comment by Ricardo Calder (U1734)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Ricardo Calder (U1734)
posted 1 minute ago
At the end of the day the unvaccinated are not actually causing a massive problem. They are just being used at this moment in time. And people need someone to blame for the issues they face in their lives and at the moment, that's the unvaccinated. It was immigrants that the Brexit campaign used to their advantage to give the people something to blame.
With a very high percentage of people vaccinated, a weak disease going around, the science telling us now that there is only a slight reduction in transmission rates and infection rates between vaccinated and unvaccinated, can someone tell me what unvaccinated people are doing wrong and why does it affect you so badly?
The division social media has previously created means you are hating everything else that you think unvaccinated people stand for, by association, in the ongoing us vs them drama. Not being vaccinated isn't the issue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think this is an exceptionally selective way of looking at it, and the comparison of unvaccinated people with immigrants not a good one. Remember - Covid was a deeply divisive issue months *before* there was even a vaccine at all, let alone any kind of rule about them. This is because people were up in arms about not just lockdowns but social distancing, masks, any news update saying cases had risen - all this was compared to Orwell, the rise of fascism and Germany in the 1930s. Those ‘complying’ were ‘sheep’ before vaccines entered the scene. It’s many of these people who have simply taken up the vaccine as the most egregious Covid-related unpleasantness, calling for NHS staff to face recriminations, seizing on any tiny hint of vaccine ‘failure’ and gloating about it as a personal victory, not to mention spreading questionable stories about ‘shedding’ etc. To cast these people as some sort of innocent scapegoats is a hell of a reach.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
See part where I mentioned about being angry at people by association due to the internet. I am meaning in a literal sense, in this moment in time, with what we currently know, how does someone simply not having a vaccine affect you in any great way?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Me personally? Not very much. And, yes, it annoys me when people simplify the issue by saying things like ‘I wouldn’t want to sit next to an unvaccinated person’. I agree that’s unhelpful and divisive, not to mention over-dramatic.
My view is that, over the longer term, vaccines will be the best way to a post-pandemic world, and that will probably mean getting as many people as possible vaccinated. All those ‘less likelies’ - to contract, to spread and to end up in hospital or dead - though they may be laughed off as irrelevant on an individual level, they take effect as more and more people get vaccinated. The second half of 2021, with fans in stadiums, rock concerts and festivals, pubs and clubs open etc, might not have been achievable in the UK without the vaccine rollout. People might not like that but it’s hard to see how it could have been really.
I don’t have anything against a particular unvaccinated person, real or imagined - I really couldn’t care less what someone decides for themselves on that front. But the internet behaviour of a lot of unvaccinated people is way out of line, and it can and will cause problems in ‘real life’. As the American election fallout showed, we are past the stage where we can comfortably separate the internet from what happens physically.
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 31 seconds ago
The same link you posted before states that vaccinated people are 13 times more at risk of a breakthrough infection than people with natural immuinity.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1
When a country with some of the strictest rules like Australia accepts a past infection as a substitute for vaccination I'm sure they're be basing it on solid evidence instead of opinions or misinformation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That was the basis for Rand Paul's rant: a non-peer-reviewed, pre-print, retrospective observational study who he claimed was based on 2.5 million patients, was actually on 76,000 cases, did not factor in potential reinfections prior to the cutoff date, and covered a grand total of 34 hospitalisations and no deaths. The study had multiple limitations, some of which were pointed out by researchers from Johns Hopkins' School of Public Health here:
https://ncrc.jhsph.edu/research/comparing-sars-cov-2-natural-immunity-to-vaccine-induced-immunity-reinfections-versus-breakthrough-infections/
Just to save you some trouble, this was their take:
"This study from Israel, available as a preprint and thus not yet peer reviewed, found that the rates of SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections in vaccinated individuals, while very low (highest rate = 1.5%), were significantly higher than the rates of reinfection and hospitalization in previously infected individuals. In addition, individuals who were previously infected who received one dose of the Pfizer vaccine were even more protected from breakthrough infection than the naturally infected group. There were no deaths in any of the groups examined. Given that previously infected individuals may have had multiple infections prior to the study period, the overall applicability of the study to all populations needs more clarification. Lastly, these findings should not be taken as an endorsement that getting infected is a better overall option for protection than the highly effective vaccines that are available as only those who survived initial infection were eligible for analysis."
I also posted later CDC recommendations, which are nearly 3 months more recent than the article you referred back to me.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/vaccine-induced-immunity.html
Sorry, and further to this point:
"When a country with some of the strictest rules like Australia accepts a past infection as a substitute for vaccination I'm sure they're be basing it on solid evidence instead of opinions or misinformation."
