81–90 of 361 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't see how public health would benefit from not recommending shots to everyone as there is no downside. You'd get all the never infected people vaccinated sooner; so 'everyone' (except anti-vax not infected prior to effective 'herd immunity') would be immune sooner.
Yeah, in theory that would be the obvious advantage. In practice, don't underestimate how much more inefficient or troublesome a seemingly simple additional rule or exception might be to administer... :P
And while trying to predict second-order behavior effects is tricky either way it is pretty clear that saying "don't get the vaccine if you already had Covid" would scare some people away.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Still, I don't see how public health would benefit from not recommending shots to everyone as there is no downside The VAERS data suggests there are numerous groups at very low risk from Covid for which this may not be the case.
This is a dubious claim, and is a frequent anti-vaxx/vaccine-hesitancy talking point. VAERS data needs to be interpreted with special care. It's not equivalent to a safety study with a proper experimental design. It has a whole lot of legal and administrative context to account for.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> some expert who for some reason is giving medical advice which is incompatible with the scientific consensus Does that really boggle your mind? We're all human. I don't think there's a relationship between being an expert and being honest.
I know there's always going to be PhDs who believe the earth is flat, because humans are like that... But it's just so hard to relate to super intelligent people believing crazy things. It really does boggle my mind!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The mRNA vaccines (among others) include adjuvants that enhances the immune response.
No, they don't. The lipid nanoparticles they use seem to have an adjuvant effect, but they are also directly functional, and there's not anything else in the mRNA vaccines.
So, it's otherwise functional but also chosen to have an adjuvant effect.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's encouraging! I got COVID a few months ago and got vaccinated recently, seems like I should be unstoppable now.
Hey I'm curious, if you don't mind sharing, how do you think you got it? Throughout this whole pandemic, I'm still kind of amazed how people are getting it
Non-huge indoor spaces, absence of masks, breathing the same air for longer than 15-20 min all increase infection rates.
Not OP.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes! https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2032195 Shows a slow decay in neutralizing antibody titers, with a greater degree of viral inhibition months later than convalescent plasma at a month. "At day 119, the binding and neutralizing GMTs exceeded the median GMTs in a panel of 41 controls who were convalescing from Covid-19, with a median of 34 days since diagnosis (range, 23 to 54)." Note that antibodies to…
neutralizing antibodies will give protection against cell entry to the degree they saturate the binding kinetics between receptor and ligand. non neutralizing does not mean ineffective, as ^any^ antibody is a lable that will provoke a complement based immune response, further leading to Tcell based production of antibodies that also include Ab that will bind to domains of spike that are essential to cell entry
The paper shows high binding affinities and high neutralization titers in comparison to convalescent plasma.
Punchline: “The cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection remained almost zero among previously infected unvaccinated subjects, previously infected subjects who were vaccinated, and previously uninfected subjects who were vaccinated, compared with a steady increase in cumulative incidence among previously uninfected subjects who remained unvaccinated. Not one of the 1359 previously infected subjects who remained u…
So this study doesn't have enough statistical power to say how vaccines compare to previous infection. Could be better, could be up to 3 times worse within a high confidence interval.
(disclamer: back-of-the-napkin math, did not double check everything)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a dubious claim, and is a frequent anti-vaxx/vaccine-hesitancy talking point. VAERS data needs to be interpreted with special care. It's not equivalent to a safety study with a proper experimental design. It has a whole lot of legal and administrative context to account for.
And until the studies happen there is no danger? The studies create the danger? Or may we behave like rational individuals and realize that "zero danger" is a political talking point which is fully debunked by the VAERS data?
Dying or having an adverse event after vaccination also isn't the same as dying from vaccination; even the genuine VAERS reports don't permit teasing this wrinkle out on their own.
What's up with all the antivaxxer/COVID hoaxer comments lately? Every COVID-related thread seems to be at least half-full of antivaxxer comments, and that's being optimistic.
Why do you believe that confirming suspected immunity response and subsequent protection, as is the case with so many other diseases, is in any way connected to the belief that COVID is a hoax?