|
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 08 2021 22:28 Mohdoo wrote:
Mine went great. My reaction was similar to my first. Just felt kinda crummy throughout the day but nothing major.
Cool thanks. I wasn't sure if with each new vaccine the side effects were getting worse, because on the first one I had the same reaction as you, but on the second one I felt like I had no energy for 2 days. I'll probably try to boost my immune system with vitamins etc before getting the 3rd, hopefully that will reduce the side effects, assuming they get worse.
|
www.science.org
www.reuters.com
Not sure why the natural immunity argument is stupid just because they are better together. In the case of the measles,mumps, and rubella vaccine, the CDC itself says you DO NOT need the MMR vaccine given you can show proof of natural immunity. Even recent data from Public Health England shows fairly even numbers on cases of covid variants between unvaccinated and vaccinated individuals. The same data also shows a higher death rate among vaccinated individuals in comparison to unvaccinated within a month long period of a positive test result.
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk
Pages 19-20 of the PDF is the chart i'm referring to above.
Both vaccines and natural immunity have a role to play in ending this almost 2 year long global pandemic. Forcing vaccines on people though who have natural antibodies(some of those being the frontline healthcare workers who were heroes just a year ago) IMO is not the answer. And apologies for my poor URL skills, I would have preferred it showed the entire article link, but they still work as intended.
|
On October 09 2021 15:08 BlackJack 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. 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. Show nested quote + 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.
Your key analogy is inaccurate. In your scenario, you're suggesting that individually, the keys don't work, and only together they work. We know - for a fact - that that's not the same as this conversation of vaccinated immunity vs. natural immunity. We know that vaccines work just fine even for people who haven't developed natural antibodies from already surviving a covid infection. Natural immunity provides some protection, even without vaccination. Vaccination provides some (even more) protection, even without natural immunity. They work alone just fine; it is not necessary for both to exist inside a person first, to gain some protection from covid.
And yes, having both natural immunity and vaccinated immunity together is more effective than either one on their own, but that necessarily requires you to get covid in the first place (so that you develop the former), which is clearly not in the interest of people who don't want to get covid at all. And furthermore, this is irrelevant to the fact that yes, we do know that vaccinated immunity > natural immunity. The articles and data have fleshed this out, many times over, from infection rates to hospitalization rates to death rates. If you don't like Gor's article, read mine. If you don't like mine, read the countless others.
|
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.
The scientific and medical communities are "pro-vaccine", so yeah, of course this is a "pro-vaccine piece". I hope you're not implying that it's necessarily biased or inaccurate, just because it acknowledges the effectiveness of vaccines (including covid vaccines).
And as it was mentioned earlier, scientists tend to be very careful with their language and err on the side of using qualifiers, such as "can be", because this is all based on empirical data and one's mileage may vary, depending on the individual. But these "pro-vaccine" statements are absolutely informed by studies and statistics, and I find it to be more of a problem if a person were to ignore the consensus of almost every expert, just to cherry pick the few experts that agree with a person's preconceived notion that conflicts with the consensus. I'm not saying that you're doing that, but in general, confirmation bias is one of the most popular problems when it comes to people "doing their own research".
|
On October 09 2021 22:02 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2021 18:36 Silvanel wrote:
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. That sucks man, so many extra concerns these days, while not sure on the spscific vaccination has vastly helped even the.vulnerable and with spread being low where you are at statistically you are pretty safe. To up you comfort just be a little.more cautious and distance where you can and mask where you cant. This whole natural vs vaccine is the stupidest arguement. To get natural you have to have had covid. For natural to be "better" it has to beat 2 infections over vaccinated. Which it cant, not only becausr this vaccine is effective, especially at reducing severity, but especially because even those pro natural are wholely admiting both is better then just natural. So if you use BJs math not flawed. A you may never get covid and if you do its less severe B you 100% had covid. And A + B >B Only way natural could be "better" would be if the vaccine was more dangerous than covid, which it is not and its not even slightly close.AGAIN, THERE IS NO LOGIC TO NOT GETTING THE VACCINE to try to make it work you just have to wilfully ignore a bunch of facts. Which of course is the style of the crowd but it does not fly here or anywhere where people critically think through the entire problem.
