Vaccine immunity better than natural immunity - newest study

Anyone scared about the unvaccinated can do themselves a favor and buy a vyzr mask and be responsible for their own health instead of demanding everyone around them needs to jump through their hoops.

They could absolutely do this.

But personal responsibility isn't something they wanna take part in.

 

That’s a fallacy. Masks are for vaccinated peoples. The unvaccinated people are fked.

Let me be clear, I don’t care if you do ir don’t get vaccinated. I only care that I know. Then I have a choice. I can leave or cough in your direction.

 

He did not say that he thinks they were lie he was just pointing out the obvious you could have saved the rest of the bloviations.

It seems that the medical industry gets awful picky and they don't want anyone asking questions we have to ridicule people that would do things like that ascribe strawman to them, call them various labels, perhaps talk down to them but never simply address their valid concerns....

 

It's obvious we need vaccinated and non-vaccinated sections in buildings now.
Or at least different special times.

Maybe they could have vaccinated Wednesdays at that business.

 

There are a lot of studies already showing definite advantages to natural immunity. Especially over time periods longer than 5-6 months.

The very best protection if you haven’t already destroyed your health and immune system with lifestyle choices is to be of healthy weight, eat well, exercise, and ensure mineral and vitamin levels are adequate.

Here is a bit of data on exercise. It is a great way to prevent severe illness that I’ve been pushing since spring of 2020.
https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/does-exercise-help-protect-against-severe-covid-19-202106092475

Here’s another study from across the pond.

https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/55/19/1099

Of course the unwashed masses are told vaccination is the only way to protect yourself. Exercise even reduces your chance of infection! Here’s a study from South Korea.
https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2021/07/21/bjsports-2021-104203

Isn’t it interesting we hear all this hype about protecting yourself and others, but some of the most effective means of doing so are NEVER mentioned by public health “experts”? Makes one wonder if public health is the priority or something else.


Here’s what I said on the subject of exercise in April of 2020.

And guess what? I was right! Both the vaccine aficionados and the anti vaxxers can benefit!

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thecon...akes-vaccines-more-effective-new-study-159248

Too bad public health officials aren’t informing people of these things isn’t it? Seems odd we are only focusing on ONE mitigation and not even telling people how they can increase the efficacy of that one by their lifestyle choices. It’s a crazy world where you have to hear this stuff from a farmer who just got snowed out picking corn instead of public health officials. Go figure.

 

Yes it has been measured. Annual flu vaccination reduces efficacy of vaccination in later years. Annual influenza vaccination is known to negatively affect antibody affinity maturation in subsequent years.

This does not mean it will happen with Covid boosters. But it does mean when you were told no vaccine has negative long term consequences it was a lie.

 

Maybe we should just do away with making it easy to spread diseases. They make their choice.
As long as there are a lot of unvaccinated people, just like any other disease, the delay in herd immunity creates more opportunity for variants to develop and the need for more vaccines. Sorry, I don’t want to be around people that don’t care about my health even if they don’t care about their own.

 

be nice if you gave a link to that claim

 

Not if I have anything* to say about it. Just like smoking and non smoking, I just don’t frequent smoking areas and I won’t frequent anywhere unvaxxed people are of have even been served. The servers are at risk to me if they served unvaccInated.

. Just like smoking, businesses found out quickly that the non smokers like the vaxxed people, will make you lose business faster then anyone. Let the free enterprise system work.

 

If you are interested I’m happy to. Unlike most here my posts are based on more than unsubstantiated opinion.


https://academic.oup.com/ofid/article/8/3/ofab069/6129135

Here is the definitions of VE and PM.

One identified possible mechanism for decreased effectiveness is reduced antibody affinity maturation.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6659679/

I’ll trade these links straight across for the link I asked of you showing natural immunity doesn’t target the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2.

 

You do have a choice of protecting yourself. You just clearly won't wear it.

 

On what do you base that claim? Why would the conflict of interests be declared in this study if the conflict of interests didn't involve this study?

