|
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 11 2021 14:52 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2021 10:22 NewSunshine wrote:
400 is an insanely small sample size to be trying to draw conclusions like this. A number of people several orders of magnitude higher than that have died, and a yet bigger number represents the total number of infections, and thus behaviors in infected individuals. Maybe it's good and true? But there's every chance it doesn't end up meaning much. Fair call, I’m saying it warrants further investigation.The other study they mention in the article used 10,000 people as a sample size.That study mainly discussed possibility of reducing chance of infection in the first place though, 29% lower chance of getting covid if you take aspirin but they did also note quicker recovery. https://m.jpost.com/health-science/coronavirus-aspirin-may-help-prevent-infection-israeli-study-shows-661682Show nested quote +The use of aspirin might help prevent becoming infected with corona and shorten the duration of the disease, a study conducted by a joint team from Leumit Health Care Services, Bar-Ilan University and Barzilai Medical Center has shown.
The study, whose findings were published in the FEBS Journal of the Federation of European Biochemical Societies, analyzed data from some 10,000 Israelis who were tested for COVID-19 between February 1 and June 30, 2020.
The researchers compared those who regularly take a low dose of aspirin as a medication to prevent and treat cardiovascular diseases with those who don’t.
They found that the former group was 29% less likely to become infected with the virus than the latter.
The researchers also observed that those who took aspirin and contracted the disease recovered on average two or three days faster than individuals who did not, depending on preexisting conditions. In addition, the time it took these patients to test negative for the virus after testing positive was significantly lower.
aspirin has some potentially serious side effects though, which is why we moved on to paracetamol for pain/fever and ibuprofen for pain/inflammation.
it could be excellent news, but I wouldn't go around telling everyone who has a slight cough to go and take aspirin.
|
On October 12 2021 10:59 RKC wrote:
South-East Asia has been badly hit by Delta in recent months, leading to emergency lockdowns every now and then. That's where some of my friends are working and based at. Obviously, the vaccination drive is a mix of lottery and priority to high-risk people. Officially, that is. But the rich and connected have ways to 'cut' the queue for private appointments. My friends even get messages from their friends and colleagues along the lines of "Hey, there's a spot for Pfizer tomorrow at XYZ..." Not so much of corruption but just widespread leakages? Meanwhile, the average Joe working on the street are essentially left with no or reduced work due to restrictions. My friends are the privileged professionals. But they are horrified and disturbed by the suffering of people in destitute (market sellers, roadside stall peddlers, shopkeepers) that they deal with everyday (or used to).
How do you define "hit badly"? Most of those countries have massive populations, and both deaths and cases per million pale in comparison to most of Europe.
It is sad to hear how the restrictions hit small business owners the hardest.
|
On October 12 2021 13:12 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2021 11:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 12 2021 06:39 BlackJack wrote:On October 11 2021 20:55 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 11 2021 06:29 BlackJack wrote:On October 10 2021 22:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Neither he nor I nor anyone else proposed the interesting topic of "How do survivors of covid (and their natural immunity) play a role in the overall order and decision of who gets vaccinated next, given a limited supply of vaccines." You just introduced that now. And I think that's a really cool, thought-provoking question, but that's not what the past few pages were about, and it's definitely not how BJ was presenting arguments/questions. I literally posted this twice in the last 2 days... On October 09 2021 15:38 BlackJack wrote:
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
Thanks Eri, for just now bringing up that thought-provoking question.  When I'm in the middle of a conversation with someone, and we're having a back-and-forth about something in particular (e.g., whether or not certain conclusions can be validly drawn from multiple, posted articles about vaccine immunity and/or natural immunity, which then becomes substantive enough where analogies are offered as various ways to potentially perceive or reframe the arguments, and so on), that's my focus. If you ask an irrelevant question - and people are already in the middle of having a different conversation with you, so they're not biting because it appears like you're potentially derailing the current topic which hasn't had closure yet - then it does a disservice to what could otherwise be a good question, when asked at a better, less busy time. That question certainly was not the topic of our discussion. The reason my question received no attention was obvious - everyone here was too busy punching down at this strawman that nobody was even arguing: that people should seek out natural immunity instead of vaccine immunity. I simply asked for some evidence that vaccine immunity > natural immunity. The fact that the majority of people that responded to this told me that it is "irrelevant" is quite frightening. In regards to the rest of your post - I'm not really for any government mandated vaccine passports so I think it's safe to say I think the naturally immune should be exempt from them as well. The nebraskamed article I posted for you, at the beginning of our conversation, gave plenty of evidence to support the argument that vaccinated immunity > natural immunity, so that question was answered from the very start. That comparison is way behind us now. As a pure thought experiment: Given that you presently don't support government mandated vaccine passports, what conditions would need to be met to change your mind? For example, might a new, highly infectious, hypothetical covid variant change your mind? What might make you think "Okay, since X is now happening, I'm more open to the idea of a government mandated vaccine passport program"? The question was answered for you. Your article appeared to be the conclusions of a single infectious disease working at a hospital in Nebraska. Others here have pointed out that it's obviously a pro-vaccine and potentially biased article. I'm glad that it's "not up for debate" for you but to me it shows confirmation bias more than anything. Even a