|
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. |
Every time i state the numerous reasons why i think the moon landing was faked, people laugh at me. Same when i'm trying to explain the numerous reasons explaining why the US is funded in large parts due to alien technology found in 1947, roswell.
Sure. There can be reasons to be hesitant. The problem isn't being hesitant, it's being ignorant and not understanding the "big picture" - best example here would be the old claim that vaccines increase risk of myocarditis in children. Yes, it does, slightly. So people take that "evidence" and run with it, not even bothering with the actual reality that a covid infection carries a considerably higher risk of myocarditis.
Here's reality. Those "hesitant" people (implying that they're indecisive, which is of course bullshit - anti-vaxxers very much made their mind up and aren't "hesitant") don't require, nor desire actual facts and realities.
|
On February 18 2022 14:13 cLutZ wrote:
100% of people I know (unrepresentative sample) that didn't get the vaccine had already gotten Covid and made the legitimate, reasonable, and increasingly likely to be correct, assumption that recovery immunity was as good or better.
Every single modern study shows that tossing a vax on top of any natural immunity is a straight improvement, meaning they are purely dumb.
Also their outcomes would have been statistically better with the vax prior to infection, so they were idiots both pre and post infection
|
|
|
|
|
On February 18 2022 14:13 cLutZ wrote:
100% of people I know (unrepresentative sample) that didn't get the vaccine had already gotten Covid and made the legitimate, reasonable, and increasingly likely to be correct, assumption that recovery immunity was as good or better.
Ah, the genius argument of "I am getting covid to protect myself against getting covid" again.
|
Yeah. This argument is retarded. The only thing You need covid antibodies for is protection from covid. If You got it without vaccine ship has already sailed, You are either lucky or not.
|
On February 18 2022 14:27 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2022 14:13 cLutZ wrote:
100% of people I know (unrepresentative sample) that didn't get the vaccine had already gotten Covid and made the legitimate, reasonable, and increasingly likely to be correct, assumption that recovery immunity was as good or better. Every single modern study shows that tossing a vax on top of any natural immunity is a straight improvement, meaning they are purely dumb. Also their outcomes would have been statistically better with the vax prior to infection, so they were idiots both pre and post infection
Ahh yes, all those nurses I know should have *checks notes* gotten the vaccine before it was FDA approved.
And also the vaccine booster effect for people with prior infection has proven to be very temporary and not resilient against variants.
Also, remember, boosters tend to hit previously infected quite hard. For a lot of them it was an almost guaranteed loss of 1-2 days of work vs. a low chance of re-infection.
People in this class are consistently found to know more about Covid and Covid vaccines than than their compatriots.
I am vaxxed, precisely because I didn't get it before the vaxx existed. But your blanket assertions are not just very weakly supported by the data, they get weaker almost every week.
|
On February 18 2022 17:16 cLutZ wrote:
And also the vaccine booster effect for people with prior infection has proven to be very temporary and not resilient against variants.
This claim is 1) misleading ("very temporary") and 2) false ("not resilient against variants").
1) Infection-induced protection against re-infection ("natural immunity") has shown to decline over time to as little as 19% (from 85% after initial recovery). That means it wanes about as much as the protection offered by vaccination.
This means that boosters are in fact the only safe way to have resilient protection against variants, because they can be done frequently and at will. The protection after a booster is shown to be very high and nearly on par with a recently acquired/refreshed "natural immunity". We can conclude that boosters are far superior to "natural immunity".
Thus the reason why the first claim is misleading is because it ignores the very sub-par protection from "natural immunity" and the consistent reliability, availability and safety of boosters.
https://tl.net/forum/general/556693-coronavirus-and-you?page=581#11608
2) Furthermore, boosters are highly effective against all variants including Omicron. For example, they offer 90% protection against Omicron hospitalization.
This means that individuals who rely on "natural immunity" are at a manifold increased risk of hospitalization and/or death as compared to frequently boosted individuals, because "natural immunity" can't be scheduled and comes with much greater risks with each infection.
This second claim is therefore strictly false.
https://tl.net/forum/general/556693-coronavirus-and-you?page=580#11600
|
On February 18 2022 14:13 cLutZ wrote:
100% of people I know (unrepresentative sample) that didn't get the vaccine had already gotten Covid and made the legitimate, reasonable, and increasingly likely to be correct, assumption that recovery immunity was as good or better.
