Coronavirus

[JRP3]

There is also a good argument to be made the those that have survived COVID should be allowed to count their natural immunity in place of a vaccine. Right now, NO ONE is even considering that with the mandates that are being thrown around. That does not, at all, follow the science and instead is clearly indicative of a political agenda.

It's indicative of a practical agenda. Providing proof of previous infection, when most probably never were tested, would not be easy. What proof would be acceptable? Did other mandated vaccines also give a pass to previously infected?

 

[bkp_duke]

It's indicative of a practical agenda. Providing proof of previous infection, when most probably never were tested, would not be easy. What proof would be acceptable? Did other mandated vaccines also give a pass to previously infected?

Anyone infected, even a year ago, would still have very measurable antibodies.

In fact, YES - if you previously had measles, you are not required to be vaccinated. Same with chickenpox. And WAY WAY back in the day, if you survived smallpox, you didn't have to get the smallpox vaccine.

The CURRENT blanket mandate for vaccination regardless of immune status flies in the face of accepted scientific principles for over 100 years.


EDIT - as a veterinarian, my wife has to be vaccinated against rabies. It is commonly accepted for her to be able to go get a blood draw and have antibody titers measured in order to postpone her booster shot.

 

[wdolson]

I don't believe personal "freedoms" should place other people in hams way. Can I go to the bar get drunk and drive home? Can I race my Tesla or new C8 on the streets? As an employer can I maintain an unsafe work environment? As a member of "society" we have a social compact that sometimes our "personal" freedom has to give way for the common good. The science tells us that we need virtually everyone to get vaccinated. My wife who is fully vaccinated got COVID. Good news she did not end up in the hospital. But she lost her smell and taste and was unwell for over a week. In all probability she got it from an unvaccinated person. If people do not want to live in a civilized society and take some of the "burdens" along with all of the benefits, they should not be allowed to fully participate. NO planes, trains, concerts, restaurants, sporting events, schools - ANYTHING that they will be in contact with people. Where would we be today if 60 years ago we had these ignorant/arrogant people freely choosing not to be vaccinated? Polio, smallpox anyone?

I'm a strong advocate for personal freedom, but there has always been the caveat that the limit is where someone is harming someone else (without consent) or putting someone else at risk. That's why I support laws against drunk driving or street racing. Both of those things put other people at risk.

Being unvaccinated also puts other people at risk. However there is also the political reality that there are people who will get violent if forced to get vaccinated. It's silly, but we can't go about like the world is how we want it to be. We have to accept the world as it is.

 

[daniel]

I don't believe personal "freedoms" should place other people in hams way. Can I go to the bar get drunk and drive home? Can I race my Tesla or new C8 on the streets? As an employer can I maintain an unsafe work environment? As a member of "society" we have a social compact that sometimes our "personal" freedom has to give way for the common good. The science tells us that we need virtually everyone to get vaccinated. My wife who is fully vaccinated got COVID. Good news she did not end up in the hospital. But she lost her smell and taste and was unwell for over a week. In all probability she got it from an unvaccinated person. If people do not want to live in a civilized society and take some of the "burdens" along with all of the benefits, they should not be allowed to fully participate. NO planes, trains, concerts, restaurants, sporting events, schools - ANYTHING that they will be in contact with people. Where would we be today if 60 years ago we had these ignorant/arrogant people freely choosing not to be vaccinated? Polio, smallpox anyone?

I wish the forum would allow me to give the above post a thousand hearts. Nobody has the freedom to walk up and punch me in the nose, or jab me with a needle and inject me with cocaine. Similarly, nobody has the right to infect other people with a deadly disease when the simple (and free!) alternative is to get vaccinated.

 

[msm859]

I'm a strong advocate for personal freedom, but there has always been the caveat that the limit is where someone is harming someone else (without consent) or putting someone else at risk. That's why I support laws against drunk driving or street racing. Both of those things put other people at risk.

Being unvaccinated also puts other people at risk. However there is also the political reality that there are people who will get violent if forced to get vaccinated. It's silly, but we can't go about like the world is how we want it to be. We have to accept the world as it is.

