Either the vaccine protects or it doesn't. A vaccinated person shouldn't worry about the vaccination status of someone else.
That's the contradiction.
That's the contradiction.
Why You Should Get Vaccinated Even After Prior COVID Infection -- Delta Variant Data
12,112 Views |
136 Replies |
Last: 4 yr ago by LSB_2002
No, it's not. There are many concerns if we don't reach herd immunity. If one cares about their neighbors, they understand both about variants (not talking current variants, I'm talking variants in year(s)) as well as those who either cannot take the vaccine or it won't work for (immunocompromised). I'm not worried about catching it (never really was). I have always cared about infecting others though. Much less of a concern now, but still something for us to be concerned about.Old Buffalo said:
Either the vaccine protects or it doesn't. A vaccinated person shouldn't worry about the vaccination status of someone else.
That's the contradiction.
If you look at the vaccine as only benefit the person receiving it, you don't understand the science. This will become endemic, we will live with it, but immunity is a key to ending this faster (through vaccination or natural immunity).
Old Buffalo said:
Either the vaccine protects or it doesn't. A vaccinated person shouldn't worry about the vaccination status of someone else.
That's the contradiction.
The vaccine doesn't necessarily protect if variants go wild.
The only chance for variants to go wild is for a large % of people to not get vaccinated.
There is no contradiction.
PJYoung said:Old Buffalo said:
Either the vaccine protects or it doesn't. A vaccinated person shouldn't worry about the vaccination status of someone else.
That's the contradiction.
The vaccine doesn't necessarily protect if variants go wild.
The only chance for variants to go wild is for a large % of people to not get vaccinated.
There is no contradiction.
60-65% of the eligible population will be fully vaccinated (maybe as high as 80% is some small states, less in others) the fantasy of full vaccination or 90% or higher nation wise is just that, pure fantasy.
Make Mental Asylums Great Again!
And it' s probably not needed, it's why we need to look beyond vaccination rates and include natural immunity.West Point Aggie said:PJYoung said:Old Buffalo said:
Either the vaccine protects or it doesn't. A vaccinated person shouldn't worry about the vaccination status of someone else.
That's the contradiction.
The vaccine doesn't necessarily protect if variants go wild.
The only chance for variants to go wild is for a large % of people to not get vaccinated.
There is no contradiction.
60-65% of the eligible population will be fully vaccinated (maybe as high as 80% is some small states, less in others) the fantasy of full vaccination or 90% or higher nation wise is just that, pure fantasy.
West Point Aggie said:PJYoung said:Old Buffalo said:
Either the vaccine protects or it doesn't. A vaccinated person shouldn't worry about the vaccination status of someone else.
That's the contradiction.
The vaccine doesn't necessarily protect if variants go wild.
The only chance for variants to go wild is for a large % of people to not get vaccinated.
There is no contradiction.
60-65% of the eligible population will be fully vaccinated (maybe as high as 80% is some small states, less in others) the fantasy of full vaccination or 90% or higher nation wise is just that, pure fantasy.
Agreed.
ORAggieFan said:
If you look at the vaccine as only benefit the person receiving it, you don't understand the science. This will become endemic, we will live with it, but immunity is a key to ending this faster (through vaccination or natural immunity).
The makers of the vaccine never claimed it prevents Covid. Trials showed it has about a 1% prevention of Covid. and a 95% reduction in serious Covid cases. The two glaring problems are the total disregard to natural immunity (OP) and the deaths and injuries from the vaccine (VAERS). Yeah, yeah, yeah, VAERS data is not science cause and effecthowever, it is most likely underreported too. So maybe only half of the near 6000 deaths are vaccine related, why would you give the vaccine to the three groups that were never tested (pregnant women, children and Covid recovered)? Fluvoxamine and Ivermectin have performed incredibly well when used. Although they are not FDA approved for Covid, neither is the Covid shot. Unfortunately, you can't have an emergency use vaccine when you have an existing treatment, so they continue to be suppressed.Old Buffalo said:
Either the vaccine protects or it doesn't. A vaccinated person shouldn't worry about the vaccination status of someone else.
That's the contradiction.
Almost 6000 have died from the vaccine, Over 600 fully vaccinated people have died from Covid (743 total), two people have died from getting Covid twice.
What's most frustrating is that those percentages always fail to include people that have natural immunity, as if it doesn't matter.West Point Aggie said:PJYoung said:Old Buffalo said:
Either the vaccine protects or it doesn't. A vaccinated person shouldn't worry about the vaccination status of someone else.
That's the contradiction.
