|
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. |
Norway28876 Posts
I see BJ consistently be misunderstood because people are - and NewSunshine basically states this - arguing against his 'implied rhetoric' rather than against his actual words. Sometimes, when there are posters with an obfuscating agenda, arguing against the implied rhetoric can be warranted, but this is not the case with BJ. He's entirely pro-vaccine, I guess he was among the very first posters in the thread to get it, he works in health care and has seen how bad covid is/can be - again, he has far more first-hand experience with this than almost anyone else in the thread.
Please, people. Someone stating 'can you give a source for the statement that vaccines provide better immunity than being infected' is not the same as 'recommending that people get infected rather than get vaccinated'. It's a legitimate question to ask, because there have been studies showing that natural immunity (post-infection) provides better immunity than vaccines do, at least for some people, in some capacity, compared with some vaccines. I've seen these myself, referred by Norwegian newspapers with a consistent pro-vaccine agenda.
Now, singular studies are not the end-all of science, obviously. Just because I have read a study stating that post-infection immunity is better than vaccine-immunity does not mean it's true. There might be studies showing the opposite to be true. But when someone makes a statement that vaccines provide better immunity than infections do, it's entirely fair to ask for a source for this without being accused of being anti-vaccine.
|
Post-infection immunity is significantly less protective than post-infection immunity + vaccination. That's where the claim of "stronger post-infection immunity" falls apart. It's not as strong when compared to the alternative of getting vaccinated. This is also why booster shots are important. We can view every consecutive vaccination as another booster, and for the best level of protection it's irrelevant whether or not a person was previously infected. Comparing natural immunity to vaccine immunity completely misses the point.
|
Norway28876 Posts
It's all fine and dandy that post-infection immunity + vaccination is better than just post-infection immunity. I don't think anyone disagrees with that.
But, for example, at least in Norway, there is an ongoing debate about whether it's ethical for rich western countries to give third boosters (of the best vaccines) while poor countries are still at single digit vaccination rates. If it is the case (I am not saying it is the case) that one infection effectively constitutes one vaccine, then people who are previously infected are part of the same equation. Nobody is arguing that it's better to get infected than to get vaccinated, but the degree to which people who have been infected are protected is absolutely relevant for a myriad of reasons. It becomes more and more relevant the further we get to 'third booster shot is a requirement', because at that point, will 1 infection and 1 vaccine constitute two vaccines, or will people who have been infected also need two shots in addition, etc?
I'm happily double vaccinated and will also happily take a third shot when that is prescribed, but it's not like the vaccine is completely neutral, either. If there was no covid, I'd prefer not getting a third shot. If I got infected before and that gives me immunity equal to one vaccine shot, then I'd prefer for that to be part of the equation. Vaccines are great, but it seems entirely reasonable to spend them first on the people most in need - thus, if infection gives immunity, those people might be less in need. It's not a dumb question to ask and it's not a question asked to obfuscate.
|
I think it is very interesting to get to know how post-infection immunity works, both alone, in combination with vaccines, and compared to only vaccines. If you get super-protectes by infection in a way vaccines cannot provide, it is a compelling argument for axing restriction and stop mass-testing, especially for mild infections happening after vaccination.
Some countries have still not opened up completely despite an ~80% vaccination rate. It could be counterproductive.
|
On October 10 2021 18:27 Liquid`Drone wrote:
It's all fine and dandy that post-infection immunity + vaccination is better than just post-infection immunity. I don't think anyone disagrees with that.
But, for example, at least in Norway, there is an ongoing debate about whether it's ethical for rich western countries to give third boosters (of the best vaccines) while poor countries are still at single digit vaccination rates. If it is the case (I am not saying it is the case) that one infection effectively constitutes one vaccine, then people who are previously infected are part of the same equation. Nobody is arguing that it's better to get infected than to get vaccinated, but the degree to which people who have been infected are protected is absolutely relevant for a myriad of reasons. It becomes more and more relevant the further we get to 'third booster shot is a requirement', because at that point, will 1 infection and 1 vaccine constitute two vaccines, or will people who have been infected also need two shots in addition, etc?
I'm happily double vaccinated and will also happily take a third shot when that is prescribed, but it's not like the vaccine is completely neutral, either. If there was no covid, I'd prefer not getting a third shot. If I got infected before and that gives me immunity equal to one vaccine shot, then I'd prefer for that to be part of the equation. Vaccines are great, but it seems entirely reasonable to spend them first on the people most in need - thus, if infection gives immunity, those people might be less in need. It's not a dumb question to ask and it's not a question asked to obfuscate.
