|
Any and all updates regarding the COVID-19 will need a source provided. Please do your part in helping us to keep this thread maintainable and under control.
It is YOUR responsibility to fully read through the sources that you link, and you MUST provide a brief summary explaining what the source is about. Do not expect other people to do the work for you.
Conspiracy theories and fear mongering will absolutely not be tolerated in this thread. Expect harsh mod actions if you try to incite fear needlessly.
This is not a politics thread! You are allowed to post information regarding politics if it's related to the coronavirus, but do NOT discuss politics in here.
Added a disclaimer on page 662. Many need to post better. |
On October 09 2021 01:14 Gorsameth wrote:'natural' immunity is not superior to vaccination, in fact the opposite is true. Even people who were previously infected and recovered should get their vaccinations because it significantly helps prevent re-infection. https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0806-vaccination-protection.htmlIronic that in a post where you complain about people misleading, you mislead people.
So what's your source for saying vaccine immunity > natural immunity? Because your link doesn't say that. Your link says natural immunity + vaccine immunity is better than natural immunity alone.
It would be doubly ironic if you were misleading people in a post where you complain about someone misleading people who was complaining about someone else misleading people.
|
On October 09 2021 07:45 BlackJack wrote:So what's your source for saying vaccine immunity > natural immunity? Because your link doesn't say that. Your link says natural immunity + vaccine immunity is better than natural immunity alone. It would be doubly ironic if you were misleading people in a post where you complain about someone misleading people who was complaining about someone else misleading people. Those who talk about the superiority of 'natural' immunity do so as an excuse not to have to take the vaccine. Therefor if its actually better on its own is not relevant. What matters is that you should get the vaccine regardless of whether or not you have previously had covid.
|
On October 09 2021 08:02 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2021 07:45 BlackJack wrote:On October 09 2021 01:14 Gorsameth wrote:'natural' immunity is not superior to vaccination, in fact the opposite is true. Even people who were previously infected and recovered should get their vaccinations because it significantly helps prevent re-infection. https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0806-vaccination-protection.htmlIronic that in a post where you complain about people misleading, you mislead people. So what's your source for saying vaccine immunity > natural immunity? Because your link doesn't say that. Your link says natural immunity + vaccine immunity is better than natural immunity alone. It would be doubly ironic if you were misleading people in a post where you complain about someone misleading people who was complaining about someone else misleading people. Those who talk about the superiority of 'natural' immunity do so as an excuse not to have to take the vaccine. Therefor if its actually better on its own is not relevant. What matters is that you should get the vaccine regardless of whether or not you have previously had covid.
Ok but you can't make a claim and then say it's not relevant if the claim is actually true or not. I mean, I suppose nothing stops you from doing that but you shouldn't lecture someone about misleading people if that's what you're going to do.
|
On October 09 2021 08:07 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2021 08:02 Gorsameth wrote:On October 09 2021 07:45 BlackJack wrote:On October 09 2021 01:14 Gorsameth wrote:'natural' immunity is not superior to vaccination, in fact the opposite is true. Even people who were previously infected and recovered should get their vaccinations because it significantly helps prevent re-infection. https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0806-vaccination-protection.htmlIronic that in a post where you complain about people misleading, you mislead people. So what's your source for saying vaccine immunity > natural immunity? Because your link doesn't say that. Your link says natural immunity + vaccine immunity is better than natural immunity alone. It would be doubly ironic if you were misleading people in a post where you complain about someone misleading people who was complaining about someone else misleading people. Those who talk about the superiority of 'natural' immunity do so as an excuse not to have to take the vaccine. Therefor if its actually better on its own is not relevant. What matters is that you should get the vaccine regardless of whether or not you have previously had covid. Ok but you can't make a claim and then say it's not relevant if the claim is actually true or not. I mean, I suppose nothing stops you from doing that but you shouldn't lecture someone about misleading people if that's what you're going to do.
Gorsameth is correct and that article is fine:
"In today’s MMWR, a study of COVID-19 infections in Kentucky among people who were previously infected with SAR-CoV-2 shows that unvaccinated individuals are more than twice as likely to be reinfected with COVID-19 than those who were fully vaccinated after initially contracting the virus. These data further indicate that COVID-19 vaccines offer better protection than natural immunity alone and that vaccines, even after prior infection, help prevent reinfections."
Vaccinated immunity > Natural immunity.
Edit: Also...
"The data is clear: Natural immunity is not better. The COVID-19 vaccines create more effective and longer-lasting immunity than natural immunity from infection."
https://www.nebraskamed.com/COVID/covid-19-studies-natural-immunity-versus-vaccination
|
Really annoyed that most reporting regarding this issue is incomplete. It's the same with the news that the effectiveness of Pfizer's shots wane to around the 70s after 4-6 months while Moderna's stay at 90%+.
