Coronavirus in the United States - news and thoughts

I'm not sure why you two keep throwing this mostly irrelevant argument back and forth. From everything I've seen, it comes down to this:

1. In the short term after vaccination, maybe 60 days, the vaccine offers better and more consistent protection due to the initial vaccination antibody load (CDC study)

2. For longer periods, 5 months or more, natural immunity seems to be more lasting (Israeli and other studies) because of its broader immunity - with the caveat that this only applies to roughly 2/3 of whom natural immunity activates, the other 1/3 not so much)

3. As mentioned above, natural immunity tends to be more variable and approx 1/3 never really activates. I'm going to guess this may apply to those who were infected but perhaps didn't realize they were sick or had covid.

So you two can go back and forth on this and to a degree both be right. But ultimately it's a fairly silly argument as comparing the efficacy of a measure to prevent from getting Covid vs actually getting Covid, which by definition is a fail. Having natural immunity is basically means 100% failed preventing covid.

The only reason people pimp natural immunity is as an excuse not to get the vaccine, based on the flawed assumption that it is dangerous. In most cases the vaccine will give you additional protection even if you got covid. So generally there little reason not to get the vaccine.

Discussions of natural immunity are relevant to the extent they help us determine how close we are to herd immunity, to the extent that term is even relevant with a rapidly mutating and incubating disease.

 

For the record, I'm not arguing vaccine is definitely better. I'm stating the information out there is too varied for this to be settled science. I believe your explanation to be plausible and most likely what is happening. But more research is needed before we can truly understand why the different research groups are getting wildly different results.

 

Seems like the can easily be explained.

The Nebraska med link said covid disease antibodies fade faster. That isn't the exact same thing is immunity. There are other forms of immunity. Perhaps infection brings a higher levels of lasting memory (tcells, memory cells). Then they quote a study comparing vaccination + natural immunity vs natural immunity alone, which is an entirely different comparison.

The Israeli study was based upon much longer periods of time, when vaccine antibodies fade. Also my recollection was natural immunity was based upon reported prior infection. It is possible that those that were the most sick likely reported and mild or asymptomatic disease wasn't part of the group.

The CDC study was based shortly after vaccination when antibodies are highest.

 

Seriously dude? No one believes that you haven’t been arguing for months now that the vaccine is better than natural immunity. I’ve given you countless chances to admit it. You won’t. You at least think the vaccine and NI are the same at minimum. You refuse to believe the data. That’s on you. And you wonder why no one defends you on this. That island is sinking due to global warming as well LOL.

 

My best friend just tested positive last night. He was the last friend I had that was not vaccinated or had not had a prior infection but went and got monoclonal antibody treatment right away.
Crazy he didn’t get it earlier. He went out a lot.
I’ll let you know how he feels in 24 hours. Most I know that got the treatment felt much better 24 hours later.

 

It’s pretty simple actually.

Vaccine only teaches the body to target the 1 protein. Long last immunity is always going to be with B and T cells.

Someone with NI will remember all proteins of the virus.

Everybody wants to focus on antibodies but that’s such a small part of our immune system. It’s also why the vaccines effectiveness dwindles so much at 6 months.
By the way, the CDC study is complete garbage. You’ll find plenty of pro vaccine doctors and experts calling the cdc out for such a bad study. It’s riddled with very bad limitations and on top of that loaded with Pfizer connections.

 

I did at one point say vaccine immunity works better. When that's what all the research was saying. Then be research with different results came out that threw the hypothesis that vaccines are better. Since then, I've been saying we need more research to figure out why different studies are getting disparate results. Why in some cases the vaccine seems to be better? And in others, natural immunity is better?

Lots of variables to account for. Time. Race. Age. Vaccine used. Variant that infected the study participants. There is still much we don't know about COVID. Anyone claiming one study to be definitive when multiple others have different results isn't being scientific. The scientific method says for a hypothesis to be true, results must be repeatable. Not biggest study is the best.

 

The vaccine does engage tcells and memory cells. That's why it has long term protection against serious illness and hospitalization.

 

Show me where you said it. I don't believe you and no one else does either. Vaccine isn't better under any circumstances outside the first 4-8 weeks post vaccination and I don't even buy that. You can continue to be the only one on the island. Just say my bad, natural immunity is better and move on. It's easy to do.

 

This doctor says what most people feel about vaccinating kids. The US has lost faith in our medical leaders.

 

Wingnut!! Antivaxxer!! Anti science!! figued i'd jump in first...

