I don't think a lot of people are going to see it that way. The mixed messaging on the shots is going to deter lots of people from getting subsequent injections. However, if your asserting that the shot combined with previous infection increases your immunity to infection or serious illness I would agree with that. Is it because of one more than the other? Not sure about that but Id go with natural immunity first. Just my laypersons opinion though.
There are no long term adverse effects of mRNA vaccines
- Thread starter Dhersh
- Start date
- Status
Yes, it seems very clear to me from the available studies, as a layperson (as it does to the experts at Johns Hopkins, Mayo Clinic, etc) that getting vaccinated after having been infected provides superior future immune response than relying solely upon natural immunity. And that even if future strains are harder for everybody to dodge, as Omicron has been, the reduced risk of severe outcomes is well worth the tiny risks and inconvenience of getting the jab or jabs.
And although communications for any huge super-fluid public crisis like a new pandemic can always be improved, I do not see failure or incompetence or anything particularly negative in changing guidance… as long as leaders do the best they can given the context of the prevailing understanding of the science at that time, understandably erring on the side of caution when there are uncertainties, and relying on the public to be considerate of how dependent we are on each other.
"Superior" is subjective. $100.01 is Superior to $100.00, but does it really matter in practicality?
$200 vs $100 in projected protection against reinfection, before even considering the additional protective benefits against severe outcomes, makes it well worth it IMO.
But then again, I don’t derive any “freedom fighting” psychic benefits from resisting vaccination and have no fears about being implanted with a tracking chip or the vax rendering me magnetic or infertile or anything other than temporarily sore at the injection site, so my risk - reward calculation is clearly different than some others.
"implanted with a tracking chip or the vax rendering me magnetic or infertile"
Pure gold right here.
Where do you find this stuff? Flat Earth.com?Maybe people just don't believe they work or are not as effective as advertised? It could be that simple.
I'm not independently suggesting that (although it sounds right to me, if looking only at future infection protection and excluding the protection against severe outcomes), but the analysis that you cited yesterday sure did suggest that -- when comparing natural immunity alone to getting vaxxed in addition to that natural immunity. That's if you look beyond that one paragraph you conveniently excerpted without reading the entire study to understand the analysis.
You remember the thing you couldn't be bothered to actually read so you just responded with "el oh el". Not really worth wasting time discussing further with you, right?
Not sure how anyone could possibly miss any of this during the 2 years that Covid has been front and center, considering how widely the fear-mongering was, and in some cases still is believed and promoted (even by political leaders), but since I like to be helpful..."implanted with a tracking chip or the vax rendering me magnetic or infertile"
Pure gold right here.
Maybe people just don't believe they work or are not as effective as advertised? It could be that simple.
Microchips - https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucel...read-here-are-some-responses/?sh=62d95a98602d
Magnetism - https://www.cincinnati.com/story/ne...y-magnetic-anti-vaccine-testimony/7966660002/
Infertility - https://www.statnews.com/2022/01/27...nes-but-theyre-all-in-on-unproven-treatments/
And in reference to anyone not getting vaxxed because they doubt the benefits, I find that nearly as laughable as all the crap above.
Excluding the small % of citizens for whom vaccination is medically contraindicated by their physician, how potentially beneficial to the individual AND to the community does vaccination need to be to outweigh the infinitesimal risks?
Do Covid vax skeptics/mockers demand the same guarantee of benefits with everything else they're willing to put in their bodies? (other vaccines, hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, other drugs, etc.)
At this point, debating whether the benefits of full Covid vaccination (and vaccination subsequent to infection) are sufficient to outweigh its costs and risks is tantamount to arguing whether 2 + 2 = 4. By benefits, I'm referring to the combination of infection protection and reducing the probability of severe outcomes, even for strains where the magnitude of infection protection is in question.
I'm on the fence about religious exceptions, since that means of vax refusal is so widely and brazenly abused, and as a society, we don't allow religious exceptions to most other public health/public safety requirements. Most cops and judges will not let you off the hook for speeding because your religion condemns going slower. But as I've always said, I'm not a fan of public mandates. I'm a fan of fewer citizens opting out of vaccination for selfish and/or willfully underinformed and/or merely contrarian/authority-defying reasons, and/or encouraging and spreading that vax resistance to others.
Again, hopefully this all becomes a moot point (other than planning for the next pandemic) sooner rather than later. We all want to get back to normal, at the lowest cost to all.
If vaccines don't cause human magnetism how do you explain Magneto? He must have had millions of vaccines.
Last edited:
I'm trying to play nice but I cannot see anything in that paper that suggests you are twice as protected with a vaccination post covid. I linked the same paper that you did. In the summary the paper states...
"There is a modest and incremental relative benefit to vaccination in COVID-recovered individuals; however, the net benefit is marginal on an absolute basis. Therefore, vaccination of COVID-recovered individuals should be subject to clinical equipoise and individual preference"
I'm genuinely trying to understand where you are getting the assertion that you are twice as protected against reinfection with a postcovid vax vs just immunity from recovering from covid
Glad to hear you're genuinely trying to understand it. Your previous "El OH el" response when I tried to explain it gave me a different impression. Anyway, in any study, including meta-analyses of other studies, it's important to read more than just one cherry-picked summary paragraph.