That doesnt mean anything at all. The CDC funds all sorts of things, including studies, with grants ('gifts') from private companies. Of course it claims it has very strict procedures to ensure those 'gifts' do not create a conflict of interest, but given its all decided internally by panels of bureaucrats that tend to consist of ex-executives of the companies who are potentially creating the conflict of interest, I'm definitely not convinced they do so in good faith.

According to the CDC Foundation, a "nonprofit organization that forges partnerships between the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and private and philanthropic sectors", CDCF forges "traditional philanthropic donor/grantee relationships, collaborative alliances between CDC and a single private-sector organization, broad multi-partner initiatives that may include more than one funding stream, and research collaborations to advance public health."
...
"CDC must evaluate when a gift offered by a private entity, e.g., company, foundation, enterprise, etc., may create a conflict of interest or may be from a prohibited source. A prohibited source is any individual or entity that is seeking official action by CDC; does business or seeks to do business with CDC; conducts activities regulated by CDC; has interests that may be substantially affected by performance or nonperformance of an employee’s official duties; benefits from work performed by CDC, such that they can use it to promote their business; or is an organization where a majority of its members are described in Section VI. I. 2 (5 C.F.R. Section 2635.203(d)). The fact that a potential donor is a prohibited source does not necessarily mean that a proposed gift may not be accepted; only that it must be carefully evaluated for possible conflicts of interest."
Public-Private Partnerships and Conflict of Interest Guidelines | CDC Foundation

Given that, on what basis do you refute that aspects this study weren't funded in part by Pfizer, AstraZeneca, GSC, etc, as the study's included list of potential conflicts of interest seems to indicate it was? The CDC does use private sector donations (call them grants or gifts, w/e) to fund research, and the study you linked lists Pfizer and other companies as 'potential' ( ) conflicts of interest. Perhaps you have a more detailed documentation of how this study was funded? I'd love to see it.

Go find it and link it here. Until you do, what I have is the study itself listing its own potential conflicts of interest, the CDC known to commonly use the CDCF to procure grants/gifts from private sector 'partners' to fund research, and just your word that this particular study didn't do that...

 

How bout vaccinated people wear a mask (since they're clearly worried about covid) and unvaccinated people don't (since they're clearly not worried about covid). I'd happily not wear a mask to warn you that I might not be safe to be around.

 

I don't need the healthiest lifestyle but I did well

 

No you don’t. That’s denial. The new variants are so infectious, everyone needs several layers of protection. That includes everyone being vaccinated. Maybe the idea that over 90% of the hospitalizations are vaxxed people has not quite hit home.

Haven’t met an unvaxxed person yet who cared much for masking either. Un vaxxed people are like pariah imo.

 

The masking is for people who are vaxxed. Unvaxxed people are skewed. The hospitals with 90% unvaxxed is proof positive people made the wrong choices. Masking unvaxxed people lowers the rate, it doesn’t prevent infections.
How about we just send unvaxxed people Christmas’cards this year.

 

We don’t have a clue what your personal odds are. We only know what general population odds are.

 

Not sure what good that'll do... but I take it you don't like my idea of me not wearing a mask to pre-warn you that I'm not vaccinated. Do you have an alternative idea?

 

You’re confusing being scared with being cautious.

 

Jesus! What I meant by elsewhere than the conflict of interest disclosure, is where I have already directed your attention to: the front page, the first footnote, where it says Funded by the CDC and nothing else! THAT's where the funding is reported, and it has been: CDC. PERIOD!!! Given the CDC's strict criteria to avoid conflict of interest, had Pfizer or AstraZeneca contributed to THIS research, it would have been listed there, dammit!!! There is no need to provide another link because the right place for it, the footnote that reports the funding, IS THERE!!! THAT was what I was referring to (and I made it abundantly clear but you don't seem to be paying attention).

Again, you're just unfamiliar with all of this. Conflicts of interest are reported for anything that could remotely be one even if it isn't. Reporting a potential conflict of interest DOESN'T mean that funding for THIS study was provided by the source indicated in said conflict of interest (as you seem to believe; another one of your multiple blunders), otherwise it would be LISTED IN THE FOOTNOTE YOU SEE ON THE FIRST PAGE!!!