Pfizer erred on the side of fewer side effects and tested a 30 mcg dose. Moderna erred on the side of potency and tested a 100 mcg dose. It's pretty obvious what is happening.
Can't find the original articles I've read about this. This should be good enough.
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/10/pfizer-won-vaccine-race-was-there-downside/620276/
|
On October 09 2021 09:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2021 08:07 BlackJack wrote:On October 09 2021 08:02 Gorsameth wrote:On October 09 2021 07:45 BlackJack wrote:On October 09 2021 01:14 Gorsameth wrote:'natural' immunity is not superior to vaccination, in fact the opposite is true. Even people who were previously infected and recovered should get their vaccinations because it significantly helps prevent re-infection. https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0806-vaccination-protection.htmlIronic that in a post where you complain about people misleading, you mislead people. So what's your source for saying vaccine immunity > natural immunity? Because your link doesn't say that. Your link says natural immunity + vaccine immunity is better than natural immunity alone. It would be doubly ironic if you were misleading people in a post where you complain about someone misleading people who was complaining about someone else misleading people. Those who talk about the superiority of 'natural' immunity do so as an excuse not to have to take the vaccine. Therefor if its actually better on its own is not relevant. What matters is that you should get the vaccine regardless of whether or not you have previously had covid. Ok but you can't make a claim and then say it's not relevant if the claim is actually true or not. I mean, I suppose nothing stops you from doing that but you shouldn't lecture someone about misleading people if that's what you're going to do. Gorsameth is correct and that article is fine: "In today’s MMWR, a study of COVID-19 infections in Kentucky among people who were previously infected with SAR-CoV-2 shows that unvaccinated individuals are more than twice as likely to be reinfected with COVID-19 than those who were fully vaccinated after initially contracting the virus. These data further indicate that COVID-19 vaccines offer better protection than natural immunity alone and that vaccines, even after prior infection, help prevent reinfections." Vaccinated immunity > Natural immunity. Edit: Also... "The data is clear: Natural immunity is not better. The COVID-19 vaccines create more effective and longer-lasting immunity than natural immunity from infection." https://www.nebraskamed.com/COVID/covid-19-studies-natural-immunity-versus-vaccination
That article is not fine because, as I said, it does not show that vaccine immunity > natural immunity. It shows that natural immunity + vaccine immunity is > natural immunity alone.
If a + b > b
you can't conclude a > b
I hope we can agree on at least that much.
|
|
|
On October 09 2021 10:27 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2021 09:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 09 2021 08:07 BlackJack wrote:On October 09 2021 08:02 Gorsameth wrote:On October 09 2021 07:45 BlackJack wrote:On October 09 2021 01:14 Gorsameth wrote:'natural' immunity is not superior to vaccination, in fact the opposite is true. Even people who were previously infected and recovered should get their vaccinations because it significantly helps prevent re-infection. https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0806-vaccination-protection.htmlIronic that in a post where you complain about people misleading, you mislead people. So what's your source for saying vaccine immunity > natural immunity? Because your link doesn't say that. Your link says natural immunity + vaccine immunity is better than natural immunity alone. It would be doubly ironic if you were misleading people in a post where you complain about someone misleading people who was complaining about someone else misleading people. Those who talk about the superiority of 'natural' immunity do so as an excuse not to have to take the vaccine. Therefor if its actually better on its own is not relevant. What matters is that you should get the vaccine regardless of whether or not you have previously had covid. Ok but you can't make a claim and then say it's not relevant if the claim is actually true or not. I mean, I suppose nothing stops you from doing that but you shouldn't lecture someone about misleading people if that's what you're going to do. Gorsameth is correct and that article is fine: "In today’s MMWR, a study of COVID-19 infections in Kentucky among people who were previously infected with SAR-CoV-2 shows that unvaccinated individuals are more than twice as likely to be reinfected with COVID-19 than those who were fully vaccinated after initially contracting the virus. These data further indicate that COVID-19 vaccines offer better protection than natural immunity alone and that vaccines, even after prior infection, help prevent reinfections." Vaccinated immunity > Natural immunity. Edit: Also... "The data is clear: Natural immunity is not better. The COVID-19 vaccines create more effective and longer-lasting immunity than natural immunity from infection." https://www.nebraskamed.com/COVID/covid-19-studies-natural-immunity-versus-vaccination That article is not fine because, as I said, it does not show that vaccine immunity > natural immunity. It shows that natural immunity + vaccine immunity is > natural immunity alone. If a + b > b you can't conclude a > b I hope we can agree on at least that much.
"More than a third of COVID-19 infections result in zero protective antibodies
Natural immunity fades faster than vaccine immunity
Natural immunity alone is less than half as effective than natural immunity plus vaccination
The takeaway: Get vaccinated, even if you've had COVID-19. Vaccine immunity is stronger than natural immunity.
