|
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 27 2021 05:51 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2021 05:46 teeel141 wrote:On October 27 2021 02:08 Magic Powers wrote:A recent publication of real world data research spanning 7.5 months (30 weeks) strongly suggests that the covid-19 vaccines are safe (i.e. risk-free). Furthermore there also appears to be a significant positive correlation between people choosing to receive vaccination and their prior health status. " What is added by this report?During December 2020–July 2021, COVID-19 vaccine recipients had lower rates of non–COVID-19 mortality than did unvaccinated persons after adjusting for age, sex, race and ethnicity, and study site. What are the implications for public health practice?There is no increased risk for mortality among COVID-19 vaccine recipients. This finding reinforces the safety profile of currently approved COVID-19 vaccines in the United States. All persons aged ≥12 years should receive a COVID-19 vaccine." https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7043e2.htm?s_cid=mm7043e2_w If the vaccines are risk free then why did scandinavian countries stop giving the Moderna vaccine to males under 30? Also how did that BBC presenter who took the AstraZeneca vaccine die? Because there are multiple vaccine options, notice they did not stop vaccinating? And yes he shouldn't have said "free" he should have said "almost free" or "basically free" as we all know everything has risk, including using a toilet, going outside, eating, and so on.
Thanks for stepping in, but I'm actually saying it's risk-free and I'm not going to back down from that because the research concludes the same thing, backing it up all the way. I'm not going to pretend that this is any way controversial except for the people who want to try to make it controversial. The vaccines are risk-free, which is synonymous with "safe". And among the reasons why they're safe is exactly because we're willing to take them off the shelf whenever there's even the slightest sign (which so far has always been a false alarm) of a possible risk.
The real risk is staying unvaccinated.
|
On October 27 2021 10:19 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2021 10:17 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Not sure what the vaxx rate in China is, but now parts of China are back in lockdown (At least 4 million people). https://www.skynews.com.au/world-news/china/lockdown-in-force-across-china/video/dda28c9c5dc699afb61d28f4c2ea26c5
Chinese authorities have placed at least four million people under lockdown – in an attempt to maintain the nation’s COVID-zero strategy.
The order has been imposed in 11 provinces – including Beijing – after more than 120 COVID cases were reported in the last week.
Apartment blocks with active COVID clusters have been put into strict 21 day lockdowns.
At least one person has been arrested after refusing to scan a heath QR code.
Well its not 100%, and they have 120 cases in a country of over a billion. I don't think you are making the point you think you are.
They’re covid-zero so will lockdown at the drop of a hat, where I am we have locked down twice over one case.I’m questioning at what level of vaccination is locking down over a handful of cases no longer justifiable (If it ever was in the first place).Chill out.
|
On October 27 2021 12:59 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2021 05:51 JimmiC wrote:On October 27 2021 05:46 teeel141 wrote:On October 27 2021 02:08 Magic Powers wrote:A recent publication of real world data research spanning 7.5 months (30 weeks) strongly suggests that the covid-19 vaccines are safe (i.e. risk-free). Furthermore there also appears to be a significant positive correlation between people choosing to receive vaccination and their prior health status. " What is added by this report?During December 2020–July 2021, COVID-19 vaccine recipients had lower rates of non–COVID-19 mortality than did unvaccinated persons after adjusting for age, sex, race and ethnicity, and study site. What are the implications for public health practice?There is no increased risk for mortality among COVID-19 vaccine recipients. This finding reinforces the safety profile of currently approved COVID-19 vaccines in the United States. All persons aged ≥12 years should receive a COVID-19 vaccine." https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7043e2.htm?s_cid=mm7043e2_w If the vaccines are risk free then why did scandinavian countries stop giving the Moderna vaccine to males under 30? Also how did that BBC presenter who took the AstraZeneca vaccine die? Because there are multiple vaccine options, notice they did not stop vaccinating? And yes he shouldn't have said "free" he should have said "almost free" or "basically free" as we all know everything has risk, including using a toilet, going outside, eating, and so on. Thanks for stepping in, but I'm actually saying it's risk-free and I'm not going to back down from that because the research concludes the same thing, backing it up all the way. I'm not going to pretend that this is any way controversial except for the people who want to try to make it controversial. The vaccines are risk-free, which is synonymous with "safe". And among the reasons why they're safe is exactly because we're willing to take them off the shelf whenever there's even the slightest sign (which so far has always been a false alarm) of a possible risk. The real risk is staying unvaccinated.
