Struggling bad about getting Covid Vaccine

[TiredBill]

UAE uses mostly Pfizer, Sinopharm (the most effective of the Chinese vaccines), and AZ. Some Sputnik as well, I think. They are also vaccinating children which almost no other country is doing.

From your comment about the Seychelles, you may have read the June NYT story that criticized their wave of new infections solely on their inferior Chinese vaccines (not on Delta). They said the USA had a 95% drop in cases because of their wonderful vaccines. When the USA numbers rose we didn't blame the vaccines, we blamed the unvaccinated. We didn't do the same with the Seychelles, showing once again the geocentric arrogance of American media.

Pandemics are complicated, and using heuristics to explain incredibly complex systems almost always runs into the mess of reality. The same happens in medicine.

Vaccines are remarkably effective, but they're not a panacea. I hope everyone here who feels they can do it is able to get vaccinated. I hope they then CONTINUE to take precautions such as masks, social distancing, good ventilation, testing, etc. As someone who gets sick easily, more mask wearing would make me happy even post-Covid.

Treatments are effective, but not as much as we'd hope. Regeneron or other MAB, antivirals, budesonide, fluvoxamine, dexamethasone. I hope we get more research and more effective treatment guidelines.

I hope we can do many things simultaneously to improve our outcomes, rather than depend on purely one intervention and then ignoring the rest.

Vaccine protection of a population can fail due to either a low low vaccination rate or a less than effective vaccine or the emergence of a variant.

Having people refuse effective vaccines, and getting sick, drives the probability of mutations.

People who only have access to semi-effective vaccines are not blameworthy, but not-so-much when first class vaccines are fully available.

I agree that are not a panacea, but they are by far the best option we have to slow illness and death. And we can do that now and in the present. As you say, the best current vaccines are still remarkably effective in preventing hospitalization and death.

Bill

 

[TiredBill]

And to make matters worse, my friend in Texas who has had two friends pass this week, one near death, and two more on ventilators in ICUs, just got word from her brother that his 5 month old grandson is in ICU with Covid.

Please take Delta seriously people. India ran out of firewood to burn their dead when Delta swept through.

Vaccines are our best protections.

Bill

 

[junkcrap50]

I'm still waiting for Novavax. I'm worried about the effects on the innate immune system. Novavax doesn't have this problem. It should just trigger adaptive immunity and not the whole chain of the immune system that might participate in ME pathophysiology. The only thing that might cause issues is the immunity enhancing adjuvant. But I expect it to be safer because it's limited to the muscle, unlike the mRNA from mRNA viruses.

I had been waiting on Novavax too. But why would It not affect the innate immune system? Agree it’s likely safer than the mRNA. But ever since some research showed the spike protein itself by itself can be pathogenic Novavax would have that risk. But you’d receive a small fixed dose of it.

He did not give me a prophylatic ivermectin RX- which I suspect does not exist. Ivermectin is taken short term.

Some interesting studies on Ivermectin prophylactic 1x/week ivermectin in Indian healthcare workers treating COVID patients showed effectiveness.

What does everyone think about constant vaccines causing ADE?

Strong possibility. Any time you have a leaky vaccine, it’s possible. Plus COVID is a respiratory virus which mutates very quickly, increasing the opportunities to cause ADE. Plus history of terrible ADE in previous SARS coronavirus vaccines. So, can’t discount it. But if it happens, there’d be no consensus if it’s happening, so I worry ADE would advance to serious instead of catching it when it’s mild.

Actually they are projecting that it's less immunity from getting COVID rather than the vaccine not more.

I’m sorry but that just isn’t true - or at least is not the current thinking. It may have thought to be true/flip flopped early on or at one point. Natural immunity appears to be longer lasting as the experts are admitting now vaccines are temporary ~6mo and need booster shots.

It seems like all of the vaccines for covid contain some sort of novel technology. The novavax would be the closest to something 'old school', but even that is using a new adjuvant from plant saponins.

Even more traditional/old school than Novavax is the French vaccine Valneva using inactivated whole virus, who just expanded their phase 3 trials. And the press says it can offer protection against variants. Though I don’t know how it’s different or why it’s more effective than the Chinese or Indian vaccines. It looks like it will get approval in UK at the end of the year.

There's no reason for others who have had the vaccine to fear being around the unvaccinated, since they're protected.

