Home | Community | Message Board

Magic Mushrooms Zamnesia
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: North Spore Cultivation Supplies   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: < First | < Back | 174 | 175 | 176 | 177 | 178 | 179 | 180 | 181 | 182 | 183 | 184 | 185 | 186 | 187 | 188 | 189 | 190 | 191 | 192 | 193 | 194 | Next >
Offlinekoods
Ribbit
Male User Gallery


Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,049
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 4 hours, 7 minutes
Re: Coronavirus Chat [Re: koods]
    #27546001 - 11/16/21 04:09 PM (2 years, 2 months ago)

Don’t want to post it because you re read it and realize now that it doesn’t say what you thought it said, huh?


--------------------
NotSheekle said
“if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblefeeversM
Male

Registered: 12/28/10
Posts: 8,546
Loc: Flag
Re: Coronavirus Chat [Re: koods] * 1
    #27546003 - 11/16/21 04:11 PM (2 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

junk_f00d said:
You said 'Vaccine immunity is mostly only waning in the elderly/immunocompromised in terms of hospitalizations', and this is wrong. It is waning across all demographics, as the links I provided indicate. There's an abundance of links covering waning efficacy, it is not just limited to the elderly/immunocomprimised.




I was talking about hospitalizations, hence: “in terms of hospitalizations”.


Quote:

The risk of severe side effects are also very rare. I didn't say the source was perfect, I only used it to estimate hospitalization rate, which is what it shows. There's literally nothing illogical or improper about that. Those that experience these COVID related side effects that require hospitalization should be reflected in that graph, as well. It is literally titled 'Laboratory-Confirmed COVID-19-Associated Hospitalizations'. If you end up in the hospital and it's associated with COVID, you're on that graph. You're making this issue up entirely. If you have better data, please share it.




You’re really jumping through hoops trying to spin reality. You posted a specific number as your risk using that graph as proof, that number and that graph had 0 relation to your risk if you catch Covid. Keep reframing things all you want, you’re either very confused or just outright lying.

I don’t see any numbers on specific risk percentage for age group, but you can look up data in states that track vaccination status and cases/hospitalizations and do the math. I’ll use WA since they have a lot of data available

https://www.doh.wa.gov/Portals/1/Documents/1600/coronavirus/data-tables/421-010-CasesInNotFullyVaccinated.pdf

For Washington state there were 119,687 cases recorded in unvaccinated 12-34 year olds. In that same population there were 10,499 hospitalizations. By those numbers, unvaccinated people in WA aged 12-34 with confirmed Covid had an 8.8% risk of hospitalization.

Hospitalization obviously doesn’t tell the full story. For everyone who’s hospitalized there are clearly many more who are sick but don’t meet the requirements for admission, which at some hospitals are fairly high. Being very sick with a virus that reeks all sorts of long-term and often not immediately noticeable damage on the lungs and blood vessels and heart and kidneys and olfactory neurons and a whole cornucopia of physical structures and physiological processes doesn’t seem like a bright idea when there’s an easy way not to be.


Edited by feevers (11/16/21 04:19 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinejunk_f00d
 User Gallery

Registered: 12/04/15
Posts: 933
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
Re: Coronavirus Chat [Re: koods]
    #27546004 - 11/16/21 04:11 PM (2 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

koods said:
I have no idea what study you are referring to, probably because I read it and it doesn’t say what you think it says



https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1.full-text

Here's a critical discussion on it: https://www.factcheck.org/2021/09/scicheck-instagram-post-missing-context-about-israeli-study-on-covid-19-natural-immunity/

Regardless, will you at least concede you've been denying natural immunity with no data?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinekoods
Ribbit
Male User Gallery


Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,049
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 4 hours, 7 minutes
Re: Coronavirus Chat [Re: junk_f00d] * 2
    #27546009 - 11/16/21 04:19 PM (2 years, 2 months ago)

Yeah that’s the one. Where are you getting 27x better immunity?

Another major find in that study is the 55% drop in efficacy after less than a year.

Clearly a case of poor reading comprehension. Something that is an epidemic amongst the antivaxxers


--------------------
NotSheekle said
“if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinejunk_f00d
 User Gallery

Registered: 12/04/15
Posts: 933
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
Re: Coronavirus Chat [Re: feevers]
    #27546020 - 11/16/21 04:28 PM (2 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

feevers said:
I was talking about hospitalizations, hence: “in terms of hospitalizations”.