Australia accepting a past infection acknowledges is provides protection, not that its protections is 6, 10 or however many times stronger than that afforded by the vaccine. It's a logical fallacy to conclude that it proves your point.
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 7 minutes ago
"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."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That particular study I believe is still in pre-print and has not completed the peer review process. Various criticisms have been raised about its methodology.
The study may have underestimated the number of asymptomatic infections because it collected its data from PCR testing. People with asymptomatic infections are less likely to get tested for SARS-CoV-2, suggesting the results apply primarily to symptomatic infections.
The findings also focused on patients who received the Pfizer vaccine in early 2021. Other research, including some from Israel, has suggested that vaccine-induced antibody levels wane after several months, but booster shots enhance immune response.
The researchers also acknowledged that different health behaviors such as adherence to social distancing and wearing masks could not be controlled for in the study and may have affected the risk of becoming infected.
That rebuttal doesn't dispove it though, just says we shouldn't endorse it. Generally anything that is seen as promoting vaccine hesitancy is suppressed or shunned by the majority of the scientific community even if there is truth in it.
Natural immunity for example was known about for months before scientific bodies publicly acknowledged it.
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 14 seconds ago
That rebuttal doesn't dispove it though, just says we shouldn't endorse it. Generally anything that is seen as promoting vaccine hesitancy is suppressed or shunned by the majority of the scientific community even if there is truth in it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you think doing this would be just to make money for ‘Big Pharma’?
8bit, and just to be clear, I'm not in the vaccinate-at-all costs group either. As posted earlier, I have serious misgivings regarding some points, such as vaccinating young children, and I don't think vaccine passports are fit for purpose either.
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 2 minutes ago
8bit, and just to be clear, I'm not in the vaccinate-at-all costs group either. As posted earlier, I have serious misgivings regarding some points, such as vaccinating young children, and I don't think vaccine passports are fit for purpose either.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Vaccine passports are a bit of a backdoor ID card...
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 48 seconds ago
8bit, and just to be clear, I'm not in the vaccinate-at-all costs group either. As posted earlier, I have serious misgivings regarding some points, such as vaccinating young children, and I don't think vaccine passports are fit for purpose either.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
that's cool, and the natural immunity being 6 or 10 times better is what I've read in some reports but may not be proven scientific fact, my main point was about a prior infection giving people a decent level of immunity.
comment by Alisson Becker, Liverpool's Number 9 (U3979)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 2 minutes ago
8bit, and just to be clear, I'm not in the vaccinate-at-all costs group either. As posted earlier, I have serious misgivings regarding some points, such as vaccinating young children, and I don't think vaccine passports are fit for purpose either.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Vaccine passports are a bit of a backdoor ID card...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don’t know… I’d also have serious concerns over how effective they can be, let alone how practical in terms of enforcing them, but I just can’t see it as some sort of control or ID thing.
comment by Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 14 seconds ago
That rebuttal doesn't dispove it though, just says we shouldn't endorse it. Generally anything that is seen as promoting vaccine hesitancy is suppressed or shunned by the majority of the scientific community even if there is truth in it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you think doing this would be just to make money for ‘Big Pharma’?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No idea, I'd like to think it's all in the interest of public health. But since this new variant came along the hysteria and news reporting has been a disgrace imo, fully vaxed friends and relatives who have been terrified of covid, got it and had a mild cold wondering what they were so afraid of. Yes some people can get serious infection but the scaremongering isn't in line with reality.
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 11 minutes ago
That rebuttal doesn't dispove it though, just says we shouldn't endorse it. Generally anything that is seen as promoting vaccine hesitancy is suppressed or shunned by the majority of the scientific community even if there is truth in it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, but that’s utter nonsense. That isn’t how science or scientists work.
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 35 seconds ago
Natural immunity for example was known about for months before scientific bodies publicly acknowledged it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It wasn't necessary to 'know' about natural immunity, because the fact it occurs is a well known fact. What we're discussing here is how much greater the protection is afford versus vaccine protection.
In fact, one of the earliest assumptions was that you did acquire natural immunity and that reinfection wasn't possible. It was actually quite a shock when cases of reinfection started to surface, and the first attempts to explain it hopefully suggested initial misdiagnosis as the most probable cause.
It was later found that many people with milder cases of infection did not generate a strong enough immune response to the infection.
I believe that is more or less where the science is still at, and the latest research suggests that the degree of protection afforded from the natural process is a lot more variable, i.e. that you can have either very high or very low immunity, whereas vaccines provide a more even level of protection from one person to the next.
