Vaccinated are 13 times more likely to get covid than those with naturally acquired immunity

[JulieB67]

I wonder....is there a vaccination available for "wokeness"?

Exactly! lol

But it's getting ridiculous with the CDC, rental mandates, inclusive language and now wanting to step a foot into "gun control" under the guise that it's a medical crisis.


Dr. Rochelle Walensky, the director of the Centers for Disease Control, wants her agency to establish gun violence as an urgent public health crisis

Walensky extended an open invitation to gun owners to "come to the table" and educate her and the agency on how they've cultivated gun safety.

"We cannot understand the research of firearm violence, firearm injury, without embracing wholeheartedly, the firearm owning community," she added. "I really do believe that the population of people who wants to own a gun doesn't want people hurt by them. The majority of the population does not want people hurt by them. I want them at the table."

Of course law abiding gun owners don't want to hurt people. Criminals want to hurt people..oh wait, criminal is not the right word we want to use here lol... But why no discussion on mental health, etc. No, lets talk to gun owners. Again, they are beyond ridiculous at this point.

Can they be any more obvious they have an agenda? But no...nothing out of the ordinary...gun control, inclusive language, rental mandates and who knows what's next.

 

[JulieB67]

Why are people talking about "natural immunity"? What the heck does that even mean?

Humans have a natural immunity to some diseases that only affect other species, but not to any of the illnesses that affect humans.

And how someone could possibly think that "natural immunity" is going to help? seriously, help me understand how you come to that conclusion given the number of deaths, long term COVID sufferers.

Because I had the flu once and then, you'd never guess, I got it again. In fact, I've probably got the common flu about 25 times in my life. Shouldn't I have "natural immunity" by now?

Once again, every individual is different. Everyone's immune system is different. Some people get the flu, others rarely do. That's why everyone has to make their own personal medical decisions. It's not that hard to understand that there is no "one for all approach"

With some, natural immunity can last for quite some time. I was told that it would be more robust than even fighting the varients. That's why testing is so important. And no one is telling anyone to go out and get Covid. But many that have recovered have built up very good antibodies and that goes into B and t cells and so on. No one is stating reinfection can't happen but we know many still have immunity even a year later.

And why doesn't natural immunity stop strep throat? Or hand foot mouth disease? Or cancer? Or multiple schlerosis? Or Lou Gherig's disease?

Again, we are all different, our bodies are different, everything we do in our own enviroment of living, our genetics, etc play a part in what happens to our bodies. But a person that has recovered from Covid should not feel that it's a medical necessity to take a relatively new shot of which the long term effects are still not known.

It's interesting that this is problematic to you.
You may not believe it, but a lot of very high level scientist do not have a wide variety of skills; even in things like public speaking and communicating. It is very VERY rare to find a high level scientist (active in research etc...) who is a really eloquent "connector" with their audience and does well and clearly and simply articulating their scientific findings and concerns (Katherine Hahoe may be, by FAR the best example I can think of who is able to do this).
The fact is that science, right now, is discovering things and doing things, that are often beyond the realm of the common person's understanding. There are very few things more terrifying to a person than a "fear of the unknown or not understood". The scientific community is CONSTANTLY trying to manage its PR and it struggles with this.

If large scientific organizations are trying to help you understand an issue by teaching you words or terms, that is NOT indoctrination. That is learning.

Hey, if it doesn't seem problematic to you that the CDC wants you to call a criminal something other than a criminal than I can't go on any further.

 

[bekkilyn]

Once again, every individual is different. Everyone's immune system is different. Some people get the flu, others rarely do. That's why everyone has to make their own personal medical decisions. It's not that hard to understand that there is no "one for all approach"

I've never once in my life knowingly had the flu. I have however had serious allergic reactions to medications, which is why I believe it is important for people to be able to decide for themselves (along with doctors that they trust have their best interests in mind) what they can and cannot be injected with. And if it's decided that it's not safe for them to do so, I don't agree that it is okay to label them as anti-vaxxers and selfish and terrorists and shunning and the like.

Hey, if it doesn't seem problematic to you that the CDC wants you to call a criminal something other than a criminal than I can't go on any further.

It's all from the same folks who have re-defined women as breeders, chest feeders, "CIS", menstsruators, and womb-bearers, among other offensive things because we can't call adult human females women anymore because it's not inclusive of men who have decided they are also women.

 

[stevil]

People would rather listen to the "agenda" of the day than remember that natural immunity has always been the gold standard when it comes to immunity period.

Hello Julie

What do you mean when you say that natural immunity has always been the "gold standard"?