Unfortunately, I imagine that there are a non-zero number of anti-vaxxers who believe in both of these things:
1. Covid isn't that big of a deal (I know someone who had it and they were just fine, this is overblown, etc.);
2. Vaccinations are dangerous (autism, changing DNA, Bill Gates microchip, fake shot just for profits, etc.).
When both of these things are believed, it would definitely appear that some people would prefer to get covid rather than get the covid vaccine. Or, more simply put: "I trust my body more than I trust the vaccine."
|
|
|
On October 10 2021 00:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2021 15:08 BlackJack 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. 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. Your key analogy is inaccurate. In your scenario, you're suggesting that individually, the keys don't work, and only together they work. We know - for a fact - that that's not the same as this conversation of vaccinated immunity vs. natural immunity. We know that vaccines work just fine even for people who haven't developed natural antibodies from already surviving a covid infection. Natural immunity provides some protection, even without vaccination. Vaccination provides some (even more) protection, even without natural immunity. They work alone just fine; it is not necessary for both to exist inside a person first, to gain some protection from covid. And yes, having both natural immunity and vaccinated immunity together is more effective than either one on their own, but that necessarily requires you to get covid in the first place (so that you develop the former), which is clearly not in the interest of people who don't want to get covid at all. And furthermore, this is irrelevant to the fact that yes, we do know that vaccinated immunity > natural immunity. The articles and data have fleshed this out, many times over, from infection rates to hospitalization rates to death rates. If you don't like Gor's article, read mine. If you don't like mine, read the countless others.
There's nothing wrong with my key analogy. You assumed that if natural immunity + vaccine is more than twice as effective as natural immunity alone than vaccine immunity must be more effective than natural immunity. I showed you the error in your logic. Two things together can be more than twice as effective as each thing by themselves. You can't conclude that one is superior than the other. I can create other analogies if you want:
Imagine seatbelts prevent 20% of traffic fatalities and airbags prevent 20% of traffic fatalities, but seatbelts + airbags together prevent 90% of traffic fatalities. If you only knew seatbelts prevent 20% of traffic fatalities and seatbelts + airbags prevent 90% of traffic fatalities you can't conclude airbags must be way better at preventing fatalities than seatbelts.
Imagine a brand of flea collar is 40% effective at eliminating fleas from your cat. But using the flea collar together with a flea shampoo is 90% effective at eliminating fleas from your cat. You can't conclude the shampoo must more effective than the flea collar. It could be even less effective on its own than the flea collar.
|
On October 10 2021 05:03 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2021 00:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 09 2021 15:08 BlackJack 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. 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. Your key analogy is inaccurate. In your scenario, you're suggesting that individually, the keys don't work, and only together they work. We know - for a fact - that that's not the same as this conversation of vaccinated immunity vs. natural immunity. We know that vaccines work just fine even for people who haven't developed natural antibodies from already surviving a covid infection. Natural immunity provides some protection, even without vaccination. Vaccination provides some (even more) protection, even without natural immunity. They work alone just fine; it is not necessary for both to exist inside a person first, to gain some protection from covid. And yes, having both natural immunity and vaccinated immunity together is more effective than either one on their own, but that necessarily requires you to get covid in the first place (so that you develop the former), which is clearly not in the interest of people who don't want to get covid at all. And furthermore, this is irrelevant to the fact that yes, we do know that vaccinated immunity > natural immunity. The articles and data have fleshed this out, many times over, from infection rates to hospitalization rates to death rates. If you don't like Gor's article, read mine. If you don't like mine, read the countless others. There's nothing wrong with my key analogy. You assumed that if natural immunity + vaccine is more than twice as effective as natural immunity alone than vaccine immunity must be more effective than natural immunity. I showed you the error in your logic. Two things together can be more than twice as effective as each thing by themselves. You can't conclude that one is superior than the other. I can create other analogies if you want: Imagine seatbelts prevent 20% of traffic fatalities and airbags prevent 20% of traffic fatalities, but seatbelts + airbags together prevent 90% of traffic fatalities. If you only knew seatbelts prevent 20% of traffic fatalities and seatbelts + airbags prevent 90% of traffic fatalities you can't conclude airbags must be way better at preventing fatalities than seatbelts. Imagine a brand of flea collar is 40% effective at eliminating fleas from your cat. But using the flea collar together with a flea shampoo is 90% effective at eliminating fleas from your cat. You can't conclude the shampoo must more effective than the flea collar. It could be even less effective on its own than the flea collar.
