Politifact, Is That You??? (Agrees with DeSantis)

[Pommer]

As far as I can see, it currently looks like natural immunity isn't falling off much. But pretty much everyone who has looked at it agrees that vaccination is worthwhile even if you're recovered from Covid

I haven’t had covid (yet) and am vaxxed.
But if I had had a case and the general consensus was “covid survivors should get the vaccine, it can still “help” (maybe?)”; I am not at all certain that I would be open to getting the vaccine.
I probably would be vaxxed, as I have family, (who I need in my life) and I would have to cease seeing them if I didn’t do my utmost to protect them from myself.

Being a “functional atheist” (open to an absent god, though living as as if there wasn’t one), I do not have the “joy of heaven” awaiting me; once my people die, that’s the last that I’ll ever see of them.

So, if a believer decides remaining unvaxxed is the move forward and unintentionally is the cause of a loved-one’s death, it is really no biggie, they can apologize when they see them in heaven.

That must be nice.

 

[GOD Shines Forth!]

So, if a believer decides remaining unvaxxed is the move forward and unintentionally is the cause of a loved-one’s death, it is really no biggie, they can apologize when they see them in heaven.

That must be nice.

It is. It's called "grace" and it's what God provided for us messed up sinners who, even when we try to do the "right thing", can get someone killed!

 

[Handmaid for Jesus]

I probably would be vaxxed, as I have family, (who I need in my life) and I would have to cease seeing them if I didn’t do my utmost to protect them from myself.

Here is the rub, imho, Even vaxxed, so I understand, a person can still get the virus and can still transmit the virus to others. A vaxxed person can get sick from catching the virus. So by getting vaxxed a person does not necessarily protect anyone's family from getting the virus from them because they can still carry and transmit the virus. I understand why so many people are hesitant now. I didn't at first. I understand why CDC is urging people to continue to wear masks when in crowds of people.

 

[Pommer]

So by getting vaxxed a person does not necessarily protect anyone's family from getting the virus from them because they can still carry and transmit the virus.

Right, but the option to (again, post-infection/recovery) get the vaccine to do the absolute best that one can (in terms of protection of others), seems to me an easy way to be altruistic and cause less harm than otherwise.

 

[A_Thinker]

Here is the rub, imho, Even vaxxed, so I understand, a person can still get the virus and can still transmit the virus to others. A vaxxed person can get sick from catching the virus. So by getting vaxxed a person does not necessarily protect anyone's family from getting the virus from them because they can still carry and transmit the virus.

The thing to understand is that the vaccine acts to suppress everything the virus might do. The vaccine causes your body's own defensive capability to go on alert. So ... if and when the real virus arrives, ... the body is immediately ready to fight it. Without vaccination, your body will require at least 2 weeks to work up a viable defense, ... and all during those 2 weeks, the virus have unhindered access to every part of your body, including your vulnerable lungs. Being vaccinated is the difference between having boots on the ground ... rather than having no defense posture at all.

So, ... can a vaccinated person become infected ? Yes, ... but many fewer vaccinated people become infected, and even if infected, ... experienced milder and shorter-lived effects from the virus. Thus, they experience a much briefer period where they can transmit the virus.

The vaccines are not a 100% solution, ... but they are more than a 90% solution. It's the difference between getting what protection you can get (90%) versus getting no protection at all ...

 

[GOD Shines Forth!]

The vaccines are not a 100% solution, ... but they are more than a 90% solution. It's the difference between getting what protection you can get (90%) versus getting no protection at all ...

I think at this point the 90% figure is fantasy. This piece I found from a pro-vax Doctor shed some light on why:

Let's Stop Pretending About the Covid-19 Vaccines

https://www.realclearscience.com/ar...nding_about_the_covid-19_vaccines_791050.html

 

[A_Thinker]

I think at this point the 90% figure is fantasy. This piece I found from a pro-vax Doctor shed some light on why:

Let's Stop Pretending About the Covid-19 Vaccines

https://www.realclearscience.com/ar...nding_about_the_covid-19_vaccines_791050.html

It's not fantasy that statistics show that the unvaccinated are 29 times more likely to be hospitalized by COVID ...

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/covid-coronavirus-vaccines-hospital-cases-rates-unvaccinated

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/24/cdc...ore-likely-to-be-hospitalized-with-covid.html

 

[GOD Shines Forth!]

It's not fantasy that statistics show that the unvaccinated are 29 times more likely to be hospitalized by COVID ...

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/covid-coronavirus-vaccines-hospital-cases-rates-unvaccinated

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/24/cdc...ore-likely-to-be-hospitalized-with-covid.html

Oh, you found some statistics that kept your bubble intact. At least the doctor in my piece was open to challenging the narrative (while remaining pro-vaxx).