Do you mean "gold standard" is the best practice recommendation by medical and health professional?

Are you suggesting that people wanting immunity from a deadly disease should hold off getting vaccinated and instead should seek to get infected by the disease in the expectation that this makes them immune from getting it a second time?

I'm just not quite clear on the message that you are putting forth.
Are you instead saying that people who have already had the disease, that they don't need to subsequently get the vaccination?

 

[JulieB67]

I don't agree that it is okay to label them as anti-vaxxers and selfish and terrorists and shunning and the like.

I agree. I've taken many vaccines when I was in health care. And like you said many such as yourself can't take certain meds, vaccines and there's also the possibility of an a new allergic reation. We don't know.

It's all from the same folks who have re-defined women as breeders, chest feeders, "CIS", menstsruators, and womb-bearers, among other offensive things because we can't call adult human females women anymore because it's not inclusive of men who have decided they are also women.

I know! It all makes my head spin.

 

[rambot]

Once again, every individual is different. Everyone's immune system is different. Some people get the flu, others rarely do. That's why everyone has to make their own personal medical decisions. It's not that hard to understand that there is no "one for all approach"

The issue, though, is that you are misrepresenting things. The mechanisms the body uses to attack pathogens is ALWAYS the same. Some of poorer functioning immune system but whether poor OR strong, they use the same biological and physiological pathways to accomplish the task.

With some, natural immunity can last for quite some time. I was told that it would be more robust than even fighting the varients. That's why testing is so important. And no one is telling anyone to go out and get Covid. But many that have recovered have built up very good antibodies and that goes into B and t cells and so on. No one is stating reinfection can't happen but we know many still have immunity even a year later.

A lot of information has been shared (studies) indicating that the antibodies are still doing pretty well after more than a year. Great.
Keeping in mind that the vaccine would not be keeping you from getting sick but more likely just significantly reducing symptoms. To me, that would be the best of both worlds; protect against significant symptoms and then get the natural antibodies as well.

Again, we are all different, our bodies are different, everything we do in our own enviroment of living, our genetics, etc play a part in what happens to our bodies. But a person that has recovered from Covid should not feel that it's a medical necessity to take a relatively new shot of which the long term effects are still not known.

The "we are all different" argument is not really an appropriate answer to my questions. And you haven't REALLY described what "natural immunity" was and when it should or should not be considered "enough" to fight a disease.

Hey, if it doesn't seem problematic to you that the CDC wants you to call a criminal something other than a criminal than I can't go on any further.

Well this is just a big bucket of worms.
Because when is a criminal a criminal? What IS the definition. The google dictionary says "anyone who has broken a law". Great. So I guess everyone is a criminal.

If a person stole a rake 30 years ago and is still rotting in prison for it, is he a criminal?

Once you commit a crime are you stuck with being "labelled" a criminal for ever? I sincerely hope not; that's not a very grace filled sentiment.

 

[JulieB67]

Hello Julie

What do you mean when you say that natural immunity has always been the "gold standard"?

Do you mean "gold standard" is the best practice recommendation by medical and health professional?

Are you suggesting that people wanting immunity from a deadly disease should hold off getting vaccinated and instead should seek to get infected by the disease in the expectation that this makes them immune from getting it a second time?

I'm just not quite clear on the message that you are putting forth.
Are you instead saying that people who have already had the disease, that they don't need to subsequently get the vaccination?

I'm stating that it's always been the gold standard in regards to natural vs vaccines. I was told this by an immunologist who had no agenda, he himself is a scientist and an immunologist as well as vaccinated. He stated that in some that have recovered from Covid and have lasting antibodies, the vaccine would offer little to no benefit. His name is Hooman Noorchasm who is long patient advocate. And he even states that it could potentially do more harm than good. He recently even helped a law professor win over a vaccine mandate because this man had recovered from Covid. People want to put this man down as well but he's speaking as a scientist, immunologist and most importantly a patient advocate.

Two of my local hospitals changed their mandates to include postive antibodies as well. I doubt they would have changed if the science wasn't behind it.

The message I'm putting forth is more testing for antibodies and let everyone make up their own minds. Many people don't need the vaccine. Why even put a small risk out there if it's not deemed a medical necessity for some that have recovered and still have antibodies? One would need to continue testing but it would be worth it imo.

But again, we are all different. Although I know people don't want to hear that. It's the simple truth. Especially when it comes to making medical decisions.

But have people really forgotten how our bodies continue to recognize viruses after recovery etc and therefore goes into action?

