*** OFFICIAL *** COVID-19 CoronaVirus Thread. Fresh epidemic fears as child pneumonia cases surge in Europe after China outbreak. NOW in USA (19 Viewers)

[BroadwayG]

ok, let me rephrase that. A legit source that mentions a study done by  reputable scientists . I`m sorry the link doesnt provide the actual study . I`m sure you could google it 

Thanks. I didn't see any mention of a reputable study about time duration between boosters in the article. I'd really like to know about it if it exists.

 

[jobarules]

I'll echo the "huh?" back. lol  He was talking about when the vaccines were about to be released.  What does your reply have to do with November 2020?  I'm not following what point are you trying to make.

He said it in May. You are saying those statements were only made during the trials.

 

[jobarules]

What? Variants were assured, like all respiratory viruses (really, all viruses). What was unknown was whether or not new variants would outcompete existing ones, evade vaccine protection, and to what degree they might evade protection.

...

In a way, COVID response has been a lot like living in a house while it's being built. Collection of knowledge is a wonderful thing, but we can only learn so much in real time and our reactions are necessarily a step behind that.

Yeah but the foundation was always made of concrete and people in here are saying "the foundation was never made of concrete, its been brick this whole time."

 

[jamny]

What? Variants were assured, like all respiratory viruses (really, all viruses). What was unknown was whether or not new variants would outcompete existing ones, evade vaccine protection, and to what degree they might evade protection.

...

In a way, COVID response has been a lot like living in a house while it's being built. Collection of knowledge is a wonderful thing, but we can only learn so much in real time and our reactions are necessarily a step behind that.

Exactly my point. Did they say effective against this variant (Alpha) or did they say "prevent covid"...period. Was there any messaging from them, knowing a variant was likely, if not guaranteed, that the vaccine might not be as effective in the coming months?

AAA articulated the possible reasoning for it but that doesn't take away from the fact that it was misrepresented early on.

 

[Nathan R. Jessep]

He said it in May. You are saying those statements were only made during the trials.

You're getting in too big a hurry, gb. I replied to the Pfizer press release ( November 2020, it's right in the link) post jamny made, not the Fauci post. I scroll by nearly all Fauci/CDC posts at this point and I urge everyone else to do the same.   

 

[Alex P Keaton]

I agree with that.

I just never understood the anti-vax hate and the judgment and segregation that has gone on. I have many friends throughout the pandemic that didnt get vaccinated until forced to by their employer (most in the fall). I never once stayed away from them or judged them. It was their choice. Who am I to judge them? The only person I implored to get vaccinated was my wife. We had several fights about it but she was STUBBORN. She kept saying since she had Covid in Nov 2020 she didnt need it. I kept telling her all the data points that said otherwise and she kept insisting. Well, it turns out she was right all along. Im the one who was a spreader of misinformation and illiteracy. God forbid she sees the latest study. I'll never live it down.

Well, I can appreciate your thoughts on this to a degree.  None of my cousins or extended family (except parents) are vaccinated.  Do I judge them a little?  Yeah.  Is my judgment mostly fear driven?  Yeah.   Do I shun them?  Nope.

 

[skol asylum]

When the news was announced back in November 2020, the vast majority of people in this thread were understandably very excited and thought it meant the end of covid, myself included. Because they sold it as such. Most likely knowing full well that it might not be as effective at "preventing covid" with future variants that they knew were coming.

I don't believe I thought it was the end, but more like the beginning of the end. Not necessarily because of variants but because of the monumental task of vaccinating billions of people. We have all learned alot about pandemics, even those "in charge".

 

[jamny]

I don't believe I thought it was the end, but more like the beginning of the end. Not necessarily because of variants but because of the monumental task of vaccinating billions of people. We have all learned alot about pandemics, even those "in charge".

yeah, I should have said eventual end or beginning of the end. Everyone knew the challenges of the distribution and even the expected opposition to the vax.

 

[Nathan R. Jessep]

Regulators in Europe say getting too many COVID-19 booster shots may actually weaken your immune system.

Scientists in Israel also report that a fourth vaccine dose doesn’t appear to produce enough antibodies to protect against an Omicron variant infection.