But you didn't even try to answer either of my questions.
|
On October 27 2021 18:13 teeel141 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2021 12:59 Magic Powers wrote:On October 27 2021 05:51 JimmiC wrote:On October 27 2021 05:46 teeel141 wrote:On October 27 2021 02:08 Magic Powers wrote:A recent publication of real world data research spanning 7.5 months (30 weeks) strongly suggests that the covid-19 vaccines are safe (i.e. risk-free). Furthermore there also appears to be a significant positive correlation between people choosing to receive vaccination and their prior health status. " What is added by this report?During December 2020–July 2021, COVID-19 vaccine recipients had lower rates of non–COVID-19 mortality than did unvaccinated persons after adjusting for age, sex, race and ethnicity, and study site. What are the implications for public health practice?There is no increased risk for mortality among COVID-19 vaccine recipients. This finding reinforces the safety profile of currently approved COVID-19 vaccines in the United States. All persons aged ≥12 years should receive a COVID-19 vaccine." https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7043e2.htm?s_cid=mm7043e2_w If the vaccines are risk free then why did scandinavian countries stop giving the Moderna vaccine to males under 30? Also how did that BBC presenter who took the AstraZeneca vaccine die? Because there are multiple vaccine options, notice they did not stop vaccinating? And yes he shouldn't have said "free" he should have said "almost free" or "basically free" as we all know everything has risk, including using a toilet, going outside, eating, and so on. Thanks for stepping in, but I'm actually saying it's risk-free and I'm not going to back down from that because the research concludes the same thing, backing it up all the way. I'm not going to pretend that this is any way controversial except for the people who want to try to make it controversial. The vaccines are risk-free, which is synonymous with "safe". And among the reasons why they're safe is exactly because we're willing to take them off the shelf whenever there's even the slightest sign (which so far has always been a false alarm) of a possible risk. The real risk is staying unvaccinated. But you didn't even try to answer either of my questions.
And I never will. I've wasted enough time on these kinds of highly ignorant questions.
|
On October 27 2021 18:20 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2021 18:13 teeel141 wrote:On October 27 2021 12:59 Magic Powers wrote:On October 27 2021 05:51 JimmiC wrote:On October 27 2021 05:46 teeel141 wrote:On October 27 2021 02:08 Magic Powers wrote:A recent publication of real world data research spanning 7.5 months (30 weeks) strongly suggests that the covid-19 vaccines are safe (i.e. risk-free). Furthermore there also appears to be a significant positive correlation between people choosing to receive vaccination and their prior health status. " What is added by this report?During December 2020–July 2021, COVID-19 vaccine recipients had lower rates of non–COVID-19 mortality than did unvaccinated persons after adjusting for age, sex, race and ethnicity, and study site. What are the implications for public health practice?There is no increased risk for mortality among COVID-19 vaccine recipients. This finding reinforces the safety profile of currently approved COVID-19 vaccines in the United States. All persons aged ≥12 years should receive a COVID-19 vaccine." https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7043e2.htm?s_cid=mm7043e2_w If the vaccines are risk free then why did scandinavian countries stop giving the Moderna vaccine to males under 30? Also how did that BBC presenter who took the AstraZeneca vaccine die? Because there are multiple vaccine options, notice they did not stop vaccinating? And yes he shouldn't have said "free" he should have said "almost free" or "basically free" as we all know everything has risk, including using a toilet, going outside, eating, and so on. Thanks for stepping in, but I'm actually saying it's risk-free and I'm not going to back down from that because the research concludes the same thing, backing it up all the way. I'm not going to pretend that this is any way controversial except for the people who want to try to make it controversial. The vaccines are risk-free, which is synonymous with "safe". And among the reasons why they're safe is exactly because we're willing to take them off the shelf whenever there's even the slightest sign (which so far has always been a false alarm) of a possible risk. The real risk is staying unvaccinated. But you didn't even try to answer either of my questions. And I never will. I've wasted enough time on these kinds of highly ignorant questions.