I mean doctors a few years ago didn't even want to load up our bodies with antibiotics because they become less effective after awhile.

It used to be called our first line of defense. I guess not anymore.

But again, I am not promoting anyone get Covid, or any other virus. But that it's an individual decison. Not a "one for all" approach.

 

[stevil]

I'm stating that it's always been the gold standard in regards to natural vs vaccines.

I'm still not clear on what is meant by the term "gold standard"
Whether it is a recommendation that people go out and get the real disease and forgo the immunisation so that you can then become immune to getting it a second time?
Or whether it is just a way of stating that natural immunity lasts longer than (and is more effective) than immunisation?

Obviously getting the disease the first time comes at a major risk.

He stated that in some that have recovered from Covid and have lasting antibodies, the vaccine would offer little to no benefit.

OK, so maybe the suggestion is that people who have already had the disease, don't need to then get the vaccination?
I'd be interested to know what the studies show on this, more so than this one man's opinion. He might be right, I don't know.

The message I'm putting forth is more testing for antibodies and let everyone make up their own minds.

Regular testing people for antibodies - that would probably be expensive and hard to do, but might not be impossible.
Let them make up their own minds on what? If they have antibodies but haven't been vaccinated then let the decide whether to get vaccinated or not?

Many people don't need the vaccine. Why even put a small risk out there if it's not deemed a medical necessity for some that have recovered and still have antibodies?

That makes sense, but of course we need to refer to studies on this. If natural immunity is better than the vaccination for Covid then yeah, why get them vaccinated if they already have natural immunity?

But have people really forgotten how our bodies continue to recognize viruses after recovery etc and therefore goes into action?

I don't think people have forgotten this.

I mean doctors a few years ago didn't even want to load up our bodies with antibiotics because they become less effective after awhile.

Bacteria do evolve to become immune, which is why we are supposed to continue the full dose of antibiotics until the bottle is empty. Also they didn't want to use our best hope when the patient wasn't in dire need and other means would be sufficient.

But again, I am not promoting anyone get Covid, or any other virus. But that it's an individual decison. Not a "one for all" approach.

An individual decision on getting vaccinated after having recovered from the disease?
Or an individual decision as to whether to not get vaccinated in the hope of catching the disease and then getting "natural" immunity???

 

[GOD Shines Forth!]

Again, they are beyond ridiculous at this point.

Truth.

Can they be any more obvious they have an agenda?

Apparently they're gonna have to hit some people over the head with a 2x4 to make it clear.

 

[eucatastrophe]

Wasnt even going to bother...but this is too good to pass!

https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/education/article253851373.html

"
Duke University has set new restrictions to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 as cases are surging on the Durham campus despite its vaccine mandate.

In the first week of classes, 304 undergraduates, 45 graduate students and 15 employees tested positive for COVID-19. All but eight of these individuals were vaccinated, and the vast majority of them are asymptomatic. A small number have minor, cold- and flu-like symptoms, and none have been hospitalized, according to the university.

Duke administrators announced the new guidelines in an email saying “this surge is placing significant stress on the people, systems and facilities that are dedicated to protecting our health, safety and the ability of Duke to fulfill its educational mission, particularly our isolation space for on-campus students who test positive.”


Read more here: https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/education/article253851373.html#storylink=cpy
"

So, only 8 out of the 364 "cases" were unvaxxed. That is like 2 %! So 98 % are among the great washed!
But,but, but...they are only mild or asymptomatic cases you might say? So were most cases before the vaccine was even available.

But it gets better...

"As of Aug. 30, Duke reported 98% of students and 92% of employees are fully vaccinated.

Read more here: https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/education/article253851373.html#storylink=cpy
"

So dont try to blame the unvaccinated.

I see so much misinformation on this thread it is depressing. I even saw someone trot out the old rubbish about a 1-3% chance of death and a 20% chance of hospitalization. Both long since debunked. Some of you seem stuck in March of last year! You can not make rational decisions if you are scared to death. Doesnt matter what source you use, the real statistics are out there.

Population-level COVID-19 mortality risk for non-elderly individuals overall and for non-elderly individuals without underlying diseases in pandemic epicenters - PubMed

 

[eucatastrophe]

 

[Pommer]

View attachment 305153

Not enough people will die to get you to care?
Okay.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Not enough people will die to get you to care?
Okay.

That's the major logic flaw of many in the "covid isn't that bad" or anti-vaxx community...

They see the percentages, but then fail to do the mathematical calculation to see just how many people that equates to when you're talking about a nation that has a population of > quarter of a billion people.

