-Suppressant. A much more accurate term.

    The thought that the DOH will explain anything is laughable. There is no accountability in the ever crumbling DO(X). They are all compromised, led by American Marxists at the beckon call of the handlers of a senile Dictator-In-Chief.

    • Kevin Roche says:

      it is a vaccine. A vaccine is defined as the introduction of biological material into the body to prompt an immune response, and that is exactly what the vaccines do

  • Abhijit Bakshi says:

    The vaccines are 95% effective, Pfizer says so, not sure what people don’t understand.

    Speaking of 95% though, click through to this article and you’ll see a video of a real life Aussie public health bigwig admitting that 78% of the people in his hospital are “fully” vaccinated and another 17% have got one shot:

    78 + 17 = ……… 95%.

    95% effective. Don’t be a health denier.

  • fred4d says:

    Based on the charts is looks like the vaccine is about 66% effective in reducing cases, hospitalization and death. A positive for getting the vaccine, especially if towards the older fatter end of the spectrum of humans. The rule of thumb for vaccines to stop the spread of a communicable disease is 80% effective vaccine in 80% of the population (read this is one of my brothers books, he is a specialist in communicable viral diseases. At 66% effective you would need 97% coverage. So this is much closer to a typical flu shot, helps those who get it but does not do much in terms of limiting spread. You can reduce the theoretical coverage a bit by counting recovered cases, but the Gov. at various levels does not want to do that.

  • J. Thomas says:

    I wasn’t expecting a response to my sarcasm, but thanks ! I think the medical term is ‘amelioration’. My point is that the propaganda machine is selling this as a preventative product. If you take the vaccine, you won’t become diseased from the virus. At 40% breakthrough, with more on the way, it’s at best a severity control product, with unknown long-term consequences. Why is the FDA, NIH, CDC so afraid of telling us the truth? I’m not anti-vax, I’ve had my fair share. I’m anti-lie, anti-threat, anti-control. Something stinks and if you’re half aware of the world around you, you have to go out of your way not to smell it. Maybe that’s what the masks are really for …

  • Michael Peterson says:

    In the report linked below, researchers measured hospitalized patients and emergency room (ER) and urgent care (UC) encounters of 33,000 people in 187 hospitals across 9 states for the period of June through August of 2021. The researchers compared the hospitalization rates of unvaccinated and vaccinated people. The latter group was further subdivided according to the vaccine they received – Moderna, Pfizer, and Johnson & Johnson (aka J&J).


    The vaccines, taken as a group, were about 86% effective at preventing hospitalizations and about 82% effective in preventing emergency room or urgent care visits. With respect to age the vaccines, taken as a group, were about 89% effective in preventing hospitalizations in the 18-74 years old cohort and 76% effective in preventing hospitalizations in patients over the age of 75.
    However, when the researchers looked at these data by vaccine (Pfizer, Moderna, J&J) things got really interesting. In terms of preventing ER/UC encounters, the Moderna vaccine was 92% effective, the Pfizer vaccine was 77% effective, and then J&J vaccine was 65% effective.

    In terms of preventing hospitalizations, the Moderna vaccine was 95% effective, the Pfizer vaccine was 80% effective, and the J&J vaccine was 60% effective.
    What’s really important for us to remember is that this study focused on the Delta variant, currently the most predominant and most infectious variant in the U.S. today.
    There are some additional insights I’ve not presented should you want to dive into the study’s gory details, but the conclusions described above are far and away the most important.

    m.t. peterson, PhD Immunology

  • Alan Mackenthun says:

    According to the American Heritage Dictionary a vaccine is “A preparation of a weakened or killed pathogen, such as a bacterium or virus, or of a portion of the pathogen’s structure that upon administration to an individual stimulates antibody production or cellular immunity against the pathogen but is incapable of causing severe infection.” What you’re saying is that our jabs often do not prevent severe infection, therefore it is not accurate to call them vaccines. A recently published paper proposed to call them inoculations arguing they are more treatment than prevention.

