An earlier post suspected that the extreme push for 100% vaccination is motivated by a need to deprive analysts of enough unvaccinated persons to serve as a control population for comparison.  We can see that import in a UK report assessing the efficacy of being vaccinated or not.  Andy Zhao writes at American Thinker The real efficacy rates of the COVID vaccines.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

The Biden administration and the mainstream media have been pushing a mandate of the experimental COVID vaccines for the American people. Their talking point is that “COVID vaccines are effective and work against the pandemic.” That’s not true. I have been following the “U.K. vaccine surveillance report” since last September and have seen enough evidence about the real efficacy of the COVID vaccines to show that they’re not as good as advertised.

On the surface, it appears that using that unadjusted rate per 100,000 people seems fair because it compares vaccinated and unvaccinated from the same base number. But that’s a deception. Each individual, either vaccinated or unvaccinated, are in different health conditions and live in different environments. An individual may not be infected with COVID in one area, but he could be in the other. That’s why “real efficacy rate” should be used, especially for the comparisons of hospitalizations and deaths. The real efficacy rate is calculated based on the number of actual infected people, both vaccinated and unvaccinated. This can measure how many people would be preserved from hospitalization or even death after they were infected by the virus if they had been vaccinated.

Next, let’s take a look at the summary I created based on the U.K. vaccine surveillance report series. I added two highlighted columns to show what the real efficacy rate of the COVID vaccines are, along with the rates for the unvaccinated. Actually, they look great at first glance!

The real efficacy rate for hospitalization by vaccination status is calculated by the hospital admission number divided by the infection case number. For the Week 51 report, that’s 1 – (4,027/268,654) = 0.98501, or 98.501%. That means that the COVID vaccines prevented more than 98 people being hospitalized out of 100 who were infected. The same can be said for the death rate, where only 1 person dies out of 100 people who were infected.

From the chart, we can also see that the unvaccinated were doing better, 99.152% and 99.796%, respectively, for Week 51, when omicron started to be dominant in the U.K. The same is true for Week 47 and Week 45, when the delta variant was dominant.

But I and most people are more concerned about the real effectiveness of those COVID vaccines in combatting the COVID pandemic, not artificial rates created for propaganda. By the way, many research reports have pointed out that the efficacy rate of the COVID vaccines is quickly reduced after being administered, even dropping to negative numbers in three months after getting the third shot!

Natural Immunity Includes T-Cells

Add to that this report from Bloomberg (H/T Tyler Durden) T Cells Come to the Rescue as Studies Show They Buck Omicron. Excerpts in italics with my bolds

♦ Unlike antibodies, the cells hold up against variant in tests
♦ Findings may explain disconnect between case load and severity

The Dutch researchers looked at 60 vaccinated health-care workers and found that while their antibody responses to omicron were lower or nonexistent compared with the beta and delta variants, T cell responses were largely unaltered, “potentially balancing the lack of neutralizing antibodies in preventing or limiting severe Covid-19.”

The study from the University of Cape Town’s Institute of Infectious Disease and Molecular Medicine looked at patients who had recovered from Covid or been vaccinated with shots from Pfizer Inc. and partner BioNTech SE or Johnson & Johnson. They found that 70% to 80% of the T cell responses they assessed held up against omicron.

T cells are white blood cells that can remember past diseases, kill virus-infected cells and rouse antibodies to marshal defenses. People infected with another coronavirus that was responsible for the SARS outbreak in 2003, for example, were found to still have a T-cell response to the disease 17 years later.

Recent weeks have brought evidence that the new strain can erode vaccine protection, prompting governments to push for booster shots to raise the level of antibodies that can fight off the variant.

But immune protection has several layers. While antibodies block infection, T cells kill infected cells, preventing the virus from spreading and causing worse disease, Wendy Burgens, one of the University of Cape Town study authors, wrote on her Twitter account Virus Monologues. “They can’t prevent you from getting infected, but they can minimize the damage that comes afterwards,” she said.

Covid19–You’re Safer than You Think, Part 1

The political and media messaging about the coronavirus prevents the citizenry from connecting the dots and realizing how fear is exaggerated in order to impose social controls.  Let’s put the pieces together.

1.  Natural Immunity is as Good or Better Than Vaccine Immunity

Michael Nadler explains at American Thinker Director of the National Institutes of Health grossly misstates the science on vaccination vs. natural immunity.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

On the August 12, 2021 Special Report, Bret Baier asked NIH director Francis Collins: “Can you definitely say to somebody that the vaccine provides better protection than the antibodies you get from actually having had COVID-19?”

