671–680 of 1001 posts
The answers aren't medical, they're pragmatic. - COVID-19 Antibody Tests cost more than the vaccine (roughly $40 Vs. $16/dose). - We lack the quantity of Antibody Tests we'd need. - We'd need to set up additional systems and processes to accommodate the testing and proof (which, again, is a cost). The implicit assumption that often go along with these natural immunity proponents is that the vaccine is unsafe. Since i…
Articles like this is exactly why I can't take the US covid response seriously. - "You're protected if you get antibodies... except if from natural infection" - "Masks don't help... oops they actually they do... nah they don't... hmmm they might" - "Can't fly into the country.... unless you come through the southern border" - "Covid is scary for kids... even though the flu kills an order of magnitude more kids" So mu…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Aside from DUI risk and passive smoking, most of these risks are specific to the person. I can't catch obesity from being in the same room as a obese person, and while public health costs go up from drinkers/smokers/heavy people, I haven't heard of ambulances being gridlocked outside a hospital due to a spike of lifestyle diseases.
This pandemic would be a blip if everyone was in shape. >CFR (case fatality ratio) in the large cohort in China was elevated for patients with comorbidities, with 10.5% of those with underlying cardiovascular disease, 7.3% of those with diabetes, 6.3% of those with chronic respiratory disease, and 5.6% of those with cancer dying of COVID-related illness. [1] That looks like a clean 17% reduction for cardiovascular di…
>That looks like a clean 17% reduction for cardiovascular disease and diabetes.
Sorry for not writing a complete reply but you can't add those numbers like that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To reply as the devils advocate to this comment, what is the tolerance to social costs that society is willing to bear? Also why would one segment of society have to do something that it doesn't want e.g. not bear risk if they want to? Should we tell people to get their BMI under 25 too? Overweight and obesity are going to cost much more in increased healthcare costs than COVID will in the coming decades (pls prove m…
>Should we tell people to get their BMI under 25 too? >What about drinking and smoking? There's a lot of investment in trying to fix these problems already, or at least offset the costs. For example, there are "sin taxes" for things like cigarettes and alcohol, which means smokers and drinkers are paying disproportionately more taxes than those that don't. You could argue that overweight folks are also paying disprop…
Overweight people pay their tax in a significant decrease in their quality of life. Eating unhealthy is way way cheaper. I can confirm both after 170lbs of weight loss. My food budget quadrupled. Rice, pasta, and white bread are cheap. Meat and veggies, not so much.
Because it's a terrible policy prescription. If natural immunity is acceptable, what proportion of the unvaccinated-uninfected population will just take the risk? Half? More? Millions of people will just (continue to) take the risk, get sick, go to hospital, and die (in decreasing proportions), incurring substantial personal and social costs along the way. Accepting only vaccination as evidence of protection reduces…
That's on them. It's not your job to police their choices, and especially not to impose "papers please" on everyone else. No thanks.
Millions of people will just (continue to) take the risk, get sick, go to hospital, and die (in decreasing proportions), incurring substantial personal and social costs along the way.
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/09/covid-hos...
Quote from article: "In other words, the study suggests that roughly half of all the hospitalized patients showing up on COVID-data dashboards in 2021 may have been admitted for another reason entirely, or had only a mild presentation of disease."
So we have a situation where media-induced fear is causing people to panic until they rush to the hospital. It's certainly possible given that half of the hospitalizations are...not even meaningfully hospitalizations if they were mild or asymptomatic. What does this do to your narrative then, about how dangerous this is and how many millions will "continue to" take the risk?
Accepting only vaccination as evidence of protection reduces the size of that risk-taking population, and the concomitant social costs.
Nonsense. Over 100 million Americans had covid already.[0] We now know that antibodies from past infection are superior to vaccination.[1] [2] So why would you make this arbitrary demand for vaccination as the proof, when the antibodies are what count?
[0] - https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/public-health-now/news...
"A new study published in the journal Nature estimates that 103 million Americans, or 31 percent of the U.S. population, had been infected with SARS-CoV-2 by the end of 2020."
[1] - https://www.science.org/content/article/having-sars-cov-2-on...
"The natural immune protection that develops after a SARS-CoV-2 infection offers considerably more of a shield against the Delta variant of the pandemic coronavirus than two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, according to a large Israeli study that some scientists wish came with a “Don’t try this at home” label. "
[2] - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-08-27/previous-...