......Until that immunity fades within a few months, and then what happens? They would need to get vaccinated to resume having immunity, unless they're fine with getting covid every year. Not to mention natural + vaccinated immunity > only natural immunity.
|
Northern Ireland23314 Posts
There are some circumstances where not getting vaccinated is pretty reasonable.
There must be some people in situations where finances are so tight that either you can afford to miss work if you have an adverse reaction, or you may lose your job.
And even then that’s not really a particular argument in favour of not getting vaccinated, but an argument against such a cutthroat society and a lack of safety nets.
Back to an earlier point, I’m unsure whether not publishing raw data is any counter to the rest though. In one sense yes people can interpret your raw data badly, either through incompetence or intent.
On the other hand any move to be less transparent, for any reason will be held up by the anti-vax crowd as evidence in and of itself for various narratives, with much the same if not worse impacts in convincing the hesitant.
Of which I can’t even imagine there’s that many now, I would assume most people are convinced of the case for vaccines or have rejected that case and are pretty set in that position by now.
|
On February 18 2022 20:32 WombaT wrote:
There are some circumstances where not getting vaccinated is pretty reasonable.
There must be some people in situations where finances are so tight that either you can afford to miss work if you have an adverse reaction, or you may lose your job.
And even then that’s not really a particular argument in favour of not getting vaccinated, but an argument against such a cutthroat society and a lack of safety nets.
Back to an earlier point, I’m unsure whether not publishing raw data is any counter to the rest though. In one sense yes people can interpret your raw data badly, either through incompetence or intent.
On the other hand any move to be less transparent, for any reason will be held up by the anti-vax crowd as evidence in and of itself for various narratives, with much the same if not worse impacts in convincing the hesitant.
Of which I can’t even imagine there’s that many now, I would assume most people are convinced of the case for vaccines or have rejected that case and are pretty set in that position by now.
Wouldn't those people lose their job anyway if they caught covid and had flu like symptoms ?
|
On February 18 2022 20:37 Erasme wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2022 20:32 WombaT wrote:
There are some circumstances where not getting vaccinated is pretty reasonable.
There must be some people in situations where finances are so tight that either you can afford to miss work if you have an adverse reaction, or you may lose your job.
And even then that’s not really a particular argument in favour of not getting vaccinated, but an argument against such a cutthroat society and a lack of safety nets.
Back to an earlier point, I’m unsure whether not publishing raw data is any counter to the rest though. In one sense yes people can interpret your raw data badly, either through incompetence or intent.
On the other hand any move to be less transparent, for any reason will be held up by the anti-vax crowd as evidence in and of itself for various narratives, with much the same if not worse impacts in convincing the hesitant.
Of which I can’t even imagine there’s that many now, I would assume most people are convinced of the case for vaccines or have rejected that case and are pretty set in that position by now. Wouldn't those people lose their job anyway if they caught covid and had flu like symptoms ?
Agreed. If you think missing a day of work because you feel meh for 24 hours is a bad situation, I can't imagine how devastating it would be to get much sicker and miss a full week of work due to covid. You're much more likely to have an adverse reaction (and a severe one, at that) to covid than you are to the vaccine.
|
|
|
|
|
Northern Ireland23314 Posts
On February 18 2022 20:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2022 20:37 Erasme wrote:On February 18 2022 20:32 WombaT wrote:
There are some circumstances where not getting vaccinated is pretty reasonable.
There must be some people in situations where finances are so tight that either you can afford to miss work if you have an adverse reaction, or you may lose your job.
And even then that’s not really a particular argument in favour of not getting vaccinated, but an argument against such a cutthroat society and a lack of safety nets.
Back to an earlier point, I’m unsure whether not publishing raw data is any counter to the rest though. In one sense yes people can interpret your raw data badly, either through incompetence or intent.
On the other hand any move to be less transparent, for any reason will be held up by the anti-vax crowd as evidence in and of itself for various narratives, with much the same if not worse impacts in convincing the hesitant.
