How has the coronavirus affected your personal life?

Status
Not open for further replies.

skjl47

Goliath Tigerfish
MFK Member
May 16, 2011
4,335
3,577
179
Tennessee
Hello; I decided to go thru the article. What I find is the author includes lots of links to the information she discusses. That way we can click on the links and see the study/report for ourselves. So this is more than just a personal opinion work.

Covid-19 natural immunity compared to vaccine-induced immunity: The definitive summary

“Recent CDC data found that 74% of those who tested positive for Covid-19 in a Massachusetts analysis had been fully-vaccinated. Equally as troubling for those advocating vaccination-for-all: four out of five people hospitalized with Covid were fully-vaccinated. And CDC said "viral load” — indicating how able the human host is to spread Covid-19 — is about the same among the vaccinated and unvaccinated. Contrary to the infamous misinformation by CDC Director Rochelle Walensky last May, vaccinated people can— and are— spreading Covid. (CDC officials later corrected Walensky's false claim.)”

“Illinois health officials recently announced more than 160 fully-vaccinated people have died of Covid-19, and at least 644 been hospitalized; ten deaths and 51 hospitalizations counted in the prior week. Israel’s Health Ministry recently said effectiveness of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine has fallen to 40 percent. Last month, 100 vaccinated British sailors isolated on a ship at sea reportedly came down with Covid seven weeks into their deployment. In July, New Jersey reported 49 fully vaccinated residents had died of Covid; 27 in Louisiana; 80 in Massachusetts. In Iceland there is a spike in cases, mostly among the vaccinated, among a highly-vaccinated population that had previously claimed to have defeated Covid-19. Of 116 cases diagnosed in one day, 73 were among the vaccinated; 43 were unvaccinated.”

“Nationally, as of July 12, CDC said it was aware of more than 4,400 people who got Covid-19 after being fully vaccinated and had to be hospitalized; and 1,063 fully vaccinated people who died of Covid. But health officials still argue that vaccinated people make up only a small fraction of the seriously ill. Critics counter that CDC’s recent Massachusetts data calls that into question.”

“Update August 6: In Israel, more than 7,700 new cases of the virus have been detected during the most recent wave starting in May, but just 72 of the confirmed cases were reported in people who were known to have been infected previously – that is, less than 1% of the new cases. Roughly 40% of new cases – or more than 3,000 patients – involved people who had been infected despite being vaccinated. By contrast, Israelis who were vaccinated were 6.72 times more likely to get infected after the shot than after natural infection, with over 3,000 of the 5,193,499, or 0.0578%, of Israelis who were vaccinated getting infected in the latest wave.”

“Update August 27: A large study in Israel finds natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization for the Delta variant of Coronavirus compared to two-doses of Pfizer vaccine.”

“According to the study, after three months, risk of infection was 13.06 times higher among vaccinated patients and they were 27 times more likely to experience symptoms than unvaccinated people who'd had Covid previously.”

“Participants who were double jabbed were 5.96 times more likely to be infected and 7.13 times more likely to experience symptoms including cough, fever and shortness of breath.”

“But there’s promising news to be found within natural and acquired immunity statistics, according to virologists. As of May 29, CDC estimated more than 120 million Americans— more than one in three— had already battled Covid. While an estimated six-tenths of one-percent died, the other 99.4% of those infected survived with a presumed immune status that appears to be superior to that which comes with vaccination.”

Hello; This quote is of interest to me. Here is CDC estimates of a 99.4% survival rate. So I may have been correct about the overall survival rate being over 99%.

“If doctors could routinely test to confirm who has fought off and become immune to Covid-19, it would eliminate the practical need or rationale for those protected millions to get vaccinated. It would also allow them to avoid even the slight risk of serious vaccine side effects.”

“Unfortunately, virologists say no commonly-used test can detect with certainty whether a person is immune. A common misconception is that antibody tests can make that determination. But experts say immunity after infection or exposure often comes without a person producing or maintaining measurable antibodies.”

Hello; This is of interest. I was sick during the early months of the pandemic. I wondered if the illness was covid. However I had an antibody test which was negative many months later. I still have no way of knowing about that illness other than it was not like an ordinary cold or flu. Makes me wonder again, but no way to know.

“Because of that reality, people who have had asymptomatic infections — infections where they suffered no symptoms -- have no easy way to know that they're immune. However, a growing body of evidence indicates that the millions who know they got Covid can be assured they’re unlikely to suffer reinfection, for at least as long of a time period that scientists have been able to measure. Possibly far beyond.”
 