No one is suggesting that you "tie" people down and inject them with a vaccine. However, there should be no fear in limiting their ability to spread the disease. The people getting violent on airplanes about wearing masks on undoubtedly also anti-vax. Best easy to stop them is not allow anyone on airplanes unless they are fully vaccinated. And again require full vaccinations for pretty much any activity. The ONLY exception should be if you have a medical reason - which I understand is only if you had a severe allergic reaction to your first shot. We do NOT have to accept ignorant/arrogant people putting society in harms ways.

 

[msm859]

Anyone infected, even a year ago, would still have very measurable antibodies.

In fact, YES - if you previously had measles, you are not required to be vaccinated. Same with chickenpox. And WAY WAY back in the day, if you survived smallpox, you didn't have to get the smallpox vaccine.

The CURRENT blanket mandate for vaccination regardless of immune status flies in the face of accepted scientific principles for over 100 years.


EDIT - as a veterinarian, my wife has to be vaccinated against rabies. It is commonly accepted for her to be able to go get a blood draw and have antibody titers measured in order to postpone her booster shot.

Does the vaccine offer more protection to those who previously had COVID? I have no problem following the science. My understanding is that COVID is different then say smallpox as far as immunity following infection. I suspect this is more a diversion then a real problem. The ONLY reason this is political is because the GOP has made it political. They are a wedge issue party - abortion - guns - gays-climate change and now vaccines.. That is how they have survived the last 50 years. We should not be having to have a conversation about whether the government should be requiring people to get vaccinated. Getting vaccinated or not is scientifically a no brainer. Any risk vs benefit analysis leads to a single answer for anyone with critical analysis skills. Sadly too many people are more concentrated on making sure they are not "told" what to do, instead of thinking for themselves what they should personally be doing.

 

[wdolson]

No one is suggesting that you "tie" people down and inject them with a vaccine. However, there should be no fear in limiting their ability to spread the disease. The people getting violent on airplanes about wearing masks on undoubtedly also anti-vax. Best easy to stop them is not allow anyone on airplanes unless they are fully vaccinated. And again require full vaccinations for pretty much any activity. The ONLY exception should be if you have a medical reason - which I understand is only if you had a severe allergic reaction to your first shot. We do NOT have to accept ignorant/arrogant people putting society in harms ways.

The people who aren't medically suitable to get the vaccine goes beyond those who had a bad reaction to the first shot. A friend has been told by two doctors that she shouldn't get the vaccine, though she would like to. Her overall health picture is poor with multiple things that have worn her down. The doctors are concerned if she has a reaction to the vaccine she could die. She's also at severe risk if she gets COVID. She's basically been under house arrest for a year and a half.

Does the vaccine offer more protection to those who previously had COVID? I have no problem following the science. My understanding is that COVID is different then say smallpox as far as immunity following infection. I suspect this is more a diversion then a real problem. The ONLY reason this is political is because the GOP has made it political. They are a wedge issue party - abortion - guns - gays-climate change and now vaccines.. That is how they have survived the last 50 years. We should not be having to have a conversation about whether the government should be requiring people to get vaccinated. Getting vaccinated or not is scientifically a no brainer. Any risk vs benefit analysis leads to a single answer for anyone with critical analysis skills. Sadly too many people are more concentrated on making sure they are not "told" what to do, instead of thinking for themselves what they should personally be doing.

The political issue about vaccines is well beyond America. Quite a few people in other countries are resisting getting the vaccine too. In Australia it's about 15%. I can't find numbers, but I have read resistance in France is among the highest in Europe.

I found this poll, but it was from late last year:
https://www.ipsos.com/en/global-attitudes-covid-19-vaccine-december-2020

The Facebook whistleblower in her 60 Minutes interview laid out what's been happening. Facebook wants to keep people on the site because they make more money that way. Their algorithms figured out the best way to keep people there is to keep them upset, so based on what people have reacted to in the past, they push more aggravating content at them. Anyone who had expressed any hesitancy about the vaccine gets bombarded with anti-vax BS, which supports their biases.

Politicians in many countries have contacted Facebook and told them that the only way to get any attention is to say outrageous things. Politicians who say reasonable things never show up in anybody's news feed. This is more extreme outside the US. Inside the US they curb it a bit to keep Congress off their back.

The effect has been that people who may be a bit paranoid to begin with are getting their paranoia stoked and radicalizing them. Bad actors like Russian intelligence has taken advantage of it to make it worse. It's destabilizing democracies all over the world as people get spun up about fake news, distorted stories, and propaganda.

