Vaccine immunity better than natural immunity - newest study

The difference, of course, is that none of those health concerns are contagious diseases.
If you over eat and get diabetes you aren't going to pass it on to granny by coughing on her.

 

Your assumption is totally unfounded. With over 90% of the hospitalized Covid patients being unvaccinated, it’s their responsibility for being better informed and not getting infected. It’s also ridiculous spreading hogwash like improper masking tripe and that masking is a substitute for vaccines. They are used together.

 

And your advocation for masking as a substitute for vaccines and being uninformed that it’s the healthy who are just as likely spreaders that contribute to that 90% in the hospitals.

 

Dude, let the parents and grandparents get vaccinated but not the kids who aren't at risk from complications to Covid infection.

Sidenote: BTW, the concerns you have about climate change are unfounded.

 

It's not their responsibility to be better informed. It's their personal choice. You think smokers are not aware of cancer? lol. They don't want to take the vaccine for whatever reason. Get over it. You don't care about them anyways. Stop pretending that you do. To you they are just another "sick Trump voter" So stop with the false concern. lol.

Stay in your lane and worry about yourself. Which I posted you options for better protection which you won't wear. Because you too have your own risk/reward for what you are willing to do to stay safe. Which makes you a hypocrite.

 

Ahh but then I just pointed out that if you were actually worried about contagion, you'd protect yourself absolutely by getting a mask such as the one I linked. You know? To be ultra safe. And not just walk around with your glorified bandana.

Since you won't buy it, let's not pretend you are worried about contagion.

 

While it could be a substitute due to it's effectiveness. It's more about offering you, the individual who complains about others...more sound protection from said individuals.

Which you won't wear.

Because hypocrite.

Thanks again for playing.

 

That is a lie, i.e. statistical impossibility, unless you believe that vaccinated people are dying on the spot without admission to the hospital.

 

Right...so unless you drive a tank to work you're not concerned about road traffic accidents.

 

There is evidence obesity can result from adenovirus infections which can be spread by coughing on someone. Diabetes certainly could be one result of this scenario.

Obesity is quite contagious, mostly socially, but pathologically as well. Many conditions like obesity and obesity caused conditions like heart disease, diabetes and cancer are big Covid comorbidities.

Details and documentation here.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?posts/1072968705/

 

You're skirting around something I wrote to make a different point.
That's fine but let's be clear, diabetes is not a contagious disease.

 

It is more than 10% of vaccinated people in hospitals, clearly, so 557 is right about it. However, two things need to be understood when looking at stats for fully vaccinated hospitalized or dead patients.

One, the numbers are actually better than they seem, given the denominator, that is, the total number of vaccinated people. Given that the vaccinated are now a majority, it means that a larger population is represented by a smaller number, than the smaller population of unvaccinated, which are represented by a larger number. So 36% of hospitalized patients but out of a much larger population, is actually another demonstration that vaccines do decrease hospitalization, given that the 64% of hospitalized patients who are vaccinated, are out of a much smaller population.

Two, people need to realize that the hospitalized vaccinated are a pre-selected population (that is, a biased sample, statistically speaking) because they tend to be the elderly who got vaccinated first, and are now farther away from their vaccination date than the younger people who got vaccinated later. We do know now that the protection from vaccination fades with time and doesn't go much farther than 6 months (especially for Pfizer; a bit better for Moderna), and we also know that the elderly infirm have a less competent immune system, so no wonder they eventually falter, when they are now 9 months from the basic vaccination (and most haven't had a booster yet). This can be corrected with a booster (for some). On the other hand, reports are that the unvaccinated who need hospitalization are of all age groups, and have a median age lower than the hospitalized vaccinated.

