Coronavirus in the United States - news and thoughts

It is not worth it for some. You can go to the holy site of the cdc and it still does not matter.

• "Vaccine break through infections are expected. COVID-19 vaccines are effective at preventing most infections. However, like other vaccines, they are not 100% effective."

Vaccine Breakthrough Infections: The Possibility of Getting COVID-19 after Getting Vaccinated (cdc.gov)

"Cases of reinfection with COVID-19 have been reported, but remain rare."

Reinfection with COVID-19 | CDC

It is so obvious the narrative they are trying to drive verse providing information for people to make the best decisions for themselves on how to navigate this thing.

Right from the cdc...break through infections are expected. Reinfections are rare. I would argue extremely rare but the cdc makes the case for that even with only stating they are rare. We have the data our of the UK showing how rare reinfections are. But the science deniers are going to die on the vaccine hill. It is disgusting that they continue to ignore this and want to force people to take a new drug they do not want or need in order to keep their job.

 

Common Antidepressant Slashes Risk of COVID Death

A cheap, widely available drug used to treat mental illness cuts both the risk of death from COVID-19 and the need for people with the disease to receive intensive medical care, according to clinical-trial results.

The drug, called fluvoxamine, is taken for conditions including depression and obsessive–compulsive disorder. But it is also known to dampen immune responses and temper tissue damage, and researchers credit these properties with its success in the recent trial. Among study participants who took the drug as directed and did so in the early stages of the disease, COVID-19-related deaths fell by roughly 90% and the need for intensive COVID-19-related medical care fell by roughly 65%.

“A major victory for drug repurposing!” Vikas Sukhatme at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia, who studies drug repurposing, wrote in an e-mail to Nature. “Fluvoxamine treatment should be adopted for those at high risk for deterioration who are not vaccinated or cannot receive monoclonal antibodies.”

Study co-author Angela Reiersen, a psychiatrist at Washington University School of Medicine in St Louis, Missouri, has long been interested in using fluvoxamine to treat a rare genetic condition. While monitoring the fluvoxamine literature before the pandemic, she came across a 2019 study showing that fluvoxamine reduced inflammation in mice with sepsis. When COVID-19 hit, “I immediately thought back to that paper with the mice,” she says

 

Everything the CDC says is correct. Breakthrough cases are rare, and the charts I posted yesterday show breakthrough cases per age group are significantly lower than cases from unvaccinated people. Reinfection cases are rare too, but much more difficult to track. How can we be sure of the number of people who had a mild case, never saw a doctor, and then later, has a case that is more serious? Not to mention, the literature and research on natural immunity isn't settled science. Too many conflicting results to be able to say for sure.

Last, vaccine immunity is trackable, measurable, and predictable. The vaccine is by far, our best weapon against COVID.

 

Breakthrough cases are way more common than reinfection. It is time to stop ignoring this…

 

The science hasn't been settled. One, large study from Israel says this to be the case. But there are four studies, one from the Cleveland Clinic, one from the CDC, one from Kentucky, and one from Alaska, that all have different results, and show vaccine to be more effective. Can you, or anyone here explain to me why the Israel study results are not repeatable?

Remember, the scientific method relies on observations and results to be repeatable. If the results and observations are not, then the science isn't settled. Just because you and others want to believe the one study is the end-all, be-all, definitive study on the subject, does not make it true.

Even so, what is settled is those vaccinated are far less likely to be infected than those unvaccinated. And the vaccinated are far less likely to end up in the hospital or dead. And the thing about natural immunity? It requires you to get COVID and recover before you have it. So what's better? Being vaccinated and reducing your chance of the disease, and lowering the chances of a severe case? Or taking your chances and remaining unvaccinated?

 

It is settled on reinfection. It is fascinating that some of you will fight to make those who have better protection than you be forced to get a new drug.

Booster up.

 

If it's settled, please explain why the results of the Israeli study were not repeatable in the CDC study, the Cleveland Clinic study, the Kentucky study, and the Alaska study. Scientific method dictates that a question isn't settled unless results are repeatable and predictable. To claim the science is settled on vaccine versus natural immunity is settled is silly. And only shows wishful thinking, ignorance, or both.

 

All immunity is trackable and verifiable. Simple blood tests

 

The hard data shows reinfection is rare. Extremely rare. Yet we know breath throughs are common.

Booster up.

 

new cases 7 day average lowest since july 27. deaths lowest since august 19, all quiet on the fauci front, life is good.