That’s how it should be, but it’s not. But fear what? Catching Covid: No, vaxxed people can still get it. The thinking has changed. Fear hospitalization & serious illness: yeah probably true, though if you have multiple risk factors like obesity, age, heart disease/hypertension, diabetes, etc hospitalization/serious is still possible. Fear is personal risk tolerance + probability %s, which is why there is so much polarization.

Severe cases are just a subset that depends on viral load.

That‘s the current thinking. But I just hear da day or two ago about a study showing viral load != severity. What subset? I assume you mean risk factors (age, obesity, cardio, etc.)
Edit: My striked out comment is very likely not true. Edited so I didn't want to spread fake news. I was just repeating the headline I heard without looking into it; mistake to do that. The study was weak/not well designed and anyway there are far more studies showing the opposite: viral load influences severity.

he had some bad news about herd immunity. It's not going to happen. Because the jabs are not effective enough and getting infected does not provide long lasting protection. So covid will still have people to infect. It wont go away.

Yes. This is probably true and likely was always going to be this way. But this is the nature of respiratory viruses. They mutate and spread so quickly that you heard immunity is harder to reach.

However, over time, the risk of & disease severity will decrease significantly - hopefully and likely to regular everyday colds and flus. (This has happened with other pandemics: Spanish flu, 1960s Asian flu - we have both today & very mild) This is bc natural mutation selection skew towards milderness illness (yes still possible for mutation that is nughtmareish). And bc frequent exposure to normal viruses and colds will build, strengthen, & boost natural immunity. History of normal choronovirua colds do provide some limited cross protection to Covid virus. And Getting COVID 1,2,3 times (on population scale) will add more and more epitopes for immunity. So any new mutations are lower severity from partial immunity and weaker mutations.

The worrying part that could be possible is due to lockdowns and masks, every day colds, flues, etc are not being encounters and not provided mini immune boosters. This is starting to be seen in RVS in children now, some think.

Therapeutics would be a way to get to this new equilibrium faster.

I just heard from a friend in Texas. At the beginning of this week she had 5 people in her friendship circle in the hospital with Covid. Two are now dead. A third is expected to die anytime and the other to are on ventilators.

None were vaccinated. She is bereft.

Bill

That’s terrible. Sorry to hear that. Shame when I agree could have been prevented. Did they have any risk factors (obesity, age, high bp or cholesterol, cardio disease, diabetes, low vit D, etc.) 3/5 dead, even with such a small sample, seems likely to happen in healthy adults just based on %s.

Blame is well-placed when it comes to those who spread misinformation, who increase vaccine hesitancy, and who risk their lives and the lives of others by not masking and not vaxxing w/o cause. 100%. Those people are blameworthy.

Ivermectin is not effective for Covid. That has been demonstrated by results of a study released just this week. HCQ does not work either,suggesting otherwise is just not so.

Polarization is due to facts and truths being impossible to agree upon. Due to several things: seeing two different movies on the same screen (2 people see what each other sees yet will say the opposite of what just happened even if it’s not interpretable); interpretable data; confusing and contradictory statements; lack of consistency from & trust of credible figures; widely different data & #s for various subgroups; not ident offing subgroups when discussing facts; widely different risk profiles regarding the virus itself, therapeutics and drugs, and vaccines and on several levels: personal level, community, and policy level; overflow of huge amounts of rapidly new changing data and information not possible for all to keep up; miscommunication from not specifying exact narrow boundary conditions of topic of discussion; varying acceptance and rejection of sources; personal experience/annectdotes influencing facts/data/opinions; and arrrogance/lack of humility/strongly held beliefs when discussing “facts” or “truths” each know thinking they known best and are right-other wrong.

For example, many would strongly disagree regarding ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine.

So it’s hard and misdirected to place blame in any direction. Especially when you have such a diverse and widely different (on tons of levels) population to manage, who share different priorities, trust, and group references. Perfect or even successful handling of Covid was never ever going to happen.

 

[Abrin]

@Fighttolive

I am sorry your original vent thread has gotten so off track.

I don't know if you've posted recently because I skim through the majority of of threads pages but I just wanted to touch base and see how you were hanging on. ♥

 

[TiredBill]

I had been waiting on Novavax too. But why would It not affect the innate immune system? Agree it’s likely safer than the mRNA. But ever since some research showed the spike protein itself by itself can be pathogenic Novavax would have that risk. But you’d receive a small fixed dose of it.

Some interesting studies on Ivermectin prophylactic 1x/week ivermectin in Indian healthcare workers treating COVID patients showed effectiveness.