Dr. Collins replied to Bret and the almost 2 million viewers of Special Report:

“Yes, Bret, I can say that. There was a study published by CDC just ten days ago in Kentucky, and they looked specifically at people who had had natural infection and people who had been vaccinated and then ended up getting infection again. So what was the protection level? It was more than two-fold better for the people who had had the vaccine in terms of protection than people who had had natural infection. That’s very clear in that Kentucky study. You know that surprises people. Kind of surprised me that the vaccine would actually be better than natural infection. But if you think about it, it kinda makes sense[.] … That’s a settled issue.”

I was one of those who did find this quite surprising, given my familiarity with studies such as this one from the Cleveland Clinic and my basic understanding of how immunity is conferred by mRNA vaccines versus the natural immunity arising from prior infection.

However, based on the unequivocal statement on national TV by Dr. Collins, a highly respected scientist leading one of our nation’s pre-eminent public health agencies, that the issue is settled, I adjusted my thinking about vaccine immunity versus natural immunity from prior infection.

Fast-forward to the following night’s Special Report to watch and listen to Admiral Brett Giroir, former assistant secretary for health during the Trump administration while concurrently serving in several other public health positions. Dr. Giroir responded to a question about the confusion that arose from Dr. Collins’s conversation on Special Report the night before. He pointed out that Dr. Collins’s statement the previous night about the superiority of vaccine immunity over natural immunity and his citation of the Kentucky/CDC study as evidence were “factually incorrect.”

It is worth watching the whole conversation, but key points made by Dr. Giroir include the following:

It has not been shown that natural immunity, the immunity you have after infection, is any inferior to the immunity you have after vaccination. And, in fact, there is growing evidence that natural immunity lasts a long time and is highly protective against infection and hospitalization[.] … The study that Dr. Collins quoted did not have anything to do with people who had been vaccinated or who had natural immunity. What it proved [is] that if you were previously infected, your chance of getting COVID in the middle of Delta in Kentucky was about 1 in a thousand to get COVID again. If you got vaccinated that dropped it to 1 in 2500 so that’s a reduction but still your risks were very, very low[.] … This does not deal with people who were naturally immune vs. vaccinated. That’s a whole different question and it begs the question about whether you have antibodies, is that as good as being vaccinated? And the data right now pretty much say it is.

To clarify, the CDC published a report on a Kentucky study of people who had previously been infected with COVID-19. The study addressed the question of whether being vaccinated after already being infected provides additional protection; and the findings suggest that vaccination does provide additional protection when added to immunity provided by previous natural infection. But Dr. Collins relied on this study to make a definitive statement in response to an entirely different question: whether vaccination of people who were not previously infected provides better protection than does immunity obtained from previous infection. This study sheds absolutely no light on that question.

Given the factually incorrect statements made by the head of the NIH on national TV, we are left to wonder how much we can trust about what our highest-level public health officials tell us. And when they do mislead us, is it intentional, is it carelessness in communications, or is it because they are mistaken in their understanding of the science? In the case of Dr. Collins’s statement on Special Report, all but the most cynical have to conclude it is the third.

This then raises the question as to how such an eminent scientist can get it so wrong. This is a much tougher question to answer without discussing the issue directly with Dr. Collins. I would speculate that we have a case of confirmation bias, the tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one’s existing beliefs or theories. What might the source of this bias be?

The Biden administration has made vaccination numbers a key measure of its progress in leading the fight against COVID-19, as it should. However, in order to keep the public focused on vaccination as a universal necessity, and in its apparent approval of vaccine mandates, the public health bureaucracy has been quite conspicuous in minimizing any mention of the role, effectiveness, and extent of natural immunity arising from previous infection.

According to a number of outside experts such as Marty Makary, “[r]equiring the vaccine in people who are already immune with natural immunity has no scientific support.” So as part of the public health bureaucracy which is invested in President Biden’s objective of universal vaccination, Dr. Collins might easily have misread the Kentucky/CDC study as strong evidence that natural immunity is not nearly as effective as vaccination.

In this regard, I don’t hold the CDC blameless. For example, I’m not sure if the CDC has even acknowledged studies like the one at the Cleveland Clinic showing strong protection due to natural immunity arising from previous infection. And particularly after Dr. Collins’s misreading, it would behoove the CDC to add a statement in the Summary or Discussion sections of its report on the Kentucky study making it clear that it does not address the question of the relative effectiveness of vaccination vs. natural immunity.

