Natural immunity and no vaccine shot

[navybankerteacher]

1 hour ago, Colin117 said:

…

 

We should always have a choice as to how we manage our own health and I perfectly understand those that want the vaccines and those that don't want them.   Why on earth can't we all respect each other's decisions and just get on with life?

 

Because if some of those decisions are simply uninformed or incorrect - such as the belief that a person recovered from COVID is thereafter immune- they are not worthy of respect .

 

And, people who expose others to infection are not simply managing their own health - they are sometimes mis-managing the health of others.

 

Additionally, it is not particularly intelligent to insist that COVID is here to stay — it demonstrates ignorance of real science — witness the eradication of polio and smallpox.  Of course, those victories required overcoming deeply ingrained ignorance by removing choice from those who felt that their ignorance should trump their fellow citizens’ lives.

[SelectSys]

45 minutes ago, navybankerteacher said:

Additionally, it is not particularly intelligent to insist that COVID is here to stay — it demonstrates ignorance of real science — witness the eradication of polio and smallpox.

Once again, even the smallest amount of effort on your part would show that complete disease eradication is incredibly difficult.  Odds are much greater that COVID is here for the foreseeable future than its elimination.   Coronaviruses are quite common and why do you think that COVID-19 is any different?  

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/general-information.html#:~:text=Common human coronaviruses%2C including types,some point in their lives.

 

Personally, it would be nice if you defended your arguments more with facts than insults.  Do you have any peer-reviewed information to suggest COVID-19 will be completely eradicated anytime soon?

 

BTW - Even your statement regarding Polio is incorrect as polio still exists at a small level in the wild: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eradication_of_infectious_diseases  

Edited May 20, 2021 by SelectSys

[navybankerteacher]

10 minutes ago, SelectSys said:

Once again, even the smallest amount of effort on your part would show that complete disease eradication is incredibly difficult.  Odds are much greater that COVID is here for the foreseeable future than its elimination.   Coronaviruses are quite common and why do you think that COVID-19 is any different?  

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/general-information.html#:~:text=Common human coronaviruses%2C including types,some point in their lives.

 

Personally, it would be nice if you defended your arguments more with facts than insults.  Do you have any peer-reviewed information to suggest COVID-19 will be completely eradicated anytime soon?

 

BTW - Even your statement regarding Polio is incorrect as polio still exists at a small level in the wild: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eradication_of_infectious_diseases  

I never said “completely eradicated” — just that it was not “here to stay” .  The same way bubonic plague, small pox, measles, polio, etc. still exists - but certainly not at the “here to stay” level.

 

Again - consider thinking.

[SelectSys]

41 minutes ago, navybankerteacher said:

I never said “completely eradicated”

You said, eradicated without qualification.  Look at your own statement. 

 

41 minutes ago, navybankerteacher said:

just that it was not “here to stay”

Even with your  incomplete eradication, you still fail to provide evidence why COVID-19 is going away even at a practical level.   Quote some of those "peer reviewed" journal articles that you demand from people that disagree with you.

 

41 minutes ago, navybankerteacher said:

bubonic plague, small pox, measles, polio, etc. still exists - but certainly not at the “here to stay” level.

More unsupported claims for some made up definition!  Measles certainly is a current issue in some parts of the world!  Wouldn't you call 140k deaths in 2019 as a disease as currently relevant as a health issue?  Measles seem here to stay for the foreseeable future. 

https://www.who.int/news/item/05-12-2019-more-than-140-000-die-from-measles-as-cases-surge-worldwide

 

41 minutes ago, navybankerteacher said:

Again - consider thinking.

Huh?  Maybe you should consider thinking and researching before blasting people as uniformed!

 

 

Edited May 20, 2021 by SelectSys

[navybankerteacher]

I must remember to not suggest that people consider thinking — the notion seems to upset some.

[ldubs]

3 hours ago, Colin117 said:

You are welcome to your opinion.

 

I deem the people who have had Covid far safer than those who have merely been vaccinated.

 

You deem it?  Then, what's the problem!     

[capriccio]

4 hours ago, Colin117 said:

millions and millions of people have now had Covid and recovered and so are surely well protected going forward.  

 

4 hours ago, Colin117 said:

 Those that have had Covid are safe people imo. 

 

4 hours ago, Colin117 said:

immunity from having Covid is lasting.

 

3 hours ago, Colin117 said:

I deem the people who have had Covid far safer than those who have merely been vaccinated.