"Natural immunity can be spotty. Some people can react vigorously and get a great antibody response. Other people don't get such a great response," says infectious diseases expert Mark Rupp, MD. "Clearly, vaccine-induced immunity is more standardized and can be longer-lasting."
A third of infections don't get any protective antibodies
Some people who get COVID-19 receive no protection from reinfection – their natural immunity is nonexistent. A recent study found that 36% of COVID-19 cases didn't result in development of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. The people had different levels of illness – most had moderate disease, but some were asymptomatic and some experienced severe COVID-19.
"Vaccine-induced immunity is more predictable than natural immunity," says Dr. Rupp. The COVID-19 vaccines provide great protection from severe disease, hospitalization and death.
Natural immunity fades more quickly than vaccine immunity
Natural immunity can decay within about 90 days. Immunity from COVID-19 vaccines has been shown to last longer. Both Pfizer and Moderna reported strong vaccine protection for at least six months."
...There's really nothing more to discuss. It's not even up for debate. When there are statements like "Natural immunity alone is less than half as effective than natural immunity plus vaccination", then it's clear that vaccines are doing more than natural immunity. Or, to use your letters, we also know that a > b. You can conclude that from reading both articles in their entirety.
|
Furthermore, one might conclude that it's preferable to have 70% immunity to a virus (to pick an arbitrary value) and never catch it than to have 90% immunity but have already caught it and suffered the short and long-term consequences. Assuming you lived. Why are we arguing about obvious maths when the implication of the obvious number is way more important?
|
On October 09 2021 13:02 NewSunshine wrote:
Furthermore, one might conclude that it's preferable to have 70% immunity to a virus (to pick an arbitrary value) and never catch it than to have 90% immunity but have already caught it and suffered the short and long-term consequences. Assuming you lived. Why are we arguing about obvious maths when the implication of the obvious number is way more important?
Right. If the objective is to avoid getting covid, then obviously the option that forces you to get covid to avoid getting it a second time is necessarily unsuccessful at achieving that objective lol.
|
On October 09 2021 13:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2021 13:02 NewSunshine wrote:
Furthermore, one might conclude that it's preferable to have 70% immunity to a virus (to pick an arbitrary value) and never catch it than to have 90% immunity but have already caught it and suffered the short and long-term consequences. Assuming you lived. Why are we arguing about obvious maths when the implication of the obvious number is way more important? Right. If the objective is to avoid getting covid, then obviously the option that forces you to get covid to avoid getting it a second time is necessarily unsuccessful at achieving that objective lol.
Yeah its totally wild to me how people will have their goofy little "checkmate atheists  " smirk on their face when their solution requires getting an infection that may lead to long term respiratory or cardiovascular issues lol. Yeah buddy, you really owned the libs.
|
On October 09 2021 12:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2021 10:27 BlackJack wrote:On October 09 2021 09:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 09 2021 08:07 BlackJack wrote:On October 09 2021 08:02 Gorsameth wrote:On October 09 2021 07:45 BlackJack wrote:On October 09 2021 01:14 Gorsameth wrote:'natural' immunity is not superior to vaccination, in fact the opposite is true. Even people who were previously infected and recovered should get their vaccinations because it significantly helps prevent re-infection. https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0806-vaccination-protection.htmlIronic that in a post where you complain about people misleading, you mislead people. So what's your source for saying vaccine immunity > natural immunity? Because your link doesn't say that. Your link says natural immunity + vaccine immunity is better than natural immunity alone. It would be doubly ironic if you were misleading people in a post where you complain about someone misleading people who was complaining about someone else misleading people. Those who talk about the superiority of 'natural' immunity do so as an excuse not to have to take the vaccine. Therefor if its actually better on its own is not relevant. What matters is that you should get the vaccine regardless of whether or not you have previously had covid. Ok but you can't make a claim and then say it's not relevant if the claim is actually true or not. I mean, I suppose nothing stops you from doing that but you shouldn't lecture someone about misleading people if that's what you're going to do. Gorsameth is correct and that article is fine: "In today’s MMWR, a study of COVID-19 infections in Kentucky among people who were previously infected with SAR-CoV-2 shows that unvaccinated individuals are more than twice as likely to be reinfected with COVID-19 than those who were fully vaccinated after initially contracting the virus. These data further indicate that COVID-19 vaccines offer better protection than natural immunity alone and that vaccines, even after prior infection, help prevent reinfections." Vaccinated immunity > Natural immunity. Edit: Also... "The data is clear: Natural immunity is not better. The COVID-19 vaccines create more effective and longer-lasting immunity than natural immunity from infection." https://www.nebraskamed.com/COVID/covid-19-studies-natural-immunity-versus-vaccination That article