Natural immunity

[Fledermaus]

Your quick response makes tow things clear. First you did not view Dr. Kulldorff's interview. Too bad you likely would have learned something.

Secondly, your response is not a cogent rebuttal to any of my points I made about COVID vaccines mandates for children. One more time, can you tell us why Dr. Kulldorff and I are wrong and you and the other MDs here are right? Your post all state: "A closed mind is like a closed book; a block of wood." Perhaps time for you to open your mind and deal with reality in a more objective and logical way.

Consider this.

COVID has killed 500+ children.

In that timeframe total dead of mumps, measles and rubella which we currently vaccinate for is zero.

 

[RealityChecker]

I was not comparing like with like-except in the fact that both are fringe outliers, and both are qualified doctors. Try again. Furthermore Kulldorff was a member of the Great Barrington Declaration and a proponent of herd immunity, no masks or social distancing strategies-which clearly failed in those nations trying the experiment; Sweden for example; so forgive me if I remain sceptical of his pronouncements and assertions.

Great Barrington Declaration - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Great Barrington Declaration​

The Great Barrington Declaration – As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists we have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies, and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection.

Coming from both the left and right, and around the world, we have devoted our careers to protecting people. Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health – leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden. Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice.

Keeping these measures in place until a vaccine is available will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed.

Fortunately, our understanding of the virus is growing. We know that vulnerability to death from COVID-19 is more than a thousand-fold higher in the old and infirm than the young. Indeed, for children, COVID-19 is less dangerous than many other harms, including influenza.
As immunity builds in the population, the risk of infection to all – including the vulnerable – falls. We know that all populations will eventually reach herd immunity – i.e. the point at which the rate of new infections is stable – and that this can be assisted by (but is not dependent upon) a vaccine. Our goal should therefore be to minimize mortality and social harm until we reach herd immunity.

The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection.

Adopting measures to protect the vulnerable should be the central aim of public health responses to COVID-19. By way of example, nursing homes should use staff with acquired immunity and perform frequent testing of other staff and all visitors. Staff rotation should be minimized. Retired people living at home should have groceries and other essentials delivered to their home. When possible, they should meet family members outside rather than inside. A comprehensive and detailed list of measures, including approaches to multi-generational households, can be implemented, and is well within the scope and capability of public health professionals.

Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal. Simple hygiene measures, such as hand washing and staying home when sick should be practiced by everyone to reduce the herd immunity threshold. Schools and universities should be open for in-person teaching. Extracurricular activities, such as sports, should be resumed. Young low-risk adults should work normally, rather than from home. Restaurants and other businesses should open. Arts, music, sport and other cultural activities should resume. People who are more at risk may participate if they wish, while society as a whole enjoys the protection conferred upon the vulnerable by those who have built up herd immunity.

On October 4, 2020, this declaration was authored and signed in Great Barrington, United States

The goal was what they called "Focused Protection". You do realize we have "herd immunity" to the 4 human coronaviruses and this was achieved without any need for a perhaps 2X annual "booster" shots.

 

[RAMOSS]

The Great Barrington Declaration​

The Great Barrington Declaration – As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists we have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies, and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection.

Coming from both the left and right, and around the world, we have devoted our careers to protecting people. Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health – leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden. Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice.

Keeping these measures in place until a vaccine is available will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed.

Fortunately, our understanding of the virus is growing. We know that vulnerability to death from COVID-19 is more than a thousand-fold higher in the old and infirm than the young. Indeed, for children, COVID-19 is less dangerous than many other harms, including influenza.
As immunity builds in the population, the risk of infection to all – including the vulnerable – falls. We know that all populations will eventually reach herd immunity – i.e. the point at which the rate of new infections is stable – and that this can be assisted by (but is not dependent upon) a vaccine. Our goal should therefore be to minimize mortality and social harm until we reach herd immunity.

The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection.

Adopting measures to protect the vulnerable should be the central aim of public health responses to COVID-19. By way of example, nursing homes should use staff with acquired immunity and perform frequent testing of other staff and all visitors. Staff rotation should be minimized. Retired people living at home should have groceries and other essentials delivered to their home. When possible, they should meet family members outside rather than inside. A comprehensive and detailed list of measures, including approaches to multi-generational households, can be implemented, and is well within the scope and capability of public health professionals.

Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal. Simple hygiene measures, such as hand washing and staying home when sick should be practiced by everyone to reduce the herd immunity threshold. Schools and universities should be open for in-person teaching. Extracurricular activities, such as sports, should be resumed. Young low-risk adults should work normally, rather than from home. Restaurants and other businesses should open. Arts, music, sport and other cultural activities should resume. People who are more at risk may participate if they wish, while society as a whole enjoys the protection conferred upon the vulnerable by those who have built up herd immunity.

On October 4, 2020, this declaration was authored and signed in Great Barrington, United States

The goal was what they called "Focused Protection". You do realize we have "herd immunity" to the 4 human coronaviruses and this was achieved without any need for a perhaps 2X annual "booster" shots.

Yes, and lets look at who sponsored it, and some of their positions

The Great Barrington Declaration was sponsored by the American Institute for Economic Research, a libertarian free market think tank associated with climate change denial.[13][14][15]

Considering that postition, the American institutue for Economic Research is biased , and denies science for making money for the rich.

 

[RealityChecker]

Yes, and lets look at who sponsored it, and some of their positions

Considering that postition, the American institutue for Economic Research is biased , and denies science for making money for the rich.

The problem with your thesis is that if you look at who was hurt by the lockdowns economically it was not America's very rich but disproportionately working class people who lost their jobs thanks to lock downs and public school students. Private schools for the rich mostly did not lock down. And it was also disproportionately working class people who lost who were also more likely to die with COVID than the very rich.

So if you cannot attack the message than attack the messengers.

 

[snakestretcher]

The Great Barrington Declaration​

The Great Barrington Declaration – As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists we have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies, and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection.

Coming from both the left and right, and around the world, we have devoted our careers to protecting people. Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health – leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden. Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice.

Keeping these measures in place until a vaccine is available will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed.

Fortunately, our understanding of the virus is growing. We know that vulnerability to death from COVID-19 is more than a thousand-fold higher in the old and infirm than the young. Indeed, for children, COVID-19 is less dangerous than many other harms, including influenza.
As immunity builds in the population, the risk of infection to all – including the vulnerable – falls. We know that all populations will eventually reach herd immunity – i.e. the point at which the rate of new infections is stable – and that this can be assisted by (but is not dependent upon) a vaccine. Our goal should therefore be to minimize mortality and social harm until we reach herd immunity.

The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection.

Adopting measures to protect the vulnerable should be the central aim of public health responses to COVID-19. By way of example, nursing homes should use staff with acquired immunity and perform frequent testing of other staff and all visitors. Staff rotation should be minimized. Retired people living at home should have groceries and other essentials delivered to their home. When possible, they should meet family members outside rather than inside. A comprehensive and detailed list of measures, including approaches to multi-generational households, can be implemented, and is well within the scope and capability of public health professionals.

Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal. Simple hygiene measures, such as hand washing and staying home when sick should be practiced by everyone to reduce the herd immunity threshold. Schools and universities should be open for in-person teaching. Extracurricular activities, such as sports, should be resumed. Young low-risk adults should work normally, rather than from home. Restaurants and other businesses should open. Arts, music, sport and other cultural activities should resume. People who are more at risk may participate if they wish, while society as a whole enjoys the protection conferred upon the vulnerable by those who have built up herd immunity.

On October 4, 2020, this declaration was authored and signed in Great Barrington, United States

The goal was what they called "Focused Protection". You do realize we have "herd immunity" to the 4 human coronaviruses and this was achieved without any need for a perhaps 2X annual "booster" shots.

Please demonstrate where this alleged herd immunity success has happened with SARS-Cov-19, which I believe was the focus of The Great Barrington Declaration.

 

[Paradoxical]

Yeah, I mean those at high risk are only 50-60% of adults in this country, the old, obese, those with chronic illness, etc. **** em. Natural selection at work. We'll save on Medicare and lots of families will get a bigger inheritance if mom or dad dies a few months or a few years early, versus wasting all that money in long term care facilities! WIN WIN!

Stating a fact does not mean the person wants it to be a fact.

 

[snakestretcher]

Stating a fact does not mean the person wants it to be a fact.

 

[Paradoxical]

So, it's not a fact that mainly old and sick people die in this world?

Got it. 2+2=5

 

[snakestretcher]

So, it's not a fact that mainly old and sick people die in this world?

Got it. 2+2=5

Point/your head/over.