Experts explain that our bodies need time to process the stimulation from a vaccine or infection.

They recommend that people still practice safety protocols such as mask-wearing and physical distancing even if they are fully vaccinated.

https://www.healthline.com/health-news/why-a-4th-covid-19-shot-likely-wont-provide-more-protection

Not the first time I have seen that sentiment, but after looking at the date on that one (1/11 press release), I think it was likely a summary of the same press release that I had seen elsewhere (can't recall where). I will be interested to see if there's any follow-up discussion from the rest of the medical community on that theory. 

 

[Desert_Power]

I don't believe I thought it was the end, but more like the beginning of the end. Not necessarily because of variants but because of the monumental task of vaccinating billions of people. We have all learned alot about pandemics, even those "in charge".

Back then it looked like we would actually vaccinate enough people to reach herd immunity. By May it was clear this wasn't going to happen.

 

[Biff84]

Addressing the topics of the last couple pages:

-Yes previous infection should have been taken into consideration more. More studies need to be done to understand the protection better. The problem I have with the ‘natural immunity’ crowd is the assumption that you never will need a vaccination and you’re protected forever. We’ve already seen that immunity from infection didn’t hold up against Omicron similar to the vaccine.

-The media, drug companies and experts did tout the ability of the vaccine to prevent infection. It happened. The studies also found that all the vaccines prevented serious illness almost at 100%. But that wasn’t the message they went with. If you had a choice between ‘Preventing infection 91% of the time’ and ‘You might test positive but there’s a 100% chance you won’t have serious illness’ which would you choose. Option 2 is the more meaningful point but you lead with option 1 when you’re trying to sell the vaccine to a hesitant population. Like everything in the pandemic messaging has been flawed - trying to communicate a mix of ‘the science’, a clear message and one that maximizes the positive outcomes. This theme gets repeated over and over again.

 

[matuski]

"See, I told you getting infected by a possible Chinese bio weapon was better than getting a vaccine from a 'new' vaccine platform developed in the 1960's"

Behold the moment you can't argue in an adult manner any more.

 

[matuski]

That latest gallup poll that Bill Maher referenced is turn the world upside down type of stuff.

The "follow the science" and "informed" side turns out to be the most misinformed.

Rittenhouse level delusion.

 

[IC FBGCav]

Told ya so

@IC FBGCav and myself aren't gonna hold our breath for apologies from @Terminalxylem or @[icon]

Yep, I had to give up.  They were just too brainwashed.  

 

[IC FBGCav]

Current strains of COVID didn't exist when the vaccines were developed. Delta and Omicron are, for all intents and purposes, brand-new pathogens against which the original vaccines have limited effect.

You might want to research this but pretty sure you are 100% wrong.  Except for limited effect part.

 

[[icon]]

Just got back from a day on the golf course with some buddies.

Lawd, I'm gonna need a few sober hours tomorrow to sift through the psychological break that is the last couple pages.

Kudos to those who have already apparently chimed in.

 

[Sleestak]

Just got back from a day on the golf course with some buddies.

Lawd, I'm gonna need a few sober hours tomorrow to sift through the psychological break that is the last couple pages.

Kudos to those who have already apparently chimed in.

Put 'em on ignore.  All that's left are speed bumps.

 

[Biff84]

Just got back from a day on the golf course with some buddies.

Lawd, I'm gonna need a few sober hours tomorrow to sift through the psychological break that is the last couple pages.

Kudos to those who have already apparently chimed in.

Sober? Why would you do that to yourself?

 

[matuski]

Put 'em on ignore.  All that's left are speed bumps.

This is how Trump became president.  Literal denial.

Yes.. lets ignore and try to demean anyone we don't agree with.  That turns out great.

 

[matuski]

The mods take away the laugh emoji, but apparently we can hit a button and ignore people.

Very adult and responsible choices being made here.

I'll just click a button and not have to see anyone challenge my beliefs.... oooh look at me I feel more validated.

What a weak bunch of crap.

 

[matuski]

If you have even one person on ignore... I can only laugh.  Did the random stranger on a fantasy football message board hurt your feelings?