Strong possibility. Any time you have a leaky vaccine, it’s possible. Plus COVID is a respiratory virus which mutates very quickly, increasing the opportunities to cause ADE. Plus history of terrible ADE in previous SARS coronavirus vaccines. So, can’t discount it. But if it happens, there’d be no consensus if it’s happening, so I worry ADE would advance to serious instead of catching it when it’s mild.


I’m sorry but that just isn’t true - or at least is not the current thinking. It may have thought to be true/flip flopped early on or at one point. Natural immunity appears to be longer lasting as the experts are admitting now vaccines are temporary ~6mo and need booster shots.


Even more traditional/old school than Novavax is the French vaccine Valneva using inactivated whole virus, who just expanded their phase 3 trials. And the press says it can offer protection against variants. Though I don’t know how it’s different or why it’s more effective than the Chinese or Indian vaccines. It looks like it will get approval in UK at the end of the year.


That’s how it should be, but it’s not. But fear what? Catching Covid: No, vaxxed people can still get it. The thinking has changed. Fear hospitalization & serious illness: yeah probably true, though if you have multiple risk factors like obesity, age, heart disease/hypertension, diabetes, etc hospitalization/serious is still possible. Fear is personal risk tolerance + probability %s, which is why there is so much polarization.


That‘s the current thinking. But I just hear da day or two ago about a study showing viral load != severity. What subset? I assume you mean risk factors (age, obesity, cardio, etc.)


Yes. This is probably true and likely was always going to be this way. But this is the nature of respiratory viruses. They mutate and spread so quickly that you heard immunity is harder to reach.

However, over time, the risk of & disease severity will decrease significantly - hopefully and likely to regular everyday colds and flus. (This has happened with other pandemics: Spanish flu, 1960s Asian flu - we have both today & very mild) This is bc natural mutation selection skew towards milderness illness (yes still possible for mutation that is nughtmareish). And bc frequent exposure to normal viruses and colds will build, strengthen, & boost natural immunity. History of normal choronovirua colds do provide some limited cross protection to Covid virus. And Getting COVID 1,2,3 times (on population scale) will add more and more epitopes for immunity. So any new mutations are lower severity from partial immunity and weaker mutations.

The worrying part that could be possible is due to lockdowns and masks, every day colds, flues, etc are not being encounters and not provided mini immune boosters. This is starting to be seen in RVS in children now, some think.

Therapeutics would be a way to get to this new equilibrium faster.


That’s terrible. Sorry to hear that. Shame when I agree could have been prevented. Did they have any risk factors (obesity, age, high bp or cholesterol, cardio disease, diabetes, low vit D, etc.) 3/5 dead, even with such a small sample, seems likely to happen in healthy adults just based on %s.


Polarization is due to facts and truths being impossible to agree upon. Due to several things: seeing two different movies on the same screen (2 people see what each other sees yet will say the opposite of what just happened even if it’s not interpretable); interpretable data; confusing and contradictory statements; lack of consistency from & trust of credible figures; widely different data & #s for various subgroups; not ident offing subgroups when discussing facts; widely different risk profiles regarding the virus itself, therapeutics and drugs, and vaccines and on several levels: personal level, community, and policy level; overflow of huge amounts of rapidly new changing data and information not possible for all to keep up; miscommunication from not specifying exact narrow boundary conditions of topic of discussion; varying acceptance and rejection of sources; personal experience/annectdotes influencing facts/data/opinions; and arrrogance/lack of humility/strongly held beliefs when discussing “facts” or “truths” each know thinking they known best and are right-other wrong.

For example, many would strongly disagree regarding ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine.

So it’s hard and misdirected to place blame in any direction. Especially when you have such a diverse and widely different (on tons of levels) population to manage, who share different priorities, trust, and group references. Perfect or even successful handling of Covid was never ever going to happen.

I just got another update, the third adult--who was expected to die--has passed.

I have no insight into the medical histories of these people, aside from the fact that none were vaccinated.

Ivermectin has been shown to be completely ineffective against Covid in a major study released just this week.

Waiting on Novavax could be a long wait. It won't happen in the USA this year. European and other may get the opportunity sooner, but the clock is ticking for people to acquire protection as Delta rages. Waiting too long could cost one, everything.

Current vaccines are still highly effective in preventing hospitalization and death.

Sorry, but you are misinformed on "natural immunity," it is less than vaccinations and it requires risking illness and death as the route to inferior immunity. Not a rational course in my estimation.