Another finding is that even if you have been infected, a booster will still increase your protection.
I myself am twice-jabbed but have not had a booster, partly because I only had my second jab at the end of August, partly because I am a lot less concerned now that the omicron strain is becoming prevalent, and partly because the available research suggest that the chances of having a severe case of Covid if you've had two jabs is already extremely low.
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 14 seconds ago
That rebuttal doesn't dispove it though, just says we shouldn't endorse it. Generally anything that is seen as promoting vaccine hesitancy is suppressed or shunned by the majority of the scientific community even if there is truth in it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you think doing this would be just to make money for ‘Big Pharma’?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No idea, I'd like to think it's all in the interest of public health. But since this new variant came along the hysteria and news reporting has been a disgrace imo, fully vaxed friends and relatives who have been terrified of covid, got it and had a mild cold wondering what they were so afraid of. Yes some people can get serious infection but the scaremongering isn't in line with reality.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fully vaxxed friends and relatives “got it and had a mild cold” after 150,000 have died in the UK would suggest what anecdotally?
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 3 seconds ago
comment by Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 14 seconds ago
That rebuttal doesn't dispove it though, just says we shouldn't endorse it. Generally anything that is seen as promoting vaccine hesitancy is suppressed or shunned by the majority of the scientific community even if there is truth in it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you think doing this would be just to make money for ‘Big Pharma’?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No idea, I'd like to think it's all in the interest of public health. But since this new variant came along the hysteria and news reporting has been a disgrace imo, fully vaxed friends and relatives who have been terrified of covid, got it and had a mild cold wondering what they were so afraid of. Yes some people can get serious infection but the scaremongering isn't in line with reality.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
See, a lot of the news I’ve seen about Omicron since I first heard of it has been along the lines of:
‘South Africa says it’s milder/it’s starting to look like it’s milder - but widespread transmission could still overwhelm the NHS.’
I’m not sure which part of this is even controversial, let alone disgraceful? Unless you mean something else?
I’ve certainly seen nothing I’d call hysteria or anything that should ‘terrify’ anyone other than perhaps the most vulnerable. What I have seen during this pandemic (speaking generally and not including you) is a hatred of ‘the media’ that goes way beyond the critical thinking we should all apply and borders on mental illness and psychosis - no exaggeration.
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 35 seconds ago
Natural immunity for example was known about for months before scientific bodies publicly acknowledged it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It wasn't necessary to 'know' about natural immunity, because the fact it occurs is a well known fact. What we're discussing here is how much greater the protection is afford versus vaccine protection.
In fact, one of the earliest assumptions was that you did acquire natural immunity and that reinfection wasn't possible. It was actually quite a shock when cases of reinfection started to surface, and the first attempts to explain it hopefully suggested initial misdiagnosis as the most probable cause.
It was later found that many people with milder cases of infection did not generate a strong enough immune response to the infection.
I believe that is more or less where the science is still at, and the latest research suggests that the degree of protection afforded from the natural process is a lot more variable, i.e. that you can have either very high or very low immunity, whereas vaccines provide a more even level of protection from one person to the next.
Another finding is that even if you have been infected, a booster will still increase your protection.
I myself am twice-jabbed but have not had a booster, partly because I only had my second jab at the end of August, partly because I am a lot less concerned now that the omicron strain is becoming prevalent, and partly because the available research suggest that the chances of having a severe case of Covid if you've had two jabs is already extremely low.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
comment by And... Rosso... Though its... Yeah and... That... (U17054)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 11 minutes ago
That rebuttal doesn't dispove it though, just says we shouldn't endorse it. Generally anything that is seen as promoting vaccine hesitancy is suppressed or shunned by the majority of the scientific community even if there is truth in it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, but that’s utter nonsense. That isn’t how science or scientists work.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
it really is, NHS doctors on the radio saying 'you must vaccinate your child to protect them against covid 19' when it's almost zero threat to them, just be honest about why you want to vaccinate kids.
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 9 seconds ago
comment by And... Rosso... Though its... Yeah and... That... (U17054)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 11 minutes ago
That rebuttal doesn't dispove it though, just says we shouldn't endorse it. Generally anything that is seen as promoting vaccine hesitancy is suppressed or shunned by the majority of the scientific community even if there is truth in it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, but that’s utter nonsense. That isn’t how science or scientists work.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
it really is, NHS doctors on the radio saying 'you must vaccinate your child to protect them against covid 19' when it's almost zero threat to them, just be honest about why you want to vaccinate kids.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But if they said ‘almost zero threat to kids is too much of a threat and still way higher than the risk of vaccine injury’, would you believe them?