You're positing things that literally don't make sense, and aren't what the data is actually telling us about the two types of immunities. Vaccinated immunity lasts longer than natural immunity, and vaccinated immunity doesn't require you to first get covid - and we know that the potential side effects of covid are way worse and way more common than the potential side effects of the vaccine. That's it. That's all there is to it. And even if you don't like the data or researchers:
If you don't want to get covid, then you get vaccinated. (Natural immunity isn't an alternative, pre-infection.)
If you don't want to get covid a second time, then you still get vaccinated. (Vaccine+Natural > Natural.)
I don't know why you're having such an issue with this. If you're interested in not getting covid, then there is no reason to not get vaccinated (unless someone thinks that getting vaccinated literally makes them more likely to get infected by covid). JimmiC already explained this, above.
|
On October 10 2021 05:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2021 05:03 BlackJack wrote:On October 10 2021 00:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 09 2021 15:08 BlackJack 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:
[quote]
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. Your key analogy is inaccurate. In your scenario, you're suggesting that individually, the keys don't work, and only together they work. We know - for a fact - that that's not the same as this conversation of vaccinated immunity vs. natural immunity. We know that vaccines work just fine even for people who haven't developed natural antibodies from already surviving a covid infection. Natural immunity provides some protection, even without vaccination. Vaccination provides some (even more) protection, even without natural immunity. They work alone just fine; it is not necessary for both to exist inside a person first, to gain some protection from covid. And yes, having both natural immunity and vaccinated immunity together is more effective than either one on their own, but that necessarily requires you to get covid in the first place (so that you develop the former), which is clearly not in the interest of people who don't want to get covid at all. And furthermore, this is irrelevant to the fact that yes, we do know that vaccinated immunity > natural immunity. The articles and data have fleshed this out, many times over, from infection rates to hospitalization rates to death rates. If you don't like Gor's article, read mine. If you don't like mine, read the countless others. There's nothing wrong with my key analogy. You assumed that if natural immunity + vaccine is more than twice as effective as natural immunity alone than vaccine immunity must be more effective than natural immunity. I showed you the error in your logic. Two things together can be more than twice as effective as each thing by themselves. You can't conclude that one is superior than the other. I can create other analogies if you want: Imagine seatbelts prevent 20% of traffic fatalities and airbags prevent 20% of traffic fatalities, but seatbelts + airbags together prevent 90% of traffic fatalities. If you only knew seatbelts prevent 20% of traffic fatalities and seatbelts + airbags prevent 90% of traffic fatalities you can't conclude airbags must be way better at preventing fatalities than seatbelts. Imagine a brand of flea collar is 40% effective at eliminating fleas from your cat. But using the flea collar together with a flea shampoo is 90% effective at eliminating fleas from your cat. You can't conclude the shampoo must more effective than the flea collar. It could be even less effective on its own than the flea collar. You're positing things that literally don't make sense, and aren't what the data is actually telling us about the two types of immunities. Vaccinated immunity lasts longer than natural immunity, and vaccinated immunity doesn't require you to first get covid - and we know that the potential side effects of covid are way worse and way more common than the potential side effects of the vaccine. That's it. That's all there is to it. And even if you don't like the data or researchers: If you don't want to get covid, then you get vaccinated. (Natural immunity isn't an alternative, pre-infection.) If you don't want to get covid a second time, then you still get vaccinated. (Vaccine+Natural > Natural.) I don't know why you're having such an issue with this. If you're interested in not getting covid, then there is no reason to not get vaccinated (unless someone thinks that getting vaccinated literally makes them more likely to get infected by covid). JimmiC already explained this, above.