cursory glance at the article should make you suspicious that it is indeed biased. For example take this line... Show nested quote +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. This is an apples to orange comparison. When immunity begins to decay and for how long you still have good protection is 2 different things. I could easily say the exact opposite and it would be just as true: Vaccine immunity can decay within about 90 days. Immunity from natural infection has been shown to provide strong protection for at least 6 months. The reason this sentence can be flipped back and forth is because it applies to both the vaccine and to natural immunity. From the WHO: Show nested quote +Available scientific data suggests that in most people immune responses remain robust and protective against reinfection for at least 6-8 months after infection (the longest follow up with strong scientific evidence is currently approximately 8 months). Show nested quote +Studies aimed to detect immunological memory including the assessment of cellular immunity by testing for the presence of memory B cells, and CD4+ and CD8+ T cells, observed robust immunity at 6 months post-infection in 95% of subjects under study, which included individuals with asymptomatic, mild, moderate and severe infections. https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/341241/WHO-2019-nCoV-Sci-Brief-Natural-immunity-2021.1-eng.pdfThe Cleveland Clinic study I referenced earlier showed not a single person in their study was re-infected with COVID in 5 months follow-up, which is even better than the 91% vaccine efficacy that pfizer found at 6 months follow-up which the doctor from the article cited. Ironically, in that same study pfizer states that the efficacy of their vaccine begins to decay after only 60 days: Show nested quote +Efficacy peaked at 96.2% during the interval from 7 days to <2 months post-dose 2, and declined gradually to 83.7% from 4 months post-dose 2 to the data cut-off, an average decline of ∼6% every 2 months. So again, literally the opposite can be stated: Vaccine immunity can decay within 60 days and natural immunity provides strong protection for 6-8 months. Surprise, natural immunity and vaccine immunity are quite similar. They both provide the strongest protection not long after receiving it and they both gradually decline over time. Hence the need for boosters. Both have been shown to offer good protection 6 months out. The fact that doctor chose to only talk about the decaying protection of natural immunity (when both immunities decay) and the long-lasting protection of vaccine immunity (when both immunities provide long-lasting protection) just shows that the article is written with a slant.
I have two issues with your response, that I'd like to address:
1. There were very specific, non-reversible statistics and examples on the site that make it very clear that vaccinated immunity is more effective than natural immunity. For example, this one:
"A recent study found that 36% of COVID-19 cases didn't result in development of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies."
On the other hand, I have seen no evidence that 1/3 of vaccinated individuals don't receive antibodies. Have you?
And this one:
"For example, 65% of people with a lower baseline antibody from infection to begin with completely lost their COVID-19 antibodies by 60 days."
"Completely losing" antibodies isn't the same as "starting to decay".
And this leads into my second issue:
2. I think your response leans too heavily on semantics, which tries to get away with using "can" or "could" for comparisons that are simply not similar in size or scope. Those words do a lot of heavy lifting in probability. Anything that has a chance of happening, greater than 0% and less than 100%, can/could happen. If I flip a fair coin, it can land on "heads"; if I play the lottery, I can win the lottery. However, the chance of those two events occurring are vastly differently: roughly 50% vs. one-in-a-million.
So it is semantically, technically accurate to say that both vaccinated immunity and natural immunity can fade within six months, or that both vaccinated immunity and natural immunity could be stronger than they currently are. But it's extremely irresponsible to leave out the context and likelihood of these things. It would be like me stating "Flash and I could both be better at Brood War than we are now", but in a conversation about which of us is better, it's borderline disrespectful for me to even be in the same sentence as him. A student who gets a 99% on their test and a student who gets a 30% on their test "both can get more questions right", but their scores are pretty far apart, and we really ought to mention their actual grades too, for a more complete picture.
The misleading implications of this are evident, especially when it comes to coronavirus. If someone asked "Should I get the vaccine or should I just have my body deal with coronavirus on its own", and if I were to reply with "Well, technically speaking, both the vaccine and the virus have been shown to present side effects", I would be making a semantically correct statement, but a vastly disingenuous one too. There are some very obvious, very dangerous, and very inaccurate inferences that would logically be drawn from my statement, because I left out all the important details (probabilities, what side effects, hospitalization/death rates due to covid vs. due to being vaccinated, etc.).
|
On October 12 2021 19:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
I think your response leans too heavily on semantics, which tries to get away with using "can" or "could" for comparisons that are simply not similar in size or scope. Those words do a lot of heavy lifting in probability. Anything that has a chance of happening, greater than 0% and less than 100%, can/could happen. If I flip a fair coin, it can land on "heads"; if I play the lottery, I can win the lottery. However, the chance of those two events occurring are vastly differently: roughly 50% vs. one-in-a-million.
So it is semantically, technically accurate to say that both vaccinated immunity and natural immunity can fade within six months, or that both vaccinated immunity and natural immunity could be stronger than they currently are. But it's extremely irresponsible to leave out the context and likelihood of these things. It would be like me stating "Flash and I could both be better at Brood War than we are now", but in a conversation about which of us is better, it's borderline disrespectful for me to even be in the same sentence as him. A student who gets a 99% on their test and a student who gets a 30% on their test "both can get more questions right", but their scores are pretty far apart, and we really ought to mention their actual grades too, for a more complete picture. .