Nor is it wise to use ineffective treatments like HCQ and Ivermectin.

We could have stopped Covid in its tracks in this country.

Bill

 

[Fighttolive]

@Fighttolive, im in same boat. i have gotten a lot better over the past year eating paleo and working on my gut, i can actually do stuff after work now! So worried i will slide back.

i think I already had covid, my whole family got sick the week before everything shut down, my kids teacher had it. If you get covid, you are vaccinated, getting the real thing is better than the vaccine. But just like the vaccine, natural immunity wears off to over time.

what is your nac protocol?

just 600mg a day! If I feel I may have had an exposure I’ll double it.

I’m goin to start Nasal Caraganeen spray aswell

 

[nerd]

Ivermectin is not effective for Covid. That has been demonstrated by results of a study released just this week.

Please understand my position. I'm tired of this discussion. Because I went over the evidence here multiple times. The Cochrane study that has been released this week is written from biased authors. I've followed their work for the whole time they have been assigned this study.

The authors have made false claims and shown a wrong understanding of the existing evidence base when asked by the press. They made the claim that the flawed JAMA study from Lopez-Medina would be one of the best studies. This is more than wrong. It completely twists the facts.

I opened a case with the German press council to have this corrected in articles that made such a claim. They agreed with the arguments and evidence I provided but they said that it can not be corrected when they refer to an "expert" such as an author of the Cochrane study (when it wasn't released yet).

The authors of the Cochrane study also made the claim in the press that effective concentrations are toxic, referring to the first in vitro study that used a mPBPK model comparing it to the IC50 in Vero cells. This has been undermined later by one study showing that Vero cells deliver inaccurate predictions for human lung cells. And corrected by another study using advanced pharmacokinetic models showing that even when we stick to the Vero cell line IC50 prediction, sufficient concentrations are achieved in humans. It's inresponsible when a Cochrane author either doesn't know their evidence base, or ignores the evidence base. One of these two cases must apply here. Otherwise, you have to lie to the public when making the claim that concentrations must be toxic. Toxicity is reached when overdosing 50x to 100x.

The Cochrane study itself cherry picks the evidence, similar to the WHO. They also integrate bias by setting inappropriate endpoint targets such as viral clearance after 7 days. After 7 days, viral clearance will have happened in controls all the same. If they had studied the pathophysiology of COVID-19, they might be aware of this. If they had read the Ivermectin studies on the RCT of Prof. Schwartz, they would know that 5 days are a better target, when the immune system of controls hasn't completely responded yet. But they haven't included his work.

In the end, they haven't found sufficient statistical significance. This doesn't mean that Ivermectin doesn't work. I've seen one Austrian article twisting the outcomes. "Insufficient evidence that Ivermectin works" becomes "evidence that Ivermectin doesn't work". Nice trick.

 

[nerd]

That‘s the current thinking. But I just hear da day or two ago about a study showing viral load != severity. What subset? I assume you mean risk factors (age, obesity, cardio, etc.)

Yes, I mean these risk factors. Could you reference the study? It would be odd when people with lower viral loads develop the disease when people with higher viral loads don't. It might just be a misrepresentation from the PCR which picks up dead viral residue as viral load. Yet, it would be interesting when this changes the correlation.

 

[TiredBill]

Please understand my position. I'm tired of this discussion. Because I went over the evidence here multiple times. The Cochrane study that has been released this week is written from biased authors. I've followed their work for the whole time they have been assigned this study.

The authors have made false claims and shown a wrong understanding of the existing evidence base when asked by the press. They made the claim that the flawed JAMA study from Lopez-Medina would be one of the best studies. This is more than wrong. It completely twists the facts.

I opened a case with the German press council to have this corrected in articles that made such a claim. They agreed with the arguments and evidence I provided but they said that it can not be corrected when they refer to an "expert" such as an author of the Cochrane study (when it wasn't released yet).

The authors of the Cochrane study also made the claim in the press that effective concentrations are toxic, referring to the first in vitro study that used a mPBPK model comparing it to the IC50 in Vero cells. This has been undermined later by one study showing that Vero cells deliver inaccurate predictions for human lung cells. And corrected by another study using advanced pharmacokinetic models showing that even when we stick to the Vero cell line IC50 prediction, sufficient concentrations are achieved in humans. It's inresponsible when a Cochrane author either doesn't know their evidence base, or ignores the evidence base. One of these two cases must apply here. Otherwise, you have to lie to the public when making the claim that concentrations must be toxic. Toxicity is reached when overdosing 50x to 100x.