I don't have an "issue" with you recommending vaccines. I have an issue with you posting things that are logically inconsistent.
|
|
|
Northern Ireland25492 Posts
Does it ever depress anyone this thread has 490 pages worth of responses?
|
On October 10 2021 06:29 WombaT wrote:
Does it ever depress anyone this thread has 490 pages worth of responses?
Depressing isn’t the word I’d use given my tendency towards cynicism, but that number is certainly telling.
|
On October 10 2021 05:32 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2021 05:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 10 2021 05:03 BlackJack wrote:On October 10 2021 00:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 09 2021 15:08 BlackJack 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:
[quote]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. Your key analogy is inaccurate. In your scenario, you're suggesting that individually, the keys don't work, and only together they work. We know - for a fact - that that's not the same as this conversation of vaccinated immunity vs. natural immunity. We know that vaccines work just fine even for people who haven't developed natural antibodies from already surviving a covid infection. Natural immunity provides some protection, even without vaccination. Vaccination provides some (even more) protection, even without natural immunity. They work alone just fine; it is not necessary for both to exist inside a person first, to gain some protection from covid. And yes, having both natural immunity and vaccinated immunity together is more effective than either one on their own, but that necessarily requires you to get covid in the first place (so that you develop the former), which is clearly not in the interest of people who don't want to get covid at all. And furthermore, this is irrelevant to the fact that yes, we do know that vaccinated immunity > natural immunity. The articles and data have fleshed this out, many times over, from infection rates to hospitalization rates to death rates. If you don't like Gor's article, read mine. If you don't like mine, read the countless others. There's nothing wrong with my key analogy. You assumed that if natural immunity + vaccine is more than twice as effective as natural immunity alone than vaccine immunity must be more effective than natural immunity. I showed you the error in your logic. Two things together can be more than twice as effective as each thing by themselves. You can't conclude that one is superior than the other. I can create other analogies if you want: Imagine seatbelts prevent 20% of traffic fatalities and airbags prevent 20% of traffic fatalities, but seatbelts + airbags together prevent 90% of traffic fatalities. If you only knew seatbelts prevent 20% of traffic fatalities and seatbelts + airbags prevent 90% of traffic fatalities you can't conclude airbags must be way better at preventing fatalities than seatbelts. Imagine a brand of flea collar is 40% effective at eliminating fleas from your cat. But using the flea collar together with a flea shampoo is 90% effective at eliminating fleas from your cat. You can't conclude the shampoo must more effective than the flea collar. It could be even less effective on its own than the flea collar. You're positing things that literally don't make sense, and aren't what the data is actually telling us about the two types of immunities. Vaccinated immunity lasts longer than natural immunity, and vaccinated immunity doesn't require you to first get covid - and we know that the potential side effects of covid are way worse and way more common than the potential side effects of the vaccine. That's it. That's all there is to it. And even if you don't like the data or researchers: If you don't want to get covid, then you get vaccinated. (Natural immunity isn't an alternative, pre-infection.) If you don't want to get covid a second time, then you still get vaccinated. (Vaccine+Natural > Natural.) I don't know why you're having such an issue with this. If you're interested in not getting covid, then there is no reason to not get vaccinated (unless someone thinks that getting vaccinated literally makes them more likely to get infected by covid). JimmiC already explained this, above. I don't have an "issue" with you recommending vaccines. I have an issue with you posting things that are logically inconsistent.
I see no logical inconsistency. You don't have an issue with people recommending vaccines, but you continue reacting to the people doing so with an argument whose main function is to reassure people who don't want to get vaccinated, by telling them that natural immunity is superior and so they just shouldn't bother. You may not agree with that statement, but the fact is it doesn't matter. The implied rhetoric that emerges from you repeatedly going "but natural immunity" is that vaccine immunity is not the preferable solution, which certain people will absolutely take a certain way.
