Government Response To The Coronavirus (7 Viewers)

[Max Power]

I'll need a link for that 60% stat.  Even so, we've been over this a hundred times.  If 90% of a population (say, 65+) is vaxxed, but comprise only 60% of cases/hospitalizations/deaths, it means the vaccines work.  Really ####### well, in fact.  Consider the example below:

100 people, 10 unvaxxed, 90 vaxxed = 90% vaxxed

10 people in the hospital, 4 unvaxxed, 6 vaxxed = 60% of hospitalizations are vaxxed

BUT...  Notice that 40% of the unvaxxed are hospitalized, while only 6.7% of the vaxxed are hospitalized.  This is how math works, and you need to understand it before spouting off stupid, irrelevant statistics.

https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.humetrix.com%3A443%2Fppt%2FSalus_Humetrix_VE_study_2021_10_05.ppsx&wdSlideId=1232&wdModeSwitchTime=1633623439638

Your claim was "The unvaxxed are to blame for overrunning hospitals.  Period."

The stat I provided was that 60% of the 65+ group was hospitalized for covid. So 6 out of 10 beds in that age group were fully vaccinated.  That doesn't support the unvaccinated overrunning hospitals claim. 

The UK shows similar numbers.

If you want to argue that being vaccinated makes you statisically less likely to develop a severe case of covid, I can probably agree to that for now.  I think that trend will start moving up though.  

 

[Stealthycat]

The unvaxxed are to blame for overrunning hospitals.  Period.  The unvaxxed are to blame for exposing and endangering themselves and others unnecessarily.  Period.

"The administration" is not to blame here, despite your repeated claims.

no

the unvaccinated are getting sick and going to hospitals - that's what hospitals are there for

what % of hospitals are there because of covid? 10%? 20% ?

blame the other 80% of occupants too - be fair - they're all there "overrunning" hospitals too

PS - hundreds of thousands if not millions vaccinated have covid and are spreading it everywhere - blame them too

 

[Stealthycat]

Don’t know.  Don’t care.  Immunocompromised people die from infections.  That’s not really a debatable point.

kill 'em all that don't have the shot !!  got it !!   

 

[sho nuff]

I did, and it has been.

Right...once vaccinated, I did too for the most part.  The problem, those who are not vaccinated did the same thing.  And it is mostly them filling up hospitals and still dying.

 

[jm192]

kill 'em all that don't have the shot !!  got it !!   

You're so smart.

No one dies from not getting a kidney transplant.  So they're not killing them.  Obviously, you don't know what you're talking about. 

I would argue putting someone on immunosuppressant drugs during a pandemic who doesn't have the vaccine is much more akin to killing them.

Everytime you post about this, you demonstrate you haven't the slightest clue.  How are you not embarrassed to continue down this path?

 

[Stealthycat]

You're so smart.

No one dies from not getting a kidney transplant.  So they're not killing them.  

I would argue putting someone on immunosuppressant drugs during a pandemic who doesn't have the vaccine is much more akin to killing them.

Everytime you post about this, you demonstrate you haven't the slightest clue.  How are you not embarrassed to continue down this path?

oh I'm not smart - just country common sense and if you're taking someone's ability to choose from them ..... especially in a organ transplant situation ... that's pretty pathetic IMO

remember - only 99.8% of humans in the USA will survive covid-19 

 

[Rich Conway]

https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.humetrix.com%3A443%2Fppt%2FSalus_Humetrix_VE_study_2021_10_05.ppsx&wdSlideId=1232&wdModeSwitchTime=1633623439638

Your claim was "The unvaxxed are to blame for overrunning hospitals.  Period."

The stat I provided was that 60% of the 65+ group was hospitalized for covid. So 6 out of 10 beds in that age group were fully vaccinated.  That doesn't support the unvaccinated overrunning hospitals claim. 

The UK shows similar numbers.

If you want to argue that being vaccinated makes you statisically less likely to develop a severe case of covid, I can probably agree to that for now.  I think that trend will start moving up though.  