The vaccine doesn't necessarily protect if variants go wild.
The only chance for variants to go wild is for a large % of people to not get vaccinated.
There is no contradiction.
60-65% of the eligible population will be fully vaccinated (maybe as high as 80% is some small states, less in others) the fantasy of full vaccination or 90% or higher nation wise is just that, pure fantasy.
There are 33M official cases of covid-19 in the US, with machine learning algorithms estimating that it's actually 71M that have had covid. That's 21% of the poplulation. If none of those people got the vaccine, that's 80% to 85% of Americans that have immunity. The majority of the remaining 15% to 20% are kids, who aren't really susceptible / don't spread covid.
Point being? Stop worrying about who isn't getting the vaccine. Many people who aren't getting the vaccine don't need it because they obtained immunity naturally (that includes me).
Sweden only has 25% of their population fully vaccinated, yet the numbers indicate that they are done with covid, especially compared to surrounding countries like Finland and Norway, who are seeing an increase in cases.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/sweden/
badbilly said:So maybe only half of the near 6000 deaths are vaccine related,Old Buffalo said:
Either the vaccine protects or it doesn't. A vaccinated person shouldn't worry about the vaccination status of someone else.
That's the contradiction.
Almost 6000 have died from the vaccine,
Not even close to true. Holy cow, do people really believe the vaccine has killed thousands of people?
Quote:
What's the difference between correlation and causation? While causation and correlation can exist at the same time, correlation does not imply causation. Causation explicitly applies to cases where action A causes outcome B. On the other hand, correlation is simply a relationship.
Unless you have covid. Then it doesn't matter why you died, it's a Covid death.
That's not the official narrative.coolerguy12 said:
Unless you have covid. Then it doesn't matter why you died, it's a Covid death.
coolerguy12 said:
Unless you have covid. Then it doesn't matter why you died, it's a Covid death.
That's not what the doctors on here say but whatever. I guess you would probably say they're part of the conspiracy.
PJYoung said:coolerguy12 said:
Unless you have covid. Then it doesn't matter why you died, it's a Covid death.
That's not what the doctors on here say but whatever. I guess you would probably say they're part of the conspiracy.
[url] https://sanjosespotlight.com/santa-clara-county-revises-total-covid-deaths-by-over-20/[/url]
It is an undeniable truth that there have been a significant number of deaths attributed to Covid that should not have been. If a doctor chooses to claim that all "Covid deaths" have been caused by Covid, then yes I would say they are part of the conspiracy.
I'm not quoting the 6% number where only 6% of deaths had no comorbidities. That's a lazy argument that doesn't account for our country being massively overweight. This is an article from 4 days ago where a county that went 72% blue in Nov admitted to having to lower their Covid death numbers by 20%. Not 2%. 20%.
What's the threshold to start calling it a conspiracy? Or fraud? Or lying? Or BS? Cause if we're not there yet I would hate to see what it takes to get there.
I tried hard to toe the company line but I just couldn't do it. It gets boring being the guy yelling ECHO on the other side of the canyon.
Again - this "Unless you have covid. Then it doesn't matter why you died, it's a Covid death."
Is not true.
And I agree with you that there were covid deaths that should not have been officially deemed as caused by covid. I would argue that there were many blood clot and other heart related deaths that were not attributed to covid because they happened weeks after the infection but were in all likelihood caused by the covid infection.
The unexpected mortality charts are in line with the 600k+ covid deaths.
Is not true.
And I agree with you that there were covid deaths that should not have been officially deemed as caused by covid. I would argue that there were many blood clot and other heart related deaths that were not attributed to covid because they happened weeks after the infection but were in all likelihood caused by the covid infection.
The unexpected mortality charts are in line with the 600k+ covid deaths.
Quote:
Then it doesn't matter why you died, it's a Covid death."
Is not true.
And I agree with you that there were covid deaths that should not have been officially deemed as caused by covid.
So you make a statement that you follow with "is not true". And then you follow that up with a statement that says you believe the original statement to be true.
You can speculate all you want about the number of deaths that weren't counted that should/could have. But the fact is that it is well documented that there are a significant number of deaths where people died while having Covid but not because they had Covid that were counted as Covid deaths.
Then you have 3700 people in New York "presumed" to have Covid added to the death toll in April of 2020 very early on. You think those numbers weren't used to set public policy? I told a Dr friend about that when it happened and he asked for a link that didn't come from redhattrump.com because he didn't think it was real. When I sent him the CNN link he said they probably had good reason to assume that and just didn't want to waste tests when they already knew.