Then your statement was phrased ambiguously, then. And regardless, there's data that efficacy wanes, in terms of hospitalization, across all demographics. So, it's wrong.

Quote:

feevers said:
You’re really jumping through hoops trying to spin reality. You posted a specific number as your risk using that graph as proof, that number and that graph had 0 relation to your risk if you catch Covid. Keep reframing things all you want, you’re either very confused or just outright lying.




How is this lying? I said from the beginning, this data wasn't based on those who 'already caught COVID', but it does represent my combined risk of both catching AND being hospitalized for it. I asked for data that contained 'who already caught COVID' so I could calc this myself. It's just Baye's after you get prevelance rate at that point, which I'd rather use then sloppy CDC inferences. At any rate, this doesn't mean the CDC data is useless, it just, in some sense, already factors in the probability of catching it, to some extent. And yes, I do know natural immunity requires I catch it, for the 100th time.




Quote:

feevers said:
https://www.doh.wa.gov/Portals/1/Documents/1600/coronavirus/data-tables/421-010-CasesInNotFullyVaccinated.pdf

For Washington state there were 119,687 cases recorded in unvaccinated 12-34 year olds. In that same population there were 10,499 hospitalizations. By those numbers, unvaccinated people in WA aged 18-34 with confirmed Covid had an 8.8% risk of hospitalization.




I was just looking at this today as well. What page are you getting this data from? This data looks like an extreme outlier to me, I've not seen anything close to this hospitalization rate in confirmed cases. Do you have data from other counties or countries that looks similar? Seriously this data seems way way off. Almost a 10% chance? That's like 10x anything else I've heard. And again, for my personal risk I'd have to adjust for my health, which is good aside from being male.


Edited by junk_f00d (11/16/21 04:48 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinejunk_f00d
 User Gallery

Registered: 12/04/15
Posts: 933
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
Re: Coronavirus Chat [Re: koods]
    #27546026 - 11/16/21 04:35 PM (2 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

koods said:
Yeah that’s the one. Where are you getting 27x better immunity?

Another major find in that study is the 55% drop in efficacy after less than a year.

Clearly a case of poor reading comprehension. Something that is an epidemic amongst the antivaxxers



Read the full text, this is at the last line or near it, mr reading comprehension:
Quote:


we found a 27.02-fold risk (95% CI, 12.7 to 57.5) for symptomatic breakthrough infection as opposed to symptomatic reinfection (P<0.001)





Or from the article:
Quote:


The authors also found a 27-fold increased risk for symptomatic breakthrough infection after full vaccination as opposed to symptomatic reinfection. That was based on 191 infections in vaccinated individuals and eight in previously infected people.





And if you think 55% is bad, they found vaccines faired worse:
Quote:


This study demonstrated that natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity.





Other studies have implied longer immunity. It's up in the air presently, that's why I don't categorically deny it, that's bad science.  But where did you see that 55% efficacy drop in natural immunity?


The study is of course not perfect and just one point of data, but they did conclude natural immunity is superior, which you've denied repeatedly despite having no evidence.



Edited by junk_f00d (11/16/21 04:41 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinekoods
Ribbit
Male User Gallery


Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,049
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 4 hours, 7 minutes
Re: Coronavirus Chat [Re: junk_f00d]
    #27546041 - 11/16/21 04:47 PM (2 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Other studies have implied longer immunity. It's up in the air presently, that's why I don't categorically deny it, that's bad science.  But where did you see that 55% efficacy drop in natural immunity?



The first paragraph of the abstract results


--------------------
NotSheekle said
“if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”


Edited by koods (11/16/21 04:52 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinejunk_f00d
 User Gallery

Registered: 12/04/15
Posts: 933
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
Re: Coronavirus Chat [Re: koods]
    #27546047 - 11/16/21 04:52 PM (2 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

koods said:
Quote:

Other studies have implied longer immunity. It's up in the air presently, that's why I don't categorically deny it, that's bad science.  But where did you see that 55% efficacy drop in natural immunity?



The first paragraph of the abstract



This is all I'm seeing, in the 'results' section on the abstract page:
Quote:


evidence of waning natural immunity was demonstrated





From the full text, it seems they actually found no waning for at least 7 months:
Quote:


Using similar criteria, population-based studies demonstrated natural immunity with no signs of waning immunity for at least 7 months





Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinekoods
Ribbit
Male User Gallery


Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,049
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 4 hours, 7 minutes
Re: Coronavirus Chat [Re: koods] * 2
    #27546049 - 11/16/21 04:55 PM (2 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

The study is of course not perfect and just one point of data, but they did conclude natural immunity is superior, which you've denied repeatedly despite having no evidence.