The only useful takeaway from asserting that natural immunity adds to vaccine immunity is when discussing how to possibly reach herd immunity. But that's not where the discussion was. People were randomly asserting that natural immunity was superior, and for many reasons it isn't, chief among which is the fact that you can only get natural immunity by catching the virus, and 750,000 people in the US so far have not been lucky enough to get to the "natural immunity" part of the program, because oops, they died from the virus they caught. Many others still suffer long-term health consequences that are not trivial, and that they would not be navigating if they hadn't caught the virus from the off.
Get vaccinated. That's still the answer.
|
On October 10 2021 11:02 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2021 05:32 BlackJack wrote:On October 10 2021 05:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 10 2021 05:03 BlackJack wrote:On October 10 2021 00:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 09 2021 15:08 BlackJack 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:
[quote]
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. Your key analogy is inaccurate. In your scenario, you're suggesting that individually, the keys don't work, and only together they work. We know - for a fact - that that's not the same as this conversation of vaccinated immunity vs. natural immunity. We know that vaccines work just fine even for people who haven't developed natural antibodies from already surviving a covid infection. Natural immunity provides some protection, even without vaccination. Vaccination provides some (even more) protection, even without natural immunity. They work alone just fine; it is not necessary for both to exist inside a person first, to gain some protection from covid. And yes, having both natural immunity and vaccinated immunity together is more effective than either one on their own, but that necessarily requires you to get covid in the first place (so that you develop the former), which is clearly not in the interest of people who don't want to get covid at all. And furthermore, this is irrelevant to the fact that yes, we do know that vaccinated immunity > natural immunity. The articles and data have fleshed this out, many times over, from infection rates to hospitalization rates to death rates. If you don't like Gor's article, read mine. If you don't like mine, read the countless others. There's nothing wrong with my key analogy. You assumed that if natural immunity + vaccine is more than twice as effective as natural immunity alone than vaccine immunity must be more effective than natural immunity. I showed you the error in your logic. Two things together can be more than twice as effective as each thing by themselves. You can't conclude that one is superior than the other. I can create other analogies if you want: Imagine seatbelts prevent 20% of traffic fatalities and airbags prevent 20% of traffic fatalities, but seatbelts + airbags together prevent 90% of traffic fatalities. If you only knew seatbelts prevent 20% of traffic fatalities and seatbelts + airbags prevent 90% of traffic fatalities you can't conclude airbags must be way better at preventing fatalities than seatbelts. Imagine a brand of flea collar is 40% effective at eliminating fleas from your cat. But using the flea collar together with a flea shampoo is 90% effective at eliminating fleas from your cat. You can't conclude the shampoo must more effective than the flea collar. It could be even less effective on its own than the flea collar. You're positing things that literally don't make sense, and aren't what the data is actually telling us about the two types of immunities. Vaccinated immunity lasts longer than natural immunity, and vaccinated immunity doesn't require you to first get covid - and we know that the potential side effects of covid are way worse and way more common than the potential side effects of the vaccine. That's it. That's all there is to it. And even if you don't like the data or researchers: If you don't want to get covid, then you get vaccinated. (Natural immunity isn't an alternative, pre-infection.) If you don't want to get covid a second time, then you still get vaccinated. (Vaccine+Natural > Natural.) I don't know why you're having such an issue with this. If you're interested in not getting covid, then there is no reason to not get vaccinated (unless someone thinks that getting vaccinated literally makes them more likely to get infected by covid). JimmiC already explained this, above. I don't have an "issue" with you recommending vaccines. I have an issue with you posting things that are logically inconsistent. I see no logical inconsistency. You don't have an issue with people recommending vaccines, but you continue pushing an argument whose main function is to reassure people who don't want to get vaccinated, by telling them that natural immunity is superior and so they just shouldn't bother. You may not agree with that statement, but the fact is it doesn't matter. The implied rhetoric that emerges from you repeatedly going "but natural immunity" is that vaccine immunity is not the preferable solution, which certain people will absolutely take a certain way. The only useful takeaway from asserting that natural immunity adds to vaccine immunity is when discussing how to possibly reach herd immunity. But that's not where the discussion was. People were randomly asserting that natural immunity was superior, and for many reasons it isn't, chief among which is the fact that you can only get natural immunity by catching the virus, and 750,000 people in the US so far have not been lucky enough to get to the "natural immunity" part of the program, because oops, they died from the virus they caught. Many others still suffer long-term health consequences that are not trivial, and that they would not be navigating if they hadn't caught the virus from the off. Get vaccinated. That's still the answer.