So, the stats above, if looked at superficially, depict a situation that appears to show the vaccines failing more often than they are actually failing. Clearly the vaccines do protect against hospitalization and death (not for all patients, of course) and do so very well for some 6 months, but not so well beyond that, which, again, can be corrected with boosters (again, not for all patients; some immunocompromised ones - about a third of them in studies - won't respond even to boosters and would be better off with monoclonal antibodies - there is nothing extraordinary about this; it is valid for all vaccinations in this group of immunocompromised patients; vaccines for them don't catch so well, and the Covid-19 vaccine is no exception).

 

Your behavior and your state of health can lead to others developing diabetes. That’s the point.

 

That's because not many realize the risk of organ damage.

 

It would be good to add that this is only true for one of the subtypes of the influenza virus, and add that the influenza virus is very different from the coronavirus; they belong to different families. And also add that the platform for making the flu vaccine is hugely different from the one used to make mRNA Covid-19 vaccines.

No, it doesn't. The experience so far with Covid-19 vaccine boosters is that they greatly enhance immunity. Loss of efficacy is not excluded in the future but the evidence so far doesn't point to that.

Who is saying that *no* vaccine has negative long term consequences? No vaccine, as in all of them? Of course this can't be affirmed given the several well-documented adverse reactions, some permanent, some fatal, related to several different vaccines. I have not heard such statement from our health officials, or, as a matter of fact, from anyone else. A generalization like this one is obvious untrue, like most generalizations. Do you have a quote?

 

Agree with some caveats and additions.

We were told there was no significant difference in efficacy in the aged after trials concluded. I found this to be unbelievable but kept my mouth shut because these novel platforms were an unknown. Clearly they are not performing as well in the aged as we were led to believe. Age still matters.

Same with obesity. It was claimed efficacy was the same in the obese after trials. Again this was contradictory to evidence from other studies of obesity at the time but we hoped these new platforms would be different.

I don’t have a problem with vaccines being less effective in certain demographics. It’s expected. What bothers me is the lies. There is no upside to lying about hospitalization rates of vaccinated and unvaccinated. There is great potential harm. It makes some overconfident in their level of protection and it further eroded trust in the hesitant demographics.

The main takeaway from the denominator argument is that even though vaccination rates have become mostly static in places like Massachusetts, the hospitalizations of vaccinated are climbing fast. It’s time to advise people they need to pursue other means of protection than just vaccination. It looks like protection from vaccination, while certainly a positive and desirable, is going to always be temporary and less than ideal for especially the elderly and immunocompromised. Such other means are available to all at no cost and just a little effort.

I’ve been considering a thread on these means of protection but you have convinced me it’s time. I’ll tag you when I get it put together.

 

Which has nothing to do with wearing masks to reduce the spread of a contagious disease, which was my point.

 

From day one we have been told that being vaccinated doesn't mean you should stop socially distancing, wearing masks, washing hands etc.

 

Another thing to add to the discussion between @557 and @Montegriffo :
Let's suppose a population in a given geographic area reached 100% of vaccination (a hardly attainable goal, but I'll go with this hypothetical, for the sake of demonstrating my reasoning). Let's suppose that there is a hospital there that draws from a catchment area that coincides about exactly with the area in which 100% of the population is vaccinated, and doesn't get any patients from elsewhere (also impossible to control but again, it's a hypothetical for demonstration purpose).

Given that some very old and infirm and immunocompromised patients will eventually fail vaccination and catch a bad case of the disease (like it happens for them for a number of other infections, such as simple walking pneumonia, etc.), eventually you'd have in that hospital, 100% of the hospitalized Covid-19 patients being fully vaccinated; because that hospital would be drawing their admissions from a population that is 100% vaccinated.

Oh boy, this would be a field day for the anti-vaxxers. They'd cling to this stat and would run around yelling that vaccines are useless and put people in hospitals.

But two other aspects of this stat would have to be considered. One, likely the NUMBER of hospitalized Covid-19 patients in that hospital would have dropped. There would be fewer patients there hospitalized for Covid-19 than when part of the population was unvaccinated.

Two, one would have to relate the number of hospitalized Covid-19 patients there, to the total number of residents of that catchment area.