By this math, even in the worst performing age group, 60% of hospitalizations are vaxxed.  But we know the total percentage of vaxxed hospitalizations is significantly less than 60%, as other age groups are far more likely to skew towards unvaxxed.  We also know this from the reports given from the hospitals themselves.  Call it whatever you want, but if that 40%+ were vaxxed, we'd have far fewer hospitalizations, and hospitals wouldn't have been overrun.  We could also say hospitals wouldn't have been overrun if COVID never existed, or if we simply had twice as many hospitals, but those things aren't really relevant.  What is relevant is that if all the unvaxxed had gotten vaxxed when they could have, there would have been far fewer COVID hospitalizations.  That statement isn't really debatable, no matter how you spin it.

 

[The Football Freak]

I'll need a link for that 60% stat.  Even so, we've been over this a hundred times.  If 90% of a population (say, 65+) is vaxxed, but comprise only 60% of cases/hospitalizations/deaths, it means the vaccines work.  Really ####### well, in fact.  Consider the example below:

100 people, 10 unvaxxed, 90 vaxxed = 90% vaxxed

10 people in the hospital, 4 unvaxxed, 6 vaxxed = 60% of hospitalizations are vaxxed

BUT...  Notice that 40% of the unvaxxed are hospitalized, while only 6.7% of the vaxxed are hospitalized.  This is how math works, and you need to understand it before spouting off stupid, irrelevant statistics.

Here are some recent vaccination stats. And I was just about to post something similar on the math. To be fair, it isn’t the most basic math to think of the populations that way. I can see where people might get confused trying to parse the numbers into an argument.

Recent Covid vaccination and infection stats.

Some more stats

 

[jm192]

oh I'm not smart - just country common sense and if you're taking someone's ability to choose from them ..... especially in a organ transplant situation ... that's pretty pathetic IMO

remember - only 99.8% of humans in the USA will survive covid-19 

99.8% is of everyone.  It's certainly higher in transplant patients.  They're not the same as the average population.  So that's a terrible comparison.  

Also:  You don't just get to choose to have a surgery and a doctor has to honor your wishes.  A doctor has to agree that the surgery will help you or save you.  Doing kidney transplants in unvaccinated patients just puts them at way higher risk to die than their risk of death prior to the transplant.  

People have never been able to say "I want a transplant, I have an organ" and no questions are asked.  But please:  keep showing me you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Max Power]

By this math, even in the worst performing age group, 60% of hospitalizations are vaxxed.  But we know the total percentage of vaxxed hospitalizations is significantly less than 60%, as other age groups are far more likely to skew towards unvaxxed.  We also know this from the reports given from the hospitals themselves.  Call it whatever you want, but if that 40%+ were vaxxed, we'd have far fewer hospitalizations, and hospitals wouldn't have been overrun.  We could also say hospitals wouldn't have been overrun if COVID never existed, or if we simply had twice as many hospitals, but those things aren't really relevant.  What is relevant is that if all the unvaxxed had gotten vaxxed when they could have, there would have been far fewer COVID hospitalizations.  That statement isn't really debatable, no matter how you spin it.

I think you can say that for a lot of things.  A lot of people make decisions that put them in the hospitals. If people made safer and healthier decisions we'd have fewer hospitalizations. 

 

[Shula-holic]

I think you can say that for a lot of things.  A lot of people make decisions that put them in the hospitals. If people made safer and healthier decisions we'd have fewer hospitalizations. 

I'm sure we don't have any smokers or drinkers here, anyone out of shape or obese either. 

 

[Stealthycat]

99.8% is of everyone.  It's certainly higher in transplant patients.  They're not the same as the average population.  So that's a terrible comparison.  

Also:  You don't just get to choose to have a surgery and a doctor has to honor your wishes.  A doctor has to agree that the surgery will help you or save you.  Doing kidney transplants in unvaccinated patients just puts them at way higher risk to die than their risk of death prior to the transplant.  

People have never been able to say "I want a transplant, I have an organ" and no questions are asked.  But please:  keep showing me you don't know what you're talking about.

that's true but its also true that percentages like 85% covid are obese and stats like that - are we moving into the future where doctors will decline medical treatments because people failed to get a shot, failed to exercise, failed to eat properly etc ?

I see the point being made - but I don't know ""way higher" is the right terms to be using especially with more and more vaccinated getting covid everyday

 

[sho nuff]

that's true but its also true that percentages like 85% covid are obese and stats like that - are we moving into the future where doctors will decline medical treatments because people failed to get a shot, failed to exercise, failed to eat properly etc ?

I see the point being made - but I don't know ""way higher" is the right terms to be using especially with more and more vaccinated getting covid everyday

Doctors already do decline medical treatments for people failing to do things.