Of which I can’t even imagine there’s that many now, I would assume most people are convinced of the case for vaccines or have rejected that case and are pretty set in that position by now. Wouldn't those people lose their job anyway if they caught covid and had flu like symptoms ? Agreed. If you think missing a day of work because you feel meh for 24 hours is a bad situation, I can't imagine how devastating it would be to get much sicker and miss a full week of work due to covid. You're much more likely to have an adverse reaction (and a severe one, at that) to covid than you are to the vaccine.
Absolutely, I would say this cohort is rather small/non-existent in places where job security is less tenuous.
And more so now where wider restrictions are lifted. Scenarios such as a double income household being cut to a single income due to forced closures in some sectors are all lessening up too.
I mean let’s be real the group that are gambling on not getting Covid who aren’t vaccinating because they fear they’ll lose their job, or simply can’t afford to miss even a few days of work is vanishingly small, I would imagine.
|
|
|
Scottish data:
On February 18 2022 20:32 WombaT wrote:
Back to an earlier point, I’m unsure whether not publishing raw data is any counter to the rest though. In one sense yes people can interpret your raw data badly, either through incompetence or intent.
On the other hand any move to be less transparent, for any reason will be held up by the anti-vax crowd as evidence in and of itself for various narratives, with much the same if not worse impacts in convincing the hesitant.
Of which I can’t even imagine there’s that many now, I would assume most people are convinced of the case for vaccines or have rejected that case and are pretty set in that position by now.
Nailed it.
They also mentioned what sort of "data" they will present:
"There are so many caveats and they just pull certain figures out that should not be used.
What we are going to do is do a lot more on the vaccine effectiveness side and try and make people understand how effective the vaccine is."
Bolded - there is no such things in data "that should not be used" - as a matter of fact, this is the very thing they are accusing anti-vaxxers (hate that term btw) of.
Italic - cherry picking: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking
"Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position while ignoring a significant portion of related and similar cases or data that may contradict that position. Cherry picking may be committed intentionally or unintentionally"
"A one-sided argument (also known as card stacking, stacking the deck, ignoring the counterevidence, slanting, and suppressed evidence) is an informal fallacy that occurs when only the reasons supporting a proposition are supplied, while all reasons opposing it are omitted."
Guardian:
Some people seem to be under impression that saying that reasons are: "not necessarily good ones lol", " they are just not logical" is in some way argument against those. It is not. Saying that something is wrong/correct/illogical/wise without specifying why, doesn't really put person saying that in best light.
This is my favourite part of the article.
"[...]it would actually be bizarre to unquestioningly believe and unwaveringly conform to elite guidance. This would not be a sign of cognitive health."
Myocarditis
Considering that vaccine doesnt actually prevent you from getting covid, arguing that risk of myocarditis after covid is higher than after vaccine is flawed. It is flawed because you can get myocarditis after covid and after vaccine. Vaccination doesnt prevent you from getting myocarditis after covid - instead it adds the chance of getting it after vaccination.
On February 18 2022 18:00 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2022 17:16 cLutZ wrote:
And also the vaccine booster effect for people with prior infection has proven to be very temporary and not resilient against variants. This claim is 1) misleading ("very temporary") and 2) false ("not resilient against variants"). 1) Infection-induced protection against re-infection ("natural immunity") has shown to decline over time to as little as 19% (from 85% after initial recovery). That means it wanes about as much as the protection offered by vaccination. This means that boosters are in fact the only safe way to have resilient protection against variants, because they can be done frequently and at will. The protection after a booster is shown to be very high and nearly on par with a recently acquired/refreshed "natural immunity". We can conclude that boosters are far superior to "natural immunity". Thus the reason why the first claim is misleading is because it ignores the very sub-par protection from "natural immunity" and the consistent reliability, availability and safety of boosters. https://tl.net/forum/general/556693-coronavirus-and-you?page=581#116082) Furthermore, boosters are highly effective against all variants including Omicron. For example, they offer 90% protection against Omicron hospitalization. This means that individuals who rely on "natural immunity" are at a manifold increased risk of hospitalization and/or death as compared to frequently boosted individuals, because "natural immunity" can't be scheduled and comes with much greater risks with each infection. This second claim is therefore strictly false. https://tl.net/forum/general/556693-coronavirus-and-you?page=580#11600
1 - No it didnt - link you referred to shows that natural protection after Delta against Omicron is as low as 19%. There is nothing about it declining over time.
