Prior infection >>>>>> vaccinates.

[McLoofus 35,182]

11 hours ago, bigbird said:

As far as being pedantic goes, I'm not sure you're using it correctly. 

I did and I am. But you already know this.

11 hours ago, bigbird said:

I'm okay stopping it here.

And then the guy who wasn't interested in a back and forth posts again- childishly- despite not having received a response. Huh.

11 hours ago, bigbird said:

You were wrong in your attempted assertion

Gotta say, I'm surprised to hear you say that it's better to get Covid than to get vaccinated and not get Covid.

Now, I might have made a semantic mistake in stating that assertion previously, but none other than someone being pendantic would feel the need to ignore the point clearly being made and focus on a poor choice of terminology instead.

Now I really will stop it here.

 

[bigbird 60,571]

33 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

I'm surprised to hear you say that it's better to get Covid than to get vaccinated and not get Covid.

Quote me, please. 

 

 

You made a silly comparison.  I didn't know if you knew what you said was a false/bad comparison. All I did was, respectfully, express the differences between the types of immunity to allow for a better understanding. You're the only one that turned this into a contentious back and forth. I approached you very politely, you're the one that has resorted to the typical name calling, word twisting, and overall childish schtick. Informing one of facts they did not know previously isn't pedantic, it's teaching. 

 

You're so wired to rail against anyone that says anything contrary to you that you fail to understand when others aren't attacking you. Maybe you should be the one that needs to go back and re-read the beginning of this exchange. 

[bigbird 60,571]

35 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

And then the guy who wasn't interested in a back and forth posts again- childishly- despite not having received a response. Huh.

Just pointing out the hypocrisy. Was it childish? Probably. Was it a reflection of your tone and approach? Yes.

I agree it sucks. We should all try not to be hypocritical.

 

Have a good Sunday

[creed 1,641]

On 8/27/2021 at 5:09 PM, homersapien said:

I'll bet none that would be considered "advanced".  Got an example?

The only one I can think of is the Inuit tribe/s in Alaska. Are they governed by the U.S.? Somewhat but they have their on way of dealing with internal problems. Advance? Hell no.  

[homersapien 11,393]

16 hours ago, bigbird said:

Yes, both a live virus vaccine and an active infection produce what is referred to as active immunity. The difference lies in if it is active of passive. The natural active immunity comes from the infection and  natural passive immunity comes from the live attenuated virus vaccines.

Antibodies are antibodies.  What prompted the body to develope them is moot in terms of their effect.

The only difference is that "natural" antibodies are obtained only by risking severe illness (or death) to get them.  The process to create "artificial" antibodies is designed to avoid that risk.

(To reiterate, "artificial" and "natural" do not apply to the antibodies themselves, but only to how they are acquired.)

Edited August 29, 2021 by homersapien

[wdefromtx 3,159]

4 hours ago, bigbird said:

Quote me, please. 

 

 

You made a silly comparison.  I didn't know if you knew what you said was a false/bad comparison. All I did was, respectfully, express the differences between the types of immunity to allow for a better understanding. You're the only one that turned this into a contentious back and forth. I approached you very politely, you're the one that has resorted to the typical name calling, word twisting, and overall childish schtick. Informing one of facts they did not know previously isn't pedantic, it's teaching. 

 

You're so wired to rail against anyone that says anything contrary to you that you fail to understand when others aren't attacking you. Maybe you should be the one that needs to go back and re-read the beginning of this exchange. 

Valiant effort, but It’s pointless to try to reason with him. 

[bigbird 60,571]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

Antibodies are antibodies.  What prompted the body to develope them is moot in terms of their effect.

The only difference is that "natural" antibodies are obtained only by risking severe illness (or death) to get them.  The process to create "artificial" antibodies is designed to avoid that risk.

(To reiterate, "artificial" and "natural" do not apply to the antibodies themselves, but only to how they are acquired.)

Correct

[Grumps 3,704]

NIH RESEARCH MATTERS

April 13, 2021

Immune response to vaccination after COVID-19

 

 

At a Glance

• After a single dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, people with a prior COVID-19 infection had antibody levels similar to those of people without prior infection after two vaccine doses.
• The results, which need to be confirmed in large, diverse populations, may point to a strategy to stretch the currently limited supply of vaccines against COVID-19.

 

Researchers have been studying how the immune systems of people who’ve had COVID-19 respond to vaccinations. FG Trade / iStock / Getty Images Plus

Countries around the world are now racing to vaccinate people against SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. It is one of the most ambitious vaccination programs ever.

Two of the vaccines being used in the U.S.—produced by Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna—require two doses that are given several weeks apart. Small studies have suggested that people who previously had COVID-19 may get a strong immune response from only one dose of these vaccines. If such people get immunity from a single dose, that could free up more shots for others.