Take it from a poster that has taken on all comers here:  It is still just a sub forum of a fantasy football message board.

Grow a pair.

 

[jamny]

If you have even one person on ignore... I can only laugh.  Did the random stranger on a fantasy football message board hurt your feelings?

Take it from a poster that has taken on all comers here:  It is still just a sub forum of a fantasy football message board.

Grow a pair.

I have one person on ignore (DJax) and its nothing political. Its due to multiple rambling nonsensical posts that got to me in the covid thread.

I'm more annoyed by people that complain about other people quoting those that they ignore. Just because you think someone is a troll that doesn't mean everyone else should ignore them like you do.

 

[Terminalxylem]

Told ya so

@IC FBGCav and myself aren't gonna hold our breath for apologies from @Terminalxylem or @[icon]

Apologize for what? 

 

[Terminalxylem]

Apologies as I can't find the link, but from a screenshot of the study, incidence rates in the CA/NY study were as follows:

Infection:

Vaccinated, no previous infection - 15.5

Vaccinated, previous infection - 3.6

Unvaccinated, no previous infection - 128.5 (!)

Unvaccinated, previous infection - 5.0

Hospitalization:

Vaccinated, no previous infection - 0.7

Vaccinated, previous infection - 0.3

Unvaccinated, no previous infection - 11.5 (!)

Unvaccinated, previous infection - 0.3

Again, this was for the delta strain.  So it definitely reinforces the idea that if you have no prior infection, you are really playing with fire by staying unvaccinated.  On the other hand, it really calls into question the repeated bludgeoning of those who have a documented infection to get vaccinated or else.

The data was from 5/30-11/20, so I have no idea how the handled the start of the booster campaign in the study.

Thank you for attempting to dissect the data, rather than berating the other “side”.  We all would do better to quote and discuss actual study findings. Repeatedly posting links and demanding to know if people are paying attention isn’t helpful. Same goes for the sarcastic post alluding to this study.

The study is interesting, but subject to several limitations. The authors do a decent job summarizing most of them:

The findings in this report are subject to at least seven limitations. First, analyses were not stratified by time since vaccine receipt, but only by time since previous diagnosis, although earlier studies have examined waning of vaccine-induced immunity (Supplementary Figure 3, https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/113253) (2). Second, persons with undiagnosed infection are misclassified as having no previous COVID-19 diagnosis; however, this misclassification likely results in a conservative bias (i.e., the magnitude of difference in rates would be even larger if misclassified persons were not included among unvaccinated persons without a previous COVID-19 diagnosis). California seroprevalence data during this period indicate that the ratio of actual (presumptive) infections to diagnosed cases among adults was 2.6 (95% CI = 2.2–2.9).†††† Further, California only included NAAT results, whereas New York included both NAAT and antigen test results. However, antigen testing made up a smaller percentage of overall testing volume reported in California (7% of cases) compared with New York (25% of cases) during the study period. Neither state included self-tests, which are not easily reportable to public health. State-specific hazard ratios were generally comparable, although differences in rates among unvaccinated persons with a previous COVID-19 diagnosis were noteworthy. Third, potential exists for bias related to unmeasured confounding (e.g., behavioral or geographic differences in exposure risk) and uncertainty in the population size of the unvaccinated group without a previous COVID-19 diagnosis. Persons might be more or less likely to receive testing based on previous diagnosis or vaccination status; however, different trajectories between vaccinated persons with and without a previous COVID-19 diagnosis, and similar findings for cases and hospitalizations, suggest that these biases were minimal. Fourth, this analysis did not include information on the severity of initial infection and does not account for the full range of morbidity and mortality represented by the groups with previous infections. Fifth, this analysis did not ascertain receipt of additional or booster COVID-19 vaccine doses and was conducted before many persons were eligible or had received additional or booster vaccine doses, which have been shown to confer additional protection.§§§§ Sixth, some estimates lacked precision because of sample size limitations. Finally, this analysis was conducted before the emergence of the Omicron variant, for which vaccine or infection-derived immunity might be diminished.¶¶¶¶ This study offers a surveillance data framework to help evaluate both infections in vaccinated persons and reinfections as new variants continue to emerge.