When it comes to time:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00676-9/fulltext#section-3d6acba1-acea-4be2-8dc9-b7e14e5b6583
"Although those studies show that protection from reinfection is strong and persists for more than 10 months of follow-up, it is unknown how long protective immunity will truly last"
This means it wanes way slower than immunity after vaccination.
Considering that boosters are "nearly on par" with natural immunity I am somewhat at loss how can we conclude that they are far superior?
How exactly is natural immunity very sub-par??
Natural immunity:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00438-3#ref-CR1
"Most reinfections occurred about one year apart, showing that a previous infection offers immunity for some time. And protection against severe COVID-19 caused by Omicron remained high, at around 88%."
Booster:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1050236/technical-briefing-34-14-january-2022.pdf
page 21:
"Among those who had received 2 doses of AstraZeneca,
effectiveness dropped from 45 to 50% to almost no effect against Omicron from 20 weeks after
the second dose. Among those who had received 2 doses of Pfizer or Moderna effectiveness
dropped from around 65 to 70% down to around 10% by 20 weeks after the 2nd dose. Two to 4
weeks after a booster dose vaccine effectiveness ranged from around 65 to 75%, dropping to
55 to 65% at 5 to 9 weeks and 45 to 50% from 10+ weeks after the booster."
Therefore it seems like protection from booster is indeed very temporary if compared to natural immunity.
|
|
|
I'll make an exception of my no-response policy specifically for this comment. Complete protection from viral reinfection is not what cLutZ's claim was about, it was about any level of protection from anything ranging from infection to disease severity.
This was the claim:
On February 18 2022 17:16 cLutZ wrote:
And also the vaccine booster effect for people with prior infection has proven to be very temporary and not resilient against variants.
This is not a claim specific to immunity, i.e. protection from infection AND protection from disease severity. It's a claim about any protection, i.e. protection from infection OR protection from disease severity. cLutZ's claim states that boosters do not protect against infection nor against disease severity. This claim is misleading because the overall level of protection provided by vaccines and "natural immunity" wanes over time in that regard. Protection against severe disease is strong in boosters and in recently acquired "natural immunity", but weak in waning "natural immunity" and likewise in vaccination from too long back.
|
On February 19 2022 17:02 Magic Powers wrote:I'll make an exception of my no-response policy specifically for this comment. Complete protection from viral reinfection is not what cLutZ's claim was about, it was about any level of protection from anything ranging from infection to disease severity. This was the claim: Show nested quote +On February 18 2022 17:16 cLutZ wrote:
And also the vaccine booster effect for people with prior infection has proven to be very temporary and not resilient against variants. This is not a claim specific to immunity, i.e. protection from infection AND protection from disease severity. It's a claim about any protection, i.e. protection from infection OR protection from disease severity. cLutZ's claim states that boosters do not protect against infection nor against disease severity. This claim is misleading because the overall level of protection provided by vaccines and "natural immunity" wanes over time in that regard. Protection against severe disease is strong in boosters and in recently acquired "natural immunity", but weak in waning "natural immunity" and likewise in vaccination from too long back.
Construction of your posts seems to suggest that in point 1 you referring to his claim about "very temporary" - this claim seems to be correct, at least when we use natural immunity for comparison.
In all honesty I dont think you were in any way dishonest, I believe that your argument and conclusion was based on misremembering what "19% of protection" figure was referring to.
On February 19 2022 12:20 JimmiC wrote:
Picks yours, we will explain why its not.
You missed the point. What my post was referring to is that after stating that something is "not logical" it is customary and indeed common courtesy to explain why. You saying that something is [ insert whatever ] means nothing without some sort of explanation.
Edit: Sorry I missed this part:
On February 19 2022 17:02 Magic Powers wrote:
This claim is misleading because the overall level of protection provided by vaccines and "natural immunity" wanes over time in that regard. Protection against severe disease is strong in boosters and in recently acquired "natural immunity", but weak in waning "natural immunity" and likewise in vaccination from too long back.
I dont think that 88% protection year after infection (please see my previous post for source) can be described as either weak or waning. As a matter of fact this level of protection, year after infection seems vastly superior to booster, which protection seems to start decreasing as soon as 4 weeks after taking it (again please see source in my previous post). Judging by those numbers it would seem that all booster does, is temporarily (4-5 weeks) raising protection levels to those of... natural immunity
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