 

[JasperL]

Stating a fact does not mean the person wants it to be a fact.

The "fact" is intended to minimize, almost trivialize, the number of deaths. The "fact" is about 40% in my community are obese, most of them with metabolic disease such as T2 diabetes or pre-diabetes, high blood pressure, and other chronic illnesses that go with obesity. That's before we start counting the elderly, or those with chronic lung or kidney or liver disease, that aren't already in the obese group. That's who is at risk, and it's much more than just the elderly. There's a reason why when we see stories of idiot anti-vaxxers dead, leaving little kids behind, they're generally clearly obese and at risk, perhaps with health conditions they don't even know about, like high blood pressure which is a huge risk factor. But they listened to idiots spreading the garbage I responded to and thought, hey, I'm young, so I'm FINE!!! And now they're dead.

So if people want to say, "it's not all that deadly, except to over half the adults in this country" that's fine, but that is NEVER the message. The bolded isn't mentioned. Why do you think that is, unless it's to get people killed? Push a political agenda? Own the libs? Show others how stupid they are?

 

[JasperL]

The problem with your thesis is that if you look at who was hurt by the lockdowns economically it was not America's very rich but disproportionately working class people who lost their jobs thanks to lock downs and public school students. Private schools for the rich mostly did not lock down. And it was also disproportionately working class people who lost who were also more likely to die with COVID than the very rich.

Brilliant! Maybe it's because there are lots more "working class" than wealthy, and it's the 'working class' that are always hurt by any economic slowdown, it's the 'working class' that we see that are obese and have the health conditions that put them at higher risk, and who generally, especially in this country, don't have access to quality healthcare, cannot afford to eat healthy. The poor old often cannot afford assisted living or nursing homes, and the homes they enter on government assistance are poorly run, putting them at higher risk. They depend more on family, who are out there in the world getting infected, then bringing it home to mom or dad.

And we had a real world experiment on this in Sweden, and to no one's surprise it killed a whole bunch of old people who for some reason found it difficult to isolate from the rest of the population, maybe because it's that 'rest of the population' that CARED FOR THEM EVERY DAY. And Sweden still has roughly 5X-7X at last check deaths per capita versus their neighbors. If those deaths don't matter, fine, say that.

And of course this message you're sending - it's the working class who are hurt - should mean that you guys get on board with vaccines for all adults, so cases go down, and especially serious cases get almost eliminated, instead we have guys like you pushing this BS that feeds anti-vaxx and that means it prolongs the economic disruption, kills more of the 'working class' who believe the lies, puts more in the hospital with serious cases they could have avoided with a free to them vaccine. It's self defeating in every possible way, especially if you care about the 'working class.'

So if you cannot attack the message than attack the messengers.

The 'message' itself has been attacked many times on DP. For the latest, see above, in this post.

 

[Paradoxical]

The "fact" is intended to minimize, almost trivialize, the number of deaths. The "fact" is about 40% in my community are obese, most of them with metabolic disease such as T2 diabetes or pre-diabetes, high blood pressure, and other chronic illnesses that go with obesity. That's before we start counting the elderly, or those with chronic lung or kidney or liver disease, that aren't already in the obese group. That's who is at risk, and it's much more than just the elderly. There's a reason why when we see stories of idiot anti-vaxxers dead, leaving little kids behind, they're generally clearly obese and at risk, perhaps with health conditions they don't even know about, like high blood pressure which is a huge risk factor. But they listened to idiots spreading the garbage I responded to and thought, hey, I'm young, so I'm FINE!!! And now they're dead.

So if people want to say, "it's not all that deadly, except to over half the adults in this country" that's fine, but that is NEVER the message. The bolded isn't mentioned. Why do you think that is, unless it's to get people killed? Push a political agenda? Own the libs? Show others how stupid they are?

Tell your friends the dangers of being fat and tell them they can longer have a job if they stay fat or go to restaurants and they will be shunned. Tell them they are costing society mp0ney in hospital bills.

 

[RealityChecker]

Brilliant! Maybe it's because there are lots more "working class" than wealthy, and it's the 'working class' that are always hurt by any economic slowdown, it's the 'working class' that we see that are obese and have the health conditions that put them at higher risk, and who generally, especially in this country, don't have access to quality healthcare, cannot afford to eat healthy. The poor old often cannot afford assisted living or nursing homes, and the homes they enter on government assistance are poorly run, putting them at higher risk. They depend more on family, who are out there in the world getting infected, then bringing it home to mom or dad.