Fail to prep for a colonoscopy and see what happens...you will get another one.

Fail to stop drinking and see if they let you get a liver transplant.

This isn't something new.

 

[jm192]

that's true but its also true that percentages like 85% covid are obese and stats like that - are we moving into the future where doctors will decline medical treatments because people failed to get a shot, failed to exercise, failed to eat properly etc ?

I see the point being made - but I don't know ""way higher" is the right terms to be using especially with more and more vaccinated getting covid everyday

Again, you're making the conclusion that this is a change in behavior.  Doctors are doing what doctors have always done in this instance.  We don't do a surgery that puts you in a position to fail.  What happened is nothing new.  Medicine has been done this way for a long time.  You just don't know anything about it.

 

[Doug B]

Get to herd immunity?  What number is that?

Herd immunity is not and never was a number. It is a status.

 

[Max Power]

Herd immunity is not and never was a number. It is a status.

So what number is that assessed to be? In the early days it was 70% vaccinated or immunity. 

 

[Max Power]

Headline:  HHS vaccination ads use a new tactic to increase Covid-19 vaccination rates: fear

who wants to tell them this tactic isnt new?

 

[Terminalxylem]

In a recent DoD presentation we saw 60% of the hospitalizations for 65+ were in the fully vaccinated.  This dataset also explained that people with one dose or not 14 days+ following the second dose are not counted in the fully vaccinated. 

And I haven't been seeing any hospital overwhelmed stories lately now that the Delta surge has moved to blue states. 

Can you share that DoD data? Everything I’ve seen shows overall 80-90%+ of hospitalizations among unvaccinated, and an even greater percentage of covid deaths. Although I wouldn’t be surprised if you limit it to older people, the breakdown is different - vaccination is much more prevalent in that group, and they are particularly vulnerable to severe covid. Remember the discussion about Baye’s theorem?

Although we’re on the downslope, there were plenty of stories about HI being overwhelmed a few weeks ago. More recently, Alaska has been struggling. I’m sure there are other communities, if not entire states, that remain taxed by the covid case burden.

 

[Terminalxylem]

I'll need a link for that 60% stat.  Even so, we've been over this a hundred times.  If 90% of a population (say, 65+) is vaxxed, but comprise only 60% of cases/hospitalizations/deaths, it means the vaccines work.  Really ####### well, in fact.  Consider the example below:

100 people, 10 unvaxxed, 90 vaxxed = 90% vaxxed

10 people in the hospital, 4 unvaxxed, 6 vaxxed = 60% of hospitalizations are vaxxed

BUT...  Notice that 40% of the unvaxxed are hospitalized, while only 6.7% of the vaxxed are hospitalized.  This is how math works, and you need to understand it before spouting off stupid, irrelevant statistics.

He knows this, but is cherry-picking (again) to support his biases.

And your example is too kind, as unvaxxed still make up the majority of covid hospitalizations and deaths.

 

[Terminalxylem]

https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.humetrix.com%3A443%2Fppt%2FSalus_Humetrix_VE_study_2021_10_05.ppsx&wdSlideId=1232&wdModeSwitchTime=1633623439638

Your claim was "The unvaxxed are to blame for overrunning hospitals.  Period."

The stat I provided was that 60% of the 65+ group was hospitalized for covid. So 6 out of 10 beds in that age group were fully vaccinated.  That doesn't support the unvaccinated overrunning hospitals claim. 

The UK shows similar numbers.

If you want to argue that being vaccinated makes you statisically less likely to develop a severe case of covid, I can probably agree to that for now.  I think that trend will start moving up though.  

Show me the breakdown for all covid hospitalizations in the US, stratified solely by vaccination status. TIA.

 

[Max Power]

Show me the breakdown for all covid hospitalizations in the US, stratified solely by vaccination status. TIA.

I dont have that. I only have those numbers.

I have the UK numbers if you want to use those. 

 

[Terminalxylem]

I'm sure we don't have any smokers or drinkers here, anyone out of shape or obese either. 

We have plenty, but none of them have strained healthcare infrastructure like covid, individually or collectively.

I know there’s a small subset of people who believe hospitals operate on surge status for months on end, divert patients hundreds of miles away, refuse transfers, cancel elective procedures, etc., but surely most of us recognize what hospitals are going through is unprecedented?!?

