I had it but got the vaccine anyway, there's places that want proof of vaccination and I'm just not interested in arguing about not needing it.
Evaluating necessity of Covid-19 vaccination in previously infected individuals
331–340 of 361 posts
Re: Evaluating necessity of Covid-19 vaccination in previously infected individuals
#332Earlier quoted context omitted.
What felony? https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2017/may/11/bill-zedle... > In a July 2005 web post, Dr. James R. Laidler wrote: "The chief problem with the VAERS data is that reports can be entered by anyone and are not routinely verified. To demonstrate this, a few years ago I entered a report that an influenza vaccine had turned me into The Hulk. The report was accepted and entered into the database. > "Because…
Do you look at anything other than factchecks? Taken right from the VAERS website (in bold font, no less): "Knowingly filing a false VAERS report is a violation of Federal law (18 U.S. Code § 1001) punishable by fine and imprisonment." A single case of a doctor submitting a goofy report in 2005 (and even having the CDC follow up with him!) doesn't establish a widespread pattern. Has even a single such incident been r…
It really is not "trivially accounted for" in this manner. The flu is an annual thing that most people are coping well with mentally. Can't quite say the same about the latest pandemic, and people's attitudes and beliefs are going to significantly colour the amount and nature of the self-reporting system.
Re: Evaluating necessity of Covid-19 vaccination in previously infected individuals
#333Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unfortunately, we have reason to believe that over time, the immune defenses from COVID-19 infection seem to decline, particularly in older folks. It'd be great if we had some definitive data on secondary infection rates, but until a lot more people get infected, we just won't have it.
I keep hearing this, but have yet to see evidence that the elderly are catching second rounds at a high rate.
Because there isn’t any. But that is how the aging immune system responds to most other diseases, so we assume the same will be true here.
Re: Evaluating necessity of Covid-19 vaccination in previously infected individuals
#334Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fear is one hell of a drug. But really, I think many people are laser focused on not just minimizing risk of COVID, but now trying to zero out COVID risk, that having any reason to delay receipt of a vaccine isn't a pre-existing medical condition is considered a form of aggression. At some point we transitioned from "bend the curve" to "eradicate the virus", and this seems like a byproduct of that mental shift.
Why would you not want to eradicate Covid?
Why do you not want to eradicate hunger, inequality, mental health problems, and general suffering?
I ask such an absurd question in response to your equally absurd question because of course everyone wants to eradicate these issues! But it is not possible to fully eliminate being monetarily poor (by somehow making everyone wealthy), or hunger (by overproducing food and creating distribution), etc.... and so a realization that tradeoffs must be made given our finite resources will better frame our collective decisions as a society.
Re: Evaluating necessity of Covid-19 vaccination in previously infected individuals
#335Well, that's encouraging. Now we have data for about 5 months on that. About the same on vaccinated individuals. In a year, we'll know more about how long immunity lasts, and if and when booster shots will be needed.
> Now we have data for about 5 months on that. What do you mean? Immunity of naturally infected individuals has been tracked far longer than five months, with both empirical evidence of lasting immunity along with obvious community evidence. Do you know why the infection rate in San Francisco was so low? There was already a ton of natural immunity due to community spread. The majority of my office in downtown SF caug…
It's being measured, not ignored.[1] This data is obtained by re-using random samples of blood drawn by commercial labs for other medical blood tests. In Vermont, under 3% of the population has had COVID-19. In Puerto Rico, about 49%. Huge variance by state. This does not include people immunized; the test used can differentiate.
Re: Evaluating necessity of Covid-19 vaccination in previously infected individuals
#336Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you look at anything other than factchecks? Taken right from the VAERS website (in bold font, no less): "Knowingly filing a false VAERS report is a violation of Federal law (18 U.S. Code § 1001) punishable by fine and imprisonment." A single case of a doctor submitting a goofy report in 2005 (and even having the CDC follow up with him!) doesn't establish a widespread pattern. Has even a single such incident been r…
It really is not "trivially accounted for" in this manner. The flu is an annual thing that most people are coping well with mentally. Can't quite say the same about the latest pandemic, and people's attitudes and beliefs are going to significantly colour the amount and nature of the self-reporting system.
Those are separate concerns from the age/demographic ones I was addressing. I could see what you raise driving some difference in the rates of reporting to VAERS. I could not see it driving a difference of, say, zero "Death + Life Threatening" reports for influenza vaccines in 2020 versus 2,857 "Death + Life Threatening" reports for Covid vaccines in 2021 for the 18-59 age group.
Re: Evaluating necessity of Covid-19 vaccination in previously infected individuals
#337Earlier quoted context omitted.
That does not conflict with being unbiased towards evidence that our immune systems are effective against covid.
> our immune systems are effective against covid When you say "our", who do you mean? 30yo with no underlying health conditions? A leukemia patient? An HIV-positive person? A 50yo diabetic? 40% of the adult obese Americans? Yes, healthy immune system can be effective at fighting covid. But vaccination is a matter of public health. You aim to eradicate the disease so that everyone is safe.
Again this does not conflict with being unbiased against the evidence.
Re: Evaluating necessity of Covid-19 vaccination in previously infected individuals
#338Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most authorities are downplaying natural immunity, despite evidence like this. The more widely this spreads, the more people will realize it's ok to rely on natural immunity, and to not blanket demonize those who are unvaccinated.
> to not blanket demonize those who are unvaccinated. Well, I'm currently in quarantine from my 4 month old and wife because an acquaintance refused to get vaccinated. "young people don't die from COVID" type mentality. I attended my brother's bachelor party - of which we all thought everyone was vaccinated. Turns out this person, not only refused to get vaccinated - but had COVID exposure and still decided to attend…
[deleted]
Re: Evaluating necessity of Covid-19 vaccination in previously infected individuals
#339Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
I caught it in September when numbers here in the UK were quite low. I'm not sure how I caught it. I had left my car into the garage a few days before I showed symptoms and had to get an Uber home, then back to the garage to pick it up, so my strongest suspicion is one of the Uber drivers or previous passengers had it or potentially a mechanic had it and it remained in the car. The strangest thing is my girlfriend an…
I think it is possible to be exposed to the virus and never need to build antibodies. Innate immune response, if robust, can fight off (or block) infection quickly enough that the adaptive immune response, never kicks in. Adaptive response takes time, and antibodies don't show up until a few days in, IIRC .
Re: Evaluating necessity of Covid-19 vaccination in previously infected individuals
#340Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> They also mentioned 0 infections in fully vaccinated which is odd as other countries are seeing a number of infections in their vaccinated front line workers. No, they had infections in the vaccinated. They had 0 infections in the previously infected, although another poster pointed out that the vaccinated (but never infected) group is much larger than the unvaccinated but previously exposed. Frankly since the vac…
Immunity from infection does more than the spike protein, so it ought to be more robust against variants, even if one does show up that changes the spike protein enough to escape vaccines.
That was my thought as well. Natural immune response should have more vectors of attack since all of the virus proteins are available to make antibodies for.
As another comment mentioned though, the spike protein is unlikely to change much, and if it did, the virus would loose a major weapon in infecting people. So the vaccine is probably as effective as natural immunity in practice.