Say, this hospital at one point (before the vaccines) had 100% of Covid-19 patients being unvaccinated, and 200 hospitalized patients for Covid-19. Then later this hospital had 150 Covid-19 patients, 33% being vaccinated and 67% being unvaccinated. Then they had at another subsequent point, 100 patients, 50% vaccinated and 50% unvaccinated. Then at one point they had 50 patients, 100% of them being vaccinated (once the full population of that area got vaccinated).

But then, you'd need to realize that the area has, say, 1 million inhabitants. So the REAL stat at that point, with 100% of them being vaccinated, would show that 50 out of 1,000,000 were having breakthrough infections, which would be 0.005%.

Of course, the later stat wouldn't be highlighted by the anti-vaxxers.

Also, the dropping number of hospitalized patients would be demonstrating the effect of the vaccine in decreasing this possibility.

The bottom line is, the more people get vaccinated, the bigger the proportion of vaccinated people in hospitals will be, but this does not necessarily demonstrate that the vaccines are failing.

 

First, correcting a typo. I've just realized that I said this: "given that the 64% of hospitalized patients who are vaccinated, are out of a much smaller population." I meant unvaccinated.

-------

There were no lies in the results of the phase 3 trials (at least, not for the American vaccine-makers; I wouldn't say the same of the Sputnik V, for example). They were what they were. At that time, protection seemed equivalent between old and young (for some vaccines; remember, the Sanofi one was withdrawn exactly because it didn't seem to work for the older population), and between obese and non-obese. But remember, the phase 3 trials only required observation for 2 months until submission of an emergency use authorization. So, *when* the data were looked at, the vaccines seemed to be protecting even the old and the obese, at equivalent rates, in those two months (that is, very recent vaccination).

And it was factual. Remember that at one point, practically no vaccinated people were getting hospitalized? Some papers and memos talked of 100% protection against hospitalization and death, for some vaccines. Well, this didn't last beyond those initial 2 months. Immunity faded, and faded much faster for the old and infirm and obese. The data in this ongoing pandemic will necessarily evolve. But I can't agree with calling "lies", data that were factual and true AT THE TIME WHEN THEY WERE PRODUCED/DIFUSED.

--------

Actually the CDC lately *is* telling the vaccinated that they need to adopt other precautions. Sure, more emphasis, better public announcements, should be happening and we lament that the CDC is not more visible and more proactive. But yes, the current advice is to mask up in all indoor spaces and crowded outdoor spaces, practice social distance and hand hygiene, including for the vaccinated. And, people should get boosters as soon as possible/indicated.

I'm getting my booster on November 9th (according to a schedule here in my hospital's employee clinic - I'd be eligible immediately at an outside pharmacy but there are some advantages in doing it here - like automatic documentation of compliance with mandates, the ability to choose which booster I want knowing that availability won't be an issue, there will be no waiting as I'll get a dedicated slot, I'll only interact in that vaccination clinic with vaccinated people given our mandate, etc. - but I'm being extra-careful until November 9th arrives - and beyond).

 

If you say so, true of the UK, but not of the USA. We were told by the CDC at one point that the vaccinated no longer needed to wear masks in any situation (I consider it to be a big blunder, a big mistake by the CDC). This wrong advice was later revoked, but it probably was responsible for some deaths.

 

Gonna have to disagree with you on this. A meta analysis backs up my claim.
https://academic.oup.com/ofid/article/8/3/ofab069/6129135

I’m well aware of the differences in platforms.

That is correct and I have not made any claim otherwise.

Sure. Here’s one.

 

I’m not sure of that. I’ve posted articles from many major media outlets including Fox, Newsweek etc. reporting on it.

 

What’s the difference? Wearing a mask or eating right and exercising to reduce the spread of contagious disease? All three are very effective at reducing spread of contagious diseases. Why focus on only one?

 

We’ve been told so many things I can’t remember them all. @CenterField brought up one case.