What? This is literally my biggest complaint with the entire article. A lot of these catch-all "can" statements that mean nothing out of context. "Natural Immunity can be spotty." "Natural immunity can decay within about 90 days."
Quoting from the article again:
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.
The author makes no comparisons of the rate of decay between natural immunity of vaccine immunity. No context. Then he makes no comparison between the longevity of the protection between natural immunity and vaccine immunity. So I'm glad we both agree that the author is being "extremely irresponsible" by not expanding on these statements. I'm just trying to figure out why you would cite an extremely irresponsible article.
Regarding your other point about 36% not developing antibodies. There's other studies on this too. The WHO scientific brief I linked earlier states
Within 4 weeks following infection, 90-99% of individuals infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus develop detectable
neutralizing antibodies.
Some of the studies it cites:
Of the 624 participants with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection who had serologies done after 4 weeks, all but three seroconverted to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5247(20)30120-8/fulltext
Eighty-nine percent of acutely infected subjects and 98% of convalescent subjects had detectable antibodies against one or more SARS-CoV-2 antigens (Fig. 1a), with nearly all subjects mounting a response against the spike and N protein
https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/mbio.02940-20?permanently=true&
I'd also point out that the mRNA vaccines are only designed to create neutralizing antibodies to the spike protein whereas with natural immunity you are exposed to the whole virus which may lead to better protection to variants.
The immune response to natural infection is highly likely to provide protective immunity even against the SARS-CoV-2 variants because the CD4+ and CD8+ T cell epitopes will be conserved. Thus, recovered COVID-19 patients are likely to better defend against the variants than persons who have not been infected but have been immunized with spike-containing vaccines only.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.19.21255739v1.full
Just a reminder that I'm agnostic on the subject. I think natural immunity is probably as good as if not better than vaccine immunity but it's obviously still up for debate and the science is continuing to evolve. If you think the science is settled and this debate is over I at least hope you have a lot more evidence than that single article you keep reposting that for whatever reason got pushed to the top of the algorithm when you google the subject.
|
On October 12 2021 20:56 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2021 19:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
I think your response leans too heavily on semantics, which tries to get away with using "can" or "could" for comparisons that are simply not similar in size or scope. Those words do a lot of heavy lifting in probability. Anything that has a chance of happening, greater than 0% and less than 100%, can/could happen. If I flip a fair coin, it can land on "heads"; if I play the lottery, I can win the lottery. However, the chance of those two events occurring are vastly differently: roughly 50% vs. one-in-a-million.
So it is semantically, technically accurate to say that both vaccinated immunity and natural immunity can fade within six months, or that both vaccinated immunity and natural immunity could be stronger than they currently are. But it's extremely irresponsible to leave out the context and likelihood of these things. It would be like me stating "Flash and I could both be better at Brood War than we are now", but in a conversation about which of us is better, it's borderline disrespectful for me to even be in the same sentence as him. A student who gets a 99% on their test and a student who gets a 30% on their test "both can get more questions right", but their scores are pretty far apart, and we really ought to mention their actual grades too, for a more complete picture. . What? This is literally my biggest complaint with the entire article. A lot of these catch-all "can" statements that mean nothing out of context. "Natural Immunity can be spotty." "Natural immunity can decay within about 90 days." Quoting from the article again: Show nested quote +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. The author makes no comparisons of the rate of decay between natural immunity of vaccine immunity. No context. Then he makes no comparison between the longevity of the protection between natural immunity and vaccine immunity. So I'm glad we both agree that the author is being "extremely irresponsible" by not expanding on these statements. I'm just trying to figure out why you would cite an extremely irresponsible article.
I guess if you don't read any of the sources and citations and articles and studies that are hyperlinked inside of this article, you could feel this way, but I don't know why you wouldn't. You accused the author of not expanding on these statements and using "Both Pfizer and Moderna reported strong vaccine protection for at least six months." as a relevant sentence, yet literally "Pfizer" and "Moderna" are both hyperlinked to more elaboration (as well as many other words/references within the article). There's a difference between an article not elaborating, and you not reading the article's elaboration.
The reason why I was criticizing you for swapping some of the language (from vaccinated immunity to natural immunity, or vice-versa) is because while the reversal is semantically true when using the word "can" and giving yourself nearly limitless wiggle room on a grammatical technicality, the implication is that the entire message (risks, efficacy, duration, etc. of the two immunities) is basically interchangeable, which is not true. I'd like to repeat this paragraph of mine, for effect:
The misleading implications of this are evident, especially when it comes to coronavirus. If someone asked "Should I get the vaccine or should I just have my body deal with coronavirus on its own", and if I were to reply with "Well, technically speaking, both the vaccine and the virus have been shown to present side effects", I would be making a semantically correct statement, but a vastly disingenuous one too. There are some very obvious, very dangerous, and very inaccurate inferences that would logically be drawn from my statement, because I left out all the important details (probabilities, what side effects, hospitalization/death rates due to covid vs. due to being vaccinated, etc.).