I'm just wondering if you're still claiming that myocarditis from the vaccine is completely harmless? Why say risk free instead of low risk?
|
|
|
|
|
On October 27 2021 00:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2021 00:03 xM(Z wrote:On October 26 2021 04:25 Mohdoo wrote:On October 26 2021 02:58 xM(Z wrote:
it won't matter, they'll still push vaccines. In your eyes, what is a vaccine and how does it function? it's something you take up the ass then go: yes!, now i'm protected ... until you take it up again. eventually, you realize that somehow-somewhere, something gets used up. + Show Spoiler +i mean come on, he asked for it He asked for it, because it doesn't appear as if you understand what you're talking about. + Show Spoiler +There's a long-standing TL meme about Romanians and their sense of humor, too. no, it's called beating a dead horse.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jemimamcevoy/2021/10/18/prior-covid-infection-is-as-effective-at-preventing-the-virus-as-vaccination-uk-study-suggests/ The study published by the U.K.’s Office of National Statistics (ONS) looked at more than 8,000 positive coronavirus tests across Britain between May and August, when delta was the dominant variant.
During this time, people who had previously recovered from Covid-19 were about 71% less likely to contract it a second time, the analysis found.
This represents about the same level of protection the study found was offered by two doses of the vaccines made by Pfizer and AstraZeneca, which have been prominently used in Europe’s inoculation drive.
Two doses of the Pfizer vaccine reduced the risk of contracting Covid-19 by around 73% compared to 62% for AstraZeneca’s vaccine.
The overlap in confidence intervals meant there “was no evidence” that full vaccination was any more effective in preventing Covid-19 than previous natural infection, the researchers concluded.
The study, which has not been peer reviewed, found previous infection was similarly effective at preventing symptomatic Covid-19, but did not delve into the differences between natural infection and vaccines in staving off severe disease.
he can take his vaccine and shove it; i will never be ok with vaccinating previously infected individuals nor ok with discriminatory, brain dead restrictions for previously infected individuals.
|
On October 28 2021 13:17 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2021 00:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 27 2021 00:03 xM(Z wrote:On October 26 2021 04:25 Mohdoo wrote:On October 26 2021 02:58 xM(Z wrote:
it won't matter, they'll still push vaccines. In your eyes, what is a vaccine and how does it function? it's something you take up the ass then go: yes!, now i'm protected ... until you take it up again. eventually, you realize that somehow-somewhere, something gets used up. + Show Spoiler +i mean come on, he asked for it He asked for it, because it doesn't appear as if you understand what you're talking about. + Show Spoiler +There's a long-standing TL meme about Romanians and their sense of humor, too. no, it's called beating a dead horse. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jemimamcevoy/2021/10/18/prior-covid-infection-is-as-effective-at-preventing-the-virus-as-vaccination-uk-study-suggests/ Show nested quote +The study published by the U.K.’s Office of National Statistics (ONS) looked at more than 8,000 positive coronavirus tests across Britain between May and August, when delta was the dominant variant.
During this time, people who had previously recovered from Covid-19 were about 71% less likely to contract it a second time, the analysis found.
This represents about the same level of protection the study found was offered by two doses of the vaccines made by Pfizer and AstraZeneca, which have been prominently used in Europe’s inoculation drive.
Two doses of the Pfizer vaccine reduced the risk of contracting Covid-19 by around 73% compared to 62% for AstraZeneca’s vaccine.
The overlap in confidence intervals meant there “was no evidence” that full vaccination was any more effective in preventing Covid-19 than previous natural infection, the researchers concluded.