  • Dave says:

    As I recall, during the worst of the pre-vaccine days in Minnesota, upwards of 90% of deaths were people who were either quite old or had health problems, most likely both. (Gov Walz bears a large share of responsibility for this.) Does the MDH still break things down according to these factors? If they do, I would guess that deaths among the fully vaccinated continue to follow this pattern. If that is the case, one might conclude that the vaccine is least effective for those who need it most. I think it is also true that old people have the highest rate of vaccination.

    • Kevin Roche says:

      yes, that is correct. I have said a few times that I believe the age structure of hosps and deaths in a fully vaxed population will look just like the one in a completely unvaxed population. And it isn’t a failure of the vaccines, it is a fact of life–you get old, you are less healthy and less robust and vulnerable to any number of diseases and dysfunctions. I can personally testify to that!

  • Mike says:

    Perhaps Minnesota could learn from Virginia’s website. They provide infection, hospitalization, and death rates (per 100K) broken down by fully, partially, or unvaccinated status. Minnesota clearly has the data, they just need to put it out there.

  • PaulL says:

    In the last week reported, 4.28% of unvaccinated cases resulted in hospitalization, and 18.8% of hospitalizations resulted in death. In the same week, 4.66% of vaccinated cases resulted in hospitalization, and 18.5% of hospitalizations resulted in death. (using estimates of the numbers from the graphs: 285/12.2/2.3 for unvaccinated, 150/7/1.3 for vaccinated).

    What does this mean?
    It means that if you get Covid, the risk of hospitalization (18.8% vs 18.5%) and death (4.28% vs 4.66%) is effectively independent of vaccination status.
    It means that “less severe” Covid among the vaccinated is not reflected by hospitalizations and deaths.
    It means that the vaccine reduces transmission rates, but once transmission occurs, it provides no benefit.

    Those results are similar to the numbers from Vermont, Washington, Pennsylvania, Israel, and the US as a whole. (data, links, analysis for those locations in the link below)

  • J. Thomas says:

    As I said above … something stinks. We are all sniffing around trying to put our finger on the source(s) while King Biden and his court continue with the threats to socially alienate all who are using their noses. I hope every doctor, nurse, medical tech, etc. who’ve been discarded as human trash by this administration and the pion hospital boards get together and build the best medical system in the world !

    I’m very curious about the so called ‘disappearance’ of the flu. It you subtract the last 5 year’s average flu deaths and hospitalizations from the 2020 and 2021 Covid numbers numbers, you get what I’d argue is the true affect of this (new?) virus. I don’t see that being anything to get too wound up about. Remember the good old days when you beat the flu with vitamins, chicken soup and rest instead of world-wide communism !

  • Godoggo says:

    Between 2015 and 31 August 2021 a vaccine was defined as “a product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a particular disease (MMRP), protect the person from that disease” and vaccination was “the act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a particular disease.”

    The new definition for the vaccine now reads, “a preparation used to stimulate the body’s immune response to diseases,” while vaccination is “the act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce protection against a particular disease.”

    This, by definition, was a major definitional change introduced when it became apparent that there was a failing durability of the various m-RNA injections. The question becomes, can one merely change the historical meaning of language (words) simply to suit the interests of the moment. That appears to many as contrary to “science” and gratuitous to explain away the leaky injections.

    When one looks at the number of countries experiencing increasing breakthrough infections to variants encountered in highly vaccinated countries (Scotland, Israel, England, etc.), the recent statement by the Pfizer CEO that boosters will be required indefinitely (how do you update the injections in a timely manner to keep pace with multiple variants arriving?), the growing number of serious side effects (myocarditis, blood clots, etc.) and the cost/benefit ratio to younger age groups receiving the injection, makes the push to get the injections counter intuitive and injection passports ludicrous. Time to look at alternatives to the injections:

    In the US one has to go to “Mountain Home” to read the same story:

    Lastly…a study of interest state side:

    Summary: What is already known about this topic? Incarcerated populations have experienced disproportionately higher rates of COVID-19–related illness and death. What is added by this report? During a COVID-19 outbreak involving the Delta variant in a highly vaccinated incarcerated population, transmission rates were high (statistically insignificant infection rates at 4-6 months of vaccinated 89/unvaccinated 93: Table II) even among vaccinated persons. Although attack rates, hospitalizations, and deaths were higher among unvaccinated than among vaccinated persons, duration of positive serial test results was similar for both groups. Infectious virus was cultured from vaccinated and unvaccinated infected persons. What are the implications for public health practice? Even with high vaccination rates, maintaining multicomponent prevention strategies (e.g., testing and masking for all persons and prompt medical isolation and quarantine for incarcerated persons) remains critical to limiting SARS-CoV-2 transmission in congregate settings where physical distancing is challenging.