I asked you if there were any vaccination reports comparable to 1/3 of covid survivors not developing antibodies. I'm guessing that answer is no, because all you've shown is that there are a variety of inconsistent reports, as far as covid survivors developing antibodies go.
And, again, I don't know how you can gloss over the prerequisite criterion that to get antibodies from natural immunity, you need to get covid first. It's not like you're just pressing a red button vs. a blue button for some antibodies, with equally comparable risks involved. This has been mentioned by multiple people already, and is arguably the most important thing to consider when noting that vaccinated immunity is superior. Even if you refuse to believe that the antibody count for natural immunity is less reliable than the vaccinated immunity's antibody count, surely getting the virus is inferior to getting the vaccine. Would you agree with that?
Just a reminder that I'm agnostic on the subject. I think natural immunity is probably as good as if not better than vaccine immunity but it's obviously still up for debate and the science is continuing to evolve. If you think the science is settled and this debate is over I at least hope you have a lot more evidence than that single article you keep reposting that for whatever reason got pushed to the top of the algorithm when you google the subject.
I wasn't the first person, or the last person, to post articles and studies on this issue, and I definitely wasn't the only person to talk about the greater context and logic surrounding what it takes to get natural immunity in the first place (covid infection) vs. what it takes to get vaccinated immunity in the first place (vaccination), and all the other ways the latter is superior to the former.
|
Younger folks - especially kids - are less susceptible to infection (or at least suffering adverse effects from infection). Doesn't this indicate that natural immunity varies across different demographics?
Again, not saying that natural immunity is better than vaccination. But perhaps natural immunity offers a good enough shield for certain people in developing countries where vaccination is scarce or slow, or the post-vaccination world for the fully-vaxxed without the need of boosters.
|
On October 12 2021 23:18 RKC wrote:
Younger folks - especially kids - are less susceptible to infection (or at least suffering adverse effects from infection). Doesn't this indicate that natural immunity varies across different demographics?
Again, not saying that natural immunity is better than vaccination. But perhaps natural immunity offers a good enough shield for certain people in developing countries where vaccination is scarce or slow, or the post-vaccination world for the fully-vaxxed without the need of boosters.
In places where vaccinations are not available, the aim should be to avoid infection, rather than getting infected and then being relieved that you probably have some temporary protection from getting it a second time. Even if the symptoms are minimal from the first infection, not getting covid at all is still preferable. Yes, natural immunity can be helpful, and it's a good consolation prize, but it's never the best-case scenario.
|
|
|
On October 12 2021 23:18 RKC wrote:
Younger folks - especially kids - are less susceptible to infection (or at least suffering adverse effects from infection). Doesn't this indicate that natural immunity varies across different demographics?
Again, not saying that natural immunity is better than vaccination. But perhaps natural immunity offers a good enough shield for certain people in developing countries where vaccination is scarce or slow, or the post-vaccination world for the fully-vaxxed without the need of boosters. Younger folks, especially children, tend to be around older folks like their parents. Kids getting Covid = parents getting Covid.
Besides, if kids are less in danger, why does giving them natural immunity matter in the first place? What does it accomplish? Its not helping them avoid getting Covid, because you've given them Covid.
|
On October 12 2021 23:32 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2021 23:18 RKC wrote:
Younger folks - especially kids - are less susceptible to infection (or at least suffering adverse effects from infection). Doesn't this indicate that natural immunity varies across different demographics?
Again, not saying that natural immunity is better than vaccination. But perhaps natural immunity offers a good enough shield for certain people in developing countries where vaccination is scarce or slow, or the post-vaccination world for the fully-vaxxed without the need of boosters. Younger folks, especially children, tend to be around older folks like their parents. Kids getting Covid = parents getting Covid. Besides, if kids are less in danger, why does giving them natural immunity matter in the first place? What does it accomplish? Its not helping them avoid getting Covid, because you've given them Covid.
First: kids are also less likely to infect others, even though this happens more with the Delta variant. Parents and especially grandparents are typically vaccinated now.
Giving kids immunity while they are less vulnerable can matter long-term. We have discussed this before, but the Spanish flu affected young people more as older had likely had a similar virus before, which helped despite being decades earlier. They can also be more protected if attacked by a similar virus later in life.
I think this is why figuring out similarities and differences between vaccine and infection immunity is very important. It could potentially be a terrible idea long-term to chase down infections in low-risk groups.
|
On October 12 2021 23:55 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2021 23:32 Gorsameth wrote:On October 12 2021 23:18 RKC wrote:
Younger folks - especially kids - are less susceptible to infection (or at least suffering adverse effects from infection). Doesn't this indicate that natural immunity varies across different demographics?
Again, not saying that natural immunity is better than vaccination. But perhaps natural immunity offers a good enough shield for certain people in developing countries where vaccination is scarce or slow, or the post-vaccination world for the fully-vaxxed without the need of boosters. Younger folks, especially children, tend to be around older folks like their parents. Kids getting Covid = parents getting Covid. Besides, if kids are less in danger, why does giving them natural immunity matter in the first place? What does it accomplish? Its not helping them avoid getting Covid, because you've given them Covid. First: kids are also less likely to infect others, even though this happens more with the Delta variant. Parents and especially grandparents are typically vaccinated now.