The study, which has not been peer reviewed, found previous infection was similarly effective at preventing symptomatic Covid-19, but did not delve into the differences between natural infection and vaccines in staving off severe disease.
he can take his vaccine and shove it; i will never be ok with vaccinating previously infected individuals nor ok with discriminatory, brain dead restrictions for previously infected individuals.
That article doesn't say that previously infected individuals shouldn't additionally be vaccinated lol. There's literally no good reason not to. Having natural immunity + vaccinated immunity is obviously better than just having natural immunity.
|
On October 28 2021 13:17 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2021 00:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 27 2021 00:03 xM(Z wrote:On October 26 2021 04:25 Mohdoo wrote:On October 26 2021 02:58 xM(Z wrote:
it won't matter, they'll still push vaccines. In your eyes, what is a vaccine and how does it function? it's something you take up the ass then go: yes!, now i'm protected ... until you take it up again. eventually, you realize that somehow-somewhere, something gets used up. + Show Spoiler +i mean come on, he asked for it He asked for it, because it doesn't appear as if you understand what you're talking about. + Show Spoiler +There's a long-standing TL meme about Romanians and their sense of humor, too. no, it's called beating a dead horse. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jemimamcevoy/2021/10/18/prior-covid-infection-is-as-effective-at-preventing-the-virus-as-vaccination-uk-study-suggests/ Show nested quote +The study published by the U.K.’s Office of National Statistics (ONS) looked at more than 8,000 positive coronavirus tests across Britain between May and August, when delta was the dominant variant.
During this time, people who had previously recovered from Covid-19 were about 71% less likely to contract it a second time, the analysis found.
This represents about the same level of protection the study found was offered by two doses of the vaccines made by Pfizer and AstraZeneca, which have been prominently used in Europe’s inoculation drive.
Two doses of the Pfizer vaccine reduced the risk of contracting Covid-19 by around 73% compared to 62% for AstraZeneca’s vaccine.
The overlap in confidence intervals meant there “was no evidence” that full vaccination was any more effective in preventing Covid-19 than previous natural infection, the researchers concluded.
The study, which has not been peer reviewed, found previous infection was similarly effective at preventing symptomatic Covid-19, but did not delve into the differences between natural infection and vaccines in staving off severe disease.
he can take his vaccine and shove it; i will never be ok with vaccinating previously infected individuals nor ok with discriminatory, brain dead restrictions for previously infected individuals.
which has not been peer reviewed
did not delve into the differences between natural infection and vaccines in staving off severe disease So mostly useless.
|
On October 28 2021 18:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2021 13:17 xM(Z wrote:On October 27 2021 00:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 27 2021 00:03 xM(Z wrote:On October 26 2021 04:25 Mohdoo wrote:On October 26 2021 02:58 xM(Z wrote:
it won't matter, they'll still push vaccines. In your eyes, what is a vaccine and how does it function? it's something you take up the ass then go: yes!, now i'm protected ... until you take it up again. eventually, you realize that somehow-somewhere, something gets used up. + Show Spoiler +i mean come on, he asked for it He asked for it, because it doesn't appear as if you understand what you're talking about. + Show Spoiler +There's a long-standing TL meme about Romanians and their sense of humor, too. no, it's called beating a dead horse. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jemimamcevoy/2021/10/18/prior-covid-infection-is-as-effective-at-preventing-the-virus-as-vaccination-uk-study-suggests/ The study published by the U.K.’s Office of National Statistics (ONS) looked at more than 8,000 positive coronavirus tests across Britain between May and August, when delta was the dominant variant.
During this time, people who had previously recovered from Covid-19 were about 71% less likely to contract it a second time, the analysis found.
This represents about the same level of protection the study found was offered by two doses of the vaccines made by Pfizer and AstraZeneca, which have been prominently used in Europe’s inoculation drive.
Two doses of the Pfizer vaccine reduced the risk of contracting Covid-19 by around 73% compared to 62% for AstraZeneca’s vaccine.