And you then conveniently say that the CDC accepts gifts. So I suppose ANYTHING goes, huh? So, the CDC is also funded by taxpayer money. Does that mean it's tainted, because, you know, some taxpayers are Democrat? Oh wait, some taxpayers are Republican. That means the CDC should have an anti-vax bias, right? Right? See, two can play this game. And you are shooting your own argument in the foot, when showing that the CDC does have specific mechanisms to avoid conflict of interest. Yes, they do.

You failed to show specific funding FOR THIS STUDY from Pfizer and AstraZeneca (for the good reason that there isn't any otherwise it would have been reported on the first page). And now you move the goalposts. The potential conflict of interest has to do with studies that have ended (the vaccine trials) or unrelated (the what, meningococcus one? I don't even remember and I'm not going back). It is CLEARLY stated there, that that's what the potential conflict of interest refers to, and you are trying to BEND the facts to slanderously imply that THIS research was funded by drug makers, which is simply NOT true. Why in the hell do you suppose that funding for studies that have ended, means that THIS study had such funding? It did NOT!!!!

But again, unfamiliar as you are, Google warrior, you wouldn't know that. But I do, and I thoroughly demonstrated it.

You know what? By now I lost all patience with you, and I'll do what I should have done a LONG time ago, given your disingenuous way to debate, your multiple distortions of reality to fit your twisted narrative, and your ability to adopt a professorial tone about stuff you have NO CLUE about. Jesus. I'm sick and tired. Good riddance.

Have a long and safe live. Over and out.

 

Yes.
Shelter the vulnerable.
That's the unvaccinated now.
Stay at home so the rest of us can get on with life.

 

So be cautious and wear the damn vyzr mask.





Oh wait...your cautiousness only goes so far, ya? Kind of like you've weighed risk vs reward and do not consider covid delta to be scary enough to warrant you looking ridiculous while wearing a mask that is going to keep you safe?

K.

Thanks for playing

 

LOL. I suspect you meant to say 90% of hospitalizations are unvaccinated, but that wouldn’t have been true either.

Want to know the truth so you don’t go around disseminating any more misinformation?

I don’t know. It’s certainly possible a hospital somewhere did have 90% unvaccinated occupancy at one point. But it would be a statistical anomaly, not representative of reality. it’s probably a media outlet lying. They probably dug up one hospital with ten patients, nine of which were unvaccinated, one partially vaccinated, and wrote a story claiming it’s representative of a region or the US.

Here is some actual data. First from a couple weeks ago and then today.

https://www.mass.gov/info-details/covid-19-response-reporting#covid-19-vaccine-report-

From the above link. Current hospitalizations FOR COVID. As of October 7, 2021 there are 562 patients hospital for Covid. Of those, 179 are fully vaccinated. That’s 31% fully vaccinated and 69%unvaccinated. As of October 7.

Today there are 530 total hospitalized and 192 fully vaccinated hospitalized for a percentage of 36% vaccinated vs. 64% unvaccinated.

I’m using Massachusetts because it’s the 5th most vaccinated state and one I follow.

Even Mississippi a with a very low percentage vaccinated reports 88% unvaccinated and 12% vaccinated in hospitalized Covid patients.
https://msdh.ms.gov/msdhsite/_static/14,23549,420,971.html

It seems you may want to start questioning your information sources.

Even the CDC hasn’t reported 90% since June. It was down to 86% in July.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7037e1.htm

I don’t know of newer CDC data. The above was published in September2021. I’m guessing they will never print data like that from Massachusetts I’ve presented above.

Anyone claiming 90% of hospitalized in the US are unvaccinated is providing disinformation or misinformation.

Of course anyone is welcome to provide data showing the 90% claim is accurate…..but nobody will because no such data exists.

 

I’m glad you did well. Many have.

 

64% of the US population is vaccinated so 36% of the population is responsible for 80-90% of hospitalisations.
You can split hairs all you like about the exact numbers but it's clear that being vaccinated vastly reduces your chance of hospitalisation.

https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations