12 Mississippi children in ICU, 10 on ventilators

[ArmenianJohn]

Just like if your skin has a certain level of melanin, right?

So you think it's plausible on some level to ask if "a certain level of melanin" is directly comparable to a deadly disease?

 

[Belk]

What about people who have had prior COVID infections and possess natural immunity? Will you graciously allow them to interact with you?

Since we have no way to track it, no.

 

[Hammster]

Nope. Nothing like that.

What’s the difference?

 

[Hammster]

So you think it's plausible on some level to ask if "a certain level of melanin" is directly comparable to a deadly disease?

That’s not the comparison, for one. And the very high survivability rate doesn’t qualify IY as deadly.

 

[Belk]

What’s the difference?

What is the difference between what? The amount of melanin in ones skin and the choice to get vaccinated against a pandemic?

 

[whatbogsends]

They don't all have "natural immunity". Most of my friends who had Covid got it early, Feb-April of last year, and don't even have the antibodies or immunity anymore. One of them even got Covid again. We had a get-together in June and one of the guys who had Covid and didn't have antibodies anymore did not come to the get-together so that the rest of us could be safe; he has since gotten the vaccine.

Vaccinated people don't all have "immunity". A couple vaccinated people i know have gotten Covid. Why are their "breakthrough" infections not meaningful, but those previously infected and subsequently re-infected meaningful?

There is no significant antibody testing being done. The metric being used is "have you gotten vaccinated?", not "what are your antibody levels?"

 

[probinson]

Since we have no way to track it, no.

There is a growing body of evidence that if you've had COVID, your natural immunity is more robust than vaccine induced immunity. This really shouldn't be surprising to anyone, since the whole purpose of the vaccine is to trigger an immune response, which is exactly what happens when one is infected and recovers.

Here's an interesting analysis of data from the recent outbreak in Israel. In 7,770 new confirmed cases of COVID, only 72 were people that were known to have been infected previously, or less than 1%, while more than 3,000 cases, or roughly 40%, involved people who were infected despite being vaccinated;

Natural infection vs vaccination: Which gives more protection?

This refusal of public health and governments to acknowledge that natural immunity really is a thing and really is protective is quite bizarre, and is a primary driver of vaccine hesitancy.

 

[probinson]

They don't all have "natural immunity".

There is a growing body of evidence that suggests otherwise.

Most of my friends who had Covid got it early, Feb-April of last year, and don't even have the antibodies or immunity anymore.

Hmm. Have all of your friends had antibody tests to confirm this?

One of them even got Covid again.

And survived it twice I presume?

We had a get-together in June and one of the guys who had Covid and didn't have antibodies anymore did not come to the get-together so that the rest of us could be safe; he has since gotten the vaccine.

I'm curious; are you and your friends, vaccinated or not, being tested for antibodies regularly?

 

[ArmenianJohn]

Vaccinated people don't all have "immunity".

Who said they do? You were talking about people who have had Covid already and that they have natural immunity and I'm pointing out that not all of them do.

A couple vaccinated people i know have gotten Covid. Why are their "breakthrough" infections not meaningful, but those previously infected and subsequently re-infected meaningful?

I know that people who have been vaccinated have gotten it again - what's your point? This is nothing new. It's very rare though.

There is no significant antibody testing being done. The metric being used is "have you gotten vaccinated?", not "what are your antibody levels?"

Every person I know who has had Covid has gotten Covid tests which test for antibody presence as well. So i don't know what you're talking about.

 

[probinson]

Every person I know who has had Covid has gotten Covid tests which test for antibody presence as well. So i don't know what you're talking about.

Um, no.

COVID PCR tests and/or antigen tests are not the same as antibody tests. An antibody test is not done to diagnose an active infection. You can read what an antibody test can and cannot do here;

COVID-19 Antibody Testing | Labcorp

An antibody test requires a blood draw, which is not done when diagnosing COVID. A nasal swab, which is the most common method of PCR testing, cannot tell you if you have antibodies in your blood.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

There is a growing body of evidence that suggests otherwise.

Where?

Hmm. Have all of your friends had antibody tests to confirm this?

They have all had antibody tests to discover this, not to confirm it. Did you think they all just guessed it without getting tests?

And survived it twice I presume?

By "survived" you mean "didn't die" I presume? Because while he didn't die, the second case of Covid gave him worse respiratory problems than the first case and this time the problems are not going away, at least not yet.

I'm curious; are you and your friends, vaccinated or not, being tested for antibodies regularly?

The only people in my circle being tested for antibodies regularly were those who have had Covid. Everybody I know who gets a Covid test - whether vaccinated or not - gets the antibodies test automatically as part of the Covid test. Most of these people get tested for travel or some other specific reason.

 

[probinson]

Where?

Well, I already posted one link. Here's another;

Individuals who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection are unlikely to benefit from COVID-19 vaccination, and vaccines can be safely prioritized to those who have not been infected before.

Necessity of COVID-19 vaccination in previously infected individuals​

They have all had antibody tests to discover this, not to confirm it. Did you think they all just guessed it without getting tests?

Yep. That's exactly what I thought.

By "survived" you mean "didn't die" I presume? Because while he didn't die, the second case of Covid gave him worse respiratory problems than the first case and this time the problems are not going away, at least not yet.

I'm sorry to hear that. Your friend, however, is an outlier, as data show that re-infections are 1) very rare and 2) typically much milder since the person in question has developed some immunity.

