|
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 13 2021 07:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2021 06:45 BlackJack wrote: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 
Hopefully one day you'll realize the answer to the 1st question doesn't change regardless of what each car costs, or what "implications" or "inferences" it might cause. Science concerns itself with the truth, not with fears of what people might infer from the truth. Period.
The irony of not wanting to admit that natural immunity offers robust long-lasting protection out of fear that people might seek out natural immunity is that denying that this is the case causes people to mistrust you even more. At least that's the conclusion of ZDoggMD, one of the biggest medical doctor Vloggers with 434,000 subscribers
+ Show Spoiler +
|
Natural immunity is robust and long-lasting (relatively speaking), but that is missing the point. The point is that there is good evidence that one dose of vaccination further enhances the robustness of that immunity. The other point is that there's no good evidence that subsequent doses don't further boost that immunity, except for a short timeframe of 21 days after the first dose.
Can we move on?
|
|
|
On October 13 2021 14:21 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2021 11:54 BlackJack wrote:On October 13 2021 07:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 13 2021 06:45 BlackJack wrote: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 Hopefully one day you'll realize the answer to the 1st question doesn't change regardless of what each car costs, or what "implications" or "inferences" it might cause. Science concerns itself with the truth, not with fears of what people might infer from the truth. Period. The irony of not wanting to admit that natural immunity offers robust long-lasting protection out of fear that people might seek out natural immunity is that denying that this is the case causes people to mistrust you even more. At least that's the conclusion of ZDoggMD, one of the biggest medical doctor Vloggers with 434,000 subscribers + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zR1eHMekNdI And back to strawmanning. No one is lying about natural. They are saying ita not completely known, it is much hardet to study. What is conpletely known is that natural is still better with shots. This wont make anyone not get the shot, because its factual reasoning to get the shot. The only people who will use it not are the same ones that flip flop their reason every time it changes. "Not tested enough now it is. Not fully approved, now it is. For religious reasons, Pope, LDS, so on major groups say vaccines are love. Because Trump wouldnt, trump did in jan and it was pfizer. And I agree with your doctor, people who have been infected should be vaccinated because its exceedingly safe and will help society reach a point where covid is actually like the common cold. I think hes pretty omptimistic on how easy it would be to depolitize it though. But ny favoritr line is "if you have not been infrcted yet and you are thinking about getting natural immunity instead you arr out of your mind".
But it's important to know how much the vaccine improves the natural immunity. If it were 5% improvement then it wouldn't be worth it. You act like side effects don't exist rather than being rare.
|
And in a post-vaccination world where the virus still lingers, governments need to know to whom, how and when boosters should be deployed. And how to tailor SOP and restrictions on people whose immunity has waned over time.
The simplest solution is to mandate boosters for everyone. But that's politically and logistically difficult. Is there some mandatory tracking system where people have to report in after their last jab? Why not exempt low-risk people or people passing antibody tests (due to natural immunity)?
|
On October 13 2021 15:58 RKC wrote:
And in a post-vaccination world where the virus still lingers, governments need to know to whom, how and when boosters should be deployed. And how to tailor SOP and restrictions on people whose immunity has waned over time.
The simplest solution is to mandate boosters for everyone. But that's politically and logistically difficult. Is there some mandatory tracking system where people have to report in after their last jab? Why not exempt low-risk people or people passing antibody tests (due to natural immunity)?
In much of EU you get registered when you take a jab. Thus the government knows when you got your first one, your second one and any potential third ones. It is how they can generate vaccine passports. If they want boosters after 6 months it takes an hour to generate a list of people to inform. They then inform in the government medical app, sms, e-mail and/or send physical mail to those people.
Why is it politically difficult? Logistically it is about sending out booster requests to groups of people that match availability of vaccines considering the first two doses and their figures.