 

I've been calling out these "studies" for months now. And people wonder why he don't trust what the CDC says...

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/12/mask-guidelines-cdc-walensky/621035/

 

Not crossed at all. When the vaccine was in full use at the turn of the 20th century, the death rates were so high, the "anti-vaxxers" of that time were in greater numbers. The vaccine deaths seemed to follow a trend or pattern. If a person died from it, usually other family members died from it. That's where the 30% comes in - vast families that died. The last actual numbers we have is in 1959 - 1966. Once they improved the vaccine by 1950 the deaths dropped considerably - 68 deaths in the US during that span. But what's never even talked about are the survivors, those who didn't die but wished they had. Those are in the thousands, millions since the introduction of the vaccine in the 1800s. We don't have any statistics of those that didn't die but had complications, some for life.

60 Minutes ran a piece during Bush's tenure as President, and it was called, "The Most Dangerous Vaccine". Here's the article:

The Most Dangerous Vaccine

Even today, if we rolled out a new smallpox vaccine in the US, estimates are roughly 300 would die from it. Another 30,000 to 300,000 could have life-long complications. These complications vary but the most common is a leprosy-like disease, almost like full-body eczema that is painful. That was the most common side affect from the smallpox vaccine - some people developed eczema of varying strengths. Most of the complications resolved within a few weeks. Imagine that today. If the Covid vaccine is getting so much backlash, I can't imagine if we had to rollout the smallpox vaccine. It would result in civil unrest.

Oh, completely off topic. My brother-in-law gets a cocktail I think every few months because he was diagnosed with some kind of auto immune deficiency, and they checked his blood like usual and found he has antibodies - he got Covid over the past 2 or 3 months. He never knew it. Because he gets run down from time to time, it could have been any of those he had previously. I do think he got his vaccine right after I got Covid back in August. So good news for those seeking good news over the vaccine. Get it, it's nothing like the smallpox vaccine

 

A comment on the Israel Study that some people love so much.

This was a retrospective study, meaning that it wasn't controlled, there was no random assignment to treatment group, and the researchers didn't have any opportunity to make sure that both groups were tested the same way. That last point is the most important. In the study they even say that their methodology "will likely result in an under-estimation of the incidence of reinfection".

If they underestimated the incidence of reinfection, the effectiveness of the vaccines is higher than their analysis shows.

Also, it relied on PCR results, which as we all know, are not to be trusted

 

And that is the reason for hesitancy. Lots of super healthy athletes making others feel hesitant 326 Athlete Cardiac Arrests, Serious Issues, 183 Dead, After COVID Shot - Real Science. This list grows daily.

Why aren't the poor getting vaccinated Refugees lack COVID shots because drugmakers fear lawsuits, documents show. Why would anyone consider suing?

This clown show wants you to be afraid, stay inside, so you won't notice the energy disaster at the pump . Allegedly fully vaccinated grown-ups sitting around the table with masks on. Do they not trust the vax?

 

Post 29213, from Oct 30, I said regarding the argument of vaccine immunity vs natural immunity:

The scientific data has been mixed. So much data pointing one way. And plenty of data pointing the other. Makes it impossible to say which is better.​

It's likely that eventually, we'll find out under what conditions, and what time frame, vaccine immunity is better. And what would cause natural immunity to be better. Likely the only way to reconcile the conflicting study results.
​

How do you like your crow?

 

I see nothing in there that indicates 30% died at any point from taking the smallpox vaccine. Makes no sense, if the death rate of smallpox itself is 30% why do you think the death rate of the vaccine was 30%?

The idea 300 might die from a reintroduction of that vaccine is plausible, indeed some vaccines are tougher than others, I’m just not sure how you equate that to 30% dying from the vaccine.

The closest historical example I recall was the story of General George Washington “innoculating” his troops by exposing them to small doses of smallpox. This was before modern understanding of vaccinations but similar in theory to what it tries to accomplish, in a crude way. As I recall the innoculations resulted in a loss of about 5% of his troops, sparing the rest from falling to smallpox. (5%<30% was a winning strategy in the time of the revolutionary war). But I don’t think modern medicine would accept that type of trade off even in extreme circumstances.

 

Let's see what you said:




And in your post you said "likely that eventually vaccine immunity is better" is not vaccine immunity works better. Not surprising coming from you. It's ok, just say 95 was right and I was wrong and i'll move on. Not hard to do LOL.

 

Reading comprehension issues? You took a snippet and didn't include the next sentence. Which is, "And what would cause natural immunity to be better."

Take the loss.