Why do you think that physicians are encouraging their patients that have had covid to get vaccinated? 

 

Anecdotally, I know a handful of people who have gotten Covid with cases ranging from mild to serious.  Every single one of them has been told by their respective physicians to get the vaccine. 

[ontheweb]

Just now, capriccio said:

 

 

 

Why do you think that physicians are encouraging their patients that have had covid to get vaccinated? 

 

Anecdotally, I know a handful of people who have gotten Covid with cases ranging from mild to serious.  Every single one of them has been told by their respective physicians to get the vaccine. 

And even the 45th President of the USA who had Covid later was vaccinated.

[ontheweb]

4 hours ago, ldubs said:

 

I love the "facts" being promoted by all these folks who don't want to follow what our public health professionals recommend.   

And then when you ask them for proof of their facts, they reply that they are not going to do their research for you instead of showing any proof.

[Toofarfromthesea]

22 hours ago, Anita Latte said:

 

I can't help it...

 

“It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door." ― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings

Exactly.  Life is dangerous and always ends in death.

[Toofarfromthesea]

4 hours ago, ontheweb said:

Do you have any peer reviewed science papers you can cite that say natural immunity lasts? Or that it would apply to variants?

 

And the 95% refers to efficacy against getting seriously ill, not 5% are not endowed any immunity.

Where are YOUR double-blind peer reviewed studies that prove that 'vaccine' immunity lasts longer tha  'had the disease' immunity?

[navybankerteacher]

44 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

And then when you ask them for proof of their facts, they reply that they are not going to do their research for you instead of showing any proof.

I have finally decided that it is simply not worth the time to respond to these people:  they select the “facts” that support their pre-conceptions and reject the information provided by the overwhelming number of people with expertise in the fields involved.  At the end of the day, you cannot argue with ignorance.

[ontheweb]

3 hours ago, Toofarfromthesea said:

Where are YOUR double-blind peer reviewed studies that prove that 'vaccine' immunity lasts longer tha  'had the disease' immunity?

That's a trick question, right?

 

First, how could it be double blind when the participants would know if they are covid survivors or recipients of the vaccine.

 

Second, it was once said that the vaccine provided immunity for 3 months. That was what was said because they were only in people's arms for 3 months. Now it is longer, and as time goes seems to be getting longer.

 

Third, what survivors are you going to put in your study? They vary from near death who were hospitalized for a long time to those whose cases were so mild that they did not even realize they had the virus. Are you going to include long haulers to see if they are different from those without lasting effects?

[navybankerteacher]

17 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

That's a trick question, right?

 

First, how could it be double blind when the participants would know if they are covid survivors or recipients of the vaccine.

 

Second, it was once said that the vaccine provided immunity for 3 months. That was what was said because they were only in people's arms for 3 months. Now it is longer, and as time goes seems to be getting longer.

 

Third, what survivors are you going to put in your study? They vary from near death who were hospitalized for a long time to those whose cases were so mild that they did not even realize they had the virus. Are you going to include long haulers to see if they are different from those without lasting effects?

I think you make sense -- but I do think that it is just better to ignore these people.  In large part they are unable and unwilling to accept notions which do not jibe with their pre-conceptions.  My hope is that they will give it up and go away if thinking people do not give them any more attention than they deserve...responding to them just generates more uninformed blather.

[mayleeman]

Another problem with seeking natural immunity is that you have to remember allowing spread of the virus to a hundred million unvaxxed people means a few hundred thousand will likely die. They, and the numerous seriously ill, will pay the heavy price for the others being willing to get natural immunity. 

 

Do dead people acquire a magical immunity? 

[ldubs]

6 hours ago, SelectSys said:

 

 

More unsupported claims for some made up definition!  Measles certainly is a current issue in some parts of the world!  Wouldn't you call 140k deaths in 2019 as a disease as currently relevant as a health issue?  Measles seem here to stay for the foreseeable future. 

https://www.who.int/news/item/05-12-2019-more-than-140-000-die-from-measles-as-cases-surge-worldwide

 

 

Just circling back because this discussion has been about vaccines.  The surge in measles is because places stopped using measles vaccine.  That vaccine, if used, prevents measles.   

[ontheweb]

9 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

I think you make sense -- but I do think that it is just better to ignore these people.  In large part they are unable and unwilling to accept notions which do not jibe with their pre-conceptions.  My hope is that they will give it up and go away if thinking people do not give them any more attention than they deserve...responding to them just generates more uninformed blather.