It’s up in the air. I think the three shot regime will result in far superior immunity.

My issue with natural immunity is YOU HAVE TO GET IT TROUGH INFECTION. It has 100% infection rate, which is far worse than the vaccines.

The only way to defend natural immunity is to ignore this glaring fact. You are seeking justification for your decisions, but you have to ignore the implications of being infected as a requirement for natural immunity.


--------------------
NotSheekle said
“if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”


Edited by koods (11/16/21 04:58 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblefeeversM
Male

Registered: 12/28/10
Posts: 8,546
Loc: Flag
Re: Coronavirus Chat [Re: junk_f00d]
    #27546074 - 11/16/21 05:06 PM (2 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

junk_f00d said:
Quote:

feevers said:
I was talking about hospitalizations, hence: “in terms of hospitalizations”.
[\quote]
Then your statement was phrased ambiguously. Regardless, there's data that efficacy wanes, in terms of hospitalization, across all demographics.

Quote:

feevers said:
You’re really jumping through hoops trying to spin reality. You posted a specific number as your risk using that graph as proof, that number and that graph had 0 relation to your risk if you catch Covid. Keep reframing things all you want, you’re either very confused or just outright lying.




How is this lying? I said from the beginning, this data wasn't based on those who 'already caught COVID', but it does represent my combined risk of both catching AND being hospitalized for it. I asked for data that contained 'who already caught COVID' so I could calc this myself. I couldn't find data concerning risk after catching COVID. At any rate, this doesn't mean the data is useless, it just, in some sense, already factors in the probability of catching it, to some extent. And yes, I do know natural immunity requires I catch it, for the 100th time.




Quote:

feevers said:
https://www.doh.wa.gov/Portals/1/Documents/1600/coronavirus/data-tables/421-010-CasesInNotFullyVaccinated.pdf

For Washington state there were 119,687 cases recorded in unvaccinated 12-34 year olds. In that same population there were 10,499 hospitalizations. By those numbers, unvaccinated people in WA aged 18-34 with confirmed Covid had an 8.8% risk of hospitalization.




I was just looking at this today as well. What page are you getting this data from? I'm getting 2305 hospitalizations and 25693 total cases. But this data looks like an extreme outlier to me, I've not seen anything close to this hospitalization rate in confirmed cases. Do you have data from other counties or countries that looks similar?







It doesn’t represent your risk, it’s population level observational data. Your risk of catching Covid is nearly 100%, all numbers you posted were meaningless. You tried to bring your already made up risk down by 78% by citing the fact that a study said 78% of covid cases were overweight, ignoring fact that the the vast majority of Americans are overweight including those in the graph you erroneously cited. You’re very confused.

Your 25693 number is from 12-17 year olds, there were around 94k cases in 18-34 year olds, page 12. You need to combine the case counts for the 12-17 and 18-34 age groups because the data on hospitalization lumped them together, the 18-34 category was actually likely much higher than 8.8%..

I don’t know if it’s an outlier or not because I don’t feel like digging through every states Covid statistics to find out, I looked at WA because they’ve been very thorough with tracking and posting data. The large sample size and the consistency in other numbers to the rest of the country indicate it’s likely fairly representative, but idk. It wouldn’t be surprising to me, I’ve heard it dozens of times now from people who work in hospitals in highly vaccinated areas (and a couple shroomery ICU nurses) that Covid is a young unvaccinated person’s disease now.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezoidbergo
Gazes also into you
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 06/10/13
Posts: 257
Loc: Central Coast, California
Last seen: 1 hour, 25 minutes
Re: Coronavirus Chat [Re: junk_f00d] * 3
    #27546076 - 11/16/21 05:07 PM (2 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:


Here is a preprint supporting that it may wane equally across age groups:
Quote:


Patterns of breakthrough infection over time were consistent by age, despite rolling vaccine eligibility, implicating the Delta variant as the primary determinant of infection









The very next words of that abstract are "Findings support continued efforts to increase vaccination."
also from the article: "COVID-19 vaccines remain the most important tool to prevent infection, severe illness, and death"

Earlier you posted data from the CDC. If you trust the data aggregated and presented by the CDC, why not their analysis of the data? Why not the conclusions they reached? Surely they understand the biology better than anyone here


--------------------
 


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Onlinechristopera
Stranger
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/13/17
Posts: 14,201
Last seen: 5 minutes, 30 seconds
Re: Coronavirus Chat [Re: zoidbergo]
    #27546087 - 11/16/21 05:21 PM (2 years, 2 months ago)

Nah, he’s a regular immunologist.