Here's the link to the full meta-analysis:
Equivalency of Protection From Natural Immunity in COVID-19 Recovered Versus Fully Vaccinated Persons: A Systematic Review and Pooled Analysis
We present a systematic review and pooled analysis of clinical studies to date that (1) specifically compare the protection of natural immunity in the COVID-recovered versus the efficacy of complete vaccination in the COVID-naive, and (2) the added benefit ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
And here's my explanation from my previous response regarding the approx 2x comparative protection.
"From the same analysis... "Overall, the total pooled results demonstrated a statistically significant 1.86x enhanced protection by vaccination in COVID-recovered persons, which generally agrees with Gazit et al. (1/.53=1.89x) and Cavanaugh et al. (2.34x), the latter of which was not included in the pooled analysis. Generally, we can conclude that vaccination in the COVID-recovered roughly halves the risk of reinfection, based on our pooled results and individual studies. These studies were relatively short in their follow-up period (<3 months), and therefore longer-term efficacy (>6 months) remains to be seen."
It's significant to note that they left out Cavanaugh from the pooled results (2.34x stronger protection against reinfection), and also did not address at all the benefits of vaccination following infection regarding risk of hospitalization and/or death in cases of reinfection (possibly due to timing of their analysis... but that's an important set of benefits to leave out.)
Wow. I thought crap like this came from Facebook.
I still don't see how the argument is the same as basic math. 2 + 2 =4 there is no debate about that. Does the shot provide increased protection with or without previous infection? Studies suggest that's the case. Is it an undisputable fact? No its not. As far as the risks go its really who knows as were only in year 2 of the shots. Nothing has come to light yet but that's never been a argument for safety. Are the risks low? I would think so but that's me.
I agree that hopefully this is near the end and we can move on from this.
One more question. What's your thoughts on the Covid origin? Are you good with the nature or Pangolin brain theory or does this look like more of a lab experiment? Maybe a combination of the two? Previously known virus that's been mutated maybe? Interested to hear everyone's thoughts in a civil manner of course.
We're clearly never going to agree on how ludicrous or not ludicrous it is for well informed folks to dispute that the apparent benefits of vaccination outweigh the apparent risks, based on everything the most qualified experts have learned to date (everybody acknowledging that none of them are infallible or have crystal balls), so why keep debating it?
I haven't kept up with the different Covid origin theories, and the evidence and assumptions and any biases those theories are based upon, so I won't weigh in on that. Gotta' actually get some legit work done now. Take care.
So the "modest and incremental benefit " part was just BS? I don't have time at the moment to dig into the paper deeper. I will probably spend some more time on it tonight. At this moment, I am going to go with the old timey definition of the words I am familiar with, and be satisfied that there is not a lot to be gained by a vax after infection. You know, like the words in the paper said.Glad to hear you're genuinely trying to understand it. Your previous "El OH el" response when I tried to explain it gave me a different impression. Anyway, in any study, including meta-analyses of other studies, it's important to read more than just one cherry-picked summary paragraph.
Here's the link to the full meta-analysis:
Equivalency of Protection From Natural Immunity in COVID-19 Recovered Versus Fully Vaccinated Persons: A Systematic Review and Pooled Analysis
We present a systematic review and pooled analysis of clinical studies to date that (1) specifically compare the protection of natural immunity in the COVID-recovered versus the efficacy of complete vaccination in the COVID-naive, and (2) the added benefit ...
And here's my explanation from my previous response regarding the approx 2x comparative protection.
"From the same analysis... "Overall, the total pooled results demonstrated a statistically significant 1.86x enhanced protection by vaccination in COVID-recovered persons, which generally agrees with Gazit et al. (1/.53=1.89x) and Cavanaugh et al. (2.34x), the latter of which was not included in the pooled analysis. Generally, we can conclude that vaccination in the COVID-recovered roughly halves the risk of reinfection, based on our pooled results and individual studies. These studies were relatively short in their follow-up period (<3 months), and therefore longer-term efficacy (>6 months) remains to be seen."
It's significant to note that they left out Cavanaugh from the pooled results (2.34x stronger protection against reinfection), and also did not address at all the benefits of vaccination following infection regarding risk of hospitalization and/or death in cases of reinfection (possibly due to timing of their analysis... but that's an important set of benefits to leave out.)
To be fair, a modest benefit is a best case scenario when you have the benefit of NI.
Renz and Johnson again lol
You gotta at least give the antivax nutjobs credit for persistence.
Antivaxxers misuse the Defense Medical Epidemiology Database to demonize COVID-19 vaccines
Over the last couple of weeks, a claim that the Defense Medical Epidemiology Database (DMED) shows that COVID-19 vaccines have caused a massive increase in cancer, neurological, and cardiovascular dis
sciencebasedmedicine.org
The Bucs won the Super Bowl prior to the vaccine being widely available. After it was widely available they did not even make it the Super Bowl. I'm not saying that the vaccine caused the Bucs to not make it to the Super Bowl but it's worth investigating and we should consider pulling all vaccines until we have a few years of research on this and then an FDA meeting with a 6 month window for public consideration of the findings or I don't consider it a valid study.Renz and Johnson again lol
You gotta at least give the antivax nutjobs credit for persistence.