Number 2 is especially problematic. As the data are partitioned, there are probably  many, many individuals with prior infection who were misclassified as uninfected. These likely were people with mild to no symptoms, who never felt a need to seek medical care, or obtain a formal diagnosis. And it’s tough to be classified as reinfected if you never knew you were infected in the first place.

The problem is, those same people are arguably more likely to be reinfected than those who were symptomatic/sought medical care with initial infection (in very crude terms, less symptoms ~ less immune response). Unless you perform serial surveillance of a population (as has been done in other countries, eg. Denmark), it’s hard to get a true handle on reinfection risk.

In contrast, it’s very easy to keep track of vaccinations. I’m not really sure I follow how the “conservative bias” of this study could magnify the difference between breakthrough and reinfection rates, but I’m open to someone explaining it to me.

Moreover, because we know a subset of people (roughly 5-20+%, depending on the study) don’t generate antibodies following covid-19, it’s really tough to bank on natural immunity for any given individual. All these studies people are using to enable skipping/delaying vaccination still find infected + vaxxed have the lowest risk of recurrent infection, though the durability of hybrid immunity remains unclear.

With all that in mind, I don’t find the arguments against vaccinating and boosting those with prior infection very compelling. And for those of us who are paying attention, nobody is recommending boosting everyone every four months, so the theoretical concerns raised by the European group are fairly meaningless.

 

[ZADO]

Thank you for attempting to dissect the data, rather than berating the other “side”.  We all would do better to quote and discuss actual study findings. Repeatedly posting links and demanding to know if people are paying attention isn’t helpful. Same goes for the sarcastic post alluding to this study.

The study is interesting, but subject to several limitations. The authors do a decent job summarizing most of them:

Number 2 is especially problematic. As the data are partitioned, there are probably  many, many individuals with prior infection who were misclassified as uninfected. These likely were people with mild to no symptoms, who never felt a need to seek medical care, or obtain a formal diagnosis. And it’s tough to be classified as reinfected if you never knew you were infected in the first place.

The problem is, those same people are arguably more likely to be reinfected than those who were symptomatic/sought medical care with initial infection (in very crude terms, less symptoms ~ less immune response). Unless you perform serial surveillance of a population (as has been done in other countries, eg. Denmark), it’s hard to get a true handle on reinfection risk.

In contrast, it’s very easy to keep track of vaccinations. I’m not really sure I follow how the “conservative bias” of this study could magnify the difference between breakthrough and reinfection rates, but I’m open to someone explaining it to me.

Moreover, because we know a subset of people (roughly 5-20+%, depending on the study) don’t generate antibodies following covid-19, it’s really tough to bank on natural immunity for any given individual. All these studies people are using to enable skipping/delaying vaccination still find infected + vaxxed have the lowest risk of recurrent infection, though the durability of hybrid immunity remains unclear.

With all that in mind, I don’t find the arguments against vaccinating and boosting those with prior infection very compelling. And for those of us who are paying attention, nobody is recommending boosting everyone every four months, so the theoretical concerns raised by the European group are fairly meaningless.

Why are there ''other sides'' ? This is more confusing to me than anything else . Aren't we all in this together? Last i heard this affects all of us in one way or the other.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Why are there ''other sides'' ? This is more confusing to me than anything else . Aren't we all in this together? Last i heard this affects all of us in one way or the other.

Yeah, how could anybody possibly think you're trolling, when you're obviously just asking questions in total good faith.

Take it to the other forum.  Pretty please, with sugar on top.

 

[ZADO]

Yeah, how could anybody possibly think you're trolling, when you're obviously just asking questions in total good faith.

Take it to the other forum.  Pretty please, with sugar on top.

wow ,how does your brain work if thats what you you got out of reading what i asked? No offense Ivan but you sir are rude

 

[Sleestak]

I have one person on ignore (DJax) and its nothing political. Its due to multiple rambling nonsensical posts that got to me in the covid thread.