|
On October 13 2021 15:10 teeel141 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2021 14:21 JimmiC wrote:On October 13 2021 11:54 BlackJack wrote:On October 13 2021 07:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 13 2021 06:45 BlackJack wrote: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 Hopefully one day you'll realize the answer to the 1st question doesn't change regardless of what each car costs, or what "implications" or "inferences" it might cause. Science concerns itself with the truth, not with fears of what people might infer from the truth. Period. The irony of not wanting to admit that natural immunity offers robust long-lasting protection out of fear that people might seek out natural immunity is that denying that this is the case causes people to mistrust you even more. At least that's the conclusion of ZDoggMD, one of the biggest medical doctor Vloggers with 434,000 subscribers + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zR1eHMekNdI And back to strawmanning. No one is lying about natural. They are saying ita not completely known, it is much hardet to study. What is conpletely known is that natural is still better with shots. This wont make anyone not get the shot, because its factual reasoning to get the shot. The only people who will use it not are the same ones that flip flop their reason every time it changes. "Not tested enough now it is. Not fully approved, now it is. For religious reasons, Pope, LDS, so on major groups say vaccines are love. Because Trump wouldnt, trump did in jan and it was pfizer. And I agree with your doctor, people who have been infected should be vaccinated because its exceedingly safe and will help society reach a point where covid is actually like the common cold. I think hes pretty omptimistic on how easy it would be to depolitize it though. But ny favoritr line is "if you have not been infrcted yet and you are thinking about getting natural immunity instead you arr out of your mind". But it's important to know how much the vaccine improves the natural immunity. If it were 5% improvement then it wouldn't be worth it. You act like side effects don't exist rather than being rare.
Paul Offit, who is a world renowned vaccine advocate, co-inventor of a vaccine, and proponent of COVID-19 vaccine mandates was on ZDoggMD's podcast/show yesterday. A couple of the things he said are:
Natural infection provides good protection from serious illness associated with re-exposure and it's a reasonable argument to want to be exempt from vaccine mandates but it's probably not being done because it's a "bureaucratic nightmare." In other words, it's too difficult to track who previously had COVID and who should be exempt and it's just easier to vaccinate everyone.
Another thing he said is that the data suggests only 1 shot of the mRNA vaccine is necessary if you've had previous infection and he wishes the CDC would make a recommendation on that.
So exemption is reasonable, or at most 1 shot is ideal with the 2nd shot not providing much additional benefit. But what's our policy? Even if previously infected you must still get 2 shots. Not because that's what the science says, but because it's bureaucratically more convenient for the government to do it that way. Gee, I wonder why there is so much mistrust...
+ Show Spoiler +
|
Was this whole discussion about reasons for and against vaccine passport policy? I don't know anyone in here who either makes or influences policy, so then why are we discussing this for so long? The government does whatever it does. We can voice our dislike of policies, but we're not the ones responsible for those choices, so why does this have to be brought up so many times, yet again clogging the thread with something that's completely outside of our control?
|
Norway28675 Posts
That applies to every discussion somewhat political in nature? Whether people vaccinate or not is also 'beyond our control'. People discuss things they find interesting - to what degree countries should mandate vaccines and how vaccine passports should function seems like one of the topics most relevant to covid right now..
Skimming/skipping posts if you think they are part of a discussion you don't care about is entirely reasonable, too.
|
On October 13 2021 15:10 teeel141 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2021 14:21 JimmiC wrote:On October 13 2021 11:54 BlackJack wrote:On October 13 2021 07:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 13 2021 06:45 BlackJack wrote: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 Hopefully one day you'll realize the answer to the 1st question doesn't change regardless of what each car costs, or what "implications" or "inferences" it might cause. Science concerns itself with the truth, not with fears of what people might infer from the truth. Period. The irony of not wanting to admit that natural immunity offers robust long-lasting protection out of fear that people might seek out natural immunity is that denying that this is the case causes people to mistrust you even more. At least that's the conclusion of ZDoggMD, one of the biggest medical doctor Vloggers with 434,000 subscribers + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zR1eHMekNdI And back to strawmanning. No one is lying about natural. They are saying ita not completely known, it is much hardet to study. What is conpletely known is that natural is still better with shots. This wont make anyone not get the shot, because its factual reasoning to get the shot. The only people who will use it not are the same ones that flip flop their reason every time it changes. "Not tested enough now it is. Not fully approved, now it is. For religious reasons, Pope, LDS, so on major groups say vaccines are love. Because Trump wouldnt, trump did in jan and it was pfizer. And I agree with your doctor, people who have been infected should be vaccinated because its exceedingly safe and will help society reach a point where covid is actually like the common cold. I think hes pretty omptimistic on how easy it would be to depolitize it though. But ny favoritr line is "if you have not been infrcted yet and you are thinking about getting natural immunity instead you arr out of your mind". But it's important to know how much the vaccine improves the natural immunity. If it were 5% improvement then it wouldn't be worth it. You act like side effects don't exist rather than being rare.