 

[A_Thinker]

I think at this point the 90% figure is fantasy. This piece I found from a pro-vax Doctor shed some light on why:

Let's Stop Pretending About the Covid-19 Vaccines

https://www.realclearscience.com/ar...nding_about_the_covid-19_vaccines_791050.html

From your linked article ...

"What follows is the truth about the Covid-19 vaccines, as I see it, from the data in hand right now. It is often inconvenient, especially for someone like me, who preferred the easy days of being a vaccine cheerleader when the initial trial data emerged. Do I still recommend a Covid-19 vaccine for the vast majority of my patients? Yes. It just takes a couple extra minutes to discuss now. Most importantly, if I speak the truth now, my patients will be more inclined to trust me later. So let’s see where we really stand:

The real world effectiveness of the Moderna and Pfizer (mRNA) vaccines appears to be sinking like a stone. We started at 94+% within 2 months of vaccination and against the original SARS-CoV-2 strain. The Israel Pfizer data roughly confirmed this degree of effectiveness in initial real world studies. But, then… waning happened, and delta happened. Pre-delta, we see that Pfizer final efficacy data from their trials dropped from 97% at two months to 84% by 5-6 months after full vaccination; Moderna, with its higher doses, dipped more modestly to 92%, although we might expect this number to fall soon enough, since Moderna tells us their neutralizing antibodies are sagging by the 6 month point. Unfortunately, the real world data is far more damning.

Right now, we have two widely-cited studies claiming 87-88% effectiveness for Pfizer against symptomatic infection: from Canada and the UK. Both studies, however, ended in May, in countries that spaced their two doses out by 2-3 months, leading to a short window after full vaccination."

So ... you would spurn 85-95% effectiveness ? You would prefer 0% ???

 

[A_Thinker]

Oh, you found some statistics that kept your bubble intact. At least the doctor in my piece was open to challenging the narrative (while remaining pro-vaxx).

As I've observed in other threads, ... if this even looked like smallpox (think chickenpox) ... we wouldn't even be having this discussion ...

 

[GOD Shines Forth!]

As I've observed in other threads, ... if this even looked like smallpox (think chickenpox) ... we wouldn't even be having this discussion ...

I notice posting these pics is now a trend.

As horrible as that photo is, Covid is not smallpox, and doesn’t produce those effects. Nor does it need to to satisfy anyone’s intellectual vanity.

 

[GOD Shines Forth!]

So ... you would spurn 85-95% effectiveness ? You would prefer 0% ???

I don’t believe that range is accurate in reality. Why didn’t you quote the paragraph just below?

"What about studies of total infection rates (including asymptomatic infections, so we are a bit apples-to-oranges here) concluding in July in places with only a 3 week lag between Pfizer shots? Qatar: 56%. Mayo Clinic/US: 42%. Israel: 39%. Interestingly, the Qatar (85%) and Mayo (76%) data for Moderna were more positive, and time will tell us more about Moderna’s durability. It’s important to note that real world data is inherently messy – vaccinated people might just be different than their unvaccinated “case controls” in a study – but when the same pattern crops up with different investigators in multiple countries, it’s probably real."

 

[TLK Valentine]

Not even DeSantis can be wrong all the time.

 

[A_Thinker]

I don’t believe that range is accurate in reality. Why didn’t you quote the paragraph just below?

"What about studies of total infection rates (including asymptomatic infections, so we are a bit apples-to-oranges here) concluding in July in places with only a 3 week lag between Pfizer shots? Qatar: 56%. Mayo Clinic/US: 42%. Israel: 39%. Interestingly, the Qatar (85%) and Mayo (76%) data for Moderna were more positive, and time will tell us more about Moderna’s durability. It’s important to note that real world data is inherently messy – vaccinated people might just be different than their unvaccinated “case controls” in a study – but when the same pattern crops up with different investigators in multiple countries, it’s probably real."

So ... ignoring the messiness in the "real world data" your article speaks of, ... you would spurn even 40% protection ?

 

[hedrick]

I think at this point the 90% figure is fantasy. This piece I found from a pro-vax Doctor shed some light on why:

Let's Stop Pretending About the Covid-19 Vaccines

https://www.realclearscience.com/ar...nding_about_the_covid-19_vaccines_791050.html

There’s a lot to be said for that article, but there are some concerns
* 90% effectiveness against serious disease seems real. There’s the Israeli data, but further analysis shows they are still seeing around 95% against serious disease. He’s right about ambiguity, but the article probably makes effectiveness look lower than it is.
* Numbers like 90% do not apply to getting less serious cases, but probably 80% does. We have real world data from many US states. It is subject tomSimpsons Paradox just like the Israeli data, so the state summaries probably underestimate vaccine effectiveness. But it’s a first order check.
* Vaccination won’t make the problem go away, but it does make the difference between full ICUs and the situation in the NE where it’s manageable.
* I agree that the proposition is less clear for teenagers. But he does seem to agree that on the whole they’re better off to get the vaccination. And that’s purely based on individual benefit. There is surely some lowering of the chance of getting it and passing it on, even though it doesn’t seem there’s data to let us give a number. Vaccinations tend to be more effective for younger people, so undetected cases are probably subject to at least the 70 or 80% number that applies more broadly.