is not fine because, as I said, it does not show that vaccine immunity > natural immunity. It shows that natural immunity + vaccine immunity is > natural immunity alone. If a + b > b you can't conclude a > b I hope we can agree on at least that much. "More than a third of COVID-19 infections result in zero protective antibodies Natural immunity fades faster than vaccine immunity Natural immunity alone is less than half as effective than natural immunity plus vaccination The takeaway: Get vaccinated, even if you've had COVID-19. Vaccine immunity is stronger than natural immunity. "Natural immunity can be spotty. Some people can react vigorously and get a great antibody response. Other people don't get such a great response," says infectious diseases expert Mark Rupp, MD. "Clearly, vaccine-induced immunity is more standardized and can be longer-lasting." A third of infections don't get any protective antibodies Some people who get COVID-19 receive no protection from reinfection – their natural immunity is nonexistent. A recent study found that 36% of COVID-19 cases didn't result in development of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. The people had different levels of illness – most had moderate disease, but some were asymptomatic and some experienced severe COVID-19. "Vaccine-induced immunity is more predictable than natural immunity," says Dr. Rupp. The COVID-19 vaccines provide great protection from severe disease, hospitalization and death. Natural immunity fades more quickly than vaccine immunity Natural immunity can decay within about 90 days. Immunity from COVID-19 vaccines has been shown to last longer. Both Pfizer and Moderna reported strong vaccine protection for at least six months." ...There's really nothing more to discuss. It's not even up for debate. When there are statements like "Natural immunity alone is less than half as effective than natural immunity plus vaccination", then it's clear that vaccines are doing more than natural immunity. Or, to use your letters, we also know that a > b. You can conclude that from reading both articles in their entirety.
There's also a lot of evidence that says that natural immunity is as good as if not better than vaccine immunity. The biggest probably being the Israeli study that showed people with vaccine immunity were many times more likely to be infected or hospitalized with the delta variant than those previously infected with COVID.
When there are statements like "Natural immunity alone is less than half as effective than natural immunity plus vaccination", then it's clear that vaccines are doing more than natural immunity. Or, to use your letters, we also know that a > b
This is still not a valid logical conclusion. If you're launching a missile from a nuclear submarine and Key A and Key B together are 100% successful at launching the missile, but Key B by itself is 0% successful at launching the missile, you can't conclude that Key A must be way better than Key B. Natural immunity + vaccination can be way better than natural immunity alone and it can be way better than vaccine immunity alone at the same time. Given how many breakthrough cases there have been (The CDC stopped bothering to track them) that's probably the case.
|
On October 09 2021 14:52 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2021 13:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 09 2021 13:02 NewSunshine wrote:
Furthermore, one might conclude that it's preferable to have 70% immunity to a virus (to pick an arbitrary value) and never catch it than to have 90% immunity but have already caught it and suffered the short and long-term consequences. Assuming you lived. Why are we arguing about obvious maths when the implication of the obvious number is way more important? Right. If the objective is to avoid getting covid, then obviously the option that forces you to get covid to avoid getting it a second time is necessarily unsuccessful at achieving that objective lol. Yeah its totally wild to me how people will have their goofy little "checkmate atheists " smirk on their face when their solution requires getting an infection that may lead to long term respiratory or cardiovascular issues lol. Yeah buddy, you really owned the libs.
There are important implications in discussing natural immunity vs vaccine immunity.
1) In a world with limited vaccines should we use vaccines on people that already have protection from natural immunity or give them to the next person
2) Should people that already have protection from a previous COVID infection be exempt from vaccine passports/mandates?
Even Fauci said the other day he doesn't have a firm answer on this.
The fact that simply bringing up natural immunity vs vaccine immunity elicits you and others on this site to bring up the idea of getting COVID on purpose - something nobody here has advocated for or even mentioned - just shows the level of hysteria and irrationality I've come to expect.
|
On October 09 2021 01:14 Gorsameth wrote:'natural' immunity is not superior to vaccination, in fact the opposite is true. Even people who were previously infected and recovered should get their vaccinations because it significantly helps prevent re-infection. https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0806-vaccination-protection.htmlIronic that in a post where you complain about people misleading, you mislead people. words dude, words.
my initial statement, with the virus that still gets inside you, is technically re-infection.
when people get exposed to the virus, they all get reinfected. the harm produced by the reinfection obviously varies, but it's besides the point here because(obviously) the ones with active antibodies will deal faster with the virus.
'natural' immunity is by definition the way an immune system deals with an infection and has nothing to do with its recurrence in the host.