 

[Terminalxylem]

So what number is that assessed to be? In the early days it was 70% vaccinated or immunity. 

88-90%+ with delta’s Ro (~8-10)

For future reference, the estimate is (1 - 1/Ro) x 100

 

[The Commish]

FWIW.....some sites touted in this very thread are saying that smokers have a leg up on everyone else in terms of beating covid without the vaccine

 

[Shula-holic]

We have plenty, but none of them have strained healthcare infrastructure like covid, individually or collectively.

I know there’s a small subset of people who believe hospital continuously operate on surge status for months on end, divert patients hundreds of miles away, refuse transfers, cancel elective procedures, etc., but surely most of us recognize what hospitals are going through is unprecedented?!?

I do recognize it in this one rush in this point in time.  I grant that.  But if they take a hospital bed or cause a patient to be diverted who has a cardiac event from smoking or obesity, is one or either of them in the wrong morally if both had a part in them being there?  I don't know the answer but I don't feel one is more at fault than the other. 

Individually?  Well, every day those of us living healthier lives are punished because of those who don't.  If everyone lived healthy lives, we would all pay less and our system would be less strained.  I'm vaccinated and personally I believe in that and hope more people do get vaccinated.  But those who haven't getting ostracized when we give people passes for unhealthy choices in their lives seems a bit odd.  What isn't odd is that it's occurring when it's such a political football.

 

[Terminalxylem]

I do recognize it in this one rush in this point in time.  I grant that.  But if they take a hospital bed or cause a patient to be diverted who has a cardiac event from smoking or obesity, is one or either of them in the wrong morally if both had a part in them being there?  I don't know the answer but I don't feel one is more at fault than the other. 

Individually?  Well, every day those of us living healthier lives are punished because of those who don't.  If everyone lived healthy lives, we would all pay less and our system would be less strained.  I'm vaccinated and personally I believe in that and hope more people do get vaccinated.  But those who haven't getting ostracized when we give people passes for unhealthy choices in their lives seems a bit odd.  What isn't odd is that it's occurring when it's such a political football.

People make a lot of bad health decisions, but few are contagious, and I can’t think of any as easily correctable as not being vaccinated. 

 

[Shula-holic]

People make a lot of bad health decisions, but few are contagious, and I can’t think of any as easily correctable as not being vaccinated. 

Personally I feel it's pretty easy to do a little exercise and eat better.  But asking that is asking a lot today of our society I guess.

 

[Terminalxylem]

Personally I feel it's pretty easy to do a little exercise and eat better.  But asking that is asking a lot today of our society I guess.

Ignoring how hard it is to lose weight, a lifetime of healthy eating + exercise is a lot more difficult than a couple shots.

 

[Stealthycat]

Ignoring how hard it is to lose weight, a lifetime of healthy eating + exercise is a lot more difficult than a couple shots.

rarely is the fast and easy way the better way

 

[lod001]

 2 months of protection now. While I knew it was true, I didn't think they would admit that for another year.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/pfizers-covid-19-immunity-protection-032404881.html

What a complete failure. Had they listened to doctors that were using early treatment we wouldn't have 100's of 1000s of dead people. Fauci is a complete failure. The CDC is a complete failure. This administration is the worst failure of them all.

 

[Max Power]

 2 months of protection now. While I knew it was true, I didn't think they would admit that for another year.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/pfizers-covid-19-immunity-protection-032404881.html

What a complete failure. Had they listened to doctors that were using early treatment we wouldn't have 100's of 1000s of dead people. Fauci is a complete failure. The CDC is a complete failure. This administration is the worst failure of them all.

Insane.  You're not considered fully vaccinated until 2 weeks post your second shot either.  So this thing has an optimal period of 6 weeks.  

 

[Max Power]

rarely is the fast and easy way the better way

This is modern medicine.  Lifestyle changes are overrated when there is a pill for everything. 

 

[sho nuff]

Insane.  You're not considered fully vaccinated until 2 weeks post your second shot either.  So this thing has an optimal period of 6 weeks.  

Which part is insane?  Lets get past the headline.  The first bullet point is the big part.

• However, one study noted that the vaccine's protection against death and hospitalization still remained as high as 96%.
  

So how is that a failure?  How does that make the administration a failure on this? 

Sounds like the vaccine is very effective in doing what vaccines do.  They do not provide complete immunity from catching it.  We have known that for a long long time.  