 

[bkp_duke]

Does the vaccine offer more protection to those who previously had COVID? I have no problem following the science. My understanding is that COVID is different then say smallpox as far as immunity following infection. I suspect this is more a diversion then a real problem. The ONLY reason this is political is because the GOP has made it political. They are a wedge issue party - abortion - guns - gays-climate change and now vaccines.. That is how they have survived the last 50 years. We should not be having to have a conversation about whether the government should be requiring people to get vaccinated. Getting vaccinated or not is scientifically a no brainer. Any risk vs benefit analysis leads to a single answer for anyone with critical analysis skills. Sadly too many people are more concentrated on making sure they are not "told" what to do, instead of thinking for themselves what they should personally be doing.

Those that had COVID appear to have at least as good of immunity as those vaccinated, and possibly better than current mRNA vaccine recipients, according to some pretty well-performed studies out of Europe. At the very least, those with confirmed antibody levels from COVID infection should be given the same status as those people that have had 2 doses of a vaccine.

Science | AAAS

www.science.org

Again, what is being recommended by the US Gov flies in the face of traditional vaccine theory and over 100 years of practice. It is NOT supported by the science at this time.

 

[JRP3]

It seems more complicated than that:

Where does natural immunity stand in fight over vaccine mandates?

One argument against the COVID-19 vaccine mandates is that immunity from a previous coronavirus infection should count as an alternative to vaccination. What does the scientific evidence say about which offers better protection — natural immunity or vaccine immunity?

www.yahoo.com

Dr. Monica Gandhi, an infectious disease specialist and professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, says the data available is mixed, with some studies pointing to natural immunity being as effective as some of the vaccines, and other studies suggesting the opposite.

“When data is mixed, we say we have equipoise and keep on studying,” Gandhi tweeted.

The peer-reviewed study of 246 Kentucky residents concluded that unvaccinated people who already had COVID-19 were more than 2 times as likely than fully vaccinated people to get COVID-19 again.

Dr. Peter Hotez, co-director of the Center for Vaccine Development at Texas Children’s Hospital, told Yahoo News that another reason why those who have had COVID-19 should get vaccinated is because not everyone builds robust immunity after infection.

“If you look at some of those early studies, people who are infected and recover have highly variable heterogeneous responses to the virus,” Hotez said. “Some have pretty strong, vigorous responses. Others have almost no virus, neutralizing antibodies or responses at all, and are highly susceptible to reinfection,” Hotez added.

Even though opponents have argued that vaccine mandates shouldn’t be one-size-fits-all, many health experts believe that vaccinating people who have already had COVID-19 is, ultimately, the most responsible public health policy right now. “There’s no doubt that natural infection does provide significant immunity for many people, but we’re operating in an environment of imperfect information, and in that environment the precautionary principle applies — better safe than sorry,” former CDC Director Tom Frieden told the British Medical Journal.

Hotez says this universal vaccination strategy is also the best approach at the moment because of the challenges that exist in testing people’s level of immunity or protection from COVID-19 on a large scale.

The last bolded section supports my previous statement of practicality.

 

[uujjj2]

Those that had COVID appear to have at least as good of immunity as those vaccinated, and possibly better than current mRNA vaccine recipients, according to some pretty well-performed studies out of Europe. At the very least, those with confirmed antibody levels from COVID infection should be given the same status as those people that have had 2 doses of a vaccine.

Science | AAAS

www.science.org

Again, what is being recommended by the US Gov flies in the face of traditional vaccine theory and over 100 years of practice. It is NOT supported by the science at this time.

The big US agencies (FDA, NIH, and CDC) are known for extreme caution. Until it's absolutely proven that COVID infection confers as good immunity as vaccination, they will treat COVID survivors as being vulnerable. Because the vaccine is free and harmless to COVID survivors, the precautionary principle leads them to recommend vaccination for them as well.

Consider the balance of risk. If they are wrong in one direction and COVID survivors are more vulnerable than thought, it will lead to lots of needless death and suffering. If they are wrong in the other direction, it's just some wasted doses.