I do think messaging has been pretty terrible throughout the pandemic though, to be honest.
comment by And... Rosso... Though its... Yeah and... That... (U17054)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 14 seconds ago
That rebuttal doesn't dispove it though, just says we shouldn't endorse it. Generally anything that is seen as promoting vaccine hesitancy is suppressed or shunned by the majority of the scientific community even if there is truth in it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you think doing this would be just to make money for ‘Big Pharma’?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No idea, I'd like to think it's all in the interest of public health. But since this new variant came along the hysteria and news reporting has been a disgrace imo, fully vaxed friends and relatives who have been terrified of covid, got it and had a mild cold wondering what they were so afraid of. Yes some people can get serious infection but the scaremongering isn't in line with reality.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fully vaxxed friends and relatives “got it and had a mild cold” after 150,000 have died in the UK would suggest what anecdotally?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"since this new variant came along", i'm not talking about deaths pre vaccines or boosters or with the delta variant. The fixation on case numbers and record cases when we're testing MUCH more so of course there will be record cases. hospitalisations and deaths is what they should be focused on. South Africa said it was mild straight away and they were correct.
As I previously mentioned I have had all three because my doctor told me to. I have complete confidence in her. I had two Moderna followed by a Pfizer booster.
I was lucky having no reaction at all.
Regarding vaccine passports, on holiday last summer I found it comforting that everyone in the restaurants and hotels were vaccinated, plus tables were spread out.
I think I would be less bothered now, just because Omicron seems less severe
8bit, my partner is a cardiologist in practice, and she's in a number of doctors' WhatsApp groups. I can assure you that there is vigorous debate on vaccine and other Covid-related topics and that people don't shut each other down, they listen to each other and keep up with the research. Doctors don't just want to vaccinate everyone, they want to know the science and decide what's best not just for their patients, but for their own families and loved ones.
On the basis of her review and interpretation of the literature and of her conversations with other doctors, together we've decided not to give our 10-year-old daughter the jabs.
Our 20-year-old son contracted Covid in July. We've explained the science to him and told him it's up to him to decide.
She also shares my misgivings about passports.
That's how doctors go about it, although different people reach different conclusions. Certainly, only a small minority fall on the side of non-vaccination for anyone.
I am not saying there aren't vested interests at play here. There must come a point when the authorities start to weigh the cost-benefit of continuing vaccination programmes in view of the burden on the healthcare budget, and quite obviously big pharma is going to try to convince them for as long as possible that every jab is necessary. But you don't need to believe in global conspiracies to reach that conclusion, it's just how things work.
comment by Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 9 seconds ago
comment by And... Rosso... Though its... Yeah and... That... (U17054)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 11 minutes ago
That rebuttal doesn't dispove it though, just says we shouldn't endorse it. Generally anything that is seen as promoting vaccine hesitancy is suppressed or shunned by the majority of the scientific community even if there is truth in it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, but that’s utter nonsense. That isn’t how science or scientists work.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
it really is, NHS doctors on the radio saying 'you must vaccinate your child to protect them against covid 19' when it's almost zero threat to them, just be honest about why you want to vaccinate kids.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But if they said ‘almost zero threat to kids is too much of a threat and still way higher than the risk of vaccine injury’, would you believe them?
I do think messaging has been pretty terrible throughout the pandemic though, to be honest.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For children, the flu is more of a threat than covid. So if that was their reasoning they'd be vaccinating kids for the flu as well.
If the vaccines guaranteed that you couldn't catch it, spread it or die from it, uptake would be pretty much 100%. But its not remotely effective yet hence why some people would rather stick with there immune systems that had protected them from birth - insert age here
comment by Shaun M - Everywhere you go, always take Raphinha with you! (U9955)
posted 54 seconds ago
If the vaccines guaranteed that you couldn't catch it, spread it or die from it, uptake would be pretty much 100%. But its not remotely effective yet hence why some people would rather stick with there immune systems that had protected them from birth - insert age here
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What a stupid thing to say. There is literally mountains of evidence that they have been working brilliantly. You’re the reason why people think antivaxxers are dumb cuuunts
Sign in if you want to comment
Anti vax.
Page 9 of 13
9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13
posted on 10/1/22
comment by Ricardo Calder (U1734)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Ricardo Calder (U1734)
posted 1 minute ago
At the end of the day the unvaccinated are not actually causing a massive problem. They are just being used at this moment in time. And people need someone to blame for the issues they face in their lives and at the moment, that's the unvaccinated. It was immigrants that the Brexit campaign used to their advantage to give the people something to blame.
