Vaccine immunity better than natural immunity - newest study

Discussion in 'Coronavirus Pandemic Discussions' started by CenterField, Oct 29, 2021.

PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening. We urge you to seek reliable alternate sources to verify information you read in this forum.

  1. cabse5

    cabse5 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2013
    Messages:
    7,217
    Likes Received:
    2,271
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I think it's pretty well established that if one is elderly or has multiple co-morbidities, their chances of dying from Covid infection go way up whether they wear a mask or get vaccinated, for example.

    EDIT: Vaccinations do help but there's no need to vaccinate everyone...Just the most at risk from Covid infection...Not the school aged kids and not the 6–12-year-olds.
     
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2021
    Pneuma likes this.
  2. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    22,553
    Likes Received:
    6,067
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Trump supporter.
    upload_2021-11-1_9-54-4.jpeg
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  3. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    22,553
    Likes Received:
    6,067
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wrong. You need more information. Kids do not get as sick, but they are carriers to their parents and grandparents. That’s why they need to be vaccinated.
    Ask any adult who works in a school system. Kids spread diseases they themselves may not get too sick with.
    https://www.healthline.com/health-news/children-may-be-silent-carriers-of-covid-19
     
    Sallyally and Derideo_Te like this.
  4. 557

    557 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    19,147
    Likes Received:
    11,217
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Of course it does. That’s why I spent hours on PF explaining to people how neutralizing immunity works and why it was a mistake to tell people vaccines don’t prevent infections when they clearly do.

    There is a plethora of misinformation and disinformation about. My goal is to make sure some accurate information is available as well. The lie that 90% of hospitalizations are unvaccinated is dangerous for two reasons.

    First, it leads to a false sense of security in those who are vaccinated. They believe vaccination will protect them fully or mostly from harm when in fact it doesn’t. Many who are depending on vaccination to protect them are ending up hospitalized and dead. My goal is to SAVE LIVES OF THE VACCINATED that are dying needlessly because of garbage information like I’m refuting here.

    Second, the more lies are told about vaccination the less likely the hesitant are to vaccinate. I warned of this phenomenon before vaccines became available and it’s playing out just like I said it would. Lies are told and people see the lies and refuse vaccination because trust has been broken.

    It’s not splitting hairs. It’s my attempt to save lives of both the vaccinated and unvaccinated that are harmed by these LIES.
     
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2021
    Thedimon and Pneuma like this.
  5. ToughTalk

    ToughTalk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2018
    Messages:
    13,704
    Likes Received:
    10,330
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Did you want to play the game where we start posting pictures of all the people in the hospital with avoidable ailments had they made better life choices?

    Because we can do that.

    I mean, in the end you are deflecting from the reality that you personal would not wear a ridiculous (but absolutely effective) mask that would allow you to take full control of your own personal safety without needing to rely on any "dirty republican trump supporter"

    But you won't. Because hypocrisy. Once you felt the need to deflect off of the subject means you take the L.

    Thanks for playing!
     
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2021
  6. Montegriffo

    Montegriffo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2017
    Messages:
    10,903
    Likes Received:
    9,091
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The difference between 88% and 90% isn't splitting hairs?
     
  7. 557

    557 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    19,147
    Likes Received:
    11,217
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It’s 88% in one of the least vaccinated states. In the whole country it hit 86% at one point in July of 2021. It has steadily decreased. The CDC won’t even report current data it’s so bad. The Massachusetts data I provided shows a state with 70% vaccination has 36% of hospitalized fully vaccinated. The vaccinated hospitalized rate is increasing rapidly as my comparison between two dates shows.

    As I said, there may be a hospital somewhere with a 90% unvaccinated rate. But nationally it’s MUCH lower than that.

    If I fudged statistics by 2-26% in the other direction would you call it splitting hairs or dishonesty?

    Perhaps you can help me understand why you guys WANT to be lied to. If you were purchasing a vehicle or something would the salesman lying and telling you the mpg or kpg data was 26% overestimated would you call it splitting hairs? It’s your life and health and you don’t care that you are being lied to about the level of protection you have? That makes no sense to me. I’d be livid.
     
    Thedimon likes this.
  8. Montegriffo

    Montegriffo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2017
    Messages:
    10,903
    Likes Received:
    9,091
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Changing statistics over time is not being lied to.
    The rate of hospitalisation is significantly lower in those who are fully vaccinated.
    You accept that so why are you trying to muddy the waters?
    As rates of vaccination increase the percentage of hospitalisations amongst the unvaccinated will decrease as the unvaccinated become a smaller percentage of the population. The figures will change again as more people get a booster jab and their immunity increases again.