Remember the old saying "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.".

 

I was responding to someone who used that they knew the term double blind study, but used it in a wholly inappropriate way. 

[ontheweb]

8 hours ago, ldubs said:

 

Just circling back because this discussion has been about vaccines.  The surge in measles is because places stopped using measles vaccine.  That vaccine, if used, prevents measles.   

Yes, a few years ago there was a measles outbreak in parts of my state. You no longer hear of measles outbreaks there because the legislature passed, the governor signed, and finally the courts upheld the banning of the religious exemption for avoiding the measles vaccine. The medical exemption remained.

 

Herd immunity was restored making it safe again for those who had legitimate medical reasons to avoid the measles vaccine.

[mayleeman]

A little knowledge may be dangerous, but too many people think the solution is to have less.

[Toofarfromthesea]

18 hours ago, ontheweb said:

That's a trick question, right?

 

First, how could it be double blind when the participants would know if they are covid survivors or recipients of the vaccine.

 

Second, it was once said that the vaccine provided immunity for 3 months. That was what was said because they were only in people's arms for 3 months. Now it is longer, and as time goes seems to be getting longer.

 

Third, what survivors are you going to put in your study? They vary from near death who were hospitalized for a long time to those whose cases were so mild that they did not even realize they had the virus. Are you going to include long haulers to see if they are different from those without lasting effects?

So you accuse me of having no studies and you yourself turn out to have no studies.  Got it.

[Toofarfromthesea]

8 hours ago, ontheweb said:

Remember the old saying "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.".

 

I was responding to someone who used that they knew the term double blind study, but used it in a wholly inappropriate way. 

In this case the ones double blinded would be the researchers.  They would look at the duration of immunity without knowing which of the subject had vaccine immunity and which had so-called natural immunity.

[ontheweb]

18 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

I think you make sense -- but I do think that it is just better to ignore these people.  In large part they are unable and unwilling to accept notions which do not jibe with their pre-conceptions.  My hope is that they will give it up and go away if thinking people do not give them any more attention than they deserve...responding to them just generates more uninformed blather.

I now see what you mean, and I am about to add a second person to my ignore list.

[Anita Latte]

For those that are interested in reading about studies happening, the following article reports on various research regarding our body’s ability for adaptive immunity to virus variants in both populations, COVID survivors and the vaccinated. Very good explanation of how antibodies, B cells and T cells all work together. The title is Your Immune System Evolves to Fight Coronavirus Variants.

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/your-immune-system-evolves-to-fight-coronavirus-variants/

 

The article makes many references to studies and papers so anyone who really feels like diving deep could also spend some time following through to those. I think there is a link in the article to the NIH website about enduring immunity that I shared earlier in this thread. 

 

I find our bodies to be wonderfully made...our bodies are so capable of living, especially if we support their functioning with necessary chemicals (food), restful sleep, and movement (physical activity that may or may not be “exercise”)...doesn’t hurt to nourish our spirits and souls too. I wish our pandemic response had included a wake up call regarding healthy lifestyles and how we can all enhance our immune response through our daily choices. There is nothing on that topic in this linked article though.
 

Happy reading!

[ontheweb]

2 hours ago, Toofarfromthesea said:

In this case the ones double blinded would be the researchers.  They would look at the duration of immunity without knowing which of the subject had vaccine immunity and which had so-called natural immunity.

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣You are incredibly amusing. "in this case the ones double blinded would be the researchers"----You actually wrote that.🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

 

Do you have any idea what the meaning of DOUBLE  blind is?

 

Here's the dictionary definition:

 

"A testing procedure, designed to eliminate biased results, in which the identity of those receiving a test treatment is CONCEALED FROM BOTH ADMINISTRATORS AND SUBJECTS until after the study is completed.

 

What is it about the word DOUBLE that you do  not understand?

[hallux]

So, let's say that it's found that "natural immunity" through infection and recovery IS found to be lasting - how do you propose this is verified?  It seems as though the protection is not universally lasting so a test to confirm protection would be needed rather than just saying "I had it, here's my previous positive test to prove it" (by the way, how is this different from just providing a proof of vaccine card? for those that are against that).

 

Are you saying that anyone wanting to use "natural immunity" as their protection protocol will then need to submit to a blood test before boarding (and then provide THAT medical record)?