(as a reply to you https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1 Results SARS-CoV-2-naïve vaccinees had a 13.06-fold (95% CI, 8.08 to 21.11) increased risk for breakthrough infection with the Delta variant compared to those previously infected, when the first event (infection or vaccination) occurred during January and February of 2021. The increased risk was significant (P<0.001) for symptomatic disease as well. When allowing the infection to occur at any time before vaccination (from March 2020 to February 2021), evidence of waning natural immunity was demonstrated, though SARS-CoV-2 naïve vaccinees had a 5.96-fold (95% CI, 4.85 to 7.33) increased risk for breakthrough infection and a 7.13-fold (95% CI, 5.51 to 9.21) increased risk for symptomatic disease. SARS-CoV-2-naïve vaccinees were also at a greater risk for COVID-19-related-hospitalizations compared to those that were previously infected.
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. but i wasn't thinking about that when i wrote my replay(because to me the above quote being true was self evident) but more about this: https://directorsblog.nih.gov/2021/06/22/how-immunity-generated-from-covid-19-vaccines-differs-from-an-infection/ The new evidence shows that protective antibodies generated in response to an mRNA vaccine will target a broader range of SARS-CoV-2 variants carrying “single letter” changes in a key portion of their spike protein compared to antibodies acquired from an infection.
These results add to evidence that people with acquired immunity may have differing levels of protection to emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants. More importantly, the data provide further documentation that those who’ve had and recovered from a COVID-19 infection still stand to benefit from getting vaccinated. (i've read things explicitly on the bolded part but i can't find links now). after natural infection, the body shows more ways of virus detection and more ways of killing/inactivating the virus while after vaccination, you only get immunization against the spike protein.
Edit:+ Show Spoiler + On October 09 2021 04:14 Simberto wrote:
I would also like to add that the vaccine makes it a lot safer to get the immunity after infection.
If you are vaccinated, you are far less likely to have serious consequences from getting the virus. I think it is likely that even with vaccinations, everyone will eventually get infected. If that is the case, it is a lot better to get infected after being vaccinated instead of getting infected without being vaccinated.
So even if you think that your immunity after getting infected is better (I think this is not as fringe of a position as people make it out, our top corona guy in Germany Drosden also mentioned that (I think he specifically spoke about immunity after getting infected after vaccination being better than immunity just after infection, though)), getting vaccinated is still a very good idea. that is a decent take, albeit on the safer side. i wouldn't be surprised if israel will get over the pandemic after all its people will get infected with the actual virus, after being vaccinated('cause it didn't work with vaccines alone)
Edit: also, stop linking stupid shit that count antibodies and call it immunity, 'cause it's not.
just as in natural infection, the vaccination induced antibodies vane .from 5/6 months to 9/12 months, most of the antibodies are gone.
|
On October 09 2021 15:38 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2021 14:52 Mohdoo wrote:On October 09 2021 13:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 09 2021 13:02 NewSunshine wrote:
Furthermore, one might conclude that it's preferable to have 70% immunity to a virus (to pick an arbitrary value) and never catch it than to have 90% immunity but have already caught it and suffered the short and long-term consequences. Assuming you lived. Why are we arguing about obvious maths when the implication of the obvious number is way more important? Right. If the objective is to avoid getting covid, then obviously the option that forces you to get covid to avoid getting it a second time is necessarily unsuccessful at achieving that objective lol. Yeah its totally wild to me how people will have their goofy little "checkmate atheists " smirk on their face when their solution requires getting an infection that may lead to long term respiratory or cardiovascular issues lol. Yeah buddy, you really owned the libs. There are important implications in discussing natural immunity vs vaccine immunity. 1) In a world with limited vaccines should we use vaccines on people that already have protection from natural immunity or give them to the next person 2) Should people that already have protection from a previous COVID infection be exempt from vaccine passports/mandates? Even Fauci said the other day he doesn't have a firm answer on this. The fact that simply bringing up natural immunity vs vaccine immunity elicits you and others on this site to bring up the idea of getting COVID on purpose - something nobody here has advocated for or even mentioned - just shows the level of hysteria and irrationality I've come to expect.
"Even Fauci", no one in the scientific community sees Fauci as some kind of prophet. Fauci is a talking head. Fauci is essentially a politician, he is not some kind of scientific authority.
I am happy for you that you don't live in an area where intentional covid infection isn't a thing. Stay away from rural Oregon. This isn't irrationality, this is the dude down the street.
