Coronavirus in the United States - news and thoughts

Isn't that all true? Aren't all of us that support the vax willing to admit the short life span of its effectiveness?
Regardless, he has been very vocal that he supports in in adults even with the questions about how long it works.

What's the rub here?

 

Just my take, but I also consider myself "pro-vax" in terms of recognizing that it is anywhere from extremely useful to "why not" for just about everybody. But the idea of boosters and the changes that take place over time and what to expect going forward gives me reason to pause going forward. I'm more inclined to take a wait-and-see approach for myself, but I'm also balancing that with what our family doctors are telling us. Keeping up with local stats may also influence decisions as well.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

 

The asymptomatic are not spreading this thing in any sort of meaningful way. We would have herd immunity via natural immunity if they were. Just stop with the idea that healthy people are spreading this virus.

 

Why would the need for boosters push you out of the "pro-vax" category?

 

Science disagrees with you. University of Chicago Med study showed that half of COVID spread came from asymptomatic people. Just because you state something or heard something, doesn't mean it is true. Next time, if you are going to make a claim like the asymptomatic do not spread COVID, please back it up with some proof.

We also don't know the true ability or length of natural immunity. In order to be counted as a re-infection, one must first be counted as a positive COVID case. We know there are more people who had COVID than the official number in the US of about 49.5 million. But how many more? We may never know. And we'll never know how many first cases reported are actually re-infections, especially with 1 in 3 cases being asymptomatic.

We also have plenty of conflicting results when it comes to vaccine versus natural immunity. All we know is both wane over time. One advantage of vaccine immunity? It's completely traceable and trackable. Infection isn't, especially when there are people out there now, currently COVID positive, but asymptomatic. And unless we mandate weekly tests for everyone, we'll never know they had it.

The bottom line is there are people who today, seem completely healthy, with asymptomatic cases, who are spreading the virus. And the numbers tell us, per 100,000 people, there are more unvaxxed with asymptomatic cases than there are vaccinated. And the unvaxxed are contagious for a longer period, therefore, spreading the virus more than the vaccinated.

 

You just posted data that showed what appeared to be a significant decrease in likelihood of getting Covid with vaccine regardless of prior Covid history. Hybrid immunity was better than natural immunity. Again, unless you want to push intentional infection as a strategy, prior exposure is a condition, not a strategy, as there is a reduction in Covid likelihood from taking the vaccines regardless of prior status.

 

Come on @BLING, why the rating. It was an honest question.

One can be pro vax and still honest that it doesn't last long. I am asking a genuine question.

 

Any criticism of the vaccine is anti vax man you know that.
Don't question you masters.

 

I don't think it does, I think it changes the way people think about the vaccination process and what to expect long-term. For instance, if we are just going in cycles, why would I want to get a booster at the end of a given cycle vs. at the beginning of the next cycle? Another person may come along and say "get 'em both times." Another person may say "I've already had my 2-shot series, I want to see more about how effective/ineffective that is before I decide to get a booster." Are any of these individuals no longer "pro-vax?"

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

 

Still pro vaxx, but don't have my head in the sand thinking its a perfect vaccine. Swing and a miss!

 

Is it unacceptable that we don't have 100% perfect insight to where we are headed and may have some modest disagreement among public health officials on issues like who should get boosters and when?

 

Absolutely not. It's the criticism that people face for not being 100% invested in a given solution that is unacceptable.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

 

Really? Maybe take another look at the chart and get back to me. Hybrid data shows around the same as Natural immunity. Show me where I said I want intentional infection in an adult without a vaccine. I'll wait...

Keep trying guys. You'll get there eventually.

 

Huh? What are you talking about in terms of "cycles?" You would take a booster when the data shows declining immunity. And yes, if you start advocating not to take vaccines or mainly pushing people not to take vaccines because there are boosters, then you stop being pro-vax.

 

I think you should maybe take a look at the chart again. The entire 95% interval of Rec then Vacc 6-8 months is less than just recovered 6-8 months. So if you have had Covid, it lowers your risk. Also, you might want to read my post closely. I said "unless you want to push." I never claimed that you were.

 

Depends on the solution. As to needing to get the basic 2 shots for adults that is incontrovertable.

 

You might want to look at the graph again. Mixed bag on if vax first then covid versus covid first vax second. Needless what we should've done from the beginning was anyone who had covid previously should've been last to get the vaccine. That is obvious. Many including myself have been advocating for this since the vax rollout started. We could've saved countless lives worldwide if we did that. But that isn't what our awful leadership(both parties and CDC) decided to do.

 

The idea that we fluctuate between peak times and low times for when COVID is a threat for a given area.

What if you advocate for getting vaccinated, but you take a wait-and-see approach with boosters? Are you anti-vax then? Maybe we need more binaries than simply "anti-vax" vs. "pro-vax."

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

 

Vaxx first then covid has absolutely no bearing on the decision of vaccination, as they would have been without a prior infection, so that is a completely unimportant point. The research question you are attempting to answer here is whether a person with a prior infection should get a vaccine (you have already admitted that people without a prior infection should).

It is obvious that you were wrong and that vaccines provide protection regardless of your prior Covid status. It is obvious because the estimate for Covid then vaccine is lower than just Covid with no vaccine.

 

Why would somebody be anti-booster but pro vaccine?