2.  One of Three Americans Have Natural Immunity

Columbia Public Health published this report One in Three Americans Already Had COVID-19 by the End of 2020.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

Undocumented Infections Accounted for Estimated Three-Quarters of Infection Last Year

A new study published in the journal Nature estimates that 103 million Americans, or 31 percent of the U.S. population, had been infected with SARS-CoV-2 by the end of 2020. Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health researchers modeled the spread of the coronavirus, finding that fewer than one-quarter of infections (22%) were accounted for in cases confirmed through public health reports based on testing.

The study is the first to comprehensively quantify the overall burden and characteristics of COVID-19 in the U.S. during 2020. The researchers simulated the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 within and between all 3,142 U.S. counties using population, mobility, and confirmed case data.

The portion of confirmed cases reflected in the study’s estimates, i.e. the ascertainment rate, rose from 11 percent in March to 25 percent in December, reflecting improved testing capacity, a relaxation of initial restrictions on test usage, and increasing recognition, concern, and care-seeking among the public. However, the ascertainment rate remained well below 100 percent, as individuals with mild or asymptomatic infections, who could still spread the virus, were less likely to be tested.

“The vast majority of infections were not accounted for by the number of confirmed cases,” says Jeffrey Shaman, PhD, professor of environmental health sciences at Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health. “It is these undocumented cases, which are often mild or asymptomatic infections, that allow the virus to spread quickly through the broader population.”

Comment:  

A person infected but without enough viral load to be sick is not likely to be contagious.  The exception is the first few days for someone who goes on to be severely ill afterward. All of these people (infected but not “cases”) had immune systems that stopped the virus from replicating in their bodies.  Ironically, had they been subjected to PCR tests, they would have shown as positives, and then mislabeled as “cases” despite their wellness.

Because of the political drive to vaccinate everyone, the powers-that-be deny that nearly a third of the population is already blessed with immunity without being vaccinated.  And this goes without considering the evidence that youngsters’ immune systems are superior to adults when it comes to coronaviruses (SARS-CV2 being the fifth one in circulation).  Superior here means preventing illness severe enough to be life-threatening, or to require hospital or extended care.  Neither vaccines nor natural immunities prevent infections, only limit the effects to runny noses and/or coughs.

For a discussion of natural immunity mechanisms see SARS Cross-Immunity from T-cells

3.  Vaccine Mandates Are Not Justified

Evidence is building that immunity after infection is superior to vaccine-induced immunity.  This Israeli study is a recent example: Comparing SARS-CoV-2 natural immunity to vaccine-induced immunity: reinfections versus breakthrough infections.  Excerpts below with my bolds.

Background Reports of waning vaccine-induced immunity against COVID-19 have begun to surface. With that, the comparable long-term protection conferred by previous infection with SARS-CoV-2 remains unclear.

Methods We conducted a retrospective observational study comparing three groups: (1)SARS-CoV-2-naïve individuals who received a two-dose regimen of the BioNTech/Pfizer mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine, (2) previously infected individuals who have not been vaccinated, and (3) previously infected and single dose vaccinated individuals. Three multivariate logistic regression models were applied. In all models we evaluated four outcomes: SARS-CoV-2 infection, symptomatic disease, COVID-19-related hospitalization and death. The follow-up period of June 1 to August 14, 2021, when the Delta variant was dominant in Israel.

Results SARS-CoV-2-naïve vaccinees had a 13.06-fold (95% CI, 8.08 to 21.11) increased risk for breakthrough infection with the Delta variant compared to those previously infected, when the first event (infection or vaccination) occurred during January and February of 2021. The increased risk was significant (P<0.001) for symptomatic disease as well. When allowing the infection to occur at any time before vaccination (from March 2020 to February 2021), evidence of waning natural immunity was demonstrated, though SARS-CoV-2 naïve vaccinees had a 5.96-fold (95% CI, 4.85 to 7.33) increased risk for breakthrough infection and a 7.13-fold (95% CI, 5.51 to 9.21) increased risk for symptomatic disease. SARS-CoV-2-naïve vaccinees were also at a greater risk for COVID-19-related-hospitalizations compared to those that were previously infected.

Conclusions This study demonstrated that natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity. Individuals who were both previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta variant.