If you didn't see the logical inconsistency that started this discussion, that's on you.
Regarding your broader point, I never said that "natural immunity is superior." This conversation started when I asked Gorsameth for a source for saying vaccine immunity > natural immunity and he literally told me it is "not relevant" whether what he said is true or not. Personally I thought such a response would receive ridicule but clearly that's the de facto opinion around here. How foolish of me.
I get it. You think the end justifies the means. Anyone should be allowed to post whatever they want as long as it is pro-vaccine and nobody should question it because simply questioning it might give people the wrong idea or "take it a certain way" as you put it. What is or isn't true is far less important to you than whether or not it will lead people to get vaccinated or not. If the discussion doesn't lead to more people getting vaccinated then the discussion is pointless or even harmful and needs to be shut down. It's not that I don't understand, it's just that I disagree.
|
Don't start going down this stupid "I'm a victim of groupthink" path. There's ways to articulate nuance in the conversation without being misleading. It's not on us to communicate clearly for you, that's your job. There's ways to discuss the nuances in immunity to COVID-19 without sounding like an anti-vaxxer. And yes, I want people to lean toward getting vaccinated instead of the opposite. Why the hell wouldn't I want that. I realize that the discussions we have here are not just read by the people participating, so how people perceive it matters.
And for the record, it really is irrelevant whether natural immunity might be slightly better, because you still have to catch and survive the disease. It is not ever something people should be seeking out, and its viability as a defense mechanism only increases if you're vaccinated. If you're not against vaccines, you wouldn't have so many arguments with people who are also for the vaccine. That's just not how it works. You wouldn't be posing so many arguments as responses and counters to people who are acting as proponents of the vaccine. I don't really care if you say you're for vaccines. Thus far, you're arguing with people like an anti-vaxxer. Those are the people your arguments will resonate with.
|
On October 10 2021 11:58 NewSunshine wrote:
Don't start going down this stupid "I'm a victim of groupthink" path. There's ways to articulate nuance in the conversation without being misleading. It's not on us to communicate clearly for you, that's your job. There's ways to discuss the nuances in immunity to COVID-19 without sounding like an anti-vaxxer. And yes, I want people to lean toward getting vaccinated instead of the opposite. Why the hell wouldn't I want that. I realize that the discussions we have here are not just read by the people participating, so how people perceive it matters.
And for the record, it really is irrelevant whether natural immunity might be slightly better, because you still have to catch and survive the disease. It is not ever something people should be seeking out, and its viability as a defense mechanism only increases if you're vaccinated. If you're not against vaccines, you wouldn't have so many arguments with people who are also for the vaccine. That's just not how it works. You wouldn't be posing so many arguments as responses and counters to people who are acting as proponents of the vaccine. I don't really care if you say you're for vaccines. Thus far, you're arguing with people like an anti-vaxxer.
You're STILL talking about this idea of getting COVID on purpose
BlackJack wrote:
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.
Like fuck, I can't state my positions any more clearly. I literally listed some reasons it's important to talk about natural immunity and yet you and everyone here completely ignored those two points and keep talking about this idea of getting COVID on purpose which I explicitly stated that nobody here was advocating for.
Please pray tell how I can word that any more clearly to say that I'm not advocating for people to get COVID on purpose? Clearly just outright saying it is still too nuanced.
|
On October 10 2021 12:10 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2021 11:58 NewSunshine wrote:
Don't start going down this stupid "I'm a victim of groupthink" path. There's ways to articulate nuance in the conversation without being misleading. It's not on us to communicate clearly for you, that's your job. There's ways to discuss the nuances in immunity to COVID-19 without sounding like an anti-vaxxer. And yes, I want people to lean toward getting vaccinated instead of the opposite. Why the hell wouldn't I want that. I realize that the discussions we have here are not just read by the people participating, so how people perceive it matters.