With a very high percentage of people vaccinated, a weak disease going around, the science telling us now that there is only a slight reduction in transmission rates and infection rates between vaccinated and unvaccinated, can someone tell me what unvaccinated people are doing wrong and why does it affect you so badly?
The division social media has previously created means you are hating everything else that you think unvaccinated people stand for, by association, in the ongoing us vs them drama. Not being vaccinated isn't the issue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think this is an exceptionally selective way of looking at it, and the comparison of unvaccinated people with immigrants not a good one. Remember - Covid was a deeply divisive issue months *before* there was even a vaccine at all, let alone any kind of rule about them. This is because people were up in arms about not just lockdowns but social distancing, masks, any news update saying cases had risen - all this was compared to Orwell, the rise of fascism and Germany in the 1930s. Those ‘complying’ were ‘sheep’ before vaccines entered the scene. It’s many of these people who have simply taken up the vaccine as the most egregious Covid-related unpleasantness, calling for NHS staff to face recriminations, seizing on any tiny hint of vaccine ‘failure’ and gloating about it as a personal victory, not to mention spreading questionable stories about ‘shedding’ etc. To cast these people as some sort of innocent scapegoats is a hell of a reach.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
See part where I mentioned about being angry at people by association due to the internet. I am meaning in a literal sense, in this moment in time, with what we currently know, how does someone simply not having a vaccine affect you in any great way?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Me personally? Not very much. And, yes, it annoys me when people simplify the issue by saying things like ‘I wouldn’t want to sit next to an unvaccinated person’. I agree that’s unhelpful and divisive, not to mention over-dramatic.
My view is that, over the longer term, vaccines will be the best way to a post-pandemic world, and that will probably mean getting as many people as possible vaccinated. All those ‘less likelies’ - to contract, to spread and to end up in hospital or dead - though they may be laughed off as irrelevant on an individual level, they take effect as more and more people get vaccinated. The second half of 2021, with fans in stadiums, rock concerts and festivals, pubs and clubs open etc, might not have been achievable in the UK without the vaccine rollout. People might not like that but it’s hard to see how it could have been really.
I don’t have anything against a particular unvaccinated person, real or imagined - I really couldn’t care less what someone decides for themselves on that front. But the internet behaviour of a lot of unvaccinated people is way out of line, and it can and will cause problems in ‘real life’. As the American election fallout showed, we are past the stage where we can comfortably separate the internet from what happens physically.
posted on 10/1/22
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 31 seconds ago
The same link you posted before states that vaccinated people are 13 times more at risk of a breakthrough infection than people with natural immuinity.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1
When a country with some of the strictest rules like Australia accepts a past infection as a substitute for vaccination I'm sure they're be basing it on solid evidence instead of opinions or misinformation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That was the basis for Rand Paul's rant: a non-peer-reviewed, pre-print, retrospective observational study who he claimed was based on 2.5 million patients, was actually on 76,000 cases, did not factor in potential reinfections prior to the cutoff date, and covered a grand total of 34 hospitalisations and no deaths. The study had multiple limitations, some of which were pointed out by researchers from Johns Hopkins' School of Public Health here:
https://ncrc.jhsph.edu/research/comparing-sars-cov-2-natural-immunity-to-vaccine-induced-immunity-reinfections-versus-breakthrough-infections/
Just to save you some trouble, this was their take:
"This study from Israel, available as a preprint and thus not yet peer reviewed, found that the rates of SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections in vaccinated individuals, while very low (highest rate = 1.5%), were significantly higher than the rates of reinfection and hospitalization in previously infected individuals. In addition, individuals who were previously infected who received one dose of the Pfizer vaccine were even more protected from breakthrough infection than the naturally infected group. There were no deaths in any of the groups examined. Given that previously infected individuals may have had multiple infections prior to the study period, the overall applicability of the study to all populations needs more clarification. Lastly, these findings should not be taken as an endorsement that getting infected is a better overall option for protection than the highly effective vaccines that are available as only those who survived initial infection were eligible for analysis."
I also posted later CDC recommendations, which are nearly 3 months more recent than the article you referred back to me.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/vaccine-induced-immunity.html
posted on 10/1/22
Sorry, and further to this point:
"When a country with some of the strictest rules like Australia accepts a past infection as a substitute for vaccination I'm sure they're be basing it on solid evidence instead of opinions or misinformation."