The irony is, they see 1000-2000 cases of adverse effects (most are non-lethal) out of 170 million vaccinations as a "major issue with vaccines", yet when talking about 600k people dying out of a population of 300 million, they go back to the percentages game.


Basically their position is "0.18% of the population dying from the disease is no cause for alarm, but if 0.001% of people vaccinated experience an adverse reaction (most being non-lethal), that's a huge deal and evidence that the vaccines are dangerous!"

 

[JulieB67]

I'm still not clear on what is meant by the term "gold standard"
Whether it is a recommendation that people go out and get the real disease and forgo the immunisation so that you can then become immune to getting it a second time?
Or whether it is just a way of stating that natural immunity lasts longer than (and is more effective) than immunisation?

I'm strictly talking about people that have already recovered and developed those antibodies. Those antibodies are usually more robust and stronger than something you would get from a vaccine. And we are already seeing reports that the strength for some vaccines is waning.

OK, so maybe the suggestion is that people who have already had the disease, don't need to then get the vaccination?

I'm suggesting as Dr Noorchasm suggests, pre screen before you want to get vaccinated and then decide for yourself.

Regular testing people for antibodies - that would probably be expensive and hard to do, but might not be impossible.

Many clinics do these. Mine was only 25 dollars. Of course you might want to pay more for a more in depth testing. The UK is already starting an antibody program.

OK, so maybe the suggestion is that people who have already had the disease, don't need to then get the vaccination?
I'd be interested to know what the studies show on this, more so than this one man's opinion. He might be right, I don't know.

Many are starting to change their vaccine mandates to include a postive antibody tests from someone that has recovered from Covid, including two of my local hospitals/Health systems -Kettering and Premiere in Dayton Ohio. As I said before these are two major Health Organizations, they wouldn't have changed their mandates if the long proven science behind natural immunity wasn't correct.

But again, I am not promoting people get Covid, I am talking about people that have already recovered from Covid and are producing the long term antibodies.

An individual decision on getting vaccinated after having recovered from the disease?

Yes. But for others there are many different reasons why someone would not want this shot/vaccine. And that is their right.

 

[rambot]

Exactly! lol

But it's getting ridiculous with the CDC, rental mandates, inclusive language and now wanting to step a foot into "gun control" under the guise that it's a medical crisis.


Dr. Rochelle Walensky, the director of the Centers for Disease Control, wants her agency to establish gun violence as an urgent public health crisis

Walensky extended an open invitation to gun owners to "come to the table" and educate her and the agency on how they've cultivated gun safety.

"We cannot understand the research of firearm violence, firearm injury, without embracing wholeheartedly, the firearm owning community," she added. "I really do believe that the population of people who wants to own a gun doesn't want people hurt by them. The majority of the population does not want people hurt by them. I want them at the table."

Of course law abiding gun owners don't want to hurt people. Criminals want to hurt people..oh wait, criminal is not the right word we want to use here lol... But why no discussion on mental health, etc. No, lets talk to gun owners. Again, they are beyond ridiculous at this point.

Can they be any more obvious they have an agenda? But no...nothing out of the ordinary...gun control, inclusive language, rental mandates and who knows what's next.

Wasnt even going to bother...but this is too good to pass!

https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/education/article253851373.html

"
Duke University has set new restrictions to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 as cases are surging on the Durham campus despite its vaccine mandate.

In the first week of classes, 304 undergraduates, 45 graduate students and 15 employees tested positive for COVID-19. All but eight of these individuals were vaccinated, and the vast majority of them are asymptomatic. A small number have minor, cold- and flu-like symptoms, and none have been hospitalized, according to the university.

Duke administrators announced the new guidelines in an email saying “this surge is placing significant stress on the people, systems and facilities that are dedicated to protecting our health, safety and the ability of Duke to fulfill its educational mission, particularly our isolation space for on-campus students who test positive.”


Read more here: https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/education/article253851373.html#storylink=cpy
"

So, only 8 out of the 364 "cases" were unvaxxed. That is like 2 %! So 98 % are among the great washed!
But,but, but...they are only mild or asymptomatic cases you might say? So were most cases before the vaccine was even available.

But it gets better...

"As of Aug. 30, Duke reported 98% of students and 92% of employees are fully vaccinated.

Read more here: https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/education/article253851373.html#storylink=cpy
"

So dont try to blame the unvaccinated.