  • Like
Reactions: celebrist

RD.

Gold Tier VIP
MFK Member
May 9, 2007
12,174
9,964
3,330
62
Northwest Canada
Some interesting comments in that link.

"For Frieden, vaccinating people who have already had covid-19 is, ultimately, the most responsible policy right now. “There’s no doubt that natural infection does provide significant immunity for many people, but we’re operating in an environment of imperfect information, and in that environment the precautionary principle applies—better safe than sorry.”
 

skjl47

Goliath Tigerfish
MFK Member
May 16, 2011
4,335
3,577
179
Tennessee
Some interesting comments in that link.

"For Frieden, vaccinating people who have already had covid-19 is, ultimately, the most responsible policy right now. “There’s no doubt that natural infection does provide significant immunity for many people, but we’re operating in an environment of imperfect information, and in that environment the precautionary principle applies—better safe than sorry.”
Hello; I get there was something for everyone in the article, but have a question. The situation is someone had the virus and recovered on their own from the infection. Not the folks who had to go into hospital and have massive help to survive, but those who recovered on their own. Their immune system was good enough to fight off the virus.
After the infection their bodies will do what human bodies have been doing for a long time. That is save information about the virus so a defense can be ramped up if that virus shows up again. That they recovered on their own from the first infection ought to be a pretty good indicator they have a robust immune system. Not only is this the understanding we have known of for years but there is some current information showing the natural immunity is robust and long lasting.

Now I get that someone with a messed up immune system or some other related serious health issue is not in the same category. Someone on chemo or such may not have a natural immune system up to snuff.

Why is recovering from the virus on your own not good enough ?
 

RD.

Gold Tier VIP
MFK Member
May 9, 2007
12,174
9,964
3,330
62
Northwest Canada
Why is recovering from the virus on your own not good enough ?
Because there is no way to easily determine, who will be "good enough", and who won't be. Or even with certainty, who actually had covid, and who did not, and only think they did. Add to that the overall SNAFU that would entail. This was all explained in the article that you linked to.

From the link you posted:

" A spokesperson told The BMJ that “the immune response from vaccination is more predictable” and that based on current evidence, antibody responses after infection “vary widely by individual,” though studies are ongoing to “learn how much protection antibodies from infection may provide and how long that protection lasts.”


"Frieden told The BMJ that the question of leveraging natural immunity is a “reasonable discussion,” one he had raised informally with the CDC at start of rollout. “I thought from a rational standpoint, with limited vaccine available, why don’t you have the option” for people with previous infection to defer until there was more supply, he says. “I think that would have been a rational policy. It would have also made rollout, which was already too complicated, even more complicated.”

Most infections were never diagnosed, Frieden points out, and many people may have assumed they had been infected when they hadn’t. Add to that false positive results, he says. Had the CDC given different directives and vaccine schedules based on prior infection, it “wouldn’t have done much good and might have done some harm."


“It’s a lot easier to put a shot in their arm,” says Sommer. “To do a PCR test or to do an antibody test and then to process it and then to get the information to them and then to let them think about it—it’s a lot easier to just give them the damn vaccine.” In public health, “the primary objective is to protect as many people as you can,” he says. “It’s called collective insurance, and I think it’s irresponsible from a public health perspective to let people pick and choose what they want to do.”





I'm certainly not against natural immunity, or one deciding which way they should proceed, not at all. A rather moot point for myself, I get jabbed or I do not work. Either way, I would have taken the vaccine, even though I believe that I caught covid in late 2019, long before any type of testing was available. Considering my age/health, even sans work getting a vaccine was a no brainer for me.

With regards to testing, one thing to keep in mind is that tests, and labs, are not a perfect science. At my work, during any risk of exposure we are tested using two different procedures, a PCR (deep nasal) and a throat swab (rapid test), which is followed up with a repeat of same 5 days later. These tests are not 100% reliable, 100% of the time. We have already seen lab mistakes from tests taken at work. False positives, and false negatives can happen, hence the two sets of tests 5 days apart, which also covers someone who may have been negative, but a day or 3 later displays symptoms. Oops, first test not so reliable.

The same thing applies to an antibody test, where blood is taken by medical personal, it is an imperfect science, with a reported rate of overall false negatives being in the 20% range. One would need to get blood drawn, at least 2-3 times a year. And what if those antibodies wane, in between tests? Then what?
Ooops.


"We're operating in an environment of imperfect information"

This quote pretty much sums things up

I agree.
 
  • Like
Reactions: deeda
Status
Not open for further replies.
zoomed.com
hikariusa.com
aqaimports.com
Store