Australia accepting a past infection acknowledges is provides protection, not that its protections is 6, 10 or however many times stronger than that afforded by the vaccine. It's a logical fallacy to conclude that it proves your point.
posted on 10/1/22
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 7 minutes ago
"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."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That particular study I believe is still in pre-print and has not completed the peer review process. Various criticisms have been raised about its methodology.
The study may have underestimated the number of asymptomatic infections because it collected its data from PCR testing. People with asymptomatic infections are less likely to get tested for SARS-CoV-2, suggesting the results apply primarily to symptomatic infections.
The findings also focused on patients who received the Pfizer vaccine in early 2021. Other research, including some from Israel, has suggested that vaccine-induced antibody levels wane after several months, but booster shots enhance immune response.
The researchers also acknowledged that different health behaviors such as adherence to social distancing and wearing masks could not be controlled for in the study and may have affected the risk of becoming infected.
posted on 10/1/22
That rebuttal doesn't dispove it though, just says we shouldn't endorse it. Generally anything that is seen as promoting vaccine hesitancy is suppressed or shunned by the majority of the scientific community even if there is truth in it.
posted on 10/1/22
Natural immunity for example was known about for months before scientific bodies publicly acknowledged it.
posted on 10/1/22
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 14 seconds ago
That rebuttal doesn't dispove it though, just says we shouldn't endorse it. Generally anything that is seen as promoting vaccine hesitancy is suppressed or shunned by the majority of the scientific community even if there is truth in it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you think doing this would be just to make money for ‘Big Pharma’?
posted on 10/1/22
8bit, and just to be clear, I'm not in the vaccinate-at-all costs group either. As posted earlier, I have serious misgivings regarding some points, such as vaccinating young children, and I don't think vaccine passports are fit for purpose either.
posted on 10/1/22
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 2 minutes ago
8bit, and just to be clear, I'm not in the vaccinate-at-all costs group either. As posted earlier, I have serious misgivings regarding some points, such as vaccinating young children, and I don't think vaccine passports are fit for purpose either.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Vaccine passports are a bit of a backdoor ID card...
posted on 10/1/22
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 48 seconds ago
8bit, and just to be clear, I'm not in the vaccinate-at-all costs group either. As posted earlier, I have serious misgivings regarding some points, such as vaccinating young children, and I don't think vaccine passports are fit for purpose either.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
that's cool, and the natural immunity being 6 or 10 times better is what I've read in some reports but may not be proven scientific fact, my main point was about a prior infection giving people a decent level of immunity.
posted on 10/1/22
comment by Alisson Becker, Liverpool's Number 9 (U3979)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 2 minutes ago
8bit, and just to be clear, I'm not in the vaccinate-at-all costs group either. As posted earlier, I have serious misgivings regarding some points, such as vaccinating young children, and I don't think vaccine passports are fit for purpose either.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Vaccine passports are a bit of a backdoor ID card...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don’t know… I’d also have serious concerns over how effective they can be, let alone how practical in terms of enforcing them, but I just can’t see it as some sort of control or ID thing.
posted on 10/1/22
comment by Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 14 seconds ago
That rebuttal doesn't dispove it though, just says we shouldn't endorse it. Generally anything that is seen as promoting vaccine hesitancy is suppressed or shunned by the majority of the scientific community even if there is truth in it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you think doing this would be just to make money for ‘Big Pharma’?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No idea, I'd like to think it's all in the interest of public health. But since this new variant came along the hysteria and news reporting has been a disgrace imo, fully vaxed friends and relatives who have been terrified of covid, got it and had a mild cold wondering what they were so afraid of. Yes some people can get serious infection but the scaremongering isn't in line with reality.
posted on 10/1/22
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 11 minutes ago
That rebuttal doesn't dispove it though, just says we shouldn't endorse it. Generally anything that is seen as promoting vaccine hesitancy is suppressed or shunned by the majority of the scientific community even if there is truth in it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, but that’s utter nonsense. That isn’t how science or scientists work.
posted on 10/1/22
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 35 seconds ago
Natural immunity for example was known about for months before scientific bodies publicly acknowledged it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It wasn't necessary to 'know' about natural immunity, because the fact it occurs is a well known fact. What we're discussing here is how much greater the protection is afford versus vaccine protection.
In fact, one of the earliest assumptions was that you did acquire natural immunity and that reinfection wasn't possible. It was actually quite a shock when cases of reinfection started to surface, and the first attempts to explain it hopefully suggested initial misdiagnosis as the most probable cause.
It was later found that many people with milder cases of infection did not generate a strong enough immune response to the infection.