 

Those who wish to disparage NI try to make it seem difficult to figure out if someone has Natural Immunity. Then they trot out a couple of small "studies" that use some interesting metrics to get their results. Yet we have data from the UK and many other studies showing how NI is extremely long lasting and superior to the vaccine. Don't bother with some of these posters. They were the same ones saying lockdowns and school closures were the right move. They are too ignorant to deal with.

 

Exactly. The cdc is cherry picking small studies to push a narrative. The Kentucky study is about reinfection and if they got a vaccine or not after. It is not about the reality very few get reinfected regardless if they chose to get the vaccine after being infected. As the cdc says…that is just not something that really happens. On top of that the Kentucky study even says it is too small and larger populations need to be studied (again this study is pointless as it is just looking at whether the vaccine helps and not whether NI works which the cdc knows it does work).

 

Not sure what you mean by hard data? Seems there might be a misunderstanding about how research works.

It's not cherry picking to sample, say, from hospitals for a study. It's what occurs all the time for extremely good reasons, vital even, because often is the case it's impossible to study the entire population of cases to answer a given question.

 

Simple blood tests need to be administered and results registered. That is not currently being done for everyone. What is being done? Vaccine registration for all who get the jab.

I've posted this before, several times, but it's a British Medical Journal article that discusses both sides of the vaccine versus natural immunity question. Here are some quotes from the article:

Most infections were never diagnosed, Frieden points out, and many people may have assumed they had been infected when they hadn’t. Add to that false positive results, he says. Had the CDC given different directives and vaccine schedules based on prior infection, it “wouldn’t have done much good and might have done some harm.”

Klausner, who is also a medical director of a US testing and vaccine distribution company, says he initiated conversations about offering a fingerprick antibody screen for people with suspected exposure before vaccination, so that doses could be used more judiciously. But “everyone concluded it was just too complicated.”

For Frieden, vaccinating people who have already had covid-19 is, ultimately, the most responsible policy right now. “There’s no doubt that natural infection does provide significant immunity for many people, but we’re operating in an environment of imperfect information, and in that environment the precautionary principle applies—better safe than sorry.”

“If natural immunity is strongly protective, as the evidence to date suggests it is, then vaccinating people who have had covid-19 would seem to offer nothing or very little to benefit, logically leaving only harms—both the harms we already know about as well as those still unknown,” says Christine Stabell Benn, vaccinologist and professor in global health at the University of Southern Denmark. The CDC has acknowledged the small but serious risks of heart inflammation and blood clots after vaccination, especially in younger people. The real risk in vaccinating people who have had covid-19 “is of doing more harm than good,” she says.
​

Like I've said before, the article presents both sides of the arguments, and evidence both ways. When this happens, it's impossible to call something settled science. You can read scientists with years of education and research behind them, and understand they are still trying to figure it all out. Or, you can listen to some random people on a message board who seem to have it all figured out!

​

 

While I don't disagree with the CDC take. It would not be hard to actually prove who had prior infection (NI) and vaccine induced immunity, there are different blood markers used to determine this. No different than how we figure out who had HepC or who has been vaccinated for HepC.
They could do it if they wanted to, that seemingly would go against the drive that vaccines are the only way(that's how this appears to me at any rate).

There also have been some concerns about vaccinations post infection yet that seems to be ignored. Some theorize that's in part why there are clotting and CV/CNS issues for some. Remnant spike proteins from prior infection causes an immune response and inflammatory response precipitating the CV/CNS event.

 

This is why we should've used natural immunity and only vaxxed those over 18 who haven't had covid yet and vax children only with underlying issues. Vax the rest of the world especially the elderly THEN offer the vaccine to those who have natural immunity. Probably would've saved hundreds of thousands of people.

 

are there any studies of people tracking covid immune levels.

I found a Yale study where they tracked long term immunity from other SARA related viruses and the immunity lasted between 3 and 61 months with an average reinfection at 16 months. They studied the other SARS viruses as they have no long term data or immunity data on covid 19 patients

 

Hard data…

Out of 4 million cases…a possible 15,893 or 0.4% (test positive 3 months apart). Probable 478 or 0.01% (different variant was common when the test happened and 3 months apart). Confirmed 53 or 0.001% (gene tested different).

New national surveillance of possible COVID-19 reinfection, published by PHE

Public Health England through May 31.

Reinfection is extremely rare. Add to it that the second round of cases almost certainly had lesser symptoms as well…

Stop destroying the lives of those who got Covid treating Covid positive patients through this pandemic. It is evil!

 

Thank you. How does UK surveillance data make it hard but not data from studies?

Here's the thing, it's likely that many in the UK who got covid once are now vaccinated as well and also taking further precautions, thus decreasing their likelihood of a second reinfection.

People should stop being selfish. There's an evil in not caring about the harm they can bring to others.