It may be less likely for an infected kid to spread covid than an infected adult, but the chance of an uninfected kid spreading covid is literally 0%, by definition, because they don't have it. So even if the chance of an infected kid spreading it is 5% or 10% or whatever, it's still a worse scenario than the kid simply not getting covid in the first place (in terms of spreading the infection to others and perpetuating/enabling coronavirus).
Giving kids immunity while they are less vulnerable can matter long-term. We have discussed this before, but the Spanish flu affected young people more as older had likely had a similar virus before, which helped despite being decades earlier. They can also be more protected if attacked by a similar virus later in life.
I think this is why figuring out similarities and differences between vaccine and infection immunity is very important. It could potentially be a terrible idea long-term to chase down infections in low-risk groups.
This would be relevant if surviving covid gave you strong resistance for a decade or longer, but natural immunity is only temporary, and generally lasts for less than a year. This isn't a conversation where it makes sense to talk about one person being protected "later in life" because they were already infected "at an early age". Getting "more safely infected" at age 10 doesn't mean that they'll have better protection when they turn 50, and we've already seen people becoming infected multiple times within the same two-year period, so it's not like their protection is going to transcend their current age bracket. We're much more concerned with long-term negative effects of covid, than long-term positive effects of covid.
|
On October 12 2021 23:28 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2021 23:18 RKC wrote:
Younger folks - especially kids - are less susceptible to infection (or at least suffering adverse effects from infection). Doesn't this indicate that natural immunity varies across different demographics?
Again, not saying that natural immunity is better than vaccination. But perhaps natural immunity offers a good enough shield for certain people in developing countries where vaccination is scarce or slow, or the post-vaccination world for the fully-vaxxed without the need of boosters. When people talk about natural immunity they are meaning the antibodies from a Covid infection. As for younger people that is different and its actually that the 20-30 age group is the "safest" with younger being slightly more at risk. It is something like from "best to Worst" as far as fatal outcomes. 20-30 - 12-18 30-40 5-12, 40-50, 0-4, 50-60, 60-70, 70+ However here because we have done a great job vaccinating the highest age groups (and a terrible job managing spread with our ICU's full) we have half the ICU patients being under 40.
|
|
|
On October 12 2021 21:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2021 20:56 BlackJack wrote:On October 12 2021 19:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
I think your response leans too heavily on semantics, which tries to get away with using "can" or "could" for comparisons that are simply not similar in size or scope. Those words do a lot of heavy lifting in probability. Anything that has a chance of happening, greater than 0% and less than 100%, can/could happen. If I flip a fair coin, it can land on "heads"; if I play the lottery, I can win the lottery. However, the chance of those two events occurring are vastly differently: roughly 50% vs. one-in-a-million.
So it is semantically, technically accurate to say that both vaccinated immunity and natural immunity can fade within six months, or that both vaccinated immunity and natural immunity could be stronger than they currently are. But it's extremely irresponsible to leave out the context and likelihood of these things. It would be like me stating "Flash and I could both be better at Brood War than we are now", but in a conversation about which of us is better, it's borderline disrespectful for me to even be in the same sentence as him. A student who gets a 99% on their test and a student who gets a 30% on their test "both can get more questions right", but their scores are pretty far apart, and we really ought to mention their actual grades too, for a more complete picture. . What? This is literally my biggest complaint with the entire article. A lot of these catch-all "can" statements that mean nothing out of context. "Natural Immunity can be spotty." "Natural immunity can decay within about 90 days." Quoting from the article again: 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. The author makes no comparisons of the rate of decay between natural immunity of vaccine immunity. No context. Then he makes no comparison between the longevity of the protection between natural immunity and vaccine immunity. So I'm glad we both agree that the author is being "extremely irresponsible" by not expanding on these statements. I'm just trying to figure out why you would cite an extremely irresponsible article. I guess if you don't read any of the sources and citations and articles and studies that are hyperlinked inside of this article, you could feel this way, but I don't know why you wouldn't.
Did you read any of the studies the article cited?? As I said, not a single one compares the rate of decay to vaccines to the rate of decay of natural immunity. Not a single one compares the longevity of the protection between natural immunity and vaccine immunity. In fact every study he listed either looks at vaccine immunity OR natural immunity and NOT both. You took issue with me cherry picking some articles and using "can" statements to paint the opposite narrative. Not sure how you keep missing that that's exactly what the article does. Ironically, the only study mentioned in the article that compares them both in an apples to apples comparison is the Israeli study which showed natural immunity many-fold more protective than vaccine immunity.
Anyways I see you've moved back on to the "well vaccine immunity is better either way because you don't have to get COVID to get it" which is answering a completely different question. Which offers better protection is a completely different question than which is better to get. Nobody here is disputing the 2nd question so not sure why you keep trying to shift the focus to it.
|
On October 13 2021 05:30 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2021 21:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 12 2021 20:56 BlackJack wrote:On October 12 2021 19:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
I think your response leans too heavily on semantics, which tries to get away with using "can" or "could" for comparisons that are simply not similar in size or scope. Those words do a lot of heavy lifting in probability. Anything that has a chance of happening, greater than 0% and less than 100%, can/could happen. If I flip a fair coin, it can land on "heads"; if I play the lottery, I can win the lottery. However, the chance of those two events occurring are vastly differently: roughly 50% vs. one-in-a-million.