Antivaxxers misuse the Defense Medical Epidemiology Database to demonize COVID-19 vaccines
Over the last couple of weeks, a claim that the Defense Medical Epidemiology Database (DMED) shows that COVID-19 vaccines have caused a massive increase in cancer, neurological, and cardiovascular dissciencebasedmedicine.org
That’s exactly why Brady is retiring. To spearhead that investigation. I also hear from one of Dr. Stella Immanuel’s sex demon’s neighbor that he heard Tucker Carlson asking about all the innocent patriots from Jan 6 who got the jab and then suddenly started telling prosecutors about punching cops and what have you, so it sounds like the vax is also some kinda leftist truth serum. Messed up.
I've noticed a sharp decrease in common sense since the vaccine was made available as well 😉Renz and Johnson again lol
You gotta at least give the antivax nutjobs credit for persistence.
Antivaxxers misuse the Defense Medical Epidemiology Database to demonize COVID-19 vaccines
Over the last couple of weeks, a claim that the Defense Medical Epidemiology Database (DMED) shows that COVID-19 vaccines have caused a massive increase in cancer, neurological, and cardiovascular dissciencebasedmedicine.org
Unfortunately, the last time I tried responding to similar nonsense by linking to a helpful correlation vs causation primer, I was sent to Chile. Apparently, statistical concepts are now on the banned books list.
Interesting that you cropped the letter this way to omit who sent it, but leave the impression from the letterhead that it comes from a bipartisan committee.
Careful with the " nutjob" label. I know you are trying to keep your torch burning bright, but it seems more of your arguments are losing some of their "science"Renz and Johnson again lol
You gotta at least give the antivax nutjobs credit for persistence.
Antivaxxers misuse the Defense Medical Epidemiology Database to demonize COVID-19 vaccines
Over the last couple of weeks, a claim that the Defense Medical Epidemiology Database (DMED) shows that COVID-19 vaccines have caused a massive increase in cancer, neurological, and cardiovascular dissciencebasedmedicine.org
Facts are you can be fully vaccinated and still get covid. Plus the immune system is not ment to have antibodies 100% of the time. It produces antibodies when you are exposed to a said virus. Not how that works.
COVID-19 was the third leading cause of death in 2020, after heart disease and cancer. According to the CDC data, heart disease killed 705,000 people in 2020, cancer killed 609,000, and COVID-19 killed 356,000. Accounting for the change in population, both cancer and heart disease deaths were higher in 2020 than 2019. Covid killed 356,000 in 2020 maybe if you believe that was actually what really killed them.
I'm not sure the point you're trying to make. You said yearly death totals didn't significantly go up. They did go up, by a lot.
What does that have to do with yearly death totals?
No not really, they didn't maybe 1 person per 1000. But that is my opinion. You are more than welcome to have a different opinion that is what is great about America for now.
How is 18% more people dying not significant? For comparison, the largest increase going back to 2015 was .03% from one year to the next. 2019-2020 went up 18%. Sure it's your opinion but your opinion follows no logical reasoning.
You: “Has anyone wondered why the yearly death totals in the USA didn't go up signifyingly during this pandemic?”
Actual legit fact: Yearly death totals have indeed increased significantly during the pandemic.
You: “You are more than welcome to have a different opinion”
Actual legit fact: Opinions and facts are not synonymous.
Another great thing about America is that nearly everybody has access to free internet, or at minimum a nearby public library, so you can look those words up, if you wish to improve your ability to participate in discussions about stuff.
Go facts! Go Noles!
Compared to past pandemics it is not significant.
I said opinion because I know it is not a fact. Tried to make that clear that is was MY OPINION. In the coming years many of these so called facts you want to talk about will be changed I bet. Once again MY OPINION.
My endocrinologist told me they expect to stop future boosters as people's immune systems are tanking from the vaccines. I wonder how much further this will get stretched out.
If even half of the nearly 1MM reported to have died died because of Covid, that is more than the US lost in World War 2. What is even worse is that many of the people who died were people who survived that war. "Opinions" like yours are the problem. Sorry, not sorry. Your entire life is regulated by the government. There are laws against speeding, because it endangers other. You can't yell fire in the theater, because it endangers others. You are not free to assault people without consequences. Because it endangers others. You can't smoke on an airplane, because it endangers others. You can't drink and drive, because it endangers others. I don't give a F&*K if you don't want the vaccine. I really don't. But you shouldn't be allowed on a plane, in a restaurant, school or in a hospital, because . . . yep, you guessed it, it endangers others. Are the vaccines fully protective? As discussed elsehwere in this thread, nope. Almost no vaccine actually is. But that's no excuse. You are free to not get it. Just as you are free to shoot someone. But there are and should be, consequences for both.
- Status
Latest posts
-
-
-
Softball FSU honors seniors, sweeps UNC, picks up 14th straight win- Latest: Bob Ferrante
-