I believe that is more or less where the science is still at, and the latest research suggests that the degree of protection afforded from the natural process is a lot more variable, i.e. that you can have either very high or very low immunity, whereas vaccines provide a more even level of protection from one person to the next.
Another finding is that even if you have been infected, a booster will still increase your protection.
I myself am twice-jabbed but have not had a booster, partly because I only had my second jab at the end of August, partly because I am a lot less concerned now that the omicron strain is becoming prevalent, and partly because the available research suggest that the chances of having a severe case of Covid if you've had two jabs is already extremely low.
posted on 10/1/22
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 14 seconds ago
That rebuttal doesn't dispove it though, just says we shouldn't endorse it. Generally anything that is seen as promoting vaccine hesitancy is suppressed or shunned by the majority of the scientific community even if there is truth in it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you think doing this would be just to make money for ‘Big Pharma’?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No idea, I'd like to think it's all in the interest of public health. But since this new variant came along the hysteria and news reporting has been a disgrace imo, fully vaxed friends and relatives who have been terrified of covid, got it and had a mild cold wondering what they were so afraid of. Yes some people can get serious infection but the scaremongering isn't in line with reality.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fully vaxxed friends and relatives “got it and had a mild cold” after 150,000 have died in the UK would suggest what anecdotally?
posted on 10/1/22
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 3 seconds ago
comment by Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 14 seconds ago
That rebuttal doesn't dispove it though, just says we shouldn't endorse it. Generally anything that is seen as promoting vaccine hesitancy is suppressed or shunned by the majority of the scientific community even if there is truth in it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you think doing this would be just to make money for ‘Big Pharma’?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No idea, I'd like to think it's all in the interest of public health. But since this new variant came along the hysteria and news reporting has been a disgrace imo, fully vaxed friends and relatives who have been terrified of covid, got it and had a mild cold wondering what they were so afraid of. Yes some people can get serious infection but the scaremongering isn't in line with reality.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
See, a lot of the news I’ve seen about Omicron since I first heard of it has been along the lines of:
‘South Africa says it’s milder/it’s starting to look like it’s milder - but widespread transmission could still overwhelm the NHS.’
I’m not sure which part of this is even controversial, let alone disgraceful? Unless you mean something else?
I’ve certainly seen nothing I’d call hysteria or anything that should ‘terrify’ anyone other than perhaps the most vulnerable. What I have seen during this pandemic (speaking generally and not including you) is a hatred of ‘the media’ that goes way beyond the critical thinking we should all apply and borders on mental illness and psychosis - no exaggeration.
posted on 10/1/22
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 35 seconds ago
Natural immunity for example was known about for months before scientific bodies publicly acknowledged it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It wasn't necessary to 'know' about natural immunity, because the fact it occurs is a well known fact. What we're discussing here is how much greater the protection is afford versus vaccine protection.
In fact, one of the earliest assumptions was that you did acquire natural immunity and that reinfection wasn't possible. It was actually quite a shock when cases of reinfection started to surface, and the first attempts to explain it hopefully suggested initial misdiagnosis as the most probable cause.
It was later found that many people with milder cases of infection did not generate a strong enough immune response to the infection.
I believe that is more or less where the science is still at, and the latest research suggests that the degree of protection afforded from the natural process is a lot more variable, i.e. that you can have either very high or very low immunity, whereas vaccines provide a more even level of protection from one person to the next.
Another finding is that even if you have been infected, a booster will still increase your protection.
I myself am twice-jabbed but have not had a booster, partly because I only had my second jab at the end of August, partly because I am a lot less concerned now that the omicron strain is becoming prevalent, and partly because the available research suggest that the chances of having a severe case of Covid if you've had two jabs is already extremely low.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
posted on 10/1/22
comment by And... Rosso... Though its... Yeah and... That... (U17054)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 11 minutes ago
That rebuttal doesn't dispove it though, just says we shouldn't endorse it. Generally anything that is seen as promoting vaccine hesitancy is suppressed or shunned by the majority of the scientific community even if there is truth in it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, but that’s utter nonsense. That isn’t how science or scientists work.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
it really is, NHS doctors on the radio saying 'you must vaccinate your child to protect them against covid 19' when it's almost zero threat to them, just be honest about why you want to vaccinate kids.
posted on 10/1/22
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 9 seconds ago
comment by And... Rosso... Though its... Yeah and... That... (U17054)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 11 minutes ago
That rebuttal doesn't dispove it though, just says we shouldn't endorse it. Generally anything that is seen as promoting vaccine hesitancy is suppressed or shunned by the majority of the scientific community even if there is truth in it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, but that’s utter nonsense. That isn’t how science or scientists work.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
it really is, NHS doctors on the radio saying 'you must vaccinate your child to protect them against covid 19' when it's almost zero threat to them, just be honest about why you want to vaccinate kids.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But if they said ‘almost zero threat to kids is too much of a threat and still way higher than the risk of vaccine injury’, would you believe them?