Martin Kulldorf of Harvard weighs in:

“In Israel, vaccinated individuals had 27 times higher risk of symptomatic COVID infection compared to those with natural immunity from prior COVID disease [95%CI:13-57, adjusted for time of vaccine/disease]. No COVID deaths in either group.”

Jon Miltimore draws the implications: Harvard Epidemiologist Says the Case for COVID Vaccine Passports Was Just Demolished. Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

A Death Blow to Vaccine Passports?

The findings come as many governments around the world are demanding citizens acquire “vaccine passports” to travel. New York City, France, and the Canadian provinces of Quebec and British Columbia are among those who have recently embraced vaccine passports.

Meanwhile, Australia has floated the idea of making higher vaccination rates a condition of lifting its lockdown in jurisdictions, while President Joe Biden is considering making interstate travel unlawful for people who have not been vaccinated for COVID-19.

Vaccine passports are morally dubious for many reasons, not the least of which is that freedom of movement is a basic human right. However, vaccine passports become even more senseless in light of the new findings out of Israel and revelations from the CDC, some say.

Harvard Medical School professor Martin Kulldorff said research showing that natural immunity offers exponentially more protection than vaccines means vaccine passports are both unscientific and discriminatory, since they disproportionately affect working class individuals.

“Prior COVID disease (many working class) provides better immunity than vaccines (many professionals), so vaccine mandates are not only scientific nonsense, they are also discriminatory and unethical,” Kulldorff, a biostatistician and epidemiologist, observed on Twitter.

Nor is the study out of Israel a one-off. Media reports show that no fewer than 15 academic studies have found that natural immunity offers immense protection from COVID-19.

The Bottom Line

Vaccine passports would be immoral and a massive government overreach even in the absence of these findings. There is simply no historical parallel for governments attempting to restrict the movements of healthy people over a respiratory virus in this manner.

Yet the justification for vaccine passports becomes not just wrong but absurd in light of these new revelations.

People who have had COVID already have significantly more protection from the virus than people who’ve been vaccinated. Meanwhile, people who’ve not had COVID and choose to not get vaccinated may or may not be making an unwise decision. But if they are, they are principally putting only themselves at risk.

Our immune systems fail us without zinc in our bodies. Diana Kwon explains at Knowable magazine How zinc helps you fight off infections.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

Our bodies require the vital mineral for the healthy functioning of the immune system

As researchers learn more about how our bodies use zinc, they’re finding that the element plays a surprisingly key role, particularly within the immune system. “We think zinc is a gatekeeper of immune function,” says Lothar Rink, an immunologist at RWTH Aachen University in Germany who recently coauthored an overview of zinc’s roles in the immune system in the 2021 Annual Review of Nutrition.

And, although scientists still struggle to find good ways to measure zinc levels in the body, it looks as though many people may indeed not have enough zinc in their diet for full immune function.

An essential element

Too little zinc is clearly bad news for your health. A severe shortage — often the result of a genetic defect or an extremely restricted diet — can cause myriad problems, such as stunted growth in infants and children, hair loss, roughened skin, delayed wound healing and weakened defenses against infections.

But the extent and consequences of more subtle zinc deficiencies have proven harder to pin down. That’s largely because it’s extremely difficult to measure zinc levels accurately in people. Zinc is often on the move both inside and outside our cells. During an infection, for example, blood levels drop as zinc is siphoned out of the bloodstream into cells that help launch an immune response. Zinc levels can also be perturbed by diet, certain drugs and hormones, and health status.

For these reasons, although it is possible to detect zinc levels in blood, these measurements are often imprecise. And unlike iron, which is easily assessed by measuring levels of iron-containing blood proteins like hemoglobin and ferritin, there is no biomarker that can be used as an indicator of zinc levels. “There’s still no 100 percent accurate way to measure zinc in a human being, especially if they have an illness of some kind,” says Daren Knoell, a zinc biologist at the University of Nebraska. Currently, the best way to determine a potential zinc deficit is to look at someone’s dietary intake, he adds.

Because of these limitations, most physicians diagnose zinc deficiency only if patients show symptoms of major deficiency such as rough skin or hair loss, Rink says. “But immune deficiency takes place much earlier, when you have a slight zinc deficiency.” Researchers have found that zinc-deficient individuals are more vulnerable to infection than those with adequate levels of the mineral. Studies have shown, for example, that in healthy elderly individuals, zinc supplements reduced the frequency of infections. (The possible use of zinc supplements to help ward off Covid-19 is an area of active investigation, although the National Institutes of Health states that there is currently not enough evidence to say if it will be beneficial.)

From the data available so far, it appears that zinc deficiency is relatively common. Based on assessments of diet and the prevalence of stunted growth, a common consequence of inadequate zinc consumption during development, some studies estimate that around 17 percent of the world’s population are at risk of zinc deficiency — and that in certain low- and middle-income regions, such as parts of South Asia, that proportion is as high as 30 percent.

Aging, genetics, pregnancy, illness and other factors all contribute to this shortfall, but diet is the main culprit, when individuals don’t eat enough zinc-rich foods such as seafood, red meat and nuts. Consuming too many phytates, substances found in whole-grain bread, cereals and other sources, can also be a problem. Phytates bind to zinc and prevent it from being absorbed into the body.

What does zinc do?

Studies show that zinc is important in almost all aspects of the immune system: It helps skin cells and cells lining our organs prevent pathogens from entering, and it keeps the thymus and bone marrow, which are responsible for generating immune cells, functioning normally. Zinc “crops up in all parts of the immune system,” says Sophie Hambleton, an immunologist at Newcastle University in the UK — and zinc-deficient people show a wide range of immune dysfunctions.

Most of the research to date has focused on the role of zinc in the innate immune system, the body’s frontline defense that launches fast, non-specific attacks against foreign invaders. Zinc appears to be involved in making physical barriers — such as the cells that line our organs — more resistant to invasion, as well as ensuring the proper functioning of macrophages, key white blood cells that gobble up pathogens and send out chemical signals to recruit other cellular soldiers.

To ensure that there’s enough zinc to carry out these many jobs, concentrations of the mineral within the body are tightly controlled. At the onset of an infection, for example, immune cells such as macrophages rapidly produce a zinc-transporting protein called ZIP8. This protein controls how much zinc enters these cells, which is important for maintaining the cells’ ability to mop up pathogens and regulating the production of important defense-related molecules, including chemical messengers called cytokines, Knoell and others have found.

How much zinc does a person need?

Given how important zinc is to a healthy immune system — and the difficulty of knowing whether a person might be deficient — Rink says zinc supplementation is probably a good idea, especially for people who are at higher risk of being deficient, such as vegetarians, vegans and the elderly. (Rink has consulted for or received research grants from three companies that sell zinc supplements).

Most nutritional supplements are safe and don’t cause any serious side effects at the recommended daily intake, 8 milligrams and 11 milligrams for women and men, respectively, but Rink warns that at very high concentrations zinc can have adverse effects. In 2009, the US Food and Drug Administration warned against the use of Zicam nasal spray and swabs, a common cold remedy containing zinc levels so high that it led to a loss of the sense of smell. Due to this and other potential harms, experts recommend that adults consume no more than 40 milligrams of zinc per day.

Many open questions remain. For one, the authors of that 2021 review note that there were limitations to the available trials, such as small sample sizes. In addition, the time frame for zinc’s benefits is unclear. Most of the trials looking at the benefits of zinc after infection reported that supplements work only within 24 hours of when symptoms begin — but the team found evidence that window might be longer, and that zinc might be beneficial even when consumed up to three days after the onset of symptoms. And we need better zinc supplements, Knoell says. Most now come in salt form, as zinc sulfate or chloride, but these are not readily taken up by the body, so better formulations would be beneficial, he adds.

W. Edwards Deming was a scientific pioneer and the most widely known proponent of statistical quality control.

Footnote:

For years I have taken Zinc + vitamin C lozenges at the first sign of sinus or throat infection.  With the onset of covid19 alarms, I started taking 50 mg. Zinc tablets daily.  My pharmacist advised me to use zinc gluconate or sulfate rather than chloride or citrate, for better absorption by my body.

See also:  COVID-19 is a lack of nutrients, exploited by a virus

Yesterday I gave a blood sample for SARS CV2 antibody testing and today I got back encouraging results.

Background

In Canada (and elsewhere including US and UK) Roche provides a panel of two serum antibody tests.  First developed was the N test to identify antibodies against the Nucleocapsid protein. This test will accurately detect responses to natural infection, but not an immune response triggered by a vaccine.

The S test seeks antibodies against the S (Spike) proteins.  The Elecsys® Anti-SARS-CoV-2 assay characteristics are described at Roche diagnostic website.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

A positive result means that you have developed protective IgG antibodies to the spike protein of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Our report will also provide you with a numeric count of these antibodies which is standardised and allows you to compare with other available tests and published WHO standards.

This test will detect antibodies amongst individuals who have been naturally infected but also received one of the following vaccines: AstraZeneca, Pfizer / BioNtech, Moderna.

If antibodies are detected, it means that the immune system will recognise the SARS-CoV-2 virus if met in the future and this will prevent serious reinfections from occurring. There is no way of predicting the level of that protection.

A negative result tells you that you likely have not been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 or that the level of protective antibodies have subsequently decreased to a point where they can no longer be detected.

How Immunity Deploys Antibodies

Testingforall in UK provides this helpful information Understanding your Roche Anti-SARS-CoV-2 (S) test result

The body has a range of ways to fight off infection, but the scientific community has centred the development of vaccines for COVID on triggering the creation of antibodies to the spike protein of coronavirus. These “spikes” are what gives coronaviruses their name, and it is through this spike mechanism that the virus binds to healthy human cells in order to replicate itself.

A natural infection creates a wide ranged defence, often involving a T cell response to destroy human cells infected by SARS-SoV-2 to stop virus from replicating, and by the creation of a range of antibodies to different proteins in the virus that attempt to deactivate it before it can bind to host cells. The original COVID-19 Home Total Antibody Test we launched in Sept 2020 detects antibodies to the Nucleocapsid protein that surrounds the RNA of the coronavirus, and is useful for detecting previous exposure, which has provided many people with an understanding of whether past or ongoing symptoms that they experienced were related to a coronavirus infection that occurred before PCR testing was widely available.

The COVID-19 Immunity Test provides an accurate calibrated measurement of the level of antibodies to the spike protein, and is therefore considered to be a good view of your immune response and status. In the testing that we have carried out with our laboratory partner, we have compared the result of the both the Roche N and S test tests on positive blood samples and see very good agreement so if you tested positive on our COVID-19 Home Total Antibody Test then you will very likely test positive on the COVID-19 Immunity Test. The difference between the two tests is that they are looking at different viral protein targets, and that the Immunity Test gives you a calibrated antibody titer that can be compared to other tests and the emerging WHO standard.

To enlarge open image in new tab, or double-click.

The Results in My Case

My N test was negative while my S test was highly positive at >2500 U/ml.  Here is the range of reported results:

Conclusion:  My Pfizer jab #1 was in April, #2 in June.  Six months later I have the highest rating for antibodies against the Spike protein, a combination of natural and vaccine-induced immunity.

Footnote:  For a review of all the ways Ivermectin defeats SARS CV2, see How Much Does Ivermectin Fight Covid19? The Count is 20 ways.

PostScript

I noted that 2500 units per milliliter is the same number as the air molecules (mostly N2 andO2) surrounding each CO2 molecule in the atmosphere.  The analogy is clear:  Just as IR-inactive gases keep our planet warm without overheating, our immunity antibodies keep us from Covid19 fever.

The Quebec Story Today

As reported in Global News article Quebecers wait in long lineups for free rapid COVID-19 test kits.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

Quebecers lined up outside local pharmacies Monday morning looking to get their hands on free rapid COVID-19 testing kits.

At a Jean-Coutu in Anjou, lines were forming as early at 7 a.m. as people looked to nab one of the 108 available kits.

By 9 a.m., the store’s supply had run out, with a number of people left empty-handed, forced to seek elsewhere.

Provincewide, 4.3 million tests are being distributed to 1,900 pharmacies. Another two million are being sent to seniors’ homes.

According to the Quebec Order of Pharmacists, supply is limited, with pharmacies receiving boxes of only 108 kits.

Each kit holds five tests. Anyone over the age of 14 is eligible for one kit per 30-day period to prevent hoarding supply.

The ministry of health says there are both advantages and disadvantages of rapid antigen testing. They are easy to use and you can get a result in less than 15 minutes, but they can also sometimes provide false positives.

Rapid tests can be used for added protection over holidays, but experts warn they aren’t perfect
If your rapid test comes back positive, you should book a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test, which is considered the gold standard for COVID-19 testing, and self-isolate until you receive a negative test result.

On December 20, 2021,  Quebec Health Minister Christian Dube announced tough new restrictions in an effort to stem the rapid growth of COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations in the province, and he warned further measures may come soon.

Dube called the situation “critical” as he announced that bars, movie theatres and other entertainment venues were to close as of 5 p.m. Monday. Restaurants will be allowed to operate at 50 per cent capacity but will be required to close by 10 p.m.

The Quebec Back Story From January 2021

January 30, 2021 I posted this Covid Rapid Tests Finally Out from Quebec Storage (200 Scientists Ask)  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

A group of 213 scientists, professors, health-care workers and patients published an open letter to the Legault government Thursday calling on Quebec to roll out rapid COVID-19 tests to curb outbreaks more quickly and to step up its communications strategy.

“We have 1.2 million of those tests just sitting in a warehouse in Farnham,” Roxane Borgès Da Silva, a professor with the Université de Montréal’s school of public health, said in an interview Wednesday night. “We have reached a point in the evolution of the pandemic where the health system is at the breaking point. It is time that we use every tool at our disposal.”

Quebec has been hesitant to use the tests widely because it fears their lack of sensitivity could clear people for COVID-19 when they actually have the virus. But Da Silva said the tests are close to 90-per-cent accurate when used on patients who are in an extremely contagious phase, which is crucial to stopping the most dangerous transmitters. The tests could be used at workplaces, high schools and CHSLDs, or be made available at pharmacies and doctors’ offices to allow the public to get tested quickly, Da Silva said.

The main COVID-19 test used in Canada is the polymerase chain reaction, or PCR, test — which uses the nasal swab that most Quebecers who have gotten a COVID-19 test are familiar with. They are extremely sensitive. They rarely — if ever — declare someone negative who actually has COVID-19; if there is viral material present in someone’s nasal cavity, a PCR test will find it. They are so sensitive that they can detect dead viral material leading to positive results long after the person is no longer infectious, and they are resource intensive, requiring health-care workers to take swabs and lab technicians to process the results.

The tests’ lack of sensitivity and the chance of getting a false negative result worried federal officials, who gave a caveat when they approved the rapid tests, Quebec Health Minister Christian Dubé said at the National Assembly last week.

“It says in small print, ‘be sure to do the second test at the same time. To avoid giving a false negative, continue to do the (PCR) test,” Dubé said.

So Quebec is still double-checking each rapid test result with a PCR test, a cumbersome process that reduces their utility. As a consequence, Dubé said the province has more than one million rapid tests sitting unused or just beginning to be used in pilot projects, as health officials decide the best way to deploy them.

Quebec Public Waits to be Empowered, Gets Controls Instead

Treatment protocols including Ivermectin or HCQ plus nutritional supplements fill the need for early home treatment.

As you can see from the above, the purpose of rapid tests is countermanded by policymakers.  The empowerment idea is that people feeling ill can readily at home test for infection from SARS CV2. They can then through telemedicine administer anti-viral treatment protocols to clear the virus without severe sickness or requiring hospitalization.

Instead of that, the rapid tests are only employed as a screening for PCR testing.  Officials do not want to lose control over case statistics.  Nor do they admit or recommend any therapeutics for curing Covid19.  They only advise to be vaccinated (again and again), and then isolate when infected until health returns or hospital care is required.

And don’t overlook how the PCR tests are manipulated. See CDC Test for Vaxxed People Comes a Year Too Late.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

From the CDC’s instructions for state health authorities on handling “possible breakthrough infections” (uploaded to their website in late April):

For cases with a known RT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct) value, submit only specimens with Ct value ≤28 to CDC for sequencing. (Sequencing is not feasible with higher Ct values.)

Throughout the pandemic, CT values in excess of 35 have been the norm, with labs around the world going into the 40s.

Essentially labs were running as many cycles as necessary to achieve a positive result, despite experts warning that this was pointless (even Fauci himself said anything over 35 cycles is meaningless).

But NOW, and only for fully vaccinated people, the CDC will only accept samples achieved from 28 cycles or fewer. That can only be a deliberate decision in order to decrease the number of “breakthrough infections” being officially recorded.

Secondly, asymptomatic or mild infections will no longer be recorded as “covid cases”.

That’s right. Even if a sample collected at the low CT value of 28 can be sequenced into the virus alleged to cause Covid19, the CDC will no longer be keeping records of breakthrough infections that don’t result in hospitalisation or death.

The CDC is demonstrating the beauty of having a “disease” that can appear or disappear depending on how you measure it.

To be clear: If these new policies had been the global approach to “Covid” since December 2019,  there would never have been a pandemic at all.