At first I only had GG on ignore, and like you with DJax it wasn't political.

I've since added quite a few, all due to their posting behavior in this thread.  They just can't let go of PSF-style interaction.  They come here to gaslight, then fight, and ultimately to provoke people into getting banned.  I come here for COVID info, and get it from the useful posters here - Terminal alone is worth the price of admission and there are many others who I happily read.

Engaging with or even reading [snipping post names - we all know who they are]?  NFW.  That would be voluntarily participating in asymmetric warfare.  My time has value.  Theirs?  I don't know how you guys do it.  For me, they are literally just speed bumps.  It feels great!

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

Exactly my point. Did they say effective against this variant (Alpha) or did they say "prevent covid"...period. Was there any messaging from them, knowing a variant was likely, if not guaranteed, that the vaccine might not be as effective in the coming months?

AAA articulated the possible reasoning for it but that doesn't take away from the fact that it was misrepresented early on.

If we had 80% of people fully vaccinated before Delta, this whole conversation isn’t happening. 

 

[James Daulton]

If we had 80% of people fully vaccinated before Delta, this whole conversation isn’t happening. 

It's like bizzaro world where we have the anti vaxxers asking why the current vaxx isn't effective (in their opinion) against strains that ran through the US largely because of the folks who weren't vaxxed.

My opinion of the overall intelligence of this country has really fallen over the last few years.  I understand that we've always had a few outliers on both sides of the spectrum buy holy mackerel it's more like 1/3rd of the country wants to deny reality and gets their info from youtube and social media.  

 

[Terminalxylem]

If we had 80% of people fully vaccinated before Delta, this whole conversation isn’t happening. 

I hate to give these guys fuel, but we really needed 80% of the world vaccinated, and that was/will never happen.

Still, we could’ve made this a lot less painful in this country. Heck, we still can, but we choose to look for every ####### excuse not to get vaccinated/boosted/wear masks/etc.

And vaccine makers can’t predict the future, so the idea they were deceiving us with their initial claims is absurd. 

 

[[icon]]

Thank you for attempting to dissect the data, rather than berating the other “side”.  We all would do better to quote and discuss actual study findings. Repeatedly posting links and demanding to know if people are paying attention isn’t helpful. Same goes for the sarcastic post alluding to this study.

The study is interesting, but subject to several limitations. The authors do a decent job summarizing most of them:

Number 2 is especially problematic. As the data are partitioned, there are probably  many, many individuals with prior infection who were misclassified as uninfected. These likely were people with mild to no symptoms, who never felt a need to seek medical care, or obtain a formal diagnosis. And it’s tough to be classified as reinfected if you never knew you were infected in the first place.

The problem is, those same people are arguably more likely to be reinfected than those who were symptomatic/sought medical care with initial infection (in very crude terms, less symptoms ~ less immune response). Unless you perform serial surveillance of a population (as has been done in other countries, eg. Denmark), it’s hard to get a true handle on reinfection risk.

In contrast, it’s very easy to keep track of vaccinations. I’m not really sure I follow how the “conservative bias” of this study could magnify the difference between breakthrough and reinfection rates, but I’m open to someone explaining it to me.

Moreover, because we know a subset of people (roughly 5-20+%, depending on the study) don’t generate antibodies following covid-19, it’s really tough to bank on natural immunity for any given individual. All these studies people are using to enable skipping/delaying vaccination still find infected + vaxxed have the lowest risk of recurrent infection, though the durability of hybrid immunity remains unclear.

With all that in mind, I don’t find the arguments against vaccinating and boosting those with prior infection very compelling. And for those of us who are paying attention, nobody is recommending boosting everyone every four months, so the theoretical concerns raised by the European group are fairly meaningless.

As always, thanks for bringing actual expertise and experience into this thread day in and day out, GB.  

 

[jobarules]

It's like bizzaro world where we have the anti vaxxers asking why the current vaxx isn't effective (in there opinion) against strains that ran through the US largely because of the folks who weren't vaxxed.

My opinion of the overall intelligence of this country has really fallen over the last few years.  I understand that we've always had a few outliers on both sides of the spectrum buy holy mackerel it's more like 1/3rd of the country wants to deny reality and gets their info from youtube and social media.  