Why wouldn't it be worth it at +5%? Would it be worth it at +10%? +20%? I'm just wondering how/where you're drawing the line, and I think the chance of getting serious long term side effects from covid is way higher than the chance of getting them from the vaccine.
|
On October 13 2021 16:27 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2021 15:10 teeel141 wrote:On October 13 2021 14:21 JimmiC wrote:On October 13 2021 11:54 BlackJack wrote:On October 13 2021 07:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 13 2021 06:45 BlackJack wrote: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:
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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 Hopefully one day you'll realize the answer to the 1st question doesn't change regardless of what each car costs, or what "implications" or "inferences" it might cause. Science concerns itself with the truth, not with fears of what people might infer from the truth. Period. The irony of not wanting to admit that natural immunity offers robust long-lasting protection out of fear that people might seek out natural immunity is that denying that this is the case causes people to mistrust you even more. At least that's the conclusion of ZDoggMD, one of the biggest medical doctor Vloggers with 434,000 subscribers + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zR1eHMekNdI And back to strawmanning. No one is lying about natural. They are saying ita not completely known, it is much hardet to study. What is conpletely known is that natural is still better with shots. This wont make anyone not get the shot, because its factual reasoning to get the shot. The only people who will use it not are the same ones that flip flop their reason every time it changes. "Not tested enough now it is. Not fully approved, now it is. For religious reasons, Pope, LDS, so on major groups say vaccines are love. Because Trump wouldnt, trump did in jan and it was pfizer. And I agree with your doctor, people who have been infected should be vaccinated because its exceedingly safe and will help society reach a point where covid is actually like the common cold. I think hes pretty omptimistic on how easy it would be to depolitize it though. But ny favoritr line is "if you have not been infrcted yet and you are thinking about getting natural immunity instead you arr out of your mind". But it's important to know how much the vaccine improves the natural immunity. If it were 5% improvement then it wouldn't be worth it. You act like side effects don't exist rather than being rare. ... Natural infection provides good protection from serious illness associated with re-exposure and it's a reasonable argument to want to be exempt from vaccine mandates but it's probably not being done because it's a "bureaucratic nightmare." In other words, it's too difficult to track who previously had COVID and who should be exempt and it's just easier to vaccinate everyone. ...
Seems like it's different on the other side of the pond. In both Germany and Bulgaria, having had a certified Covid infection in the past 6 months is just as good as being recently tested or having been vaccinated for anything that a vaccine passport would get you in. I assume it is similar all accross the EU.
|
On October 13 2021 18:04 Liquid`Drone wrote:
That applies to every discussion somewhat political in nature? Whether people vaccinate or not is also 'beyond our control'. People discuss things they find interesting - to what degree countries should mandate vaccines and how vaccine passports should function seems like one of the topics most relevant to covid right now..
Skimming/skipping posts if you think they are part of a discussion you don't care about is entirely reasonable, too.
We've been going in circles about this particular point for how many times now, only to discover that it was never about the science but about policy? Why should we keep discussing a point again and again for days or perhaps weeks that is completely irrelevant to us because it's not in our control? Why does this have to keep recurring? We can voice our political views, but when that becomes an ever-repeating cycle, it becomes meaningless and absurd and it only clogs the thread. In my opinion this is at best a waste of time and energy and at worst completely counterproductive.
Shall we have a many pages long discussion about how other many pages long discussions are pointless when they're about things that aren't in our control in any capacity? Lets do that?
|
Norway28675 Posts
That people are having pointless back and forth discussions is fine to criticize (I generally advice a 'state what you come to say, stop replying once you feel you've made your point, regardless of whether the person you are debating with has changed his mind' type of approach to these discussions), but I disagree with you that the science in isolation is any more interesting than the policy deriving from the science. In my opinion, the science is mostly interesting because it creates the framework for policy.
In line with my adviced approach, I don't really think I'll be responding beyond this post - I disagree with you, and I don't think you are or should be the arbiter of what discussions should fly in this thread. But it's entirely cool that you think what you think.
|
On October 13 2021 19:00 Liquid`Drone wrote:That people are having pointless back and forth discussions is fine to criticize (I generally advice a 'state what you come to say, stop replying once you feel you've made your point, regardless of whether the person you are debating with has changed his mind' type of approach to these discussions), but I disagree with you that the science in isolation is any more interesting than the policy deriving from the science. In my opinion, the science is mostly interesting because it creates the framework for policy. In line with my adviced approach, I don't really think I'll be responding beyond this post - I disagree with you, and I don't think you are or should be the arbiter of what discussions should fly in this thread. But it's entirely cool that you think what you think.
My point keeps flying over your head. I'm not complaining about the fact that people are discussing policy. I'm complaining that they're discussing literally the exact same point for the umpteenth time without moving on and it's clogging the thread. Reading this thread is becoming a burden, and this discussion that we're having right now is a perfect example of why it happens: because the point of an argument keeps flying over people's heads, in this case over yours.
|
On October 13 2021 14:21 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2021 11:54 BlackJack wrote:On October 13 2021 07:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 13 2021 06:45 BlackJack wrote: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 Hopefully one day you'll realize the answer to the 1st question doesn't change regardless of what each car costs, or what "implications" or "inferences" it might cause. Science concerns itself with the truth, not with fears of what people might infer from the truth. Period. The irony of not wanting to admit that natural immunity offers robust long-lasting protection out of fear that people might seek out natural immunity is that denying that this is the case causes people to mistrust you even more. At least that's the conclusion of ZDoggMD, one of the biggest medical doctor Vloggers with 434,000 subscribers + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zR1eHMekNdI And back to strawmanning.
Yeah, that was a tough one to read. I don't think it could have been any clearer that BlackJack and I had been talking about which is the better option: natural immunity or vaccinated immunity (even going so far as to use greater-than symbols in context, like a > b, to show that this is a comparison of two immunities on a relative scale, and we want to know which one is superior). Arguing that one immunity is inferior to another is not the same as saying the immunity is incapable of offering protection, in the same way that weighing the pros and cons of different methods of contraception doesn't necessarily mean that one of the methods must be entirely ineffective. Case in point: on the previous page I said "Yes, natural immunity can be helpful, and it's a good consolation prize, but it's never the best-case scenario." One could disagree with that statement and say "Actually, I think natural immunity can be the best-case scenario, and here is why", but saying "I disagree with your position because I think natural immunity can offer protection" is completely misunderstanding my statement, and it's speaking on an absolute scale (without even considering the protection from vaccinated immunity), rather than the incredibly clear relative scale that BlackJack and I had been engaging on. For our entire conversation, BlackJack and I had both been speaking about relative terms and which of the two immunities is better, so I assume this last misrepresentation was probably just BlackJack airing out some frustration.
|
On October 13 2021 19:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2021 14:21 JimmiC wrote:On October 13 2021 11:54 BlackJack wrote:On October 13 2021 07:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 13 2021 06:45 BlackJack wrote: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 Hopefully one day you'll realize the answer to the 1st question doesn't change regardless of what each car costs, or what "implications" or "inferences" it might cause. Science concerns itself with the truth, not with fears of what people might infer from the truth. Period. The irony of not wanting to admit that natural immunity offers robust long-lasting protection out of fear that people might seek out natural immunity is that denying that this is the case causes people to mistrust you even more. At least that's the conclusion of ZDoggMD, one of the biggest medical doctor Vloggers with 434,000 subscribers + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zR1eHMekNdI And back to strawmanning. Yeah, that was a tough one to read. I don't think it could have been any clearer that BlackJack and I had been talking about which is the better option: natural immunity or vaccinated immunity (even going so far as to use greater-than symbols in context, like a > b, to show that this is a comparison of two immunities on a relative scale, and we want to know which one is superior). Arguing that one immunity is inferior to another is not the same as saying the immunity is incapable of offering protection, in the same way that weighing the pros and cons of different methods of contraception doesn't necessarily mean that one of the methods must be entirely ineffective. Case in point: on the previous page I said "Yes, natural immunity can be helpful, and it's a good consolation prize, but it's never the best-case scenario." One could disagree with that statement and say "Actually, I think natural immunity can be the best-case scenario, and here is why", but saying "I disagree with your position because I think natural immunity can offer protection" is completely misunderstanding my statement, and it's speaking on an absolute scale (without even considering the protection from vaccinated immunity), rather than the incredibly clear relative scale that BlackJack and I had been engaging on. For our entire conversation, BlackJack and I had both been speaking about relative terms and which of the two immunities is better, so I assume this last misrepresentation was probably just BlackJack airing out some frustration.
You were definitely trying to argue that vaccines flat-out offered better protection against COVID. After you realized that the only thing you had to bring to the table to was a single biased article from the top of your google search you quickly retreated back to the "well it's irrelevant because to get natural immunity you have to get COVID which is always worse so vaccine immunity is always superior."
|
On October 13 2021 11:54 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2021 07:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 13 2021 06:45 BlackJack wrote: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 Hopefully one day you'll realize the answer to the 1st question doesn't change regardless of what each car costs, or what "implications" or "inferences" it might cause. Science concerns itself with the truth, not with fears of what people might infer from the truth. Period. The irony of not wanting to admit that natural immunity offers robust long-lasting protection out of fear that people might seek out natural immunity is that denying that this is the case causes people to mistrust you even more. At least that's the conclusion of ZDoggMD, one of the biggest medical doctor Vloggers with 434,000 subscribers + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zR1eHMekNdI
it doesn't make any sense. why would anybody "seek out" natural immunity? Covid isn't chicken pox that you should get as a child rather than risk getting as an adult. the question isn't whether you get it now or 30 years from now. people aren't worried about Covid 30 years from now, they are worried about Covid now.
So "seeking out natural immunity" necessarily means getting Covid, which pretty much defeats the purpose of being immune from getting Covid...
What DPB has been trying to say is that people have a choice: either they have *no protection* or a vaccine. Or they have been infected already and (maybe) have natural immunity or natural immunity plus a vaccine.
There is no scenario where comparing natural immunity alone to a vaccine alone makes sense, because those are not equivalent options if you are pursuing protection from Covid.
So no, it isn't comparing a Porsche with a BMW and worth establishing this answer, because that presupposes some kind of practical equivalence between them that allows you to compare them. It's more like asking which is faster freight train or a jet plane. Sure, you *could* answer that question, but it is not an interesting question.
Disclaimer: all of this assuming we are arguing from an *individual* point of view. If you actually want to discuss Drone's question of whom should be allocated the limited supply of vaccines then we may indeed want to know whether natural immunity is effective when compared to vaccination. But I don't believe you're arguing what the CDC and WHO should do, but rather what Cletus should do.
|
On October 13 2021 17:41 Magic Powers wrote:
Was this whole discussion about reasons for and against vaccine passport policy? I don't know anyone in here who either makes or influences policy, so then why are we discussing this for so long? The government does whatever it does. We can voice our dislike of policies, but we're not the ones responsible for those choices, so why does this have to be brought up so many times, yet again clogging the thread with something that's completely outside of our control?
Actually, if you re-read my last 2 posts carefully you will see the main point I was making is about not about immunities or passports but about mistrust.
People think this bizarre obsession with controlling the messaging to vaccine-hesitant people will lead to more vaccination but most vaccine hesitant people I know see right through this shit and it makes them even more vaccine hesitant.
Let's tell people "natural immunity alone is weak" such as in the article DarkPlasmaBall kept reposting even though we know that's not true. We don't want people to get the wrong idea and think natural immunity is good so they seek that out instead of vaccines.
Let's tell people there's "zero risk" with vaccines even though there's small risks of things like myocarditis. The risk is so small we might as well call it zero. We don't want people to get the wrong idea and be worried about vaccine side effects.
Let's tell people recovering from COVID that they should still get a 2-dose series of mRNA vaccines even though the science shows they really only need 1, and even without any vaccines they should still have good protection.
Scandanavian countries have such high trust in their public health leaders they don't even need vaccine mandates to have a very large % of their population vaccinated. Are they following this same messaging? No, not really. Sweden and Denmark have paused the Moderna vaccine in certain age groups. In Norway you're considered fully vaccinated after only a single dose of mRNA vaccine if you've been previously infected. In the EU, UK, Israel, naturally-acquired immunity applies to their passport vaccine system.
The majority of people in this thread seem unwilling or incapable to say a single thing that appears against "their side." You can say vaccines have zero risk and not only is it *crickets* here but anyone that challenges this dubious claim will get shouted down. The fact that people are either unwilling or incapable of unparing this question of "which offers better protection" with "which is the better option to seek out" is equally irrational. The scientists that are studying this right now have no problem unparing these questions, why can't any of you? Jesus.
|
oh, and if a vaccine denier isn't afraid of Covid, they should still not go to a Covid party. They should just go about their lives, because seeking it out still serves no purpose: they surely still believe that *not* having Covid is better than having it, so if they just go about their lives, they at least reduce their chance of getting sick when compared with having a Covid party...
|
On October 13 2021 20:21 Acrofales wrote:
There is no scenario where comparing natural immunity alone to a vaccine alone makes sense, because those are not equivalent options if you are pursuing protection from Covid.
.
As I have said previously, there are hundreds of millions of people that have already been infected with COVID. It is critically important for them to know what level of protection they have. Just because this dumb scenario of the uninfected person having to make an option of which immunity to pursue is the only thing you can conjure doesn't mean it's the only implication that exists.
In all seriousness why do you think there are scientists studying this topic as we speak? Do you think they are trying to figure out if it might be a better idea to seek out natural immunity instead of vaccine immunity? Do you think they any of them are open to that possibility? Shouldn't you warn them that they are wasting their time because no matter what their research shows the only thing that matters is that it's better to get vaccinated than to seek out natural immunity?
Maybe I am being a little snarky there but please do provide a serious answer of why you think scientists are researching this if the results of their research are "not relevant because vaccine immunity is always going to be better because you don't have to get COVID to get vaccine immunity."
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