    The minority unvaccinated people are a majority of hospitalisations. They also are in hospital longer and die at a higher rate.
    That's all the information I need and anything else is splitting hairs.
     
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2021
    dagosa likes this.
  9. 557

    557 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    19,147
    Likes Received:
    11,217
    Trophy Points:
    113
    But ya’ll aren’t changing statistics. You cling to months old data, ignoring that every day your risk of breakthrough infection increases along with your risk of death and organ damage.


    Why can’t you see the significance of this increasing risk to yourself and others? This is what makes no sense to me. Nobody cares about actual health. Even their own.

    If being factual and adhering to evidence is splitting hairs no amount of correct information will help I guess and I’m wasting my time.

    Just in this thread there is so much disinformation that harms people and you all gobble it up. As long as the right people tell you something it doesn’t have to be true or based on evidence. It can negatively affect your health. Doesn’t seem to matter. I mean look at this. Someone who claims to follow the “science” on masking says this:


    If we are almost two years into this pandemic and people who claim to follow evidence are posting stuff like that, it’s very clear why we are two years into a pandemic.

    Until those who CLAIM to follow science and evidence actually DO, things aren’t going to get better. When ya’ll believe your vaccination prevents enough infections to limit spread you are part of the problem. When you don’t care that the statistics you accept and bandy about are untrue you are part of the problem. When you can’t accept there are unvaccinated people who are much less of a contagion threat to you than many vaccinated people, you are part of the problem.

    I don’t really care what people believe I guess. It’s your life you are gambling with by believing false information. Just please stop claiming moral superiority based on adhering to science and facts—because there is as much denial of science and facts on the vaccination side of the argument as the anti vax side. And I say that as someone who has consistently praised the positive aspects of vaccination.
     
    Pneuma likes this.
  10. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    29,328
    Likes Received:
    22,256
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You're leaving? But its just starting to get interesting!

    Even if the 'potential' conflicts of interest declared in this study don't pertain to this study and instead pertain to relating studies (which it doesn't look to me like thats what its saying and I think would be a weird way to do it, but w/e), that still means the results of this study could be tainted by those other studies that its basing some of its information on. But the specific funding methods for this study are not available anywhere that I can find (if the CDC makes public how it distributes its appropriated funding for studies, I don't know where). We can however look at how it has handled such things in the past. If you want the long version, its here: huntoon.pdf (jpands.org) For a short version, here's some highlights:

    this regarding an article in the BMJ-
    "The CDC accepts millions of dollars in “conditional funding” from entities, including pharmaceutical corporations. Conditional donations are donations that are specifically earmarked for specific projects.3 In 2012, for example, Genentech earmarked $600,000 in donations to the CDC Foundation for CDC’s efforts to promote expanded testing and treatment of viral hepatitis. Genentech and its parent company, Roche, manufacture test kits and treatments for hepatitis C….The CDC issued guidelines in August 2012 recommending expanded (cohort) screening of everyone born from 1945 to 1965 for hepatitis C virus…. Industry has donated [more than $26 million] to the coalition [CDC’s Viral Hepatitis Action Coalition] through the CDC Foundation since 2010.3 According to a BMJ article, “Conflict of interest forms filed by the 34 members of the external working group that wrote and reviewed the new CDC recommendation in 2012 show that nine had financial ties to the manufacturers.3 The CDC Foundation also accepted conditional funding from Roche for the Take 3 flu campaign.3 CDC subsequently posted a recommendation on its website recommending influenza antiviral drugs (e.g. oseltamivir). It cited studies in support of its recommendation, including one which CDC described as an independent study. “However, the study was sponsored by Roche, and all four authors had financial ties to Roche, Genentech, or Gilead (the first two sell oseltamivir and Gilead holds the patent).3 In 2015, the president and chief executive of the Institute for Family Health in New York, Neil Calman, commented: Industry funding undermines trust and introduces a bias in the presentation of results and treatment recommendations that is deplorable for a government agency. If the allegations of industry funding and influence are true, we will have to look very carefully at recommendations we are following now and those made in the future by the CDC…. Industry claims their scientific methodology ensures their studies are unbiased—just as the CDC claims money doesn’t affect their recommendations. Yet multiple studies clearly—and repeatedly—show that who sponsors a study, or issues a guideline, makes a difference.3"
    3. Lenzer J. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Protecting the private good? BMJ 2015;350:h2362. doi: 10.1136/bmj.h2362. Available at:
    https://www.bmj.com/content/350/bmj.h2362. Accessed Aug 14, 2020.