[url] https://khn.org/morning-breakout/new-york-citys-death-toll-jumps-by-more-than-3700-after-officials-take-into-account-probable-cases/[/url]
But I'm the crazy conspiracy theorists because I want these things acknowledged and addressed.
We can acknowledge that mistakes were made and then measures were taken to correct them with the official count. But what you seem to be insinuating (as is the dominant view on f16) is that this was all intentional and calculated and there's a vast conspiracy to inflate the covid death numbers.
Best case they were accidentally wrong by 22% in some cases. So they (medical community and MSM) are either grossly incompetent (probably the medical community) or willfully deceitful (for sure MSM). Either option leaves me very skeptical of anything coming out of the medical community so forgive me if I'm not willing to pretend I'm sick for 18 months or get a shot for something I have to be tested for to know if I even had it. The biggest change for me has been my distrust of the medical community and the more they push the vaccine the harder I will push against it.
coolerguy12 said:
Best case they were accidentally wrong by 22% in some cases. So they (medical community and MSM) are either grossly incompetent (probably the medical community) or willfully deceitful (for sure MSM). Either option leaves me very skeptical of anything coming out of the medical community so forgive me if I'm not willing to pretend I'm sick for 18 months or get a shot for something I have to be tested for to know if I even had it. The biggest change for me has been my distrust of the medical community and the more they push the vaccine the harder I will push against it.
Grossly incompetent and willfully deceitful. Scary ain't it?
Make Mental Asylums Great Again!
"Holy cow", did you read the whole post? Maybe you should read the whole post before you comment because I addressed that. "Do you people really believe" that out of 6000 VAERS reported deaths that a good number of those are not vaccine related? No one knows the exact number, when I say no one, that includes you. Your statement that it's false is..well false.PJYoung said:badbilly said:So maybe only half of the near 6000 deaths are vaccine related,Old Buffalo said:
Either the vaccine protects or it doesn't. A vaccinated person shouldn't worry about the vaccination status of someone else.
That's the contradiction.
Almost 6000 have died from the vaccine,
Not even close to true. Holy cow, do people really believe the vaccine has killed thousands of people?Quote:
What's the difference between correlation and causation? While causation and correlation can exist at the same time, correlation does not imply causation. Causation explicitly applies to cases where action A causes outcome B. On the other hand, correlation is simply a relationship.
I'm impressed. It's one thing to misinterpret. It's another to completely disregard and fabricate in the alternative. That's some quality straw-manning!larry culpepper said:I refuse to accept your (apparent) argument that it's somehow not a good thing to want to avoid death. If people want to not fear death and be reckless, then fine. But many of them do it at the expense of others, which I'm not okay with. Despite what many on the right believe, covid is in fact deadly to a lot of people and vaccines help stop the virus and stop susceptible people from catching it. Do you know anyone who has died from covid? Or gotten seriously ill? Because if you did I dont think you'd be saying stuff like that.Get Off My Lawn said:The Biblical perspective isn't to be anti-vax. It's to be oriented toward God with an understanding that we're working toward heaven. If we're bound for better things, then failure - not death - becomes the fear.ORAggieFan said:NASAg03 said:
Got immunity naturally by living as free as ever since the beginning of this pandemic.
Won't ever get the shot, just like I've never gotten (and will never get) the flu shot.
Not my job to get every vaccination possible on the planet to protect every person on the planet.
Until the Good Lord comes again, there's a 100% chance that 100% of the world population will die, either from covid or old age or freak accidents like choking on a gobstopper, getting hit by a stray bullet, or dodging a firework.
We no longer fear God or believe in the afterlife, and as such, we constantly fear dying. Human existence is now our god, and we give up enjoying life simply to breathe another day. And liberals now expect everyone to do the same and live a pathetic, sad reality.
"For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will find it." - Matthew 16:25
Do you not think Jesus would be supportive of a small individual sacrifice (if even that) for the betterment of the common good?
Get out of here with that religious BS to defend your position.
The secularization of America, however, has increased those who fear death as the end, and this has skewed priorities at a societal level. Postponing ones own death has become the utmost priority (unless it would take personal discipline) for many and the over-the-top responses over the past year were a consequence of this collective terror.
Would it be better to help your neighbor to reduce their potential suffering? Sure. Perhaps it helps them miss this suffering and death so that they suffer and die in a different manner. But it would be more important to share with them the good news that Jesus has offered himself as a sacrifice for their immoral failings, and that they can be judged "blameless" by God at the end of their days exclusively through alignment with the Christ.