The overlap in confidence intervals meant there “was no evidence” that full vaccination was any more effective in preventing Covid-19 than previous natural infection, the researchers concluded.
The study, which has not been peer reviewed, found previous infection was similarly effective at preventing symptomatic Covid-19, but did not delve into the differences between natural infection and vaccines in staving off severe disease.
he can take his vaccine and shove it; i will never be ok with vaccinating previously infected individuals nor ok with discriminatory, brain dead restrictions for previously infected individuals. That article doesn't say that previously infected individuals shouldn't additionally be vaccinated lol. There's literally no good reason not to. Having natural immunity + vaccinated immunity is obviously better than just having natural immunity.
The long term risks of vaccines are completely unknown. And the only argument against that is that it's the same with covid. But if you already had covid that doesn't matter anymore.
Also short term risks arent 0 either
|
On October 28 2021 18:17 teeel141 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2021 18:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 28 2021 13:17 xM(Z wrote:On October 27 2021 00:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 27 2021 00:03 xM(Z wrote:On October 26 2021 04:25 Mohdoo wrote:On October 26 2021 02:58 xM(Z wrote:
it won't matter, they'll still push vaccines. In your eyes, what is a vaccine and how does it function? it's something you take up the ass then go: yes!, now i'm protected ... until you take it up again. eventually, you realize that somehow-somewhere, something gets used up. + Show Spoiler +i mean come on, he asked for it He asked for it, because it doesn't appear as if you understand what you're talking about. + Show Spoiler +There's a long-standing TL meme about Romanians and their sense of humor, too. no, it's called beating a dead horse. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jemimamcevoy/2021/10/18/prior-covid-infection-is-as-effective-at-preventing-the-virus-as-vaccination-uk-study-suggests/ The study published by the U.K.’s Office of National Statistics (ONS) looked at more than 8,000 positive coronavirus tests across Britain between May and August, when delta was the dominant variant.
During this time, people who had previously recovered from Covid-19 were about 71% less likely to contract it a second time, the analysis found.
This represents about the same level of protection the study found was offered by two doses of the vaccines made by Pfizer and AstraZeneca, which have been prominently used in Europe’s inoculation drive.
Two doses of the Pfizer vaccine reduced the risk of contracting Covid-19 by around 73% compared to 62% for AstraZeneca’s vaccine.
The overlap in confidence intervals meant there “was no evidence” that full vaccination was any more effective in preventing Covid-19 than previous natural infection, the researchers concluded.
The study, which has not been peer reviewed, found previous infection was similarly effective at preventing symptomatic Covid-19, but did not delve into the differences between natural infection and vaccines in staving off severe disease.
he can take his vaccine and shove it; i will never be ok with vaccinating previously infected individuals nor ok with discriminatory, brain dead restrictions for previously infected individuals. That article doesn't say that previously infected individuals shouldn't additionally be vaccinated lol. There's literally no good reason not to. Having natural immunity + vaccinated immunity is obviously better than just having natural immunity. The long term risks of vaccines are completely unknown. And the only argument against that is that it's the same with covid. But if you already had covid that doesn't matter anymore. Also short term risks arent 0 either
The risks of covid and the risks of the covid vaccine aren't even in the same galaxy as each other.
|
On October 28 2021 13:17 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2021 00:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 27 2021 00:03 xM(Z wrote:On October 26 2021 04:25 Mohdoo wrote:On October 26 2021 02:58 xM(Z wrote:
it won't matter, they'll still push vaccines. In your eyes, what is a vaccine and how does it function? it's something you take up the ass then go: yes!, now i'm protected ... until you take it up again. eventually, you realize that somehow-somewhere, something gets used up. + Show Spoiler +i mean come on, he asked for it He asked for it, because it doesn't appear as if you understand what you're talking about. + Show Spoiler +There's a long-standing TL meme about Romanians and their sense of humor, too. no, it's called beating a dead horse. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jemimamcevoy/2021/10/18/prior-covid-infection-is-as-effective-at-preventing-the-virus-as-vaccination-uk-study-suggests/ Show nested quote +The study published by the U.K.’s Office of National Statistics (ONS) looked at more than 8,000 positive coronavirus tests across Britain between May and August, when delta was the dominant variant.
