• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Covid-19 - Treatments & Vaccines

CDC report shows natural immunity stronger than vaccination alone during Delta outbreak with previous infection plus vaccination providing highest defense - https://www.reuters.com/business/he...vaccination-during-delta-surge-us-2022-01-19/

Here is link to CDC report - https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e1.htm?s_cid=mm7104e1_w

I am supportive of vaccinations which have proven to be safe and effective, but also think that the lack of acknowledging natural immunity has been a "blind spot" in making policy decisions, one of many factors impacting trust with medical and government officials.
 
It’s only been a blind spot in the sense that we only know data when it’s knowable.

And this data hasn’t and shouldn’t alter the vaccination recommendations.
 
Deac89 said:
CDC report shows natural immunity stronger than vaccination alone during Delta outbreak with previous infection plus vaccination providing highest defense - https://www.reuters.com/business/he...vaccination-during-delta-surge-us-2022-01-19/

Here is link to CDC report - https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e1.htm?s_cid=mm7104e1_w

I am supportive of vaccinations which have proven to be safe and effective, but also think that the lack of acknowledging natural immunity has been a "blind spot" in making policy decisions, one of many factors impacting trust with medical and government officials.
Click to expand...

What a misguided take from you. No kidding you can develop good immunity from infection- you legit fought off the virus. Problem with that approach, of course, is that a not zero percent of those infected will die or develop long term medical issues afterwards. Versus a vaccination that has proven extremely safe and effective. Feel free to keep getting covid to boost your immunity. I'll pass.
 
Who doesn't acknowledge natural immunity? That is just not an accurate declaration. We need better immunity in our population to get past this. Vaccines do that so they are recommended and, in some cases, required. If you had a prior infection, vaccines still do that. We can't mandate infections so vaccines are the way to go to get past this. You are reading directly from the CDC website that natural immunity is good yet stating that it isn't acknowledged? Enough with the bullshit.
 
Covid-19 - Treatments & Vaccines

Americans: How do I avoid getting sick?

Conservatives: Get sick. Not enough people talk about this.
 
BacktoBack said:
What a misguided take from you. No kidding you can develop good immunity from infection- you legit fought off the virus. Problem with that approach, of course, is that a not zero percent of those infected will die or develop long term medical issues afterwards. Versus a vaccination that has proven extremely safe and effective. Feel free to keep getting covid to boost your immunity. I'll pass.
Click to expand...

You’re missing the point. The point isn’t that people who haven’t had COVID should get it—instead of the vaccine—to get immunity. That’s a strawman. The point is that we have a bunch of people who have *already* gotten COVID—and thus who have strong immunity—yet we are still mandating that these people get vaccinated too. Even if you are in favor of mandates, considering that, on average, these people’s immunity is stronger than that gained from vaccination, shouldn’t we have an exception from mandates for these people if they don’t want the vaccine?

This particular study doesn’t strongly support that conclusion, at least not anymore—it stopped around the time Omicron appeared—but if it is determined that a similar result applies to Omicron, we should consider whether it is good policy to mandate vaccination for people whose immunity is already strong.
 
Covid-19 - Treatments & Vaccines

LOL. That explanation would actually seem earnest and legitimate if you were also in favor of a systematic process for identifying people when they get COVID and contact tracing to prevent COVID. Otherwise it looks like you’re just trying to get around mandates by allowing anyone to just claim they had COVID.
 
WakeBored said:
You’re missing the point. The point isn’t that people who haven’t had COVID should get it—instead of the vaccine—to get immunity. That’s a strawman. The point is that we have a bunch of people who have *already* gotten COVID—and thus who have strong immunity—yet we are still mandating that these people get vaccinated too. Even if you are in favor of mandates, considering that, on average, these people’s immunity is stronger than that gained from vaccination, shouldn’t we have an exception from mandates for these people if they don’t want the vaccine?

This particular study doesn’t strongly support that conclusion, at least not anymore—it stopped around the time Omicron appeared—but if it is determined that a similar result applies to Omicron, we should consider whether it is good policy to mandate vaccination for people whose immunity is already strong.
Click to expand...

How would we go about documenting their infection? A large % of cases don't even test or report. I'm totally fine if you want to get your blood drawn and show an acceptable antibody level in lieu of a vaccine requirement. Otherwise claiming infection is a bullshit way to work around public health measures.
 
Just some we’re all on the same page. Junebug doesn’t actually care about people’s health. He doesn’t care if unvaccinated people contribute to the spread of COVID. For his ilk, “freedom” has always meant being free to harm others with no accountability or consequences. They don’t want government to help us get freedom from them.
 
I’m quite confident that BacktoBack isn’t missing the point and that he also understands this at levels well beyond what bored is capable. I am just as confident that bored won’t acknowledge that and listen to someone like B2B and others that actually have expertise.
 
BacktoBack said:
How would we go about documenting their infection? A large % of cases don't even test or report. I'm totally fine if you want to get your blood drawn and show an acceptable antibody level in lieu of a vaccine requirement. Otherwise claiming infection is a bullshit way to work around public health measures.
Click to expand...

The study involved cases that were confirmed by a lab. Seems like we should be able to agree that that or an antibody test are sufficient.
 
WakeBored said:
The study involved cases that were confirmed by a lab. Seems like we should be able to agree that that or an antibody test are sufficient.
Click to expand...

How often should their immunity be tested? We have a good idea of how long vaccine based immunity lasts because it’s been and continues to be well studied. If someone wants to use natural immunity in lieu of a vaccine for employment, should they be retested every week? Month? Six months?
 
WakeBored said:
The study involved cases that were confirmed by a lab. Seems like we should be able to agree that that or an antibody test are sufficient.
Click to expand...

So you’re fine with vaccine mandates for all unless you have lab confirmed COVID or an antibody test?
 
It’s fine for recommendations and strategy to evolve (change) over time as we learn more. They have and will.

But nothing we currently know reasonably suggests a better more practical strategy for better controlling the pandemic than encouraging everyone eligible getting vaccinated. The most effective encouragement would be something like a broad mandate with limited/reasonable exceptions.

Opposition to this approach is largely misguided. Or malevolent. Hopefully mostly the former.
 
It’s weird how all of the doctors are saying the same thing, yet the lawyer thinks he knows better.
 
Tobacco Road said:
It’s weird how all of the doctors are saying the same thing, yet the lawyer thinks he knows better.
Click to expand...

I don’t know if ignorant, overconfident people are more likely to become lawyers or if the process of becoming a lawyer breeds people who think they know everything. Seems like much of is being taught how to adopt a position and support it no matter what with any possible evidence.
 
PhDeac said:
I don’t know if ignorant, overconfident people are more likely to become lawyers or if the process of becoming a lawyer breeds people who think they know everything. Seems like much of is being taught how to adopt a position and support it no matter what with any possible evidence.
Click to expand...

Lol. Someone is too butthurt to think rationally because Junebug.

Doctors are trained in diagnosing and treating ailments of the human body. Even assuming they all agreed on policy, which they don’t, they aren’t trained in policy any more than the average man on the street. I’ll defer to the doctors on how I should treat an ailment, but not how to order a society. For that, I look exclusively to washed up sociology professors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top