If your position is that taking the vaccine is "giving in to the ways of the world" and "turning your back on God" because it means you fear death, then I'm not sure there's much to discuss. You and I have polar opposite views that probably cannot be reconciled. I just believe that position can cause a world of harm to a lot of people. If you or a family member is in a serious accident, or gets seriously ill, do you take them to the hospital? Or would that be bad because it means you fear death too much?
"Quality straw-manning" I'm going to have to borrow that term!
Make Mental Asylums Great Again!
So much for them being "experts" I guess then.larry culpepper said:
We can acknowledge that mistakes were made and then measures were taken to correct them with the official count. But what you seem to be insinuating (as is the dominant view on f16) is that this was all intentional and calculated and there's a vast conspiracy to inflate the covid death numbers.
A little bit of humility is too much to ask I guess.
badbilly said:
The makers of the vaccine never claimed it prevents Covid. Trials showed it has about a 1% prevention of Covid. and a 95% reduction in serious Covid cases.
This is factually incorrect. The vaccine efficacy number is prevention of the disease. "BNT162b2 was 95% effective in preventing Covid-19."
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2034577
Quote:
the deaths and injuries from the vaccine (VAERS). Yeah, yeah, yeah, VAERS data is not science cause and effecthowever, it is most likely underreported too. So maybe only half of the near 6000 deaths are vaccine related,
Maybe only half? Maybe only 1% maybe only 30%? Why half? This is a completely arbitrary number on your part.
Quote:
Fluvoxamine and Ivermectin have performed incredibly well when used.
This is not correct. There has been scant evidence for the benefit of ivermectin in RCTs. Generally the trend has been for smaller, uncontrolled trials to show benefit but larger ones to show no benefit. Lots of risk of publication bias. I don't know anything about fluvoxamine - can you share any papers?
Quote:
Although they are not FDA approved for Covid, neither is the Covid shot. Unfortunately, you can't have an emergency use vaccine when you have an existing treatment, so they continue to be suppressed.
Conspiracy theory bs
Quote:
Almost 6000 have died from the vaccine,
lolwut
The answers to you questions from Dr Malone one of the creators of Mrna. Interesting video.
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/06/21/mrna-inventor-interviewed-about-injection-dangers.aspx
I said the 3000 was arbitrary number. What percentage of the 6000 VAERS reported deaths are from the vaccine? Who knows, but I'm sure you don't know.
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/06/21/mrna-inventor-interviewed-about-injection-dangers.aspx
I said the 3000 was arbitrary number. What percentage of the 6000 VAERS reported deaths are from the vaccine? Who knows, but I'm sure you don't know.
I'm still waiting for some compelling evidence that I should get the vaccine after recovering from Covid. Not some hypothetical "variants" infection that has yet to occur.
I have not ruled out the vaccine but see no reason to get one now (having recovered from Covid).
I have not ruled out the vaccine but see no reason to get one now (having recovered from Covid).
I've seen a lot from him. I lost a ton of respect when he pushed out that horribly awful no good study - Walach et al. "The Safety of COVID-19 Vaccinations - We Should Rethink the Policy". It was rebuked then retracted within a week. Dude is biased and letting his name be attached to irresponsible claims, which is either passively or actively irresponsible on his part. What's even sillier is he said he and his wife both got the Moderna shot.
Re: VAERS - you said half then later literally said almost 6000 have died from the vaccine. That's a ridiculous and unsupported assertion. I actually did download the 2021 VAERS data last week and skimmed through some of the fatalities associated with covid19 vaccines. They're uncontrolled text fields so it's hard to sort, but many autopsies have been done (contra some conspiracy kook claims on the net) and every one I saw with an autopsy in the text was objectively unrelated - sepsis, heart disease, drowning, etc. I did not do a systematic review, but the CDC and FDA are. And you can too. I recommend satisfying your curiosity with the publicly available data and stop throwing out baseless fear claims. It's irresponsible when people do it about COVID and equally irresponsible to do it about the vaccines.
Re: VAERS - you said half then later literally said almost 6000 have died from the vaccine. That's a ridiculous and unsupported assertion. I actually did download the 2021 VAERS data last week and skimmed through some of the fatalities associated with covid19 vaccines. They're uncontrolled text fields so it's hard to sort, but many autopsies have been done (contra some conspiracy kook claims on the net) and every one I saw with an autopsy in the text was objectively unrelated - sepsis, heart disease, drowning, etc. I did not do a systematic review, but the CDC and FDA are. And you can too. I recommend satisfying your curiosity with the publicly available data and stop throwing out baseless fear claims. It's irresponsible when people do it about COVID and equally irresponsible to do it about the vaccines.