I see so much misinformation on this thread it is depressing. I even saw someone trot out the old rubbish about a 1-3% chance of death and a 20% chance of hospitalization. Both long since debunked. Some of you seem stuck in March of last year! You can not make rational decisions if you are scared to death. Doesnt matter what source you use, the real statistics are out there.

Population-level COVID-19 mortality risk for non-elderly individuals overall and for non-elderly individuals without underlying diseases in pandemic epicenters - PubMed

You are missing the health care capacity. The people's whose cancer treatments are getting delayed; who need intubation due to other accident related traumas.
I doubt it will day on their death certificate " died of preventable causes due to lack of infrastructure for treatment.

But ultimately I think this is so nice it should be said twice:

That's the major logic flaw of many in the "covid isn't that bad" or anti-vaxx community...

They see the percentages, but then fail to do the mathematical calculation to see just how many people that equates to when you're talking about a nation that has a population of > quarter of a billion people.

The irony is, they see 1000-2000 cases of adverse effects (most are non-lethal) out of 170 million vaccinations as a "major issue with vaccines", yet when talking about 600k people dying out of a population of 300 million, they go back to the percentages game.


Basically their position is "0.18% of the population dying from the disease is no cause for alarm, but if 0.001% of people vaccinated experience an adverse reaction (most being non-lethal), that's a huge deal and evidence that the vaccines are dangerous!"

 

[Taodeching]

That's not true. Study after study after study has demonstrated that these vaccines significantly decrease rates of infection and transmission, of course in addition to hospitalization and death as well.

They don't want truth, they want fantasy of falsehoods. If anti vaxxers really cared they would stop spreading lies and get vaccinated

 

[Strathos]

You say you're not suggesting a conspiracy, but then you go and say that you don't trust the CDC because they 'have an agenda'. If you think that agenda is anything other than ending the pandemic and saving as many lives as possible, then you are implying a conspiracy.

And your best evidence for this mysterious 'agenda' is that... they don't hate gay people as much as you want them to? Really...

 

[stevil]

But again, I am not promoting people get Covid, I am talking about people that have already recovered from Covid and are producing the long term antibodies.

Thanks for clarifying. We get all sorts on this forum, so I had to ask.

Yes. But for others there are many different reasons why someone would not want this shot/vaccine. And that is their right.

Sure. There is a risk to society at large especially if people in significant numbers don't get vaccinated or aren't already immune.

 

[hedrick]

Wasnt even going to bother...but this is too good to pass!

https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/education/article253851373.html

"
Duke University has set new restrictions to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 as cases are surging on the Durham campus despite its vaccine mandate.

In the first week of classes, 304 undergraduates, 45 graduate students and 15 employees tested positive for COVID-19. All but eight of these individuals were vaccinated, and the vast majority of them are asymptomatic. A small number have minor, cold- and flu-like symptoms, and none have been hospitalized, according to the university.

Duke administrators announced the new guidelines in an email saying “this surge is placing significant stress on the people, systems and facilities that are dedicated to protecting our health, safety and the ability of Duke to fulfill its educational mission, particularly our isolation space for on-campus students who test positive.”


Read more here: https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/education/article253851373.html#storylink=cpy
"

So, only 8 out of the 364 "cases" were unvaxxed. That is like 2 %! So 98 % are among the great washed!
But,but, but...they are only mild or asymptomatic cases you might say? So were most cases before the vaccine was even available.

But it gets better...

"As of Aug. 30, Duke reported 98% of students and 92% of employees are fully vaccinated.

Read more here: https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/education/article253851373.html#storylink=cpy
"

So dont try to blame the unvaccinated.

I see so much misinformation on this thread it is depressing. I even saw someone trot out the old rubbish about a 1-3% chance of death and a 20% chance of hospitalization. Both long since debunked. Some of you seem stuck in March of last year! You can not make rational decisions if you are scared to death. Doesnt matter what source you use, the real statistics are out there.

Population-level COVID-19 mortality risk for non-elderly individuals overall and for non-elderly individuals without underlying diseases in pandemic epicenters - PubMed

You can’t assess the effectiveness of vaccine by looking at a population that is 98% vaccinated. NJ numbers for the past week

Fully vaccinated: 5.5M out of 8.9M
Cases 1637 vaccinated / 13118 total
Hospital: 31 / 807
Death: 0 / 36

 

[rambot]

Thanks for clarifying. We get all sorts on this forum, so I had to ask.


Sure. There is a risk to society at large especially if people in significant numbers don't get vaccinated or aren't already immune.

It seems like there could be this terrible window where not enough people are vaccinated at the same time as the rest of the population has covid antibodies from exposure

And it seems like that would