And yet in FL under DeSantis we see the middle class and working class residents doing better than in places largely controlled by Democrats like NY, MA, NJ, and CA. Unlike those high state income tax states no income tax FL has significantly fewer age-adjusted deaths per capita than those 4 Democrat and progressive left run states. And there is far less working class Floridians losing jobs then in those 4 more affluent Democrat run states. And we have far fewer mask mandates, no state imposed requirements to get vaccinated, and more public schools opening up and focusing on education instead of the indoctrination into Marxist-inspired Critical Race Theory. No wonder the progressive lefties hate DeSantis.

And we had a real world experiment on this in Sweden, and to no one's surprise it killed a whole bunch of old people who for some reason found it difficult to isolate from the rest of the population, maybe because it's that 'rest of the population' that CARED FOR THEM EVERY DAY. And Sweden still has roughly 5X-7X at last check deaths per capita versus their neighbors. If those deaths don't matter, fine, say that.

Well Sweden did better than many European countries. I do not know enough about the demographics of Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Finland and other factors that influence the spread and deaths with COVID to explain why. But if you look a ME and VT they are doing far better than NY, NJ, MA, RI, and CT perhaps because people in the former tend to not live in crowded cities than the residents of NY, NJ, RI, MA, and CT. I would be interested in knowing why Sweden did far better than say the UK and Italy but not nearly as well as Norway, Denmark, and Finland.

And of course this message you're sending - it's the working class who are hurt - should mean that you guys get on board with vaccines for all adults, so cases go down, and especially serious cases get almost eliminated, instead we have guys like you pushing this BS that feeds anti-vaxx and that means it prolongs the economic disruption, kills more of the 'working class' who believe the lies, puts more in the hospital with serious cases they could have avoided with a free to them vaccine. It's self defeating in every possible way, especially if you care about the 'working class.'

Well I certainly have not opposed vaccines for those at higher risk. I do oppose state imposed vaccine mandates and face mask mandates and think it is absurd to be firing teachers, cops, nurses, and other healthcare workers because they refuse to get a COVID vaccine because they have already got COVID and recovered and so have likely superior active immunity to COVID than those who have only received the COVID vaccines. I oppose ignorant and/or dubious public policies not based on science and logic.

The 'message' itself has been attacked many times on DP. For the latest, see above, in this post.

But thus far those questioning or attacking my message end up looking like uniformed and/or irrational zealots more interested in promoting some lame political ideology that is out of sync with the best scientific evidence critically or logically assessed. The above is yet another case in pint.

 

[JasperL]

Tell your friends the dangers of being fat and tell them they can longer have a job if they stay fat or go to restaurants and they will be shunned. Tell them they are costing society mp0ney in hospital bills.

That's a weird and frankly dumb response to my post. I just want everyone to get vaccinated and get tired of people spreading bullcrap.

 

[Paradoxical]

That's a weird and frankly dumb response to my post. I just want everyone to get vaccinated and get tired of people spreading bullcrap.

My answer is NO

 

[Fledermaus]

My answer is NO

We know.

Antivaxxer gonna antivaxx

 

[RealityChecker]

That's a weird and frankly dumb response to my post. I just want everyone to get vaccinated and get tired of people spreading bullcrap.

Anyone can read my Post #288 above and see how I have yet again exposed you as a spreader of bull crap. Anyone who wants to get the COVID vaccines can get vaccinated. But not everyone should want to get vaccinated. In the US more than 150 million Americans have already been infected with SARS-CoV2 and recovered. So anyone mandating that those who have had COVID and now have naturally acquired active immunity get vaccinated anyway like you just did is a full of bull crap IMO.

BTW - Have you ever heard the saying about people who live in glass houses ought not to be throwing rocks?

 

[Fledermaus]

Anyone can read my Post #288 above and see how I have yet again exposed you as a spreader of bull crap. Anyone who wants to get the COVID vaccines can get vaccinated. But not everyone should want to get vaccinated. In the US more than 150 million Americans have already been infected with SARS-CoV2 and recovered. So anyone mandating that those who have had COVID and now have naturally acquired active immunity get vaccinated anyway like you just did is a full of bull crap IMO.

BTW - Have you ever heard the saying about people who live in glass houses ought not to be throwing rocks?