During this time, people who had previously recovered from Covid-19 were about 71% less likely to contract it a second time, the analysis found.
This represents about the same level of protection the study found was offered by two doses of the vaccines made by Pfizer and AstraZeneca, which have been prominently used in Europe’s inoculation drive.
Two doses of the Pfizer vaccine reduced the risk of contracting Covid-19 by around 73% compared to 62% for AstraZeneca’s vaccine.
The overlap in confidence intervals meant there “was no evidence” that full vaccination was any more effective in preventing Covid-19 than previous natural infection, the researchers concluded.
The study, which has not been peer reviewed, found previous infection was similarly effective at preventing symptomatic Covid-19, but did not delve into the differences between natural infection and vaccines in staving off severe disease.
he can take his vaccine and shove it; i will never be ok with vaccinating previously infected individuals nor ok with discriminatory, brain dead restrictions for previously infected individuals.
Regarding your second point, if we take fully vaccinated as the standard, then based off the data you linked, I understand your frustration regarding restrictions for previously infected people. One issue I see with giving full access to people with prior infection is on the "messaging side". Perhaps some people (who have not yet been infected nor vaccinated) may be brain dead enough to not get vaccinated with the thought that "oh well if I get COVID I can just do everything afterwards". From a pure data point of view though, it certainly seems unfair.
Regarding your first point, at least what I understood, is that prior infection + vaccine is better than just vaccine or just prior infection. At least at the "immune response level" (see below). In this case, I think there is certainly merit in getting vaccinated after infection. The caveat (for me), is that I'm not sure how the immune response correlates to the "society level" (i.e., infections rates, hospitalisation rates, etc.). If anyone knows about data regarding this I would be interested. That said, I think it's prudent to recommend vaccination (one dose) after infection and monitor the situation. If in say 6 months the data shows it doesn't matter, then reassess recommending the dose after infection.
For example:
On October 20 2021 02:45 JimmiC wrote:More studies coming out on getting vaccinated after having Covid. From the data it looks like it makes a big difference and should be taken 3-6 months after infection. However, it appears the second dose is unnecessary. https://ca.yahoo.com/news/natural-immunity-good-getting-vaccinated-093009241.htmlThe exact recommendations after each study seem to change a bit but overall the message consistently has been, get vaccinated, its better.
|
On October 28 2021 18:17 teeel141 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2021 18:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 28 2021 13:17 xM(Z wrote:On October 27 2021 00:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 27 2021 00:03 xM(Z wrote:On October 26 2021 04:25 Mohdoo wrote:On October 26 2021 02:58 xM(Z wrote:
it won't matter, they'll still push vaccines. In your eyes, what is a vaccine and how does it function? it's something you take up the ass then go: yes!, now i'm protected ... until you take it up again. eventually, you realize that somehow-somewhere, something gets used up. + Show Spoiler +i mean come on, he asked for it He asked for it, because it doesn't appear as if you understand what you're talking about. + Show Spoiler +There's a long-standing TL meme about Romanians and their sense of humor, too. no, it's called beating a dead horse. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jemimamcevoy/2021/10/18/prior-covid-infection-is-as-effective-at-preventing-the-virus-as-vaccination-uk-study-suggests/ The study published by the U.K.’s Office of National Statistics (ONS) looked at more than 8,000 positive coronavirus tests across Britain between May and August, when delta was the dominant variant.
During this time, people who had previously recovered from Covid-19 were about 71% less likely to contract it a second time, the analysis found.
This represents about the same level of protection the study found was offered by two doses of the vaccines made by Pfizer and AstraZeneca, which have been prominently used in Europe’s inoculation drive.
Two doses of the Pfizer vaccine reduced the risk of contracting Covid-19 by around 73% compared to 62% for AstraZeneca’s vaccine.