I do think messaging has been pretty terrible throughout the pandemic though, to be honest.
posted on 10/1/22
comment by And... Rosso... Though its... Yeah and... That... (U17054)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 14 seconds ago
That rebuttal doesn't dispove it though, just says we shouldn't endorse it. Generally anything that is seen as promoting vaccine hesitancy is suppressed or shunned by the majority of the scientific community even if there is truth in it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you think doing this would be just to make money for ‘Big Pharma’?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No idea, I'd like to think it's all in the interest of public health. But since this new variant came along the hysteria and news reporting has been a disgrace imo, fully vaxed friends and relatives who have been terrified of covid, got it and had a mild cold wondering what they were so afraid of. Yes some people can get serious infection but the scaremongering isn't in line with reality.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fully vaxxed friends and relatives “got it and had a mild cold” after 150,000 have died in the UK would suggest what anecdotally?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"since this new variant came along", i'm not talking about deaths pre vaccines or boosters or with the delta variant. The fixation on case numbers and record cases when we're testing MUCH more so of course there will be record cases. hospitalisations and deaths is what they should be focused on. South Africa said it was mild straight away and they were correct.
posted on 10/1/22
As I previously mentioned I have had all three because my doctor told me to. I have complete confidence in her. I had two Moderna followed by a Pfizer booster.
I was lucky having no reaction at all.
Regarding vaccine passports, on holiday last summer I found it comforting that everyone in the restaurants and hotels were vaccinated, plus tables were spread out.
I think I would be less bothered now, just because Omicron seems less severe
posted on 10/1/22
8bit, my partner is a cardiologist in practice, and she's in a number of doctors' WhatsApp groups. I can assure you that there is vigorous debate on vaccine and other Covid-related topics and that people don't shut each other down, they listen to each other and keep up with the research. Doctors don't just want to vaccinate everyone, they want to know the science and decide what's best not just for their patients, but for their own families and loved ones.
On the basis of her review and interpretation of the literature and of her conversations with other doctors, together we've decided not to give our 10-year-old daughter the jabs.
Our 20-year-old son contracted Covid in July. We've explained the science to him and told him it's up to him to decide.
She also shares my misgivings about passports.
That's how doctors go about it, although different people reach different conclusions. Certainly, only a small minority fall on the side of non-vaccination for anyone.
I am not saying there aren't vested interests at play here. There must come a point when the authorities start to weigh the cost-benefit of continuing vaccination programmes in view of the burden on the healthcare budget, and quite obviously big pharma is going to try to convince them for as long as possible that every jab is necessary. But you don't need to believe in global conspiracies to reach that conclusion, it's just how things work.
posted on 10/1/22
comment by Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 9 seconds ago
comment by And... Rosso... Though its... Yeah and... That... (U17054)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 11 minutes ago
That rebuttal doesn't dispove it though, just says we shouldn't endorse it. Generally anything that is seen as promoting vaccine hesitancy is suppressed or shunned by the majority of the scientific community even if there is truth in it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, but that’s utter nonsense. That isn’t how science or scientists work.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
it really is, NHS doctors on the radio saying 'you must vaccinate your child to protect them against covid 19' when it's almost zero threat to them, just be honest about why you want to vaccinate kids.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But if they said ‘almost zero threat to kids is too much of a threat and still way higher than the risk of vaccine injury’, would you believe them?
I do think messaging has been pretty terrible throughout the pandemic though, to be honest.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For children, the flu is more of a threat than covid. So if that was their reasoning they'd be vaccinating kids for the flu as well.
posted on 10/1/22
If the vaccines guaranteed that you couldn't catch it, spread it or die from it, uptake would be pretty much 100%. But its not remotely effective yet hence why some people would rather stick with there immune systems that had protected them from birth - insert age here
posted on 10/1/22
comment by Shaun M - Everywhere you go, always take Raphinha with you! (U9955)
posted 54 seconds ago
If the vaccines guaranteed that you couldn't catch it, spread it or die from it, uptake would be pretty much 100%. But its not remotely effective yet hence why some people would rather stick with there immune systems that had protected them from birth - insert age here
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What a stupid thing to say. There is literally mountains of evidence that they have been working brilliantly. You’re the reason why people think antivaxxers are dumb cuuunts
Page 9 of 13
9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13