So your contention is Omicron ran through the country because of the unvaxxed?

 

[jobarules]

If we had 80% of people fully vaccinated before Delta, this whole conversation isn’t happening. 

Even though Omicron developed in a country with a 24% vax rate?

 

[Alex P Keaton]

I hate to give these guys fuel, but we really needed 80% of the world vaccinated, and that was/will never happen.

Still, we could’ve made this a lot less painful in this country. Heck, we still can, but we choose to look for every ####### excuse not to get vaccinated/boosted/wear masks/etc.

And vaccine makers can’t predict the future, so the idea they were deceiving us with their initial claims is absurd. 

This is spot on.   It’s very frustrating how ignorant people are about basic science — but that shouldn’t surprise anyone at this point.  It’s reality.

 

[Dr_Zaius]

Thank you for attempting to dissect the data, rather than berating the other “side”.  We all would do better to quote and discuss actual study findings. Repeatedly posting links and demanding to know if people are paying attention isn’t helpful. Same goes for the sarcastic post alluding to this study.

...

In contrast, it’s very easy to keep track of vaccinations. I’m not really sure I follow how the “conservative bias” of this study could magnify the difference between breakthrough and reinfection rates, but I’m open to someone explaining it to me.

...

With all that in mind, I don’t find the arguments against vaccinating and boosting those with prior infection very compelling. And for those of us who are paying attention, nobody is recommending boosting everyone every four months, so the theoretical concerns raised by the European group are fairly meaningless.

Thanks, I was trying to move the conversation along and keep people from talking past each other.  I actually think in general there are reasonable points that people from the different factions could learn from the other if the conversation was less volatile and if people would stop instantly assume bad faith (not directed at you).  Of course, there's a subset that are not actually interested in a conversation, and that sucks.

Maybe I'm misreading, but I read the "conservative bias" as saying that being unvaccinated without previous infection would look even worse if you counted all of the people who had undetected previous infection, as presumably those folks would be less likely to be subsequently infected than the immunologically naive.  Presumably the same effect might understate how much more robust vaccination + previous infection is than vaccination alone as well.

I hear what you are saying in that vaccination is much more legible than trying to keep track of who has gained natural immunity, as well as potentially having to worry about there being time effects.  Also, from a society wide standpoint you'd get to herd immunity faster if more people got vaccinated regardless of previous infection status.  That said, if there's someone who had a bona fide infection and has clearly measurable antibodies and for some reason doesn't want to get vaccinated,  I really think it does damage and helps lead to more polarization than necessary to tell them go pound sand and lose their job and stop killing grandma.  Not only does it engender ill will, but it leads the pro-vaccination "side" open to all sorts of allegations about not following the science, and before you know it you've got people yelling about Klaus Schwab.  

 

[Doug B]

I hear what you are saying in that vaccination is much more legible than trying to keep track of who has gained natural immunity, as well as potentially having to worry about there being time effects. 

There's no maybe about it: If mere infection (independent of symptom severity) is the measuring stick, previous-infection immunity wanes just as vaccinated immunity wanes. I wouldn't consider someone who (a) had COVID in 2020 and (b) never got vaccinated to have any protection today against Omicron infection, specifically.

That said ... it is possible (probable?) that people who had COVID in 2020 will have long-lasting memory B cell and T cell response to current and future COVID infections. That should help prevent severe symptoms and hospitalizations in the event of an infection. Personally, I wouldn't want to lean too hard on that for too long ... but then I'm not able to get into the "don't want the vaccine, ever" headspace.

 

[Terminalxylem]

Thanks, I was trying to move the conversation along and keep people from talking past each other.  I actually think in general there are reasonable points that people from the different factions could learn from the other if the conversation was less volatile and if people would stop instantly assume bad faith (not directed at you).  Of course, there's a subset that are not actually interested in a conversation, and that sucks.

Maybe I'm misreading, but I read the "conservative bias" as saying that being unvaccinated without previous infection would look even worse if you counted all of the people who had undetected previous infection, as presumably those folks would be less likely to be subsequently infected than the immunologically naive.  Presumably the same effect might understate how much more robust vaccination + previous infection is than vaccination alone as well.