Does anyone have a link to the number of confirmed Delta variant infections in covid recovered patients? Is it any more than the less than 1% reinfection rate already confirmed?
Someone laughed at me the other day for not knowing that only vaccinated people are protected from Delta and not natural antibodies.
Someone laughed at me the other day for not knowing that only vaccinated people are protected from Delta and not natural antibodies.
Quote:
Summary -- unvaccinated individuals with prior COVID infection show reduced antibody titers to the Delta variant compared to other variants.
Looks like low titers don't really mean much...according to another study
Quote:
The findings of the authors suggest that infection and the development of an antibody response provides protection similar to or even better than currently used SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. Although antibodies induced by SARS-CoV-2 infection are more variable and often lower in titre than antibody responses induced after vaccination, this observation does make sense considering current SARS-CoV-2 vaccines induce systemic immune responses to spike proteins while natural infection also induces mucosal immune responses and immune responses against the many other open reading frames encoded by the approximately 29 900 nucleotides of SARS-CoV-2.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)00782-0/fulltext
If an article in Nature isn't going to convince you, nothing will. Good luck!
not sure if this is sarcasm or not. But to answer your question, no. An article in nature that discusses the gradual decrease of antibodies in Covid recovered patients is not compelling evidence.Ribbed Paultz said:
If an article in Nature isn't going to convince you, nothing will. Good luck!
ttha_aggie_09 said:
I'm still waiting for some compelling evidence that I should get the vaccine after recovering from Covid. Not some hypothetical "variants" infection that has yet to occur.
I have not ruled out the vaccine but see no reason to get one now (having recovered from Covid).
I would get it to boost your immunity.
Having recovered from covid and then getting fully vaccinated is the best case scenario in terms of long-term immunity.
https://news.google.com/articles/CAIiEPseiOus8Rx9aGcI5nCymjMqFwgEKg8IACoHCAowjuuKAzCWrzwwloIY?hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen
Quote:
The vaccines made by Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna set off a persistent immune reaction in the body that may protect against the coronavirus for years, scientists reported on Monday.
The findings add to growing evidence that most people immunized with the mRNA vaccines may not need boosters, so long as the virus and its variants do not evolve much beyond their current forms which is not guaranteed. People who recovered from Covid-19 before being vaccinated may not need boosters even if the virus does make a significant transformation.
"It's a good sign for how durable our immunity is from this vaccine," said Ali Ellebedy, an immunologist at Washington University in St. Louis who led the study, which was published in the journal Nature.
The study did not consider the coronavirus vaccine made by Johnson & Johnson, but Dr. Ellebedy said he expected the immune response to be less durable than that produced by mRNA vaccines.
Quote:
People who were infected with the coronavirus and then immunized see a major boost in their antibody levels, most likely because their memory B cells which produce antibodies had many months to evolve before vaccination.
The good news: A booster vaccine will probably have the same effect as prior infection in immunized people, Dr. Ellebedy said. "If you give them another chance to engage, they will have a massive response," he said, referring to memory B cells.
In terms of bolstering the immune system, vaccination is "probably better" than recovering from the actual infection, he said. Other studies have suggested that the repertoire of memory B cells produced after vaccination is more diverse than that generated by infection, suggesting that the vaccines will protect better against variants than natural immunity alone.
Dr. Ellebedy said the results also suggested that these signs of persistent immune reaction might be caused by mRNA vaccines alone, as opposed to those made by more traditional means, like Johnson & Johnson's
Quote:
Based on those findings, researchers suggested that immunity might last for years, possibly a lifetime, in people who were infected with the coronavirus and later vaccinated.
"probably better than recovering from the actual infection"
Maybe it is, maybe it is not. It is still hypothetical...
Nothing I have seen indicates that you're at a statistically significant risk of reinfection or that the immunity is only short term in nature. I'm not going to get the vaccine just for the sake of getting the vaccine.
Maybe it is, maybe it is not. It is still hypothetical...
Nothing I have seen indicates that you're at a statistically significant risk of reinfection or that the immunity is only short term in nature. I'm not going to get the vaccine just for the sake of getting the vaccine.
Featured Stories
See All
'Basketball savant' McMillan returns to home state to face Alabama
by Olin Buchanan
Postseason pain provides Aggie veterans with something to prove
by Kayla Gaither
Scouting Report: Texas A&M at Alabama
by Tom Schuberth
4:32
15h ago
2.0k
8:22
12h ago
1.8k
'Relentless': Terrence Kiel II expects a lot of A&M's offense
by Ryan Brauninger