The overlap in confidence intervals meant there “was no evidence” that full vaccination was any more effective in preventing Covid-19 than previous natural infection, the researchers concluded.
The study, which has not been peer reviewed, found previous infection was similarly effective at preventing symptomatic Covid-19, but did not delve into the differences between natural infection and vaccines in staving off severe disease.
he can take his vaccine and shove it; i will never be ok with vaccinating previously infected individuals nor ok with discriminatory, brain dead restrictions for previously infected individuals. That article doesn't say that previously infected individuals shouldn't additionally be vaccinated lol. There's literally no good reason not to. Having natural immunity + vaccinated immunity is obviously better than just having natural immunity. The long term risks of vaccines are completely unknown. And the only argument against that is that it's the same with covid. But if you already had covid that doesn't matter anymore. Also short term risks arent 0 either
I'm curious how the long term risk of getting the vaccine compares with the long term risk of not getting the vaccine and catching the virus, which is already proven to have long term health complications. Hm.
|
I thought there was no point in studying long term effects of the vaccine, since it disappears in a couple of weeks top from your body. When you compare it to a drug that an individual might take over a few years, you can understand why all those worries about the long term effects of the vaccine are useless.
|
On October 28 2021 18:17 teeel141 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2021 18:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 28 2021 13:17 xM(Z wrote:On October 27 2021 00:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 27 2021 00:03 xM(Z wrote:On October 26 2021 04:25 Mohdoo wrote:On October 26 2021 02:58 xM(Z wrote:
it won't matter, they'll still push vaccines. In your eyes, what is a vaccine and how does it function? it's something you take up the ass then go: yes!, now i'm protected ... until you take it up again. eventually, you realize that somehow-somewhere, something gets used up. + Show Spoiler +i mean come on, he asked for it He asked for it, because it doesn't appear as if you understand what you're talking about. + Show Spoiler +There's a long-standing TL meme about Romanians and their sense of humor, too. no, it's called beating a dead horse. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jemimamcevoy/2021/10/18/prior-covid-infection-is-as-effective-at-preventing-the-virus-as-vaccination-uk-study-suggests/ The study published by the U.K.’s Office of National Statistics (ONS) looked at more than 8,000 positive coronavirus tests across Britain between May and August, when delta was the dominant variant.
During this time, people who had previously recovered from Covid-19 were about 71% less likely to contract it a second time, the analysis found.
This represents about the same level of protection the study found was offered by two doses of the vaccines made by Pfizer and AstraZeneca, which have been prominently used in Europe’s inoculation drive.
Two doses of the Pfizer vaccine reduced the risk of contracting Covid-19 by around 73% compared to 62% for AstraZeneca’s vaccine.
The overlap in confidence intervals meant there “was no evidence” that full vaccination was any more effective in preventing Covid-19 than previous natural infection, the researchers concluded.
The study, which has not been peer reviewed, found previous infection was similarly effective at preventing symptomatic Covid-19, but did not delve into the differences between natural infection and vaccines in staving off severe disease.
he can take his vaccine and shove it; i will never be ok with vaccinating previously infected individuals nor ok with discriminatory, brain dead restrictions for previously infected individuals. That article doesn't say that previously infected individuals shouldn't additionally be vaccinated lol. There's literally no good reason not to. Having natural immunity + vaccinated immunity is obviously better than just having natural immunity. The long term risks of vaccines are completely unknown. And the only argument against that is that it's the same with covid. But if you already had covid that doesn't matter anymore. Also short term risks arent 0 either
For me personally, I rather have longterm effects of the vaccination than beeing short term dead or close to it
|
|
|
Yea seriously, crossing the street in front of your house is more dangerous than the damn vaccination yet people still use the 'NOT TOTALLY RISK FREE' bullshit to avoid the syringe. It's so frustrating.
|
On top of that why would anyone think, given how much worse covid is, that the unknown risk from it woukd not be worse?
Did you not fully read my post? I'm talking about people who already had covid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