|
and for ones that actually want to read shit :
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41577-019-0143-6 + Show Spoiler +The adaptive immune response to influenza virus infection is multifaceted and complex, involving antibody and cellular responses at both systemic and mucosal levels. Immune responses to natural infection with influenza virus in humans are relatively broad and long-lived, but influenza viruses can escape from these responses over time owing to their high mutation rates and antigenic flexibility. Vaccines are the best available countermeasure against infection, but vaccine effectiveness is low compared with other viral vaccines, and the induced immune response is narrow and short-lived. Furthermore, inactivated influenza virus vaccines focus on the induction of systemic IgG responses but do not effectively induce mucosal IgA responses. Here, I review the differences between natural infection and vaccination in terms of the antibody responses they induce and how these responses protect against future infection. A better understanding of how natural infection induces broad and long-lived immune responses will be key to developing next-generation influenza virus vaccines. sure it's on influenza, but the mechanisms are very similar to covid immune reactions.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41556-021-00689-8 -Immune memory in individuals with COVID-19
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41587-021-01037-9 -Pre-activated antiviral innate immunity in the upper airways controls early SARS-CoV-2 infection in children
https://www.nature.com/articles/s12276-021-00602-1 -Innate immune sensing of coronavirus and viral evasion strategies
|
On October 09 2021 12:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2021 10:27 BlackJack wrote:On October 09 2021 09:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 09 2021 08:07 BlackJack wrote:On October 09 2021 08:02 Gorsameth wrote:On October 09 2021 07:45 BlackJack wrote:On October 09 2021 01:14 Gorsameth wrote:'natural' immunity is not superior to vaccination, in fact the opposite is true. Even people who were previously infected and recovered should get their vaccinations because it significantly helps prevent re-infection. https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0806-vaccination-protection.htmlIronic that in a post where you complain about people misleading, you mislead people. So what's your source for saying vaccine immunity > natural immunity? Because your link doesn't say that. Your link says natural immunity + vaccine immunity is better than natural immunity alone. It would be doubly ironic if you were misleading people in a post where you complain about someone misleading people who was complaining about someone else misleading people. Those who talk about the superiority of 'natural' immunity do so as an excuse not to have to take the vaccine. Therefor if its actually better on its own is not relevant. What matters is that you should get the vaccine regardless of whether or not you have previously had covid. Ok but you can't make a claim and then say it's not relevant if the claim is actually true or not. I mean, I suppose nothing stops you from doing that but you shouldn't lecture someone about misleading people if that's what you're going to do. Gorsameth is correct and that article is fine: "In today’s MMWR, a study of COVID-19 infections in Kentucky among people who were previously infected with SAR-CoV-2 shows that unvaccinated individuals are more than twice as likely to be reinfected with COVID-19 than those who were fully vaccinated after initially contracting the virus. These data further indicate that COVID-19 vaccines offer better protection than natural immunity alone and that vaccines, even after prior infection, help prevent reinfections." Vaccinated immunity > Natural immunity. Edit: Also... "The data is clear: Natural immunity is not better. The COVID-19 vaccines create more effective and longer-lasting immunity than natural immunity from infection." https://www.nebraskamed.com/COVID/covid-19-studies-natural-immunity-versus-vaccination That article is not fine because, as I said, it does not show that vaccine immunity > natural immunity. It shows that natural immunity + vaccine immunity is > natural immunity alone. If a + b > b you can't conclude a > b I hope we can agree on at least that much. "More than a third of COVID-19 infections result in zero protective antibodies Natural immunity fades faster than vaccine immunity Natural immunity alone is less than half as effective than natural immunity plus vaccination The takeaway: Get vaccinated, even if you've had COVID-19. Vaccine immunity is stronger than natural immunity. "Natural immunity can be spotty. Some people can react vigorously and get a great antibody response. Other people don't get such a great response," says infectious diseases expert Mark Rupp, MD. "Clearly, vaccine-induced immunity is more standardized and can be longer-lasting." A third of infections don't get any protective antibodies Some people who get COVID-19 receive no protection from reinfection – their natural immunity is nonexistent. A recent study found that 36% of COVID-19 cases didn't result in development of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. The people had different levels of illness – most had moderate disease, but some were asymptomatic and some experienced severe COVID-19. "Vaccine-induced immunity is more predictable than natural immunity," says Dr. Rupp. The COVID-19 vaccines provide great protection from severe disease, hospitalization and death. Natural immunity fades more quickly than vaccine immunity Natural immunity can decay within about 90 days. Immunity from COVID-19 vaccines has been shown to last longer. Both Pfizer and Moderna reported strong vaccine protection for at least six months." ...There's really nothing more to discuss. It's not even up for debate. When there are statements like "Natural immunity alone is less than half as effective than natural immunity plus vaccination", then it's clear that vaccines are doing more than natural immunity. Or, to use your letters, we also know that a > b. You can conclude that from reading both articles in their entirety.