Perhaps we haven’t done a good enough job talking about the importance of statistics. The original 95% numbers were impressive enough that people didn't give the whole picture. Vaccines aren’t shields that let you ignore Covid. But that’s the impression some people got. They reduce the risk enough to make a major difference in the community as a whole. It seems particularly odd to see Christians resisting community implications. We’re supposed to care about our neighbor more than ourselves.

the same is true for masks. 30% reduction in risk isn’t all that impressive for individuals. But for the community, with R around 1, it can matter.

 

[GOD Shines Forth!]

So ... ignoring the messiness in the "real world data" your article speaks of, ... you would spurn even 40% protection ?

No, I’d take that. The vaccines weren’t available when I got Covid. I’m biased towards natural immunity now, not anti-vaxx per se. I want my immunity recognized, and some here and there are winning their fight for it.

 

[Handmaid for Jesus]

The thing to understand is that the vaccine acts to suppress everything the virus might do. The vaccine causes your body's own defensive capability to go on alert. So ... if and when the real virus arrives, ... the body is immediately ready to fight it.

OK, I understand how the vaccine works. I am a Registered Nurse and my daughter is a biological scientist. We had a discussion about the difference back when the AIDS virus was ravaging the world. Back then, there was no vaccine and to be diagnosed with AIDS was a death sentence. A lot of people died, yes, I even had a family member die with the disease. But as the years went by, more effective treatments were developed and people started living better lives with the HIV virus. They could still pass it to others through body fluids, but they lived. They thrived.Today there is finally treatments that not only helped them live longer, but also prevents them from transmitting the disease.

With this Covid19 virus there is a vaccine that reportedly makes a lethal virus less lethal, but, it does not stop a person from contracting the virus and does not stop a person from transmitting it to other people. It is my understanding that natural immunity does the same thing. What I don't understand is why push people who have recovered from Covid19 infection ,who have natural antibodies against the virus? Why not discuss treatment options that also lessen the symptoms and effects of the virus? It just seems that this push is not necessary. Now, the vaccines we got for childhood diseases were one and done. But not so with this Covid19 vaccine. I am not anti-vaxx, but, I DO THINK. And I remember well the way things happened with the HIV. There are people who cannot take the vaccine due to health and/or religious concerns. It is covered up pretty well by government and media, but people have died after taking the Covid19 vaccine. I do not discourage people who want to take the vaccine. But I do understand why some people are hesitant to take it.

 

[durangodawood]

I agree with DeSantis that Florida is flat.

 

[A_Thinker]

What I don't understand is why push people who have recovered from Covid19 infection ,who have natural antibodies against the virus? Why not discuss treatment options that also lessen the symptoms and effects of the virus?

All of this is being discussed currently.

It's just that the quickest and safest way to stop the virus, ... which has proven its ability to replicate into more dangerous forms, like delta, is the vaccine. Just letting the disease burn through humanity until everyone left had natural immunity might also work, .... but you'd lose a lot more people that way (around 6 million in the US).

Monoclonal therapy is being used to treat COVID now, with the effect that less people in the country are dying from the virus. But monoclonal therapy is very expensive, especially when compared to a vaccine.

AIDS didn't have a vaccine, and so the threat from the disease lingered across 15 years or so before a viable treatment regimen was put together. I don't know that we have that much time with COVID. Also, AIDS was just a threat to a slim minority of humanity. COVID is a threat to every living person.

P.S. Most current American vaccines are not one shot deals. They range between 1 and 3 shots for maximum immunity ... with boosters required every ten years for some vaccines (tentanus, etc.).

 

[Handmaid for Jesus]

It's just that the quickest and safest way to stop the virus,

Understand. The vaccine does not "stop the virus". It only diminishes the lethal effects of the virus. Vaccinated people can still contract the virus and pass it to other people. Recovery from the viral infection does the same thing!

 

[rambot]

That was just a fun dig in light of the obfuscation around this issue and Fauci being treated as if some kind of medical god.

There is nothing obfuscating about the message I have received. I think the issue is that YOU are starting from a bias that you can't overlook and anything that runs counter to that is AUTOMATICALLY untrue and when those same sources say something you agree with, you claim they've been "obfuscating" the issue.