In fact, I think the preponderance of the evidence so far shows that there is no added benefit from getting a 2nd shot if you've had a previous COVID infection. I believe both the Israeli study that demonstrated natural immunity was 6-13 times more protective than vaccine immunity, and the Kentucky study that demonstrated natural immunity + vaccination was 2.34 times more protective than natural immunity alone, both agreed that there was no added protection from natural immunity + 1 shot when compared to natural immunity + 2 shots.
Edit: also in regards to prioritizing where COVID vaccines go, the Cleveland Clinic (one of the most prestigious hospitals in the world) did a study that concluded "Individuals who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection are unlikely to benefit from COVID-19 vaccination, and vaccines can be safely prioritized to those who have not been infected before." If vaccines are scarce than they should obviously be prioritized away from people with previous COVID infection because they are going to provide the least additional protection in those individuals.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.01.21258176v2
|
I don't consider that discussion meaningful enough that it needs to take up this many pages again and again. It's the same waste of time and effort as the last discussion about how ultra-mega-slight exactly a plausible/possible unproven risk of myocarditis from vaccination is. It's again splitting hairs about something that is for the most part meaningless and also not yet sufficiently researched.
It's also not unreasonable for people to complain that this type of discussion is leading some to think that they don't need to get vaccinated because they've gotten infected before. People get affected by what they hear, and we all know that many people - including smart ones - often hear a distorted/oversimplified version of what was actually said, leading to all kinds of bad conclusions.
|
On October 10 2021 18:45 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2021 18:27 Liquid`Drone wrote:
It's all fine and dandy that post-infection immunity + vaccination is better than just post-infection immunity. I don't think anyone disagrees with that.
But, for example, at least in Norway, there is an ongoing debate about whether it's ethical for rich western countries to give third boosters (of the best vaccines) while poor countries are still at single digit vaccination rates. If it is the case (I am not saying it is the case) that one infection effectively constitutes one vaccine, then people who are previously infected are part of the same equation. Nobody is arguing that it's better to get infected than to get vaccinated, but the degree to which people who have been infected are protected is absolutely relevant for a myriad of reasons. It becomes more and more relevant the further we get to 'third booster shot is a requirement', because at that point, will 1 infection and 1 vaccine constitute two vaccines, or will people who have been infected also need two shots in addition, etc?
I'm happily double vaccinated and will also happily take a third shot when that is prescribed, but it's not like the vaccine is completely neutral, either. If there was no covid, I'd prefer not getting a third shot. If I got infected before and that gives me immunity equal to one vaccine shot, then I'd prefer for that to be part of the equation. Vaccines are great, but it seems entirely reasonable to spend them first on the people most in need - thus, if infection gives immunity, those people might be less in need. It's not a dumb question to ask and it's not a question asked to obfuscate. In fact, I think the preponderance of the evidence so far shows that there is no added benefit from getting a 2nd shot if you've had a previous COVID infection. I believe both the Israeli study that demonstrated natural immunity was 6-13 times more protective than vaccine immunity, and the Kentucky study that demonstrated natural immunity + vaccination was 2.34 times more protective than natural immunity alone, both agreed that there was no added protection from natural immunity + 1 shot when compared to natural immunity + 2 shots.
I'd like to ask for a source on this. For all of it, for every single claim that was made in this comment.
Also, what does "2nd shot" mean in the context of a prior covid infection?
|
Norway28876 Posts
I am not arguing in favor of having pointless discussions for many pages, but that's a problem caused by people arguing against the 'implied rhetoric' rather than 'what was actually stated'.
|
On October 10 2021 18:46 Magic Powers wrote:
I don't consider that discussion meaningful enough that it needs to take up this many pages again and again. It's the same waste of time and effort as the last discussion about how ultra-mega-slight exactly a plausible/possible unproven risk of myocarditis from vaccination is. It's again splitting hairs about something that is for the most part meaningless and also not yet sufficiently researched.
It's also not unreasonable for people to complain that this type of discussion is leading some to think that they don't need to get vaccinated because they've gotten infected before. People get affected by what they hear, and we all know that many people - including smart ones - often hear a distorted/oversimplified version of what was actually said, leading to all kinds of bad conclusions.
Doesn't the EU COVID passport allow for history of recovering from COVID as an exemption to getting vaccinated?
https://ec.europa.eu/info/live-work-travel-eu/coronavirus-response/safe-covid-19-vaccines-europeans/eu-digital-covid-certificate_en
So if you think there's no meaningful discussion to be had here I take it you more or less are okay with this?
|
On October 10 2021 19:03 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2021 18:46 Magic Powers wrote:
I don't consider that discussion meaningful enough that it needs to take up this many pages again and again. It's the same waste of time and effort as the last discussion about how ultra-mega-slight exactly a plausible/possible unproven risk of myocarditis from vaccination is. It's again splitting hairs about something that is for the most part meaningless and also not yet sufficiently researched.