The Cochrane study itself cherry picks the evidence, similar to the WHO. They also integrate bias by setting inappropriate endpoint targets such as viral clearance after 7 days. After 7 days, viral clearance will have happened in controls all the same. If they had studied the pathophysiology of COVID-19, they might be aware of this. If they had read the Ivermectin studies on the RCT of Prof. Schwartz, they would know that 5 days are a better target, when the immune system of controls hasn't completely responded yet. But they haven't included his work.

In the end, they haven't found sufficient statistical significance. This doesn't mean that Ivermectin doesn't work. I've seen one Austrian article twisting the outcomes. "Insufficient evidence that Ivermectin works" becomes "evidence that Ivermectin doesn't work". Nice trick.

A brand new major trial, the Together Trial, released this week has shown Ivermectin is ineffectual against Covid. It does not work.

Yet we get YouTubers and others pushing a fake "cure" and people getting sick after all the animal supply stores in the county are seeing their shelves emptied of dog, sheep, and horse de-wormers. Time to STOP.

Every health agency from FDA to WHO is telling people not to self medicate.

It is not a sound argument to claim that every recognized authority is "biased" because they reach the same conclusion: Ivermectin is ineffectual against Covid.

Bill

 

[TiredBill]

From an article in the LA Times:

Ivermectin, the latest supposed treatment for COVID-19 being touted by anti-vaccination groups, had “no effect whatsoever” on the disease, according to a large patient study.

That’s the conclusion of the Together Trial, which has subjected several purported nonvaccine treatments for COVID-19 to carefully designed clinical testing. The trial is supervised by McMaster University in Hamilton, Canada, and conducted in Brazil.

One of the trial’s principal investigators, Edward Mills of McMaster, presented the results from the Ivermectin arms of the study at an Aug. 6 symposium sponsored by the National Institutes of Health.


Among the 1,500 patients in the study, he said, Ivermectin showed “no effect whatsoever” on the trial’s outcome goals — whether patients required extended observation in the emergency room or hospitalization.

Non-paywalled version here:

https://www.bakersfield.com/ap/news...cle_6313a229-2db6-53a8-9b0d-b35857aab609.html

Bill

 

[Dakota15]

@TiredBill, "no evidence thus far" is just plain silencing those who have had extreme life-changing problems from these vaccines.

I was invovled in a meeting yesterday about this very topic. I'm only going to share screenshots of some of the content, but please, understand - this isn't "anti-vax" or "anti-science" - this is "hey, many of us are getting setback" from these novel vaccines.

So much so that 40,000 people are enrolled at the NIH to study. This isn't a minor problem. From what I'm gathering, the NIH is very aware something terribly unfortunate is happening to a very unlucky subset of the ME, LC, and healthy community

These people deserve to be heard too & not have to hide because of fear - please don't silence them.

 

[Wayne]

Natural immunity appears to be longer lasting as the experts are admitting now vaccines are temporary ~6mo and need booster shots.

Hi @junkcrap50 -- Thanks for your thoughts. Most everything I've read that sounds credible to me is in line with your assessment about natural immunity. I've also read repeatedly that giving a vaccination to somebody who's alread had an infection presents its own dangers. Meaning that the CDC's guidance that even those who've had COVID should get vaccinated (tens of millions?) may be bad advice.

 

[TiredBill]

@TiredBill, "no evidence thus far" is just plain silencing those who have had extreme life-changing problems from these vaccines.

I was invovled in a meeting yesterday about this very topic. I'm only going to share screenshots of some of the content, but please, understand - this isn't "anti-vax" or "anti-science" - this is "hey, many of us are getting setback" from these novel vaccines.

So much so that 40,000 people are enrolled at the NIH to study. This isn't a minor problem. From what I'm gathering, the NIH is very aware something terribly unfortunate is happening to a very unlucky subset of the ME, LC, and healthy community

These people deserve to be heard too & not have to hide because of fear - please don't silence them.

Not a bit. And people are dying by the millions from Covid.

That puts people with ME/CFS at great risk if they become vaccine hesitant.

Delta is extremely contagious. The time to gain protection against this virus will run out for many if they do not act soon. Dying is a serious set back.

Bill

 

[Dakota15]

Two things can be true:
1) Vaccines should be prioritized for all to protect oneself & others
2) We need to recognize, acknowledge, and research those seriously afflicted by these as well

We shouldn't discount this growing, emerging storyline.