So it is semantically, technically accurate to say that both vaccinated immunity and natural immunity can fade within six months, or that both vaccinated immunity and natural immunity could be stronger than they currently are. But it's extremely irresponsible to leave out the context and likelihood of these things. It would be like me stating "Flash and I could both be better at Brood War than we are now", but in a conversation about which of us is better, it's borderline disrespectful for me to even be in the same sentence as him. A student who gets a 99% on their test and a student who gets a 30% on their test "both can get more questions right", but their scores are pretty far apart, and we really ought to mention their actual grades too, for a more complete picture. . What? This is literally my biggest complaint with the entire article. A lot of these catch-all "can" statements that mean nothing out of context. "Natural Immunity can be spotty." "Natural immunity can decay within about 90 days." Quoting from the article again: 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. The author makes no comparisons of the rate of decay between natural immunity of vaccine immunity. No context. Then he makes no comparison between the longevity of the protection between natural immunity and vaccine immunity. So I'm glad we both agree that the author is being "extremely irresponsible" by not expanding on these statements. I'm just trying to figure out why you would cite an extremely irresponsible article. I guess if you don't read any of the sources and citations and articles and studies that are hyperlinked inside of this article, you could feel this way, but I don't know why you wouldn't. Did you read any of the studies the article cited?? As I said, not a single one compares the rate of decay to vaccines to the rate of decay of natural immunity. Not a single one compares the longevity of the protection between natural immunity and vaccine immunity. In fact every study he listed either looks at vaccine immunity OR natural immunity and NOT both. You took issue with me cherry picking some articles and using "can" statements to paint the opposite narrative. Not sure how you keep missing that that's exactly what the article does. Ironically, the only study mentioned in the article that compares them both in an apples to apples comparison is the Israeli study which showed natural immunity many-fold more protective than vaccine immunity. Anyways I see you've moved back on to the "well vaccine immunity is better either way because you don't have to get COVID to get it" which is answering a completely different question. Which offers better protection is a completely different question than which is better to get. Nobody here is disputing the 2nd question so not sure why you keep trying to shift the focus to it.
I didn't shift focus; I included that as well, on top of the rest of my much larger response, because it's absolutely part of the necessary answer. If you're comparing the pros and cons of buying two automobiles, you absolutely need to consider the cost of each, not just what's under the hood. The conditions and prerequisites that need to be met for two competing strategies or options must be taken into account; they're not irrelevant, and you can't just fast forward to magically having natural immunity without already, necessarily failing the objective of protecting yourself from getting covid in the first place. You keep saying that you understand that and don't dispute it, but then you turn around and ask the same answered question of "but is natural immunity superior to vaccinated immunity?" For some reason, it doesn't seem to be registering that this undisputed concession is literally answering that very question. Part of the answer includes what it takes to actually achieve vaccinated or natural immunity in the first place. You can't remove preemptive covid infection from the conversation surrounding natural immunity, because if you wanted to posit a hypothetical thought experiment where you received covid protection without actually getting infected, you'd be talking about vaccines.
I think we may be at an impasse here, given that I'm not willing to ignore the initial drawback of covid infection when evaluating the totality of natural immunity, and it seems that you're not willing to include it.
|
|
|
On October 13 2021 05:52 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2021 05:30 BlackJack wrote:On October 12 2021 21:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 12 2021 20:56 BlackJack wrote:On October 12 2021 19:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
I think your response leans too heavily on semantics, which tries to get away with using "can" or "could" for comparisons that are simply not similar in size or scope. Those words do a lot of heavy lifting in probability. Anything that has a chance of happening, greater than 0% and less than 100%, can/could happen. If I flip a fair coin, it can land on "heads"; if I play the lottery, I can win the lottery. However, the chance of those two events occurring are vastly differently: roughly 50% vs. one-in-a-million.