It's also not unreasonable for people to complain that this type of discussion is leading some to think that they don't need to get vaccinated because they've gotten infected before. People get affected by what they hear, and we all know that many people - including smart ones - often hear a distorted/oversimplified version of what was actually said, leading to all kinds of bad conclusions. Doesn't the EU COVID passport allow for history of recovering from COVID as an exemption to getting vaccinated? https://ec.europa.eu/info/live-work-travel-eu/coronavirus-response/safe-covid-19-vaccines-europeans/eu-digital-covid-certificate_enSo if you think there's no meaningful discussion to be had here I take it you more or less are okay with this?
I don't influence policy, I'm here to learn, inform and discuss. Passport policy is other people's business. Furthermore, the study you posted in your previous comment is not even useful for policy, as it states in bold letters:
"This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice."
The current state of the research shows that people who were previously infected benefit from vaccination. This one study you linked - which wasn't peer-reviewed and is not meant as advice for doctors as per the words of the authors - is not by itself able to disprove those findings.
|
On October 10 2021 18:27 Liquid`Drone wrote:
It's all fine and dandy that post-infection immunity + vaccination is better than just post-infection immunity. I don't think anyone disagrees with that.
But, for example, at least in Norway, there is an ongoing debate about whether it's ethical for rich western countries to give third boosters (of the best vaccines) while poor countries are still at single digit vaccination rates. If it is the case (I am not saying it is the case) that one infection effectively constitutes one vaccine, then people who are previously infected are part of the same equation. Nobody is arguing that it's better to get infected than to get vaccinated, but the degree to which people who have been infected are protected is absolutely relevant for a myriad of reasons. It becomes more and more relevant the further we get to 'third booster shot is a requirement', because at that point, will 1 infection and 1 vaccine constitute two vaccines, or will people who have been infected also need two shots in addition, etc?
I'm happily double vaccinated and will also happily take a third shot when that is prescribed, but it's not like the vaccine is completely neutral, either. If there was no covid, I'd prefer not getting a third shot. If I got infected before and that gives me immunity equal to one vaccine shot, then I'd prefer for that to be part of the equation. Vaccines are great, but it seems entirely reasonable to spend them first on the people most in need - thus, if infection gives immunity, those people might be less in need. It's not a dumb question to ask and it's not a question asked to obfuscate.
Yes, this is another difficult post-vaccination dilemma. Maybe because the issue is so morally and ethically difficult to consider makes people prefer reflectively to fall back on the comfort of the old debate on "to vaccinate or not to vaccinate" and repeating the same "please take the jab" talking point as the solution (which no one is really disagreeing).
Anyway, I hope you keep sharing on your experience, because it's the same experiences that myself and many of my friends face.
|
On October 10 2021 18:49 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2021 18:45 BlackJack wrote:On October 10 2021 18:27 Liquid`Drone wrote:
It's all fine and dandy that post-infection immunity + vaccination is better than just post-infection immunity. I don't think anyone disagrees with that.
But, for example, at least in Norway, there is an ongoing debate about whether it's ethical for rich western countries to give third boosters (of the best vaccines) while poor countries are still at single digit vaccination rates. If it is the case (I am not saying it is the case) that one infection effectively constitutes one vaccine, then people who are previously infected are part of the same equation. Nobody is arguing that it's better to get infected than to get vaccinated, but the degree to which people who have been infected are protected is absolutely relevant for a myriad of reasons. It becomes more and more relevant the further we get to 'third booster shot is a requirement', because at that point, will 1 infection and 1 vaccine constitute two vaccines, or will people who have been infected also need two shots in addition, etc?
I'm happily double vaccinated and will also happily take a third shot when that is prescribed, but it's not like the vaccine is completely neutral, either. If there was no covid, I'd prefer not getting a third shot. If I got infected before and that gives me immunity equal to one vaccine shot, then I'd prefer for that to be part of the equation. Vaccines are great, but it seems entirely reasonable to spend them first on the people most in need - thus, if infection gives immunity, those people might be less in need. It's not a dumb question to ask and it's not a question asked to obfuscate. In fact, I think the preponderance of the evidence so far shows that there is no added benefit from getting a 2nd shot if you've had a previous COVID infection. I believe both the Israeli study that demonstrated natural immunity was 6-13 times more protective than vaccine immunity, and the Kentucky study that demonstrated natural immunity + vaccination was 2.34 times more protective than natural immunity alone, both agreed that there was no added protection from natural immunity + 1 shot when compared to natural immunity + 2 shots. I'd like to ask for a source on this. For all of it, for every single claim that was made in this comment. Also, what does "2nd shot" mean in the context of a prior covid infection?