Natural immunity is neither 100% nor does it last.

It is shown numerous times that people with natural immunity catch COVID over again.

Natural immunity + vaccines = Best protection.

 

[JasperL]

And yet in FL under DeSantis we see the middle class and working class residents doing better than in places largely controlled by Democrats like NY, MA, NJ, and CA.

We do? Can you provide some evidence of this?

Unlike those high state income tax states ...

Cite your data.

Well Sweden did better than many European countries. I do not know enough about the demographics of Sweden....

Right, you don't know anything. So why are you pretending you do? What do you know about Florida versus NYC? The same amount which is nothing. Your expertise is, we've been told, diets that fail, not epidemiology.

The problem with 'herd immunity' is no one has yet proposed a way to isolate the population not at risk from those at risk. You ignored that point, as every single person does who spreads this nonsense. That's the problem with that Declaration - they have no workable answer to this massive problem either, because it's the not at risk who by definition almost care for those who ARE at risk, every day, multiple times a day. So then you have to isolate those workers, then their families, etc. Can you explain how this works, and more to the point how it would have worked pre-vaccines? No, you can't.

Just at my mother in law's assisted living, there are about 50 staff, most of them with spouses, kids, and they shop every day for food, etc. and so with "herd immunity' strategies, all 50 WILL get infected (this is the goal), and so to prevent it spreading to the residents, the facility has to test them, virtually every day and they can't do that. So now what? Again, we saw this strategy in Sweden and it failed. You hand wave that away, because of course you do.

Well I certainly have not opposed vaccines for those at higher risk.

And yet you spread BS that has driven down the vaccination rate, in part by trivializing those who died, and ignoring that more than half of all adults are 'at risk' because of age, obesity, high blood pressure, etc. What's your goal? It's not public safety....

 

[JasperL]

Anyone can read my Post #288 above and see how I have yet again exposed you as a spreader of bull crap.

You actually didn't, unless you consider making baseless, evidence free assertions you pull out of your rear end and expect readers to assume are fact, while hand waving away any evidence that doesn't suit your agenda, a compelling argument. Hint: it's not.

Anyone who wants to get the COVID vaccines can get vaccinated. But not everyone should want to get vaccinated.

Because the diet expert says so?

What's the harm? What's the trade-off? If they shouldn't WANT to get vaccinated, then you have some data showing the risk of vaccines exceeds the benefits, to them and to the broader society, and if you have those data, show your work. We've had vaccine mandates in schools forever, and it's not just to protect the vaccinated kids, but everyone else in that school, and then broader society.

That's how 'science' and public health works. It's not ignoramuses giving their opinion. You should know this - you don't listen to anecdotes about diet to prove something - you rely on studies, preferably RCTs, right? So why should anyone care what your opinion is on this?

In the US more than 150 million Americans have already been infected with SARS-CoV2 and recovered. So anyone mandating that those who have had COVID and now have naturally acquired active immunity get vaccinated anyway like you just did is a full of bull crap IMO.

One problem is that most of those 150 million (that you haven't backed with a source) don't know they have been infected. It's an estimate. We've only had about 50 million tested positive. So how do the 100 million not tested positive know they've got this 'natural immunity' if they've not been tested? How do they demonstrate to their employer they've had it if never tested positive? They CAN easily show they've been vaccinated - my 'vaccine card' is on my phone, and anyone can view it and confirm I've been vaccinated, and read the code if they have a proper reader.

Gosh, maybe that's why employer mandates rely on what is easy to show, that's consistent from person to person, and more.

FWIW, I'm not arguing for mandates or against them. I'm also not arguing that those who CAN show healthy antibody levels through testing (I was just tested last week, and learned I have healthy antibodies from the vaccine) be required to get vaccinated.

 

[HangLow]

Tell your friends the dangers of being fat and tell them they can longer have a job
if they stay fat or go to restaurants and they will be shunned.
Tell them they are costing society mp0ney in hospital bills.

 

[RealityChecker]

We do? Can you provide some evidence of this?

Cite your data.

I have lost interested in trying to educate people who have proven to me here they have no interest in accepting reality.

Right, you don't know anything. So why are you pretending you do? What do you know about Florida versus NYC? The same amount which is nothing. Your expertise is, we've been told, diets that fail, not epidemiology.