Yes, this seems like a pro-vaccine piece. He has the best intentions, but something I have learned, it is that experts saying something "can be" without referring to solid studies or statistics should not be trusted.
|
On October 09 2021 17:02 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2021 12:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 09 2021 10:27 BlackJack wrote:On October 09 2021 09:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 09 2021 08:07 BlackJack wrote:On October 09 2021 08:02 Gorsameth wrote:On October 09 2021 07:45 BlackJack wrote:On October 09 2021 01:14 Gorsameth wrote:'natural' immunity is not superior to vaccination, in fact the opposite is true. Even people who were previously infected and recovered should get their vaccinations because it significantly helps prevent re-infection. https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0806-vaccination-protection.htmlIronic that in a post where you complain about people misleading, you mislead people. So what's your source for saying vaccine immunity > natural immunity? Because your link doesn't say that. Your link says natural immunity + vaccine immunity is better than natural immunity alone. It would be doubly ironic if you were misleading people in a post where you complain about someone misleading people who was complaining about someone else misleading people. Those who talk about the superiority of 'natural' immunity do so as an excuse not to have to take the vaccine. Therefor if its actually better on its own is not relevant. What matters is that you should get the vaccine regardless of whether or not you have previously had covid. Ok but you can't make a claim and then say it's not relevant if the claim is actually true or not. I mean, I suppose nothing stops you from doing that but you shouldn't lecture someone about misleading people if that's what you're going to do. Gorsameth is correct and that article is fine: "In today’s MMWR, a study of COVID-19 infections in Kentucky among people who were previously infected with SAR-CoV-2 shows that unvaccinated individuals are more than twice as likely to be reinfected with COVID-19 than those who were fully vaccinated after initially contracting the virus. These data further indicate that COVID-19 vaccines offer better protection than natural immunity alone and that vaccines, even after prior infection, help prevent reinfections." Vaccinated immunity > Natural immunity. Edit: Also... "The data is clear: Natural immunity is not better. The COVID-19 vaccines create more effective and longer-lasting immunity than natural immunity from infection." https://www.nebraskamed.com/COVID/covid-19-studies-natural-immunity-versus-vaccination That article is not fine because, as I said, it does not show that vaccine immunity > natural immunity. It shows that natural immunity + vaccine immunity is > natural immunity alone. If a + b > b you can't conclude a > b I hope we can agree on at least that much. "More than a third of COVID-19 infections result in zero protective antibodies Natural immunity fades faster than vaccine immunity Natural immunity alone is less than half as effective than natural immunity plus vaccination The takeaway: Get vaccinated, even if you've had COVID-19. Vaccine immunity is stronger than natural immunity. "Natural immunity can be spotty. Some people can react vigorously and get a great antibody response. Other people don't get such a great response," says infectious diseases expert Mark Rupp, MD. "Clearly, vaccine-induced immunity is more standardized and can be longer-lasting." A third of infections don't get any protective antibodies Some people who get COVID-19 receive no protection from reinfection – their natural immunity is nonexistent. A recent study found that 36% of COVID-19 cases didn't result in development of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. The people had different levels of illness – most had moderate disease, but some were asymptomatic and some experienced severe COVID-19. "Vaccine-induced immunity is more predictable than natural immunity," says Dr. Rupp. The COVID-19 vaccines provide great protection from severe disease, hospitalization and death. Natural immunity fades more quickly than vaccine immunity Natural immunity can decay within about 90 days. Immunity from COVID-19 vaccines has been shown to last longer. Both Pfizer and Moderna reported strong vaccine protection for at least six months." ...There's really nothing more to discuss. It's not even up for debate. When there are statements like "Natural immunity alone is less than half as effective than natural immunity plus vaccination", then it's clear that vaccines are doing more than natural immunity. Or, to use your letters, we also know that a > b. You can conclude that from reading both articles in their entirety. Yes, this seems like a pro-vaccine piece. He has the best intentions, but something I have learned, it is that experts saying something "can be" without referring to solid studies or statistics should not be trusted.
Scientists say "can be" because you need exhaustive evidence that something is always the case to say "is" in science.
Scientists are trained to be very careful when making statements. People who are not in science interpret that as them not being certain of stuff. This is generally untrue.
If a scientist says "is", that means it is always the case, in any situation. So in this situation, a scientist claiming "is" would be saying that the immunity after infection would always, in every person, be weaker than immunity after vaccination, in every other person. With the variance between people, no scientist will claim that.
I'd also like to add that there are basically four scenarios that people are conflating:
Just vaccine
Just infection
Vaccine, then infection
Infection, then vaccine
All of those may have different immunity results. But i don't think we have found a situation where not getting vaccinated gives you better results. And i don't get why we are constantly arguing about edge cases. The vaccine is a minor hassle. Just get it and be save.