  • Abhijit Bakshi says:

    Kevin, can you please watch the video I linked?

    I mean the health minister literally says 78% of the people in ICU (or hospital, don’t recall) are “fully” vaccinated and 17% are “partly” vaccinated.

    Are we just going to ignore it when data arrives from an official source that indicates the vaccines are hilariously ineffective (at best)?

    • Kevin Roche says:

      well if 95 % of a population is vaxed and only 5% isn’t, leaving aside issues of adaptive immunity from infection, what would you expect? And you would have to look at age structure, etc. You can’t do these analyses properly without being thoughtful. My frustration with Mn. data is that it makes it hard to do the right kind of analysis.

  • J. Thomas says:

    Summary: v2: I’m calling BS on the entire distancing, masks, vaccine, etc. nonsense. For the last 2 months we’ve had tens of thousands of people 2′ apart at thousands of concerts, college and pro FB games, running events (heavy breathing in crowded packs), motor cycle rallies, etc. These were all unmasked situations with a mix of vaxed and un-vaxed people. By your summary above, these should all be measurable and traceable spreading events. Actual results; big nothings !

    Therefore, how about we stick to what we’ve learned over the last 200+ years of documented medicine; those with old and weak immune systems succumb to viruses and disease at a much higher rate than young and healthy people. That’s about all you have to know to understand how health works. After the last 2 years of this ‘ global medical crisis’ and ticker-tape death counts on all MMS channels, the drive through lines at McDonalds are longer than ever. Obesity is at an all time high with no end in site. Suggesting that I’m supposed to take responsibility for someone else’s health by getting jabbed and wearing a mask is completely absurd .. Go #*@! OFF !

    Last thought for the good Dr. Peterson … like Godoggo accurately pointed out, the definitions of words are now fluid, to fit the narrative and messaging campaigns. I think term ‘hospitalization’ is next on the list. When yo have to go to a hospital to get a vaccine, are you then counted as a ‘hospitalized’? If you were released an hour after your arrival with non-medical intervention, but with a positive phony PCR test, were your a ‘hospitalization? I could go on …

  • Abhijit Bakshi says:

    “if 95 % of a population is vaxed”

    First, ninety-five percent of the population isn’t vaccinated.

    Second, I would expect FAR MORE than 5% of people in the hospital for COVID-19 to be people who haven’t taken their needle.

    I mean if 95% of people had the needle, and 5% didn’t, and you had 95% of COVID hospitalizations for needle people, wouldn’t that be some evidence demonstrating that the vaccine is totally ineffective? And if a higher percentage of needle people are in the hospital than their representation in the population, isn’t that some evidence that the vaccine has negative efficacy?

    I’m not looking for you to hop off the vaccine bandwagon yet, but at this point just *admitting* there is *some* evidence out there that suggests they don’t work very well would be a start.

    (Of course, when powerful actors are censoring you for questioning something, it always suggests their argument is a strong one…

  • Abhijit Bakshi says:

    fred4d, I don’t disagree with your 66% figure, but I would add, 66% ___so_far___.

    The evidence definitely indicates, at least, declining effectiveness over time.

    And if your efficacy goes down over time, the operative question becomes, how low can it go?

  • Thomas Fischer says:

    Good morning Kevin. think I can speak for myself and others when I say, we’d sure like to see these graphs and data on a weekly basis. If you are so inclined. Thank you for your good work.

    • Kevin Roche says:

      Yes, we try to do these once a week, like active cases and WOW and YOY charts and the age series, breakthroughs for sure. Sometimes takes a little while as the technical web developer has to ember the charts for site security reasons.

Leave a comment