The only people in my circle being tested for antibodies regularly were those who have had Covid. Everybody I know who gets a Covid test - whether vaccinated or not - gets the antibodies test automatically as part of the Covid test.

Literally no one I know who has been tested for COVID has also been tested for antibodies. These are 2 completely different tests. In fact, if you have an active infection, an antibody test should NOT be done, according to the information I posted from the LabCorp link a few posts back.

 

[Hammster]

What is the difference between what? The amount of melanin in ones skin and the choice to get vaccinated against a pandemic?

No, freedom to decide as a society that if you do not get the vaccine we can limit your interactions with us and freedom to decide as a society that if you have a certain level of melanin we can limit your interactions with us.

 

[KCfromNC]

Well, I already posted one link. Here's another;

Individuals who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection are unlikely to benefit from COVID-19 vaccination, and vaccines can be safely prioritized to those who have not been infected before.

Necessity of COVID-19 vaccination in previously infected individuals​

This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed [what does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice.​

 

[probinson]

This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed [what does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice.​

I suppose that's one way to ignore the undeniable conclusions of that study. But you really should read this article;

So pointing out that some piece of research has not been peer reviewed is meaningless: peer review has played no role in deciding what research was meaningful in the deep history of science; and played little role in deciding what research was meaningful in the ongoing story of Covid-19.

The Absurdity of Peer Review​

 

[KCfromNC]

I suppose that's one way to ignore the undeniable conclusions of that study.

Yeah, so undeniable that even your source says not to use them to guide clinical practice.

Anyway, here's the claim the article is supposed to back up

There is a growing body of evidence that if you've had COVID, your natural immunity is more robust than vaccine induced immunity.

Here's the article's results:

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.
​

What in there tells you that natural immunity is more robust than vaccine induced immunity?

Also, appreciate the link with "undeniable" data showing how effective covid vaccines are.

 

[probinson]

Yeah, so undeniable that even your source says not to use them to guide clinical practice.

You do realize that all of the COVID mitigation guidance was supported by non peer-reviewed studies, right? I mean, this is what we were talking about with the evidence pyramid last week. I guess you have different standards for evidence dependent upon whether it supports your preconceived ideas, which is great for confirmation bias, but not so great for scientific quality of evidence.

But let's not allow you to distract from the what study found. The Cleveland Clinic, which is a highly respected medical organization, did a study including 52,238 of their employees, 53% of which (1,359 employees) that were previously infected but not vaccinated. But let's read directly from the study;

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 unvaccinated had a SARS-CoV-2 infection over the duration of the study.​

This denial and/or downplaying of natural immunity from prior infection is incredibly odd and borders on disinformation.

 

[KCfromNC]

I guess you have different standards for evidence dependent upon whether it supports your preconceived ideas, which is great for confirmation bias, but not so great for scientific quality of evidence.

Your guess is noted. It is likely as correct as your previous guess about the hospitalization risk of covid. Your post was only shown by another of your links to be off by two orders of magnitude on that one.

But let's not allow you to distract from the what study found. The Cleveland Clinic, which is a highly respected medical organization, did a study including 52,238 of their employees, 53% of which (1,359 employees) that were previously infected but not vaccinated. But let's read directly from the study;

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 unvaccinated had a SARS-CoV-2 infection over the duration of the study.​

That's nice. As people have been saying for a while now, covid vaccines are effective. Glad to see people finally coming around.

But how does it support your claim that "There is a growing body of evidence that if you've had COVID, your natural immunity is more robust than vaccine induced immunity"?

Meanwhile, actually published research seems to disagree - Antibodies elicited by mRNA-1273 vaccination bind more broadly to the receptor binding domain than do those from SARS-CoV-2 infection - PubMed. But who should we trust, random person on the internet or people who do this for a living?

 

[probinson]

Another study;

Recovered COVID-19 patients retain broad and effective longer-term immunity to the disease, suggests a recent Emory University study, which is the most comprehensive of its kind so far. The findings have implications for expanding understanding about human immune memory as well as future vaccine development for coronaviruses.

COVID-19 survivors may possess wide-ranging resistance to the disease | Emory University | Atlanta, GA
​

And another;

The immune systems of more than 95% of people who recovered from COVID-19 had durable memories of the virus up to eight months after infection.

Lasting immunity found after recovery from COVID-19
​

And still another;

The blood of people infected by SARS-CoV-2 shows telltale signals of immunity against new variants of the novel coronavirus as long as 11 months following infection, according to a new laboratory study from Oregon Health & Science University.

OHSU research is latest to characterize potential end of COVID-19 pandemic​

 

[KCfromNC]

Another study;

Recovered COVID-19 patients retain broad and effective longer-term immunity to the disease, suggests a recent Emory University study, which is the most comprehensive of its kind so far. The findings have implications for expanding understanding about human immune memory as well as future vaccine development for coronaviruses.

COVID-19 survivors may possess wide-ranging resistance to the disease | Emory University | Atlanta, GA
​

And another;

The immune systems of more than 95% of people who recovered from COVID-19 had durable memories of the virus up to eight months after infection.

Lasting immunity found after recovery from COVID-19
​

And still another;

The blood of people infected by SARS-CoV-2 shows telltale signals of immunity against new variants of the novel coronavirus as long as 11 months following infection, according to a new laboratory study from Oregon Health & Science University.

OHSU research is latest to characterize potential end of COVID-19 pandemic​

Which of these do you think provides evidence that natural immunity is superior to that from a vaccine? Because I've got to be honest, reading through papers which contradict the claims made in the posts quoting them, while entertaining, is also time consuming.