--------------------
Enjoy the process of your search without succumbing to the pressure of the result.

A Dorito is pizza, change my mind.

Bank and Union with The Shroomery at the Zuul on The internet - now with %'s and things

I’m sorry it had to be me.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinekoods
Ribbit
Male User Gallery


Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,049
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 4 hours, 7 minutes
Re: Coronavirus Chat [Re: zoidbergo]
    #27546091 - 11/16/21 05:23 PM (2 years, 2 months ago)

He focuses on information that supports his decision and ignores the information he doesn’t like. I wish these peel would just say they don’t want the vaccine instead of jumping through hoops trying to justify their decision. I don’t understand why someone would choose to get infected. Even if you don’t have any long term effects, missing work for a week, being sick for a week, losing your sense of smell is not worth getting immunity that may last an extra year compared to vaccines. It’s nuts.


--------------------
NotSheekle said
“if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinejunk_f00d
 User Gallery

Registered: 12/04/15
Posts: 933
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
Re: Coronavirus Chat [Re: feevers]
    #27546121 - 11/16/21 05:55 PM (2 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

koods said:
Quote:

The study is of course not perfect and just one point of data, but they did conclude natural immunity is superior, which you've denied repeatedly despite having no evidence.





It’s up in the air. I think the three shot regime will result in far superior immunity.

My issue with natural immunity is YOU HAVE TO GET IT TROUGH INFECTION. It has 100% infection rate, which is far worse than the vaccines.

The only way to defend natural immunity is to ignore this glaring fact. You are seeking justification for your decisions, but you have to ignore the implications of being infected as a requirement for natural immunity.



Well, I'm glad you at least don't instantly deny it. I agree it's up in the air, that's all I've been saying. I've said 100x, I understand that a prerequisite to natural immunity is infection. If I am infected, my risk of hospitalization is very small.

Quote:

feevers said:
It doesn’t represent your risk, it’s population level observational data. Your risk of catching Covid is nearly 100%, all numbers you posted were meaningless. You tried to bring your already made up risk down by 78% by citing the fact that a study said 78% of covid cases were overweight, ignoring fact that the the vast majority of Americans are overweight including those in the graph you erroneously cited. You’re very confused.

Your 25693 number is from 12-17 year olds, there were around 94k cases in 18-34 year olds, page 12. You need to combine the case counts for the 12-17 and 18-34 age groups because the data on hospitalization lumped them together, the 18-34 category was actually likely much higher than 8.8%..

I don’t know if it’s an outlier or not because I don’t feel like digging through every states Covid statistics to find out, I looked at WA because they’ve been very thorough with tracking and posting data. The large sample size and the consistency in other numbers to the rest of the country indicate it’s likely fairly representative, but idk. It wouldn’t be surprising to me, I’ve heard it dozens of times now from people who work in hospitals in highly vaccinated areas (and a couple shroomery ICU nurses) that Covid is a young unvaccinated person’s disease now.



My risk of catching COVID is a function of time and prevelance. It's not necessarily true that I'll catch it ever. But for this week/month, I'd rather play accept my (good) odds that I won't catch it, as I continue to evaluate natural immunity vs vaccines. I try to keep a dynamic outlook and I'm watching the data build it's own case. I don't know if I want to submit to perpetual boosters, for example. This wasn't on the menu initially. So in this sense, the numbers from the CDC hospitalization rate are not meaningless as they represent some combined form of prevalence and risk.

I have no way to sort the CDC page by obesity. I can't see how many of those cases were obese. If I could, I'd have removed those and all those comorbidities to get a more accurate assessment. I'd do the same with Washington's data, if I could. But I don't have this data, so all I can do is cheap tricks like that to get ballparks. If 78% of those admitted to the hospital for COVID are obese or overweight, then I'd be potentially part of the 22% that aren't, which reduces my odds. i.e I can safely lower my risk profile given that I'm not obese or overweight, clearly there's a correlation between obesity and COVID hospitalization. Nothing confusing about that; not being obese lowers my risk profile, but yes it's ballpark analysis. If I had better data, I could do a better analysis. That is why I've been asking for better data, even if it's not from the US.