    This regarding an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association summarizing finding from the OIG-
    "An article summarizing the OIG’s findings concerning CDC’s Ethics Program, published in JAMA in 2010, reported:15 Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Volume 25 Number 3 Fall 2020 69 "The US Centers For Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) failed to identify or resolve potential conflicts of interest among its 2007 advisory committee members more than half the time, according to a report by the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) Office of the Inspector General (OIG)…. 97% of the 212 disclosure forms the agency certified in 2007 contained at least 1 omission, the report noted…. The CDC failed to identify potential conflicts on 124 individuals (58%) with certified forms…. Even when a potential conflict of interest was identified, the agency often did not take the steps necessary to address it. Nearly one-third (67 persons) of the 212 certified individuals had conflicts the CDC identified but failed to resolve.15 The detailed 47-page OIG report is both shocking and very disturbing.16 Its Findings included: For almost all special Government employees, CDC did not ensure that financial disclosure forms were complete in 2007…. CDC did not identify or resolve potential conflicts of interest for 64 percent of special Government employees in 2007…. CDC did not ensure that 41 percent of special Government employees received required ethics training in 2007…. Fifteen percent of special Government employees did not comply with ethics requirements during committee meetings in 2007…. 3 percent of SGEs voted on particular matters when their waivers prohibited such participation. Four SGEs both participated in committee meetings without current, certified OGE Forms 450 on file and voted on particular matters when their waivers prohibited such participation.16 The OIG report concluded by stating: “We found that CDC had a systemic lack of oversight of the ethics program for SGEs. That is, CDC and its SGEs did not comply with ethics requirements in 2007.”16
    15. Kuehn BM. Office of Inspector General: CDC lax in policing advisor’s conflicts of interest. JAMA 2010;303(5):412. Available at:
    https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/185312. Accessed Aug 14, 2020.
    16. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General. CDC’s Ethics Program for Special Government Employees on Federal Advisory Committees; December 2009. Available at:
    CDC's Ethics Program for Special Government Employees on Federal Advisory Committees (hhs.gov). Accessed Aug 14, 2020
     
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2021
  11. Montegriffo

    Montegriffo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2017
    Messages:
    10,903
    Likes Received:
    9,091
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm fully aware that the risk is increasing. It's been 5 months since my second shot so I'll be getting a booster soon.
    I've never stopped wearing a mask in public, I shop as little as I can always at the quietest time of day, I stay at least 10' away from other shoppers and wash my hands on the way in and on the way out.
     
  12. 557

    557 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    19,147
    Likes Received:
    11,217
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I’m glad you are staying safe my friend.
     
  13. Montegriffo

    Montegriffo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2017
    Messages:
    10,903
    Likes Received:
    9,091
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I just wish everyone else was still taking it seriously.
    Mask wearing and social distancing have taken a real dive.
     
    Sallyally, Cosmo and dagosa like this.
  14. 557

    557 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    19,147
    Likes Received:
    11,217
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think many have accepted the reality of how it is today. The risk now is acceptable to the vast majority where I live.
     
  15. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    22,553
    Likes Received:
    6,067
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Are you implying that being a Trump supporter is an “ailment ?”
    It never occurred to me, but let’s think on it.
    But hospitalizations are crushing red states. I even have a reference. I felt safer with that picture then not. The rates supported my picture. Especially when Trump spent most of his admin dumping on medical science and making a mockery of the whole deadly situation by constantly lying about it.
    https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixg...ning-his-rallies-into-mass-vaccination-sites/
     
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2021
  16. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    22,553
    Likes Received:
    6,067
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Imo, you are the one making light of masking. I feel that’s promoting behavior that increases death rates.
    Making light of masking is the wrong message when masking saves lives. Showing a Trump supporter on a ventilator is an accurate representation of the statistics of the likely hood of that happening. I’m much more right then you about what’s happening. That’s easy to do. I listen to science including the CDC. Trump spent four years degrading it, both in his cabinet and in public.

    I’ll be as kind as I can about Trump. He’s an @$$ wipe.
     