 

[bkp_duke]

The big US agencies (FDA, NIH, and CDC) are known for extreme caution. Until it's absolutely proven that COVID infection confers as good immunity as vaccination, they will treat COVID survivors as being vulnerable. Because the vaccine is free and harmless to COVID survivors, the precautionary principle leads them to recommend vaccination for them as well.

Consider the balance of risk. If they are wrong in one direction and COVID survivors are more vulnerable than thought, it will lead to lots of needless death and suffering. If they are wrong in the other direction, it's just some wasted doses.

This is political, not "caution".

From a biology standpoint, it also makes perfect sense. With the vaccine we are only forming antibodies against the S-protein of the virus. With natural infection, you form antibodies against many more proteins, so you have a broader immune response to help fight off future infection.

 

[EVNow]

This is political, not "caution".

Its political and caution.

Opinion | Michael Lewis Is Asking the Right Question (Published 2021)

Why did America’s pandemic response fail so miserably?

www.nytimes.com

EZRA KLEIN: You root a lot of these failures in a risk-averse culture at the CDC. So let’s ground this conversation in history there. Tell me about the 1976 flu outbreak and the fallout to the CDC’s response.

MICHAEL LEWIS: Yeah, because that’s the moment where the CDC starts to change. ....

 

[wdolson]

It seems more complicated than that:

Where does natural immunity stand in fight over vaccine mandates?

One argument against the COVID-19 vaccine mandates is that immunity from a previous coronavirus infection should count as an alternative to vaccination. What does the scientific evidence say about which offers better protection — natural immunity or vaccine immunity?

www.yahoo.com

The last bolded section supports my previous statement of practicality.

I would think if some people do not build robust immunity from having the virus, any immunity they get from the vaccine will likely fade relatively quickly. If other people develop good immunity from having COVID, they will likely have long lasting immunity from the vaccine too. Just speculating.

Both my partner and I had very fast reactions to the vaccine over a year after probably having COVID. I was sicker from the vaccine than I was from COVID.

I think we have a lot to learn about the immune system and how it varies from one person to another. It looks to me like that's a big question mark in the data that leaves a big gap in our understanding. At least some of our immune system is inherited. Good disease immunity tends to run in families. However there are other factors too. We know HIV/AIDS affects the immune system, but other things like conditions in the womb and how a person's immune system developed as they grew up are other factors.

 

[msm859]

This is political, not "caution".

From a biology standpoint, it also makes perfect sense. With the vaccine we are only forming antibodies against the S-protein of the virus. With natural infection, you form antibodies against many more proteins, so you have a broader immune response to help fight off future infection.

Assuming you "might" (or even probably) be correct, if you are "wrong", what is the downside to getting vaccinated After getting COVID?

 

[bkp_duke]

Assuming you "might" (or even probably) be correct, if you are "wrong", what is the downside to getting vaccinated After getting COVID?

I'm right. Not trying to be arrogant, but the science is firmly established.

Myocarditis in some would be a significant side effect, as well as possible allergic reaction (usually to non-vaccine components in the suspension). Both are rare, but they are non-zero.

 

[JRP3]

I would think if some people do not build robust immunity from having the virus, any immunity they get from the vaccine will likely fade relatively quickly. If other people develop good immunity from having COVID, they will likely have long lasting immunity from the vaccine too. Just speculating.

Both my partner and I had very fast reactions to the vaccine over a year after probably having COVID. I was sicker from the vaccine than I was from COVID.

It would seem your own experience if accurate would contradict your speculation.

 

[JRP3]

I'm right. Not trying to be arrogant, but the science is firmly established.

Then why does there seem to be conflicting evidence?

 

[jerry33]

Then why does there seem to be conflicting evidence?

It's one of those "Everyone is wrong, it's just to what degree they are wrong" things. No one is perfect. There is a whole list of variables that can create apparent conflicting evidence. Besides looking at the preponderance of the evidence, it's important to look at how each piece of evidence was gathered (methodology, equipment verification, and investigator bias).

 

[JRP3]

That's my point and why requiring vaccine is the easiest most practical solution. Benefits far outweigh the negatives.

 

[wdolson]

It would seem your own experience if accurate would contradict your speculation.

I don't see a contradiction.

According to our doctor if we had that quick a reaction to the vaccine our immune systems recognized the vaccine as COVID and mounted an immediate reaction. ie our immune systems still had the components to mount a strong response to the vaccine as a COVID infection.