And we know based on the current evidence those antibodies will last for decades. [3]
[3] - https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01442-9
Should there be a third policy option - accepting test-verified infection and recovery as of _now_ as evidence of protection, but discounting future recoveries? Based on the observational studies cited all over this thread , probably yes. Seems like associated costs would be higher though, and the only benefit would be less gnashing of teeth here and elsewhere, so its understandable the CDC isn't rushing to implement it.
The answer is not "probably yes." The answer is a resounding yes, but the answer is also that no proof should be needed unless you work in a hospital where vaccination requirements already existed. We don't need a "papers please" society. If you're concerned for your health, get vaccinated if you don't have antibodies already. Wear a mask when cases go above N in your area. That's how simple this is. There's no need for building systems of control that will turn into systems of enslavement.
Should those people just be allowed to assume the risk? Not while the costs are predominantly social. Insurance (or tax-payers) pay the financial costs, healthcare workers bear the burden of treating a preventable illness, and we all assume the risk that healthcare resources will be stretched to the point of unavailability.
Meanwhile, you have a situation where healthcare resources are being intentionally fired or are quitting because of the idiotic mandates. [4]
[4] - https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/new-york-hospital-pause...
"An upstate New York hospital system said it will be forced to "pause" maternity services this month because some employees' refusal to get vaccinated against Covid-19 has caused staffing shortages."
This is entirely a manufactured problem.
While risk-takers do pay into the same system, their premiums don't yet reflect the increased expected costs of their personal choice.
We've been hearing for YEARS about how bad insurance companies are. How they make record profits each and every year and still pass on higher premiums, higher deductibles, and shittier service to their customers. So why are people feigning concern for health insurance corporation bottom lines already? Wake up.
While ICUs often run close to or at capacity in one hospital, rarely do they run close at every hospital in a region, as is happening in the south and will happen elsewhere. While it would be nice if there were more doctors, nurses and facilities able to treat patients, we're at war with the army we've got.
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/09/covid-hos...
"In other words, the study suggests that roughly half of all the hospitalized patients showing up on COVID-data dashboards in 2021 may have been admitted for another reason entirely, or had only a mild presentation of disease."
The media induced panic that causes people to flood the hospitals when they get a sniffle, because of fear. The situation with hospitalizations appears to have been exaggerated.
Because it's a terrible policy prescription. If natural immunity is acceptable, what proportion of the unvaccinated-uninfected population will just take the risk? Half? More? Millions of people will just (continue to) take the risk, get sick, go to hospital, and die (in decreasing proportions), incurring substantial personal and social costs along the way. Accepting only vaccination as evidence of protection reduces…
We can test for natural immunity. That then counts as fully vaccinated.
What use is there to build systems of control that will turn into more surveillance and eventual enslavement?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If hospitals didn’t overflow and society didn’t crumble for most of 2020 (when there was 0% vaccination), it’s odd to argue that it will now that there is 65% vaccination.
they did, and they are now. Society didn't crumble because of extreme monetary policy measures.
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/09/covid-hos...
In other words, the study suggests that roughly half of all the hospitalized patients showing up on COVID-data dashboards in 2021 may have been admitted for another reason entirely, or had only a mild presentation of disease.
It's not that complicated - No one has died getting their immunity from the vaccine, but lots die in the process of getting natural immunity from the actual virus. The vaccine is a much safer way to get your antibodies going.
There are reported cases of individuals dying reportedly from the vaccine. I can't speak for the accuracy of the reports, but I am concerned with the lack of reporting thereof, and additionally the active censorship of those who speak of any issues. [1]: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/gofundme-de-platforms-dad-...
Agreed. And unfortunately the last 18-24 months seem to indicate that things labeled conspiracy theories have a habit of becoming at the very least "plausible" or outright "true" (lab leak theory being perhaps the largest example).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not only not a terrible policy position, natural immunity will turn out in the end to be the ONLY effective thing which gets us to to herd immunity. At this point I don't understand why this isn't obvious. You make a targeted vaccine, in this case it will be evaded. We see it right now. That will continue. Natural immunity will cast a wider net and be proven much more effective.
- The vaccine hasn't been evaded. The efficacy has been slightly reduced. - Not all vaccines need be quite so targeted. - Naturally acquired immunity can also be evaded.