I hear what you are saying in that vaccination is much more legible than trying to keep track of who has gained natural immunity, as well as potentially having to worry about there being time effects.  Also, from a society wide standpoint you'd get to herd immunity faster if more people got vaccinated regardless of previous infection status.  That said, if there's someone who had a bona fide infection and has clearly measurable antibodies and for some reason doesn't want to get vaccinated,  I really think it does damage and helps lead to more polarization than necessary to tell them go pound sand and lose their job and stop killing grandma.  Not only does it engender ill will, but it leads the pro-vaccination "side" open to all sorts of allegations about not following the science, and before you know it you've got people yelling about Klaus Schwab.  

Some posters are interested in discussion, but many aren’t. Even fewer want to look at primary data. To be fair, most people don’t have background reading public health and/or medical literature, and there’s no good reason to believe anybody posting on a fantasy football site is qualified to do so, either.

But it’s really frustrating when people want to ignore the lion’s share of public health officials and infectious disease specialists in favor of fringe opinions. Most of those people devote their lives to studying science. They aren’t brainwashed, nor part of some multinational conspiracy to trick people into getting vaccinated.

I think you’re right about the “conservative bias” wrt unvaccinated, uninfected folks. But that same bias would make immunity due to prior (diagnosed) infection look better than reality, and comparisons to vaccine-induced immunity invalid.

Don’t get me wrong: natural immunity is certainly worth something, but it’s really hard to make blanket statements about it. Moreover, there aren’t good standards to predict it’s potency, including antibody testing, which is apparently being misused by some doctors.

 

[jamny]

As long as it gets people to stop posting things like "The vaccine was never meant to prevent you from catching covid. That's not what vaccines are for" I'll be happy.

 

[jobarules]

There's no maybe about it: If mere infection (independent of symptom severity) is the measuring stick, previous-infection immunity wanes just as vaccinated immunity wanes. I wouldn't consider someone who (a) had COVID in 2020 and (b) never got vaccinated to have any protection today against Omicron infection, specifically.

That said ... it is possible (probable?) that people who had COVID in 2020 will have long-lasting memory B cell and T cell response to current and future COVID infections. That should help prevent severe symptoms and hospitalizations in the event of an infection. Personally, I wouldn't want to lean too hard on that for too long ... but then I'm not able to get into the "don't want the vaccine, ever" headspace.

I agree 100% with you and I told me unvaxxed wife the same exact thing. I told her "listen I dont disagree you were probably protected from reinfection due to having covid in Nov 2020 but at some point that immunity will go away and at SOME point you are going to have to get a vaccine". 

 

[James Daulton]

So your contention is Omicron ran through the country because of the unvaxxed?

Delta certainly did.  And having so much of the population being anti-vax didn't help with Omicron.  But like Term said, we'd need like 80% of the world to be vaxxed to really stop this thing.

 

[BigJim®]

Meanwhile, in blue collar Minnesota.

I have so much empathy for medical professionals who need to bear the brunt of a governance tap dance. I'm beginning to feel the same way about "strongly urge" theatrics as I feel about "thoughts and prayers." Seems it's all about taking credit for caring without, you know, actually doing anything.

 

[Doug B]

As long as it gets people to stop posting things like "The vaccine was never meant to prevent you from catching covid. That's not what vaccines are for" I'll be happy.

I understand what you wrote, but I don't understand the sentiment. The ground shifted under everyone's feet all at once. The hopes and goals of autumn 2020 -- even based on the numbers as they were -- had to be discarded and new expectations set later on.

I guess there's an excluded middle somewhere. At no point -- even back when the initial third-trial results were being reported with glowing numbers -- was 100% sterilizing immunity claimed. When you were seeing percentages like 90% and 91% thrown out, that still meant 1 in 10 or 1 in 11 vaccinated people were still going to get a COVID infection. Even back then, even with the earlier less-transmissible strains.