So it is semantically, technically accurate to say that both vaccinated immunity and natural immunity can fade within six months, or that both vaccinated immunity and natural immunity could be stronger than they currently are. But it's extremely irresponsible to leave out the context and likelihood of these things. It would be like me stating "Flash and I could both be better at Brood War than we are now", but in a conversation about which of us is better, it's borderline disrespectful for me to even be in the same sentence as him. A student who gets a 99% on their test and a student who gets a 30% on their test "both can get more questions right", but their scores are pretty far apart, and we really ought to mention their actual grades too, for a more complete picture. . What? This is literally my biggest complaint with the entire article. A lot of these catch-all "can" statements that mean nothing out of context. "Natural Immunity can be spotty." "Natural immunity can decay within about 90 days." Quoting from the article again: 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. The author makes no comparisons of the rate of decay between natural immunity of vaccine immunity. No context. Then he makes no comparison between the longevity of the protection between natural immunity and vaccine immunity. So I'm glad we both agree that the author is being "extremely irresponsible" by not expanding on these statements. I'm just trying to figure out why you would cite an extremely irresponsible article. I guess if you don't read any of the sources and citations and articles and studies that are hyperlinked inside of this article, you could feel this way, but I don't know why you wouldn't. Did you read any of the studies the article cited?? As I said, not a single one compares the rate of decay to vaccines to the rate of decay of natural immunity. Not a single one compares the longevity of the protection between natural immunity and vaccine immunity. In fact every study he listed either looks at vaccine immunity OR natural immunity and NOT both. You took issue with me cherry picking some articles and using "can" statements to paint the opposite narrative. Not sure how you keep missing that that's exactly what the article does. Ironically, the only study mentioned in the article that compares them both in an apples to apples comparison is the Israeli study which showed natural immunity many-fold more protective than vaccine immunity. Anyways I see you've moved back on to the "well vaccine immunity is better either way because you don't have to get COVID to get it" which is answering a completely different question. Which offers better protection is a completely different question than which is better to get. Nobody here is disputing the 2nd question so not sure why you keep trying to shift the focus to it. Because it is a question that matters. We know that if you have never had Covid, the Vaccine offers better protections than nothing. We know if you have had covid that the Vaccine offers better protection than nothing. None of this is in dispute. The science is super mucky in the how well natural immunity protects because of the variations, inability to double blind, and so on. This recent yet to be reviewed Israel study says one thing other studies say something else. But the above paragraph no one disputes. So when making policy decisions on what is best for your people you go with the sure thing. This is why in the past instead of the passports people like you are calling mandates, public health authorities and governments, and leaders of the military like George Washington just made it mandatory and ended this. Instead we have governments making it easier for those who have and less convenient for those who haven't and we still have the people that are creating huge societal issues for no sensible reason crying victim. Now you have "conservatives" and "libertarian's" like Abbot in Texas and DeSantis mandating what businesses can and can not require from their employees, while the whole time also saying the vaccine is safe effective and the best thing that people can do to end/lessen the effects of the pandemic. It is stupid.
Its just all bad faith. We need to get to the point where we just ignore these bad faith actors. If we try to argue with them they just move goalposts,deflect,strawman, etc. We need to just start ignoring these people or straight up call them out for being bad faith and move on.
|
On October 13 2021 05:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2021 05:30 BlackJack wrote:On October 12 2021 21:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 12 2021 20:56 BlackJack wrote:On October 12 2021 19:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
I think your response leans too heavily on semantics, which tries to get away with using "can" or "could" for comparisons that are simply not similar in size or scope. Those words do a lot of heavy lifting in probability. Anything that has a chance of happening, greater than 0% and less than 100%, can/could happen. If I flip a fair coin, it can land on "heads"; if I play the lottery, I can win the lottery. However, the chance of those two events occurring are vastly differently: roughly 50% vs. one-in-a-million.
So it is semantically, technically accurate to say that both vaccinated immunity and natural immunity can fade within six months, or that both vaccinated immunity and natural immunity could be stronger than they currently are. But it's extremely irresponsible to leave out the context and likelihood of these things. It would be like me stating "Flash and I could both be better at Brood War than we are now", but in a conversation about which of us is better, it's borderline disrespectful for me to even be in the same sentence as him. A student who gets a 99% on their test and a student who gets a 30% on their test "both can get more questions right", but their scores are pretty far apart, and we really ought to mention their actual grades too, for a more complete picture. . What? This is literally my biggest complaint with the entire article. A lot of these catch-all "can" statements that mean nothing out of context. "Natural Immunity can be spotty." "Natural immunity can decay within about 90 days." Quoting from the article again: 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. The author makes no comparisons of the rate of decay between natural immunity of vaccine immunity. No context. Then he makes no comparison between the longevity of the protection between natural immunity and vaccine immunity. So I'm glad we both agree that the author is being "extremely irresponsible" by not expanding on these statements. I'm just trying to figure out why you would cite an extremely irresponsible article. I guess if you don't read any of the sources and citations and articles and studies that are hyperlinked inside of this article, you could feel this way, but I don't know why you wouldn't. Did you read any of the studies the article cited?? As I said, not a single one compares the rate of decay to vaccines to the rate of decay of natural immunity. Not a single one compares the longevity of the protection between natural immunity and vaccine immunity. In fact every study he listed either looks at vaccine immunity OR natural immunity and NOT both. You took issue with me cherry picking some articles and using "can" statements to paint the opposite narrative. Not sure how you keep missing that that's exactly what the article does. Ironically, the only study mentioned in the article that compares them both in an apples to apples comparison is the Israeli study which showed natural immunity many-fold more protective than vaccine immunity. Anyways I see you've moved back on to the "well vaccine immunity is better either way because you don't have to get COVID to get it" which is answering a completely different question. Which offers better protection is a completely different question than which is better to get. Nobody here is disputing the 2nd question so not sure why you keep trying to shift the focus to it. I didn't shift focus; I included that as well, on top of the rest of my much larger response, because it's absolutely part of the necessary answer. If you're comparing the pros and cons of buying two automobiles, you absolutely need to consider the cost of each, not just what's under the hood. The conditions and prerequisites that need to be met for two competing strategies or options must be taken into account; they're not irrelevant, and you can't just fast forward to magically having natural immunity without already, necessarily failing the objective of protecting yourself from getting covid in the first place. You keep saying that you understand that and don't dispute it, but then you turn around and ask the same answered question of "but is natural immunity superior to vaccinated immunity?" For some reason, it doesn't seem to be registering that this undisputed concession is literally answering that very question. Part of the answer includes what it takes to actually achieve vaccinated or natural immunity in the first place. You can't remove preemptive covid infection from the conversation surrounding natural immunity, because if you wanted to posit a hypothetical thought experiment where you received covid protection without actually getting infected, you'd be talking about vaccines. I think we may be at an impasse here, given that I'm not willing to ignore the initial drawback of covid infection when evaluating the totality of natural immunity, and it seems that you're not willing to include it.