The "2nd shot" in this context refers to mRNA vaccines that are given as a series of 2 shots.
I must have been mistaken about the Israeli study because I don't think they even look at people that have received 2 shots because I think it is the policy of Israel at the time to only give 1 shot to previously infected individuals. The Kentucky study didn't show a significant increased risk of reinfection for partially-vaccinated (1-shot) participants compared to fully-vaccinated (2-shot) participants.
There's a myriad of other sources and scientists that agree that the 2nd shot provides little benefit for those previously infected and 1 shot of pfizer or moderna is sufficient for a previously infected person to have better immunity than someone that has had only the 2 shots with no previous infection.
Similarly to findings from a smaller study that directly measured antibody neutralizing capacity in 59 volunteers8, we found, in our large cohort, that a second vaccine dose did not offer previously infected individuals a substantially greater benefit over a single dose in antibody neutralizing potential. Thus, our data suggest that a single dose of the Pfizer–BioNTech vaccine is sufficient for individuals with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection,
Study out of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center Los Angeles
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01325-6
"Our data suggest that a person who previously had COVID-19 has a huge response after the first mRNA vaccination and has little or no benefit from the second dose," said senior author Dr. Otto Yang, a professor of infectious diseases and of microbiology, immunology and molecular genetics at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA.
https://www.uclahealth.org/news/people-who-have-had-covid19-may-require-only-single-dose-of-twodose-vaccines
In fact, "we observed higher SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels in previously infected individuals after 1 dose of [the Pfizer vaccine], compared with infection-naive individuals after 2 doses," concluded a team led by Dr. James Moy, of the division of allergy and immunology at Rush University Medical Center in Chicago.
What's more, giving previously infected people a second dose of the Pfizer vaccine did little to boost their antibody levels further, "suggesting that 1 dose may be acceptable in this group," the researchers added.
https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2021-08-06/one-dose-of-pfizer-vaccine-may-be-enough-for-folks-whove-had-covid
|
On October 10 2021 00:22 Ouija wrote:www.science.orgwww.reuters.comNot 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.
The natural immunity argument is stupid because we're talking about the best way of reducing the risk of death, hospitalization or serious complications from COVID-19. Going for natural immunity instead of vaccination requires exposing people to those risks unmitigated so that they can acquire immunity against reifection.
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.ukPages 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.
Your claims are blatantly false. I hope this was an honest mistake... People of different ages had access to the vaccines at different times of the year. Mortality is highly correlated with age. You can't lump people of all ages together and have a meaningful comparison.
CFR for unvaccinated aged <50 = 132/248,803*100% = 0.05%
CFR for unvaccinated aged >=50 = 590/8551*100 = 6.9%
CFR for fully vaccinated aged <50 = 48/85,407*100% = 0.06%
CFR for fully vaccinated aged >=50 = 1,565/71,991*100% = 2.2%
That doesn't even take into account the infections prevented by the vaccines, which we know from various studies should be substantial. Those don't count towards the denominator of CFR.
And comparing the number of cases among the vaccinated and unvaccinated makes zero sense...
|
Norway28876 Posts
maybenexttime, nobody (here) is arguing for using natural immunity as a strategy as opposed to vaccines. The question is, should people who have already been infected be required to / implored to vaccinate at the same rate / amount of times as people who have not been infected. Nearly 240 million people have been confirmed to have caught covid by now - if those 240 million do not need an extra booster shot or whatever, that's 240 million extra vaccination doses to give to others.
|
On October 10 2021 20:17 Liquid`Drone wrote:
maybenexttime, nobody (here) is arguing for using natural immunity as a strategy as opposed to vaccines. The question is, should people who have already been infected be required to / implored to vaccinate at the same rate / amount of times as people who have not been infected. Nearly 240 million people have been confirmed to have caught covid by now - if those 240 million do not need an extra booster shot or whatever, that's 240 million extra vaccination doses to give to others.