"Nancy Klimas, by the way, has begun a study assessing both symptomatic and immune responses to the mRNA vaccines in ME/CFS patients that should help us understand why some people are better with the vaccines and why some people are doing worse."

https://www.healthrising.org/blog/2021/08/14/chronic-fatigue-risk-coronavirus-infection/

 

[TiredBill]

Hi @junkcrap50 -- Thanks for your thoughts. Most everything I've read that sounds credible to me is in line with your assessment about natural immunity. I've also read repeatedly that giving a vaccination to somebody who's alread had an infection presents its own dangers. Meaning that the CDC's guidance that even those who've had COVID should get vaccinated (tens of millions?) may be bad advice.

antibody titers (objective evidence) show the opposite. Vaccines confer greater immunity that recovering from an initial Covid infection.

The CDC is advising those with partial immunity (after surviving Covid) to get boosters so they can have the full level of protection that comes with vaccinations. It is great advice. That's the science-based path.

Bill

 

[TiredBill]

Two things can be true:
1) Vaccines should be prioritized for all to protect oneself & others
2) We need to recognize, acknowledge, and research those seriously afflicted by these as well

We shouldn't discount this growing, emerging storyline.

"Nancy Klimas, by the way, has begun a study assessing both symptomatic and immune responses to the mRNA vaccines in ME/CFS patients that should help us understand why some people are better with the vaccines and why some people are doing worse."

https://www.healthrising.org/blog/2021/08/14/chronic-fatigue-risk-coronavirus-infection/

If you ignore the pain, illness, and death caused by Covid (millions dead) and focus only on the tiny fraction of people with adverse reactions to vaccines, then the answer to your question is yes.

The proportionality is not comparable. Getting Covid present a manifestly greater threat to people's lives and health than the miniscule risks of vaccines.

Delta is an entirely new pandemic when to comes to contagion. The window to get protection via safe and effective vaccines is narrowing, and for too many it is too late. Hospitals in low vaccination areas are packed to the rafters. Deaths are on a steep rise.

I hope very much that those who are hesitant weight the risks and benefits and act in time.

Bill

 

[nerd]

From an article in the LA Times:

From the same article:

The study’s results on Ivermectin haven’t been formally published or peer-reviewed. Earlier peer-reviewed results from the Together Trial related to the antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine, which had been touted as a miracle treatment for COVID by then-President Trump, were published in April; they showed no significant therapeutic effect on the virus.

It's not published, so we can only speculate based on their previous releases. It's unclear if they found a positive signal or if they found insufficient significance given the calculated power.

The Together trial is designed to wait up to 8 says after symptom onset plus the enrollment delay, which might be another couple of days. Antivirals have to be used within the first days, as Prof. Schwartz showed. This affects Mulnopiravir, Remdesivir, HCQ, and all the other antivirals they tested all the same. So it's no surprise that none of these other drugs worked in their trial. The only drug that worked was Fluvoxamin, which doesn't have an antiviral MoA, but a mixed anti-inflammatory and anti-serotonin MoA.

The Together Trial isn't designed to identify antivirals. The only case in which antivirals might still work this way is when they help neutralize dead viral residue.

Moreover, it's unclear how their exclusion criteria is designed to make sure that previous Ivermectin use doesn't confound the results. Some studies such as the flawed Lopez-Medina study used very short criteria. 14 days should be the minimum. It's unclear how long they defined their exclusion criterion.

 

[Dakota15]

@TiredBill

What these people are saying, in regards to their QofL after the V's, is anything but miniscule.

 

[nerd]

Not sure what sources you considerable "credible" Wayne, but antibody titers (objective evidence) show the opposite. Vaccines confer greater immunity that recovering from an initial Covid infection.

Antibodies aren't representative of immunity and don't reflect innate immunity at all. But innate immunity is important when it comes to severe disease. Natural immunity from a previous infection is generally considered to be superior to vaccination immunity.

I've seen articles twisting the facts by assuming that natural immunity means unvaccinated and without previous infection, which, in fact, is no immunity at all. It means that natural immunity can happen or can not happen once infected.

 

[TiredBill]

Antibodies aren't representative of immunity and don't reflect innate immunity at all. But innate immunity is important when it comes to severe disease. Natural immunity is generally considered to be superior to vaccination immunity.

Sorry, this is the opposite of the truth. The CDC is urging boosters for those who have had Covid because the level of immunity is less that conferred by vaccinations.

Bill