And for the record, it really is irrelevant whether natural immunity might be slightly better, because you still have to catch and survive the disease. It is not ever something people should be seeking out, and its viability as a defense mechanism only increases if you're vaccinated. If you're not against vaccines, you wouldn't have so many arguments with people who are also for the vaccine. That's just not how it works. You wouldn't be posing so many arguments as responses and counters to people who are acting as proponents of the vaccine. I don't really care if you say you're for vaccines. Thus far, you're arguing with people like an anti-vaxxer. You're STILL talking about this idea of getting COVID on purposeShow nested quote +
BlackJack wrote:
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.
Like fuck, I can't state my positions any more clearly. I literally listed some reasons it's important to talk about natural immunity and yet you and everyone here completely ignored those two points and keep talking about this idea of getting COVID on purpose which I explicitly stated that nobody here was advocating for. Please pray tell how I can word that any more clearly to say that I'm not advocating for people to get COVID on purpose? Clearly just outright saying it is still too nuanced.
You're the only one mentioning "on purpose". It's just you. Between this page and the last page, you're literally the only one talking about that. Not a single other person has said "on purpose".
Everyone else has been saying - correctly - that if you want to consider obtaining natural immunity as an alternative to vaccinated immunity, you must necessarily have been already infected with covid. That is a true statement; that's where the natural immunity comes from. No one is saying you need to purposely convince an infected person to get you sick. The thing we've all been saying is that natural immunity requires being infected with (and surviving) covid once beforehand, whereas vaccinated immunity doesn't have "catching covid already" as a prerequisite. Whether you get infected accidentally or purposefully is irrelevant, and you seem to be trying to make that the new focus, when all we're pointing out is that being vaccinated is a safer and more effective route than getting covid and obtaining the natural immunity.
And I also agree with other people that even if you're claiming to be pro-vaccine *but simply asking controversial questions* or whatever, the assertions you've been making are pragmatically identical to the assertions that anti-vaxxers make. I'm not saying you're anti-vax, but I'm saying your rhetoric, in many cases, is indistinguishable from that of anti-vaxxers.
If *someone* were to assert that it may be preferential to have natural immunity over vaccinated immunity, then that *someone* would literally be saying that it may be preferential to have covid (NOT necessarily on purpose) over the vaccine. And that's a problem.
|
NewSunshine just posted that "nobody should be seeking out natural immunity" which is reasonable to interpret as getting COVID on purpose, but regardless, nobody here is advocating for obtaining natural immunity as an alternative to vaccine immunity either.
It's you and others that have shifted the goalposts from "Vaccines provide better protection than natural immunity" to "vaccines are the better option than natural immunity because you don't have to catch COVID."
Millions of people have already been infected with COVID and already have some natural immunity. It's not a matter of what is the "better option" for them or what is "preferential." It's in the past for them. Options/preferences don't exist in the past. There are real-world implications for them and reasons we should know what protection natural immunity affords them. The fact that people here think it's "irrelevant" to know about natural immunity because you still have to catch COVID must know about a time machine these people can use where they can un-catch COVID and get the vaccine instead.
|
The debate now is how to cope with a post-vaccination world (in places with high vaccination rates).
Yesterday, in Singapore, 11 people died from COVID (4 fully vaxxed, 3 partially vaxxed). How do we keep people safe post-vac? Boosters? Keep tighter SOPs in place? Identify and isolate vulnerable people? That's the real challenge.
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/covid19-new-cases-deaths-singapore-oct-9-moh-2232981
Any research on boosters, natural immunity, alternative treatment, or anything related to the virus is really critical.
To look at the debate still through the simplistic lens of "to vaccinate or not to vaccinate" isn't really helpful at this point. That ship has long sailed away. Most societies are inching closer to a post-vac phase. So let's focus on that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