That is certainly what Ouija seemed to be going for, considering he/she was trying to make the vaccines look ineffective by making those flawed comparisons. Ouija clearly implied that it doesn't matter whether you acquire immunity through vaccination or naturally.
|
I'm having a hard time understanding this discussion. In order to get natural immunity you have to be infected first. So ultimately the question boils down to this: is there a study that says if you get a vaccine and then get infected, your immunity will be less than not being vaccinated at all? (hopefully that makes sense) If there is no such a study that confirms this, then getting a vaccine is literally a no brainer.
|
On October 10 2021 21:09 FreakyDroid wrote:
I'm having a hard time understanding this discussion. In order to get natural immunity you have to be infected first. So ultimately the question boils down to this: is there a study that says if you get a vaccine and then get infected, your immunity will be less than not being vaccinated at all? (hopefully that makes sense) If there is no such a study that confirms this, then getting a vaccine is literally a no brainer.
Drone and BJ brought up a valid question of whether an infection should be treated as a dose of the vaccine. For vaccines that require two doses, that frees up a lot of the supply.
|
Norway28876 Posts
On October 10 2021 21:09 FreakyDroid wrote:
I'm having a hard time understanding this discussion. In order to get natural immunity you have to be infected first. So ultimately the question boils down to this: is there a study that says if you get a vaccine and then get infected, your natural immunity will be less than not being vaccinated at all? If there is no such a study that confirms this, then getting a vaccine is literally a no brainer.
There's basically no discussion (here) about whether getting a vaccine is smart or not, no matter whether you've been infected or not. The question is more about booster shots. And while for people from the US, the big question is 'how do we get more people to vaccinate', for people from many European countries, the question is 'who should get the third shot first', and for people from development countries, it's 'how do we get enough vaccines to vaccinate our population'.
From what data people have presented so far, I have the impression that if someone has had 1 shot of pfizer/moderna and they have also been previously infected, then their second shot can be better used elsewhere. (I know that the logistics don't work like 'you can just send the vaccine shot you didn't need to an african country' - but if 1 infection equals 1 less shot needed, then that can be part of the calculation when we purchase vaccines, and then, a country like Norway can purchase 190k fewer booster shots than if being infected does not contribute to immunity meaning those 190k vaccines can be made available for other countries.) Thus, the discussion about whether and to what degree being previously infected contributes to immunity is entirely relevant, and the discussion is not 'disguised anti-vaxxery'.
|
On October 10 2021 20:17 Liquid`Drone wrote:
maybenexttime, nobody (here) is arguing for using natural immunity as a strategy as opposed to vaccines. The question is, should people who have already been infected be required to / implored to vaccinate at the same rate / amount of times as people who have not been infected. Nearly 240 million people have been confirmed to have caught covid by now - if those 240 million do not need an extra booster shot or whatever, that's 240 million extra vaccination doses to give to others.
In locations with vaccine scarcity (and there are plenty of such places), of course it makes sense to give the vaccines to those with higher risks (whether that's people who are old or immunocompromised or don't have a natural immunity, etc.). Yes, figuring out who needs the vaccine the most/soonest is important, and everyone here recognizes that natural immunity provides more protection *from a second infection* than no immunity *from a first infection*. I think it's probably reasonable to think about moving covid survivors out of the waiting line for a few months, if we're really low on vaccines, since they have some temporary immunity and others may have none. That might be one of many factors to consider when deciding how at-risk a person is against covid.
This is not, however, the conversation we've been having with BJ over the past few pages.
|
Norway28876 Posts
On October 10 2021 21:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2021 20:17 Liquid`Drone wrote:
maybenexttime, nobody (here) is arguing for using natural immunity as a strategy as opposed to vaccines. The question is, should people who have already been infected be required to / implored to vaccinate at the same rate / amount of times as people who have not been infected. Nearly 240 million people have been confirmed to have caught covid by now - if those 240 million do not need an extra booster shot or whatever, that's 240 million extra vaccination doses to give to others. In locations with vaccine scarcity (and there are plenty of such places), of course it makes sense to give the vaccines to those with higher risks (whether that's people who are old or immunocompromised or don't have a natural immunity, etc.). Yes, figuring out who needs the vaccine the most/soonest is important, and everyone here recognizes that natural immunity provides more protection *from a second infection* than no immunity *from a first infection*. I think it's probably reasonable to think about moving covid survivors out of the waiting line for a few months, if we're really low on vaccines, since they have some temporary immunity and others may have none. That might be one of many factors to consider when deciding how at-risk a person is against covid. This is not, however, the conversation we've been having with BJ over the past few pages.
The way I read the thread, that is the discussion BJ was trying to have, but you and others kept insisting on having a different discussion. I've stated this before, I think you're overwhelmingly a reasonable guy, but BJ being misinterpreted really wasn't on him. I'm fairly confident that his opinions on this particular aspect are pretty close to mirroring my own opinions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