 

[Max Power]

Which part is insane?  Lets get past the headline.  The first bullet point is the big part.

• However, one study noted that the vaccine's protection against death and hospitalization still remained as high as 96%.
  

So how is that a failure?  How does that make the administration a failure on this? 

Sounds like the vaccine is very effective in doing what vaccines do.  They do not provide complete immunity from catching it.  We have known that for a long long time.  

It's the constant moving of the goalposts that people are getting tired of. 

What is the point of boosters then?  If the vaccine protects against hospitilization and death, why do I need a two month bump to reduce the odds of catching it?

What is the natural immunity reinfection death rate?  Telling people with natural immunity to get the vaccine because it protects them better and then following it up with.... Well for 6 weeks it does surely.  Why should I give that the time of day?

What are the unvaccinated natural immunity death rates?  I don't even think we know.

 

[sho nuff]

It's the constant moving of the goalposts that people are getting tired of. 

What is the point of boosters then?  If the vaccine protects against hospitilization and death, why do I need a two month bump to reduce the odds of catching it?

What is the natural immunity reinfection death rate?  Telling people with natural immunity to get the vaccine because it protects them better and then following it up with.... Well for 6 weeks it does surely.  Why should I give that the time of day?

What are the unvaccinated natural immunity death rates?  I don't even think we know.

That isn't a moving of the goalposts (except from the person calling it a failure).

Boosters have always been a possibility...even probability with these things.  The bump is to continue its effectiveness (like we get boosters for other long held vaccines...like we get flu shots every year).

Your second paragraph is again a bit of spin of that...natural immunity may give you a longer bump (may...that certain is not proven by that article or at all yet).  But does that plus vax give you a better chance at not dying?  Seems like that is highly probable based on studies thus far.

But to act as if any of this makes the vaccine a failure seems misguided.

 

[Max Power]

That isn't a moving of the goalposts (except from the person calling it a failure).

Boosters have always been a possibility...even probability with these things.  The bump is to continue its effectiveness (like we get boosters for other long held vaccines...like we get flu shots every year).

Your second paragraph is again a bit of spin of that...natural immunity may give you a longer bump (may...that certain is not proven by that article or at all yet).  But does that plus vax give you a better chance at not dying?  Seems like that is highly probable based on studies thus far.

But to act as if any of this makes the vaccine a failure seems misguided.

We've established there were plenty of false claims by the Biden Administration early on in the vaccine rollout.  We can chalk it up to still learning about the virus, but those claims were made.  Boosters were a after thought in the main stream.

We need boosters to continue the effectiveness of a vaccine that is already effective?  That makes no sense.  You can't honestly say the goal is to prevent death and hospitalization and the vaccine does a good job at that and follow it with we need boosters to keep it effective. 

I don't think there is a single study out there on the hospitalization and death rates comparing a group who has natural immunity alone vs natural immunity and then adding the vaccine.  I'd love to see it.  It should also be shown that previous infection does not equate to natural immunity. 

I think the vaccine was good for a large % of the population.  I don't think everyone needs it and I find it frightening how fast we're going down the booster road.  

 

[sho nuff]

We've established there were plenty of false claims by the Biden Administration early on in the vaccine rollout.  We can chalk it up to still learning about the virus, but those claims were made.  Boosters were a after thought in the main stream.

We need boosters to continue the effectiveness of a vaccine that is already effective?  That makes no sense.  You can't honestly say the goal is to prevent death and hospitalization and the vaccine does a good job at that and follow it with we need boosters to keep it effective. 

I don't think there is a single study out there on the hospitalization and death rates comparing a group who has natural immunity alone vs natural immunity and then adding the vaccine.  I'd love to see it.  It should also be shown that previous infection does not equate to natural immunity. 

I think the vaccine was good for a large % of the population.  I don't think everyone needs it and I find it frightening how fast we're going down the booster road.  

Sure...they made some false claims to boost the numbers and get people out there.  No problem admitting that...they have done that a lot and I take issue with them doing it.  It is a faire criticism. Claims meant to get people to do it...

Though, boosters were widely known as possible/probable even by those paying attention not just to the administration.