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2021
  17. ToughTalk

    ToughTalk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2018
    Messages:
    13,704
    Likes Received:
    10,330
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If you were to say "yup I wear one" I would respect you a ton more then hiding around the question knowing that the answer highlights your hypocrisy.

    The fact is you won't wear one, regardless to the fact that you would be absolutely safe. Because risk of covid for the reward of not looking ridiculous.

    Well sir, until you do. I can just add your argument for enforcing vaccines or thumbing your nose at those who choose risk/reward by not vaccinating into the hypocrisy pile.

    Again, thanks for playing.
     
  18. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    22,553
    Likes Received:
    6,067
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Those who remain unvaccinated are a threat to everyone who is.
    Being unaware of the medical facts and what is recommended at every hospital and medical research facility in the United States does not make me a hypocrite. Just because a denier chooses to be uninformed or just don’t care about the health of others needs to look in the mirror when talking about anyone else’s hypocracy.

    I don’t care to have the respect of anyone who treats me and my family’s safety with distain.
     
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2021
  19. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    22,553
    Likes Received:
    6,067
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Are you refused to just making up stuff ? You don’t have a clue it seems what the cdc recommends nor do you know what I do. Don’t pretend differently. Nearly Everything you say is false.
     
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2021
  20. ToughTalk

    ToughTalk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2018
    Messages:
    13,704
    Likes Received:
    10,330
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The mask is designed to protect those with auto immune deficiencies. It is designed SPECFICALLY to protect the wearer from exactly something like virus particles. It also protects the wearer from themselves as it will not allow you to wipe your face with possibly infected hands.

    The CDC doesn't need to promote the mask. So knowing this, will you buy one and save yourself?
     
  21. ToughTalk

    ToughTalk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2018
    Messages:
    13,704
    Likes Received:
    10,330
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Then buy the mask I showed you and protect yourself. Personal responsibility and all that stuff.
     
  22. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    22,553
    Likes Received:
    6,067
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You’re smarter then the cdc ? That means you’re smarter then the dozens of medical research facilities the cdc depends upon. ? Really ?

    Masks are for EVERYONE, not just the vulnerable. During a pandemic, the healthy are passing covid around like candy. Masks are to help keep people from spreading a disease.to the most vulnerable.

    Maybe you forgot why healthcare workers wash their hands and wear masks during surgeries. It’s to keep from spreading disease to patients. Maybe you forgot the unvaxxed are most vulnerable now. .

    It’s spreading miss information that keeps us from national healthcare too. The reason we don’t have it is the same reason we have this misinformation now.....about Covid. .
     
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2021
  23. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    22,553
    Likes Received:
    6,067
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ridiculous.
     
  24. ToughTalk

    ToughTalk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2018
    Messages:
    13,704
    Likes Received:
    10,330
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The CDC recommends ****ing visors where air particles can swoosh around and still get into your eyes and ****ing cloth masks.

    Yes. In this instance the CDC doesn't appear to know what the **** it's doing.

    Maybe the whole "not getting vaxxed" being the individual's choice also means they are not overly concerned about getting covid? That's their choice. Hence why they are not vaxxed and why they don't care enough to get vaxxed?

    Maybe if you were actually concerned...I mean REALLY SUPER DUPER concerned like you pretend to be, you'd actually have already researched up on masks that offer the best protection and wouldn't be caught without a valid excuse as to why you don't have one beyond "but the cdc didn't tell me too"

    There's nothing miss informative about these masks. They are designed for individuals with immune deficiencies who would die if they caught the common cold. They are specifically designed to protect the individual against this stuff where life and death is on the line. They offer far FAR better protection then the glorified bandana I wear around town to placate people who haven't got the ability to freely think.

    And since you don't have one of these masks, or a similar more effective solution in protecting yourself that even thought it looks ridiculous is also more effective then my glorified bandana you are ok with...then I'm sorry but I can't take your concerns of covid seriously.

    Thanks. For. Playing.
     
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2021
  25. ToughTalk

    ToughTalk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2018
    Messages:
    13,704
    Likes Received:
    10,330
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm not surprised how you got confused over the statement you actually made.

    Your picture of a person in the hospital with covid - an avoidable ailment/outcome in your mind is no different to that of someone who smokes and is in the hospital for lung cancer. Or someone who excessively eats and is in for heart disease. Or someone who spent a life time eating high sugar food and is in the hospital for diabetes. Or someone who skate boards and who is in the hospital from a bad fall.

    We all make personal choices of risk/reward.

    You included.
     

Share This Page