Coronavirus in the United States - news and thoughts

Is there an official "natural immunity" card just like a vaccine card? Do we track everyone who ever had COVID the same way we track vaccines?

 

Get an Antibody test and you should be good to go. Not difficult at all. Not sure why this is an issue. It's common sense.

 

No way would I recommend my wife to get the vaccine if we were still planning on having kids. Just not enough info out there and she's only 35, so almost no risk of serious covid complications.

https://cf5e727d-d02d-4d71-89ff-9fe...d/adf864_2bd97450072f4364a65e5cf1d7384dd4.pdf

“We conclude that the claims made using these data on the safety of exposure of women in early pregnancy to mRNA-based vaccines to prevent COVID-19 are unwarranted and recommend that those policy decisions be revisited”

 

I am not sure there is solid science to define what constitutes natural immunity and how to measure it. It seems like the diversity of outcomes is much wider with natural immunity - in some cases, almost a third, with little at all but others being more robust than the vaccine. You could do it based upon an antibody measurement but those fade and there are other types of immunity than antibodies.

 

Compared to the 6-8 weeks of "good" vaccine protection? You are comparing apples and a steak. Natural Immunity is vastly superior from the start. To get anywhere near natural immunity any study has to cook the books to make it seem like an apt comparison.

 

Citing an anti-vaxx group publication?

 

But not Anti-Vaxx!

 

Studies that show natural immunity versus vaccine immunity are all over the board in terms of results. What is likely happening is there are certain conditions where natural immunity is better, and other conditions where natural immunity isn't as effective. And scientists still don't know why those infected and have had the vaccine have what is considered "super immunity" to COVID.

What scientists do know is percentages of vaccine effectiveness over about 9 months, because there is a record of everyone who has been vaccinated. There is no such record of who has had COVID.

 

Hey, we won't learn if the vaccine is effective unless we stick people with it. Sounds brilliant.

Americans who received the one-dose J&J Covid vaccine were 3.5 times likely to develop blood clots | Daily Mail Online

 

Nope. You can keep avoiding the fact that natural immunity is better than just the vaccine but you keep looking more and more foolish. We have the largest study in the world showing how significant the difference is and you disregard and try to find some small "study" that has to cherry pick data to make it seem like the vaccines are superior. You keep playing vaccine politics. The rest of us will deal in reality.

Assessment of SARS-CoV-2 Reinfection 1 Year After Primary Infection in a Population in Lombardy, Italy

 

It's not just some small study. It's multiple small studies. Like this recent one from the CDC. Or this one from the Cleveland Clinic. Being largest doesn't always mean being the best.

Part of the scientific method is repeatable observations. One would expect that if natural immunity was always best, every study, even smaller ones, would all show the same results. They don't. Not even close. Maybe it's time? Maybe it's the vaccine being studies? Maybe it's the variant that the people were infected with? Maybe it's a combination of things that we have not isolated yet.

But hey, if you want to stick with the biggest is always the best, then the University of Central Florida, with over 66,000 students, is the best school not only in Florida, but in the country! Hands down, no question. It's the biggest, so it must be the best!

 

How do you think clinical trials work?

Making vaccines available occurred after the completion of Phase III trials which allowed the FDA to permit them under Emergency Use Authorization. There is always some risk involved with any vaccine, or any treatment for that matter. But weighed against the harm brought about by Covid, the public health benefits outweigh the risk of such rare events.

In absolute terms, despite being statistically significant, the *3.5x* higher rate was derived from what have been rare events. There have been only 38 verified cases of CSVT found in the VAERS data out of over 9m doses of J&J, or .42 cases per every 100k J&J vax.

Still didn't answer my question, why are you citing research from an outspoken anti-vax organization?

 

The largest study will be the best because of it lessons the odds of any bias. Anyone wanting the truth would know that.

Terrible analogy to compare it to a large school, even though you were wrong on ucf being the largest school.

THESE are the 10 biggest colleges in the United States [2021]

 

I'm all for adults to get the vaccine(unless they've previously had covid). Kids shouldn't get the vaccine unless they have underlying conditions. So now we are following VAERS? Let me know if that's cool to post data from VAERS. I'm sure that will go over well with some on here...

Who cares if it's an anti vaxx organization. The CDC is a defacto vax organization(making up numbers to suit their beliefs). Look at the data itself and make a determination. I've discredited that cdc "study" enough. Anyone thinking that or the Kentucky proves anything is too biased to have a rational conversation with.

 

One small study outlier, then you can likely dismiss. But there have been multiple studies that show different data than the large study. And even though the largest generally eliminates bias, you can't just say that as a blanket statement without actually looking at the conditions of the large study. And the large study had potential biases we've already discussed, which are it looked at only one vaccine, and studies a very homogenous population.

As for largest school, I just did a quick Google search and it came up UCF. This link has it second. And it's not a bad analogy if you are just looking at size and not at other, potential variables that could skew the results. Biggest isn't always best. For example, ask 40,000 current college students in Florida what the best school in the state is, and 50% are from UCF, and the other 20,000 are from all other universities, the study would be skewed. Do the study again, ask only 20,000 students, even percentages from all schools, and the data will likely have a much different result. But according to you, bigger is always better!

The scientific method says for something to be considered a scientific truth, results need to be repeatable. Can you explain why several, as in more than one, smaller study has had widely different results when it comes to natural to vaccine immunity? Neither can scientists. Which is why the question isn't settled science, and more research is needed.

To answer the question why even those with COVID should get the vaccine is simple. The vaccine efficacy is known, accepted, and every vaccine jab is tracked. Vaccine immunity is predicable and traceable. Can't say that about natural immunity, regardless of whether or not it's more effective. And again, in several studies, vaccine immunity has shown to be better. Why? Hopefully we'll find out one day soon.

 

If you cannot distinguish between the problem with simply posting unverified numbers from VAERS data vs researchers who investigated every case found in the VAERS data to determine the validity, I can't help you. But your response is strange to me since you were the one who just posted the Daily Mail article on the Mayo Clinic study where the researchers verified the VAERS data.

You have not done anything to discredit the CDC study since you haven't provided any evidence that they *manufactured* or *made up* numbers. I suspect that is why now you are trying to invoke that others are too biased.

 

If you can't see that they manipulated the data then that's on you. You keep believing the propaganda. The rational people are over covid.

 

Nope. But keep thinking that. That's why you are so wrong on natural immunity. It's quite funny how you fight it. Some on here fought schools being closed the same way and were proven wrong even after being shown data. You seem to be the same here with natural immunity. There are way more studies showing natural immunity is superior to the vaccine than the other way around. This is bordering on embarrassing for you.

 

You can write about rationality all you want, but it's just another deflection. If you had the goods, you'd provide it.

 

Just because you didn't like what i said doesn't mean i didn't have the "goods". Go look at the data. 200k people hospitalized with dovid like illness over 8 months in 9 states. Problem is starting in Jan when hardly none of the US was vaccinated yet skews the numbers. Then the cdc decided to compare 2 groups, people who had covid previously at least 90 days prior and received a positive test during hospitalization, and people who had been been fully vaccinated at least 90 days but no more than 180 days before testing positive. This "criteria" excluded most of the people hospitalized with covid like illnesses.


Then we have the CDC posting this data showing natural immunity is indeed better than vaccination because we know the vaccines wane over time.

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)