To look at this question in a larger group of people, researchers led by Drs. Jonathan Braun, Susan Cheng, and Kimia Sobhani from Cedars-Sinai Medical Center used blood samples donated by healthcare workers at their hospital. The team measured levels of antibodies in the blood before vaccination and then after each of the two vaccine doses. They compared levels in people with prior COVID-19 infection with those who never had the virus. Blood samples were taken between 7 and 21 days after each vaccination.

https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/immune-response-vaccination-after-covid-19

The study was funded in part by NIH’s National Cancer Institute (NCI) and National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI). Results were published on April 1, 2021, in Nature Medicine.

More than 1,000 people at Cedars-Sinai had received two doses of the vaccine at the time of the study. Almost all had provided blood samples before vaccination. About 500 gave samples after the first dose, 35 of whom had previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2. Just under 240 provided samples after the second dose, 11 of whom had previously had the virus.

Overall, those previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 had higher levels of antibodies at all three time points. The levels of antibodies taken before vaccination in people who were previously infected by the virus were similar to those seen in uninfected people after their first shot. Antibody levels in previously infected people after their first shot were as high as those from uninfected people after their second shot.

The researchers used two different tests to see whether the antibodies in people’s blood had the potential to neutralize the virus. After a single vaccine dose, antibodies from previously infected people performed similarly to those from uninfected people after two doses.

“Overall, individuals who were previously infected with COVID-19 developed an antibody response after a single vaccine dose that was comparable to that seen after a two-dose vaccination course administered to individuals without prior infections,” Sobhani says. “It appears that a single booster dose given to previously infected individuals offers the same benefit as two doses given to people without prior infection.”

Additional research needs to be done before this strategy could be deployed in the general population. This includes long-term follow-up to see how long immunity lasts after a single dose in previously infected people. Larger samples from diverse populations are also needed to account for individual variation in immune responses to infection and vaccination.

—by Sharon Reynolds

[Grumps 3,704]

It seems to me that natural immunity is not being stressed enough. No, I don't think that people should try to get COVID to get immunity, but it should not be ignored when determining who is safe to be around. If I understand correctly, it is entirely possible for someone to have greater immunity from previously having COVID than if he/she had the vaccine and has not had COVID. The person with lower likelihood of being reinfected would not be allowed to eat at a restaurant in NYC while the vaccinated person with a higher likelihood in being infected would be deemed safe to eat our in NYC. That does not really make sense.

[homersapien 11,393]

18 hours ago, Grumps said:

It seems to me that natural immunity is not being stressed enough. No, I don't think that people should try to get COVID to get immunity, but it should not be ignored when determining who is safe to be around. If I understand correctly, it is entirely possible for someone to have greater immunity from previously having COVID than if he/she had the vaccine and has not had COVID. The person with lower likelihood of being reinfected would not be allowed to eat at a restaurant in NYC while the vaccinated person with a higher likelihood in being infected would be deemed safe to eat our in NYC. That does not really make sense.

As a practical matter, it's a lot more difficult to prove you have sufficient antibodies from a prior infection than to prove you've been vaccinated. So at least in that respect it makes sense to require proof of vaccination.

Regarding which class of people are more prone to getting infected, there's just not enough data - especially direct/empirical  data - to know at this point. (By "direct/empiracal" data, I mean actual data on the numbers of reinfections between the two classes.)

Also, keep in mind the objective is to reduce transmissions, not prevent reinfections.  Again, we don't have the data on the two classes (and likely never will.) So the only practical way to assess transmissibility of an individual is to check to see if they have been vaccinated.

 

Edited August 30, 2021 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,393]

Speaking of empirical data:

The two numbers that could get people to take the vaccine

Kate Cohen

July 19, 2021

Against all reason and morality, a powerful campaign is urging Americans not to get vaccinated against covid-19.

Right-wing voices, from state and national lawmakers to talk-show hosts, are railing against vaccination because (to summarize their thinking, if you can call it that) liberal elites are using a nonexistent disease invented by the Chinese as an excuse to take away our freedom.

I can’t express it better than Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah): “The politicization of vaccination is an outrage and frankly moronic.” But it’s working. A shocking number of people are choosing to reject free and highly effective protection against a disease that has so far killed more than 608,000 Americans.

Even Republicans in Congress are beginning to think we should try to combat this lethal and stupid propaganda. The question is how.

I propose we use numbers. Admittedly, numbers can cloud rather than clarify an argument. These days there are a slew of alarming headlines, such as “Nearly 30 fully vaccinated Louisiana residents have died with covid-19.” Here’s another: “2 vaccinated people in Pima County have died of covid-19.”