Yes...because that effectiveness likely does not last indefinitely.  That again is why we have boosters for so many things.  The article up there states how effective it is against hospitalization and death.  Which seems to be a pretty big factor...no?  And yes...I can honestly say its pretty good goal to prevent hospitalization and death and that boosters helping that should be used as some sort of claim that this is all a failure.  That does not make any sense to me at all except that some want to find anyway possible to push a narrative that it just doesn't work.

 

[Max Power]

Sure...they made some false claims to boost the numbers and get people out there.  No problem admitting that...they have done that a lot and I take issue with them doing it.  It is a faire criticism. Claims meant to get people to do it...

Though, boosters were widely known as possible/probable even by those paying attention not just to the administration.

Yes...because that effectiveness likely does not last indefinitely.  That again is why we have boosters for so many things.  The article up there states how effective it is against hospitalization and death.  Which seems to be a pretty big factor...no?  And yes...I can honestly say its pretty good goal to prevent hospitalization and death and that boosters helping that should be used as some sort of claim that this is all a failure.  That does not make any sense to me at all except that some want to find anyway possible to push a narrative that it just doesn't work.

I see it as front end protection and back end protection.  Front end protects you from the virus latching on to you.  The back end protects you from serious illness once you have it.

This front end protection seemingly decreases with each additional study provided.  If the back end is holding strong and we say the vaccine is working because the back end is effective, I think that cuts into the case a booster is needed.  

same with the natural immunity argument. If the back end of the immunity is strong, why do I need a vaccine to protect me from the front half for a short duration?  I really don't.  

 

[Stealthycat]

However, one study noted that the vaccine's protection against death and hospitalization still remained as high as 96%.

how was that % determined ?

 

[The Commish]

This latest conversation and article posted FEELS like people don't understand how antibodies work and believe that "effective vaccines" means the antibodies specific to a particular virus stay in your body, in large numbers forever (or even a long time).  We know that's not true right?

Like, when you got your MMR shot as a two year old, you, today, don't have a ton of antibodies running around in your body today as a result from that shot and THAT is what protects you from M or M or R.  Do we need to go over the process for how antibodies actually work and how they interact with T cells and B cells? 

 

[Max Power]

This latest conversation and article posted FEELS like people don't understand how antibodies work and believe that "effective vaccines" means the antibodies specific to a particular virus stay in your body, in large numbers forever (or even a long time).  We know that's not true right?

Like, when you got your MMR shot as a two year old, you, today, don't have a ton of antibodies running around in your body today as a result from that shot and THAT is what protects you from M or M or R.  Do we need to go over the process for how antibodies actually work and how they interact with T cells and B cells? 

Correct. Antibodies peak after the vaccination or an infection and fade over time. Memory B cells evolve over time and provide better protection against future infections and variants. Natural immunity has been shown to produce more robust memory b cells.

So I ask what the booster is actually boosting. The antibodies? Does it boost mem b long term?

 

[The Commish]

Correct. Antibodies peak after the vaccination or an infection and fade over time. Memory B cells evolve over time and provide better protection against future infections and variants. Natural immunity has been shown to produce more robust memory b cells.

So I ask what the booster is actually boosting. The antibodies? Does it boost mem b long term?

um....no (at least as written...maybe you mean something else).  B cells don't "forget" or "sort of remember".  Your B cells house a catalog of all the various foreign proteins your "generic" antibodies run across over the course of your life.  

Boosters can be beneficial in that the antibodies are running rampant in the system and the body doesn't have to take time to create them.  That helps with viruses that are very contagious or spread quickly.  If you have millions of antibodies actively at work in your body it keeps the virus at bay reducing viral load and opportunity to spread.  If it's true and they do wain over a matter of months, I don't find that all that worrisome.  That's how the body works.  However, in the current situation, with a virus that can spread quickly and take up residence quickly you greatly reduce the risk of that happening if you keep active antibodies engaged.  Boosters tell the body to keep going since the body doesn't see any virus itself.

 

[Max Power]

um....no (at least as written...maybe you mean something else).  B cells don't "forget" or "sort of remember".  Your B cells house a catalog of all the various foreign proteins your "generic" antibodies run across over the course of your life.  

Boosters can be beneficial in that the antibodies are running rampant in the system and the body doesn't have to take time to create them.  That helps with viruses that are very contagious or spread quickly.  If you have millions of antibodies actively at work in your body it keeps the virus at bay reducing viral load and opportunity to spread.  If it's true and they do wain over a matter of months, I don't find that all that worrisome.  That's how the body works.  However, in the current situation, with a virus that can spread quickly and take up residence quickly you greatly reduce the risk of that happening if you keep active antibodies engaged.  Boosters tell the body to keep going since the body doesn't see any virus itself.