Ah yes, the lame ad hominem insult. Those who have no cogent rebuttals to my comments seem to lean heavily on this tactic.

The problem with 'herd immunity' is no one has yet proposed a way to isolate the population not at risk from those at risk. You ignored that point, as every single person does who spreads this nonsense. That's the problem with that Declaration - they have no workable answer to this massive problem either, because it's the not at risk who by definition almost care for those who ARE at risk, every day, multiple times a day. So then you have to isolate those workers, then their families, etc. Can you explain how this works, and more to the point how it would have worked pre-vaccines? No, you can't.

Well then logically if no one has proposed a way to prevent the spread of SARS-CoV2 then you have no proposal either. Unless you have a proposal it kind of looks like "herd immunity" is inevitable.

Just at my mother in law's assisted living, there are about 50 staff, most of them with spouses, kids, and they shop every day for food, etc. and so with "herd immunity' strategies, all 50 WILL get infected (this is the goal), and so to prevent it spreading to the residents, the facility has to test them, virtually every day and they can't do that. So now what? Again, we saw this strategy in Sweden and it failed. You hand wave that away, because of course you do.

Well Sweden has done better than many European countries and the USA so not sure how it has failed? Perhaps you can enlighten us?

And yet you spread BS that has driven down the vaccination rate, in part by trivializing those who died, and ignoring that more than half of all adults are 'at risk' because of age, obesity, high blood pressure, etc. What's your goal? It's not public safety....

My goal here is to seek truth and justice. I am happy to share my perspective with others and to try to educate those who show some appreciation for my efforts to do so. If I am spreading BS (or stating things you know are not reality) then simply provide me with the verifiable evidence logically assessed and I will be appreciative.

Claiming I am driving down vaccinations (against COVID I assume) is simply not true. I have stated repeatedly that older and sicker people who are higher risk of becoming seriously ill or dying with COVID should get vaccinated. Now I oppose vaccine mandates that make no sense. If nursing homes or hospitals want to require people working there get vaccinated (or provide proof of prior infection with SARS-CoV2) I have no problem with that, although I recognize even vaccinated workers in a nursing home could still get infected, show no or only very mild symptoms, and still transmit the virus to patients there. It is a tough problem, but proper PPE could certainly help reduce it.

My goal is public safety but not at an excessive cost of ruining the lives of people who are at a low risk of serious illness and death with COVID. At this point I would like to see similar policies that we have had for decades for dealing with the flu, become the guidelines for dealing with SARS-CoV2.

 

[d0gbreath]

The other side of that argument is that the spike protein is what makes a coronavirus a coronavirus. So the immune system is primed to potentially recognize any virus with a spike protein.

On the other hand via the natural immunity route your body may wind up only recognizing a set of characteristics that are specific to that particular variant.

It’s an unanswered question at this point though the vaccine argument, at least in paper, is quite strong and the data so far seems to support it.

That said acquiring immunity by infection is, for the majority of people, a stupid ass strategy though in my opinion people who have gotten natural immunity should be counted as on par with vaccinated people until the evidence says otherwise.

They aren't on par with the vaccinated and are twice as likely to get it again.

People who've had COVID, twice as likely to get reinfected than those who get vaccinated, CDC says

Residents who were infected with COVID in 2020 experienced a reinfection between May and June of 2021. That's the same time the Delta variant intensified across the country.

abc7news.com

 

[RealityChecker]

Natural immunity is neither 100% nor does it last.

I did not claim it was The same appears to be even more true of COVID vaccines. So what?

It is shown numerous times that people with natural immunity catch COVID over again.

Again this is even more true for those who got any of the COVID vaccines. So what?

Natural immunity + vaccines = Best protection.

So you are demanding people who have likely weaker immunity via vaccines should try to catch SARS-CoV2 now to get the best protection possible? Personally, I would say people who have either naturally acquired active immunity or vaccine induced immunity are most likely fine, but whether either needs to get some sort of an immune booster shot right now we really do not know. I do oppose mandating everyone get vaccinated, and especially those who have already recovered from COVID. Public policies and especially universal mandates and penalties for not conforming to government fiats seems a bridge too far at this point from my perspective. Perhaps as new data rolls in I will change my mind.

 

[Gaius46]

I did not claim it was The same appears to be even more true of COVID vaccines. So what?

Again this is even more true for those who got any of the COVID vaccines. So what?

No it isn’t. At least not according to the latest studies.