|
On October 09 2021 17:31 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2021 17:02 Slydie wrote:On October 09 2021 12:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 09 2021 10:27 BlackJack wrote:On October 09 2021 09:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 09 2021 08:07 BlackJack wrote:On October 09 2021 08:02 Gorsameth wrote:On October 09 2021 07:45 BlackJack wrote:On October 09 2021 01:14 Gorsameth wrote:'natural' immunity is not superior to vaccination, in fact the opposite is true. Even people who were previously infected and recovered should get their vaccinations because it significantly helps prevent re-infection. https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0806-vaccination-protection.htmlIronic that in a post where you complain about people misleading, you mislead people. So what's your source for saying vaccine immunity > natural immunity? Because your link doesn't say that. Your link says natural immunity + vaccine immunity is better than natural immunity alone. It would be doubly ironic if you were misleading people in a post where you complain about someone misleading people who was complaining about someone else misleading people. Those who talk about the superiority of 'natural' immunity do so as an excuse not to have to take the vaccine. Therefor if its actually better on its own is not relevant. What matters is that you should get the vaccine regardless of whether or not you have previously had covid. Ok but you can't make a claim and then say it's not relevant if the claim is actually true or not. I mean, I suppose nothing stops you from doing that but you shouldn't lecture someone about misleading people if that's what you're going to do. Gorsameth is correct and that article is fine: "In today’s MMWR, a study of COVID-19 infections in Kentucky among people who were previously infected with SAR-CoV-2 shows that unvaccinated individuals are more than twice as likely to be reinfected with COVID-19 than those who were fully vaccinated after initially contracting the virus. These data further indicate that COVID-19 vaccines offer better protection than natural immunity alone and that vaccines, even after prior infection, help prevent reinfections." Vaccinated immunity > Natural immunity. Edit: Also... "The data is clear: Natural immunity is not better. The COVID-19 vaccines create more effective and longer-lasting immunity than natural immunity from infection." https://www.nebraskamed.com/COVID/covid-19-studies-natural-immunity-versus-vaccination That article is not fine because, as I said, it does not show that vaccine immunity > natural immunity. It shows that natural immunity + vaccine immunity is > natural immunity alone. If a + b > b you can't conclude a > b I hope we can agree on at least that much. "More than a third of COVID-19 infections result in zero protective antibodies Natural immunity fades faster than vaccine immunity Natural immunity alone is less than half as effective than natural immunity plus vaccination The takeaway: Get vaccinated, even if you've had COVID-19. Vaccine immunity is stronger than natural immunity. "Natural immunity can be spotty. Some people can react vigorously and get a great antibody response. Other people don't get such a great response," says infectious diseases expert Mark Rupp, MD. "Clearly, vaccine-induced immunity is more standardized and can be longer-lasting." A third of infections don't get any protective antibodies Some people who get COVID-19 receive no protection from reinfection – their natural immunity is nonexistent. A recent study found that 36% of COVID-19 cases didn't result in development of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. The people had different levels of illness – most had moderate disease, but some were asymptomatic and some experienced severe COVID-19. "Vaccine-induced immunity is more predictable than natural immunity," says Dr. Rupp. The COVID-19 vaccines provide great protection from severe disease, hospitalization and death. Natural immunity fades more quickly than vaccine immunity Natural immunity can decay within about 90 days. Immunity from COVID-19 vaccines has been shown to last longer. Both Pfizer and Moderna reported strong vaccine protection for at least six months." ...There's really nothing more to discuss. It's not even up for debate. When there are statements like "Natural immunity alone is less than half as effective than natural immunity plus vaccination", then it's clear that vaccines are doing more than natural immunity. Or, to use your letters, we also know that a > b. You can conclude that from reading both articles in their entirety. Yes, this seems like a pro-vaccine piece. He has the best intentions, but something I have learned, it is that experts saying something "can be" without referring to solid studies or statistics should not be trusted. Scientists say "can be" because you need exhaustive evidence that something is always the case to say "is" in science. Scientists are trained to be very careful when making statements. People who are not in science interpret that as them not being certain of stuff. This is generally untrue. If a scientist says "is", that means it is always the case, in any situation. So in this situation, a scientist claiming "is" would be saying that the immunity after infection would always, in every person, be weaker than immunity after vaccination, in every other person. With the variance between people, no scientist will claim that. I'd also like to add that there are basically four scenarios that people are conflating: Just vaccine Just infection Vaccine, then infection Infection, then vaccine All of those may have different immunity results. But i don't think we have found a situation where not getting vaccinated gives you better results. And i don't get why we are constantly arguing about edge cases. The vaccine is a minor hassle. Just get it and be save.
The problem with "can be" is that too many times very small risks, inconclusive studies or pure guesswork are hiding behind it. It works both ways too, I can state that "vaccines can be deadly" and nobody can say I am wrong; in that case, they are extremely careful about adding information about how unlikely it is.
This scientists speaks as if present antibodies are the only sign of immunity, which I believe we have already refuted as bullshit in this thread. Referring to anybody levels is done far too much these days, and to me, it implies that more solid studies involving actual infections are missing or worse, ignored.
|
I just got diagnosed with Lyme disease. Normally, I wouldn't be worried that much (it is my second time) but I am kind of afraid that it will make me vulnerable to covid, despite being vaccinated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