Ballpark how I was tracking it. You dont have any concerns that multiple boosters could hurt the bodies ability to fight other infections naturally?

Here is an article sourcing the part of the post you bolded.

https://www.rockefeller.edu/news/30919-natural-infection-versus-vaccination-differences-in-covid-antibody-responses-emerge/

 

[Doug B]

You dont have any concerns that multiple boosters could hurt the bodies ability to fight other infections naturally?

You didn't ask me ... but ... no?

The immune system reacts to the vaccine. The immune system reacts to a live virus. As long as the vaccine elicits and presents the right protein, what's the diff?

 

[Terminalxylem]

You didn't ask me ... but ... no?

The immune system reacts to the vaccine. The immune system reacts to a live virus. As long as the vaccine elicits and presents the right protein, what's the diff?

He didn’t ask me either…but I can’t imagine a mechanism through which boosters would impair the immune response to other infections. And I wouldn’t be surprised if that seed was planted by some dubious website and/or YouTube video.

 

[The Z Machine]

He didn’t ask me either…but I can’t imagine a mechanism through which boosters would impair the immune response to other infections. And I wouldn’t be surprised if that seed was planted by some dubious website and/or YouTube video.

I think the thought process is that if we have all these antibodies for pathogen X and our immune system keyed up to fight pathogen X, how will it be able to cope with an infection from pathogen Y?

Sort of a "finite resource" sort of thing. We as humans encounter that all the time and experience it daily. Is why we make to do lists and invented all sorts of technology to help us multitasking.

But I don't think the immune system works that way.  It can and does fight on multiple fronts against multiple pathogens all the time. 

 

[Terminalxylem]

I think the thought process is that if we have all these antibodies for pathogen X and our immune system keyed up to fight pathogen X, how will it be able to cope with an infection from pathogen Y?

Sort of a "finite resource" sort of thing. We as humans encounter that all the time and experience it daily. Is why we make to do lists and invented all sorts of technology to help us multitasking.

But I don't think the immune system works that way.  It can and does fight on multiple fronts against multiple pathogens all the time. 

Well that's interesting.

If that theory were correct, why aren’t people who’ve received other vaccine boosters overwhelmed with infections? 

Look at all the boosters kids get

 

[The Commish]

Ballpark how I was tracking it. You dont have any concerns that multiple boosters could hurt the bodies ability to fight other infections naturally?

Here is an article sourcing the part of the post you bolded.

https://www.rockefeller.edu/news/30919-natural-infection-versus-vaccination-differences-in-covid-antibody-responses-emerge/

Well, I want to put to bed first the initial comments you were stating.  Is my explanation sufficient as to the "why" for vaccines and boosters?  I've really struggled to understand why they are so focused on antibody counts and your question made me think more in depth about that for a bit.  The answer is what I posted above.  The booster, in this instance, is to keep the body on high alert when it wouldn't naturally be doing so.

To this new line of questions, my answer is "it depends on the individual" leaning towards "no".  The robustness of an individual's immune system is directly tied to their health.  The answer here depends solely on how healthy the person is in the first place and how well their immune system works naturally.  It's possible that a vaccine could overwhelm an immune system, but that would be true of ANY vaccine, not unique to these new ones.  That possibility exists solely because the person has a weak immune system naturally.  The reality is, we are fighting off thousands of proteins all the time.  I'm sure doctors would agree that there is a tipping point where the immune system can be overwhelmed.  That's true of everything right?

 

[John123]

Anyone got an update on the OSHA rules Biden promised over a month ago regarding vaccine mandates for companies with more than 100 employees?  Seems like this should be a high priority unless Biden's speech was just blowing smoke.......

 

[-fish-]

Anyone got an update on the OSHA rules Biden promised over a month ago regarding vaccine mandates for companies with more than 100 employees?  Seems like this should be a high priority unless Biden's speech was just blowing smoke.......

This was from a NYT article yesterday:

He ordered the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to draft a new rule that would make those requirements enforceable, a process that White House officials said at the time would take at least three or four weeks.

The president said on Thursday that the rule would be put in place quickly, but officials familiar with the process said it was likely to take several more weeks.