"What car goes faster 0-60, this Porsche or this BMW?" "That's a good question but we also have to consider how much each car costs."
I think if this is the conversation we are going to have then we are indeed wasting our time.
|
On October 13 2021 06:45 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2021 05:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 13 2021 05:30 BlackJack wrote:On October 12 2021 21:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 12 2021 20:56 BlackJack wrote:On October 12 2021 19:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
I think your response leans too heavily on semantics, which tries to get away with using "can" or "could" for comparisons that are simply not similar in size or scope. Those words do a lot of heavy lifting in probability. Anything that has a chance of happening, greater than 0% and less than 100%, can/could happen. If I flip a fair coin, it can land on "heads"; if I play the lottery, I can win the lottery. However, the chance of those two events occurring are vastly differently: roughly 50% vs. one-in-a-million.
So it is semantically, technically accurate to say that both vaccinated immunity and natural immunity can fade within six months, or that both vaccinated immunity and natural immunity could be stronger than they currently are. But it's extremely irresponsible to leave out the context and likelihood of these things. It would be like me stating "Flash and I could both be better at Brood War than we are now", but in a conversation about which of us is better, it's borderline disrespectful for me to even be in the same sentence as him. A student who gets a 99% on their test and a student who gets a 30% on their test "both can get more questions right", but their scores are pretty far apart, and we really ought to mention their actual grades too, for a more complete picture. . What? This is literally my biggest complaint with the entire article. A lot of these catch-all "can" statements that mean nothing out of context. "Natural Immunity can be spotty." "Natural immunity can decay within about 90 days." Quoting from the article again: 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. The author makes no comparisons of the rate of decay between natural immunity of vaccine immunity. No context. Then he makes no comparison between the longevity of the protection between natural immunity and vaccine immunity. So I'm glad we both agree that the author is being "extremely irresponsible" by not expanding on these statements. I'm just trying to figure out why you would cite an extremely irresponsible article. I guess if you don't read any of the sources and citations and articles and studies that are hyperlinked inside of this article, you could feel this way, but I don't know why you wouldn't. Did you read any of the studies the article cited?? As I said, not a single one compares the rate of decay to vaccines to the rate of decay of natural immunity. Not a single one compares the longevity of the protection between natural immunity and vaccine immunity. In fact every study he listed either looks at vaccine immunity OR natural immunity and NOT both. You took issue with me cherry picking some articles and using "can" statements to paint the opposite narrative. Not sure how you keep missing that that's exactly what the article does. Ironically, the only study mentioned in the article that compares them both in an apples to apples comparison is the Israeli study which showed natural immunity many-fold more protective than vaccine immunity. Anyways I see you've moved back on to the "well vaccine immunity is better either way because you don't have to get COVID to get it" which is answering a completely different question. Which offers better protection is a completely different question than which is better to get. Nobody here is disputing the 2nd question so not sure why you keep trying to shift the focus to it. I didn't shift focus; I included that as well, on top of the rest of my much larger response, because it's absolutely part of the necessary answer. If you're comparing the pros and cons of buying two automobiles, you absolutely need to consider the cost of each, not just what's under the hood. The conditions and prerequisites that need to be met for two competing strategies or options must be taken into account; they're not irrelevant, and you can't just fast forward to magically having natural immunity without already, necessarily failing the objective of protecting yourself from getting covid in the first place. You keep saying that you understand that and don't dispute it, but then you turn around and ask the same answered question of "but is natural immunity superior to vaccinated immunity?" For some reason, it doesn't seem to be registering that this undisputed concession is literally answering that very question. Part of the answer includes what it takes to actually achieve vaccinated or natural immunity in the first place. You can't remove preemptive covid infection from the conversation surrounding natural immunity, because if you wanted to posit a hypothetical thought experiment where you received covid protection without actually getting infected, you'd be talking about vaccines. I think we may be at an impasse here, given that I'm not willing to ignore the initial drawback of covid infection when evaluating the totality of natural immunity, and it seems that you're not willing to include it. "What car goes faster 0-60, this Porsche or this BMW?" "That's a good question but we also have to consider how much each car costs." I think if this is the conversation we are going to have then we are indeed wasting our time.
I hope our next conversation is more fruitful 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