You have to read further to see the bigger picture: The rate of covid deaths among vaccinated people barely compares to the exponentially higher rate among unvaccinated people. “These are really pretty fantastic vaccines,” says an epidemiologist quoted by the Boston Globe; the New York City health commissioner calls them “astonishingly effective.”

We’re talking history-making, world-saving efficacy. A new Yale study estimates that, by the end of June, coronavirus vaccines had prevented approximately 279,000 deaths in the United States alone. Rochelle Walensky, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said that in states with low vaccination rates more than 99 percent of covid-19 deaths over the past six months were among unvaccinated people.

And that, ironically, is why we get news stories such as “Vaccinated CA man gets breakthrough covid case after trip to Las Vegas, spreads to family. ”

Because vaccines work so well, it’s a story when they fail.

Except they’re not failing in any meaningful way; they are succeeding to a spectacular degree. And that’s what we need to be saying, over and over — not just carefully explaining in the fourth paragraph.

I propose a running tally in bold type: covid deaths among unvaccinated vs. vaccinated citizens. Two numbers, side by side. Every newspaper’s front page, every state and federal website, the crawl at the bottom of every cable television news broadcast.

Google can design something cute for its search bar. Facebook owes it to us.

Every day, all day. Two numbers.

We couldn’t do this until now. When I tried to find out how many covid deaths could have been prevented if people just wore masks, the best I could come up with was the public health literature equivalent of “lots.” A study published last October in Nature Medicine hazarded that with masking nearly 130,000 lives could be saved by the spring, but researchers cautioned the model was more a “sophisticated thought experiment” than a prediction, a rough estimate.

But now that we have the vaccine and almost everyone eligible for it can get it, we don’t have to estimate. We can count. And the numbers show the overwhelming odds that a person who dies of covid has not been vaccinated.

As for the minuscule chance that I, as a vaccinated person, could die of covid? That’s because the unvaccinated are choosing to keep the virus alive.

So, let’s make it simple. Let’s ask our best analysts to put out a single set of numbers every day.

The Associated Press, using figures provided by the CDC, found that of the more than 18,000 Americans who died of covid in May, only about 150 were fully vaccinated. That’s 0.8 percent. Between Jan. 21 and July 9, 2,471 Virginians died of covid; 18 of them were vaccinated, or 0.7 percent. Between Jan. 1 and June 30, 37,180 Californians died of covid; about 71 — 0.2 percent — were vaccinated.

Maryland reported that of the 130 Marylanders who died of covid in June, none were vaccinated.

130 vs. 0. I can see it on a billboard now.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/07/19/covid-death-numbers-vaccinated-vs-unvaccinated/

[TitanTiger 20,499]

On 8/27/2021 at 7:12 AM, AUGunsmith said:

Huge study out of Israel is pretty damning to the ideas of needed vaccines for the healthy and vaxx passports and the like. 

 

https://unherd.com/thepost/bombshell-study-finds-natural-immunity-superior-to-vaccination/

 

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1

 

At the top of the link you provided:

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.

If you don’t understand how peer review and preprints work, then don’t say bull**** like this or that is “damning” because it just makes you look ignorant. 

[TexasTiger 12,961]

22 hours ago, Grumps said:

It seems to me that natural immunity is not being stressed enough. No, I don't think that people should try to get COVID to get immunity, but it should not be ignored when determining who is safe to be around. If I understand correctly, it is entirely possible for someone to have greater immunity from previously having COVID than if he/she had the vaccine and has not had COVID. The person with lower likelihood of being reinfected would not be allowed to eat at a restaurant in NYC while the vaccinated person with a higher likelihood in being infected would be deemed safe to eat our in NYC. That does not really make sense.

I think you also know that all infections/cases aren’t the same in regard to creating antibodies. You probably also know that folks who’ve been infected AND get the vaccine tend to have even greater protection.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

6 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

I think you also know that all infections/cases aren’t the same in regard to creating antibodies. You probably also know that folks who’ve been infected AND get the vaccine tend to have even greater protection.

Exactly.  Exposure ≠ fully protected.  For the same reason you see that people have higher antibodies after a 2nd dose of the MRNA vaccine than just one, some people who've gotten COVID or been exposed to it have higher levels of immunity to reinfection than others.   There's a good bit of variability.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

35 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

I think you also know that all infections/cases aren’t the same in regard to creating antibodies. You probably also know that folks who’ve been infected AND get the vaccine tend to have even greater protection.

You’d think this was the case. I think the different variants have certainly made both ways of getting antibodies less protective. 

[TexasTiger 12,961]

21 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

You’d think this was the case. I think the different variants have certainly made both ways of getting antibodies less protective. 

Less, yes. If I had Covid, though getter the vaccine afterwards would likely offer me more protection against the known variants.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

25 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Less, yes. If I had Covid, though getter the vaccine afterwards would likely offer me more protection against the known variants.

You’d hope, but don’t count on it. That’s for sure and all I’m saying. 

[SaltyTiger 7,816]

41 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Less, yes. If I had Covid, though getter the vaccine afterwards would likely offer me more protection against the known variants.

 

14 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

You’d hope, but don’t count on it. That’s for sure and all I’m saying. 

When the infectious disease doctor at EAMC tells you vaccine probably saved your end you believe him….crap happens fast.

Thursday August 12 at doctor for bi annually with thumbs up on everything including labs and lungs. Fast Forward Saturday August 21. Had been congested a few days and passed it off to ripping plywood and breathing dust on a DIY project with family. Long walk Saturday, fishing, had a beer and golf cart ride….in hospital via ambulance ride at 6:30 PM. Checked positive at hospital after 3 previous negative checks. Short stay and home Thursday 26.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

32 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

You’d hope, but don’t count on it. That’s for sure and all I’m saying. 

It definitively wouldn’t hurt. And it almost certainly gives even better protection - against getting it to begin with and especially against hospitalization and death.
 

Look, it ain’t vaccinated people that have pushed Alabama to having negative 40 ICU beds available statewide. Or any other state either. Even with the delta infecting more vaccinated folks than previous strains, the pounding our hospitals and frontline health care workers are taking right now is still 90% people refusing vaccination or higher. 

[McLoofus 35,182]

2 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

It definitively wouldn’t hurt. And it almost certainly gives even better protection - against getting it to begin with and especially against hospitalization and death.

Look, it ain’t vaccinated people that have pushed Alabama to having negative 40 ICU beds available statewide. Or any other state either. Even with the delta infecting more vaccinated folks than previous strains, the pounding our hospitals and frontline health care workers are taking right now is still 90% people refusing vaccination or higher. 

88% in the hospital I work at. And, to your point, that skews low compared to other hospitals. 

It should be noted that this is true in areas like mine where it's about 50/50 in terms of local population vaccinated vs not vaccinated. So it's not like the numbers are skewed one way or the other by an imbalance. Nor are they skewed by children who are too young to get vaccinated, although folks sure seem to be trying to change that. 

[TexasTiger 12,961]

6 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

 

When the infectious disease doctor at EAMC tells you vaccine probably saved your end you believe him….crap happens fast.

Thursday August 12 at doctor for bi annually with thumbs up on everything including labs and lungs. Fast Forward Saturday August 21. Had been congested a few days and passed it off to ripping plywood and breathing dust on a DIY project with family. Long walk Saturday, fishing, had a beer and golf cart ride….in hospital via ambulance ride at 6:30 PM. Checked positive at hospital after 3 previous negative checks. Short stay and home Thursday 26.

Glad you’re better.

[McLoofus 35,182]

5 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Glad you’re better.

Hear, hear. That's scary stuff.

[SaltyTiger 7,816]

11 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Glad you’re better.

Of course the biggest problem I have is that damn bleach I ingested……😀

[wdefromtx 3,159]

30 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

 

When the infectious disease doctor at EAMC tells you vaccine probably saved your end you believe him….crap happens fast.

Thursday August 12 at doctor for bi annually with thumbs up on everything including labs and lungs. Fast Forward Saturday August 21. Had been congested a few days and passed it off to ripping plywood and breathing dust on a DIY project with family. Long walk Saturday, fishing, had a beer and golf cart ride….in hospital via ambulance ride at 6:30 PM. Checked positive at hospital after 3 previous negative checks. Short stay and home Thursday 26.

No doubt it helps, but assuming that previous Covid + vaccine offers a greater protection can cause a false sense of security. Trust me, I thought I was “double” protected until I came down with it for a second time a few weeks ago. I was down for about two weeks, which this time around was much worse than the first time. Which is probably the delta variant….but who knows. 

[wdefromtx 3,159]

38 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

It definitively wouldn’t hurt. And it almost certainly gives even better protection - against getting it to begin with and especially against hospitalization and death.
 

Look, it ain’t vaccinated people that have pushed Alabama to having negative 40 ICU beds available statewide. Or any other state either. Even with the delta infecting more vaccinated folks than previous strains, the pounding our hospitals and frontline health care workers are taking right now is still 90% people refusing vaccination or higher. 

Who said anything about vaccinated people being ones that have overwhelmed the hospitals? 
 

I am merely stating that having both previously doesn’t automatically mean you are protected any better.