I can agree that saying, today, that "The vaccine was never meant to prevent you from catching COVID. That's not what vaccines are for." is an overstatement in one direction. But I don't really understand the reaction it's eliciting in you. At worst, people who say that are making a temporal error: What they're saying wasn't true pre-Delta but it is true now. You're on solid ground IMHO to correct people as such: ""The vaccine was originally meant to prevent you from catching COVID, but that is no longer true. Sterilizing immunity was the original goal, but today the best we've got are vaccines that help limit severity of outcomes."

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

As long as it gets people to stop posting things like "The vaccine was never meant to prevent you from catching covid. That's not what vaccines are for" I'll be happy.

I think that is what we all hoped.  Initially we were told that probably would not happen.  THEN the vaccines showed more promise than any of them were anticipated to have and we were all excited and were told to take off your mask.  This thing looked OVER.  We were at less than 50% vaccination, and cases were down to 11,000 per day. It really seemed like this was done and would be mostly pummeled once vaccination was higher.  Then Delta came.

 

[Doug B]

So your contention is Omicron ran through the country because of the unvaxxed?

I would put it this way: With near-universal vaccination, Omicron would've still spread but it would have mattered a lot less.

With something that can readily transmit pre-symptomatically with low viral loads, probably the best we can do is prophylactic symptom mitigation. But that's OK -- imagine the current real-life number of (detected) Omicron cases but with a 90% reduction in hospitalizations.

 

[jamny]

I can agree that saying, today, that "The vaccine was never meant to prevent you from catching COVID. That's not what vaccines are for." is an overstatement in one direction. 

This is what I'm saying. It still goes on even today.

 

[jamny]

I think that is what we all hoped.  Initially we were told that probably would not happen.  THEN the vaccines showed more promise than any of them were anticipated to have and we were all excited and were told to take off your mask.  This thing looked OVER.  We were at less than 50% vaccination, and cases were down to 11,000 per day. It really seemed like this was done and would be mostly pummeled once vaccination was higher.  Then Delta came.

This has nothing to do with the point I was trying to make. People still say that the vaccine was never meant to prevent catching covid and that just isn't true. Why they said it originally is beyond the point. People should not still be saying it today. 

 

[ericttspikes]

I understand what you wrote, but I don't understand the sentiment. The ground shifted under everyone's feet all at once. The hopes and goals of autumn 2020 -- even based on the numbers as they were -- had to be discarded and new expectations set later on.

I guess there's an excluded middle somewhere. At no point -- even back when the initial third-trial results were being reported with glowing numbers -- was 100% sterilizing immunity claimed. When you were seeing percentages like 90% and 91% thrown out, that still meant 1 in 10 or 1 in 11 vaccinated people were still going to get a COVID infection. Even back then, even with the earlier less-transmissible strains.

I can agree that saying, today, that "The vaccine was never meant to prevent you from catching COVID. That's not what vaccines are for." is an overstatement in one direction. But I don't really understand the reaction it's eliciting in you. At worst, people who say that are making a temporal error: What they're saying wasn't true pre-Delta but it is true now. You're on solid ground IMHO to correct people as such: ""The vaccine was originally meant to prevent you from catching COVID, but that is no longer true. Sterilizing immunity was the original goal, but today the best we've got are vaccines that help limit severity of outcomes."

It's almost like people don't realize we still have vaccine 1.0 that was created for a completely different strain of the virus. The vaccines we use now were created for the original Wuhan strain and were almost 90% sterilizing. 4 strains latter, not so much.

 

[jamny]

It's almost like people don't realize we still have vaccine 1.0 that was created for a completely different strain of the virus. The vaccines we use now were created for the original Wuhan strain and were almost 90% sterilizing. 4 strains latter, not so much.

Again, not my point but I'll leave it alone. Multiple people have posted that they understand what I'm trying to say, so I'll take it and end this.

 

[jobarules]

It's almost like people don't realize we still have vaccine 1.0 that was created for a completely different strain of the virus. The vaccines we use now were created for the original Wuhan strain and were almost 90% sterilizing. 4 strains latter, not so much.

Its almost like people don't know how to read. This is now the second time you completely missed the point.