Right, I found the proper counts. I was just confused initially as cntrl+f didn't return the numbers you had, but I edited that bit out after combining. Still, that seems really high, but I don't know why that'd be the case. If they're inflating 'COVID hospitalization counts', I'd think they'd also be inflating 'COVID case counts'. I'm curious how they collect this data now. But still, it seems very extreme compared to everything else.


Edited by junk_f00d (11/16/21 06:03 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinejunk_f00d
 User Gallery

Registered: 12/04/15
Posts: 933
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
Re: Coronavirus Chat [Re: zoidbergo]
    #27546125 - 11/16/21 05:59 PM (2 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

zoidbergo said:
The very next words of that abstract are "Findings support continued efforts to increase vaccination."
also from the article: "COVID-19 vaccines remain the most important tool to prevent infection, severe illness, and death"

Earlier you posted data from the CDC. If you trust the data aggregated and presented by the CDC, why not their analysis of the data? Why not the conclusions they reached? Surely they understand the biology better than anyone here




The article was a critique of the study, I posted that for a fair counter-analysis. I agree with their sentiment on the importance of vaccines in general. I just don't think I'm making a strictly terrible or illogical decision by foregoing them, as I'm not at significant risk for severe illness or death.

What conclusions from the CDC are you talking about in particular? Just because I agree with some data or conclusions does not mean I must agree with everything. Same goes for any study or whatever.


Edited by junk_f00d (11/16/21 05:59 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinejunk_f00d
 User Gallery

Registered: 12/04/15
Posts: 933
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
Re: Coronavirus Chat [Re: koods]
    #27546131 - 11/16/21 06:06 PM (2 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

koods said:
He focuses on information that supports his decision and ignores the information he doesn’t like. I wish these peel would just say they don’t want the vaccine instead of jumping through hoops trying to justify their decision. I don’t understand why someone would choose to get infected. Even if you don’t have any long term effects, missing work for a week, being sick for a week, losing your sense of smell is not worth getting immunity that may last an extra year compared to vaccines. It’s nuts.



What information have I ignored? Mind you, you're the one who's been saying natural immunity is inferior, without evidence, and who didn't realize the vaccines wane in efficacy. What on earth have I been ignoring? Anytime you make a claim I'm uncertain about, I ask for a source, and you never deliver.

If the vaccines were 'case closed' and I just had to get a couple boosters and be done forever, I'd probably do it. But that doesn't seem to be the case. Instead it's lifetime of boosters every 3-6 months potentially (once efficacy begins to drop off), and it the odds of infection and disease go up with time from injection. I don't know the real risk profile of that, and I can't be sure the vaccines are even stopping things like loss of smell or brain fog, or that the spike proteins stay local and aren't harmful. I can't be sure they don't cause reproductive harm after X boosters, or substantial increased of heart inflammation. etc. Though I wish this weren't the case, there is still some open ended questions I have that leave the risk profile of vaccination undefined. We did the math earlier and confirmed you introduce more spike proteins via vaccination. I don't know if that's harmful or not after X boosters. Have you guys heard of what happened with the Dengue virus? That would be a nightmare, and some think it's possible. So at any rate, it's an open ended risk.

I admit, I similarly don't know what risk continual reinfection of COVID may bring. But if natural immunity does more to prevent reinfection, it can be argued I'm doing my part to more quickly get rid of it entirely.


Edited by junk_f00d (11/16/21 06:16 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblefeeversM
Male

Registered: 12/28/10
Posts: 8,546
Loc: Flag
Re: Coronavirus Chat [Re: junk_f00d]
    #27546138 - 11/16/21 06:13 PM (2 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

junk_f00d said:
I admit, I similarly don't know what risk continual reinfection of COVID may bring. But if natural immunity does more to prevent reinfection, it can be argued I'm doing my part to more quickly get rid of it entirely.




:kummeli:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEnlilMDiscord
OTD God-King
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 65,495
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: Coronavirus Chat [Re: junk_f00d]
    #27546152 - 11/16/21 06:22 PM (2 years, 2 months ago)

Even assuming your natural immunity argument has some validity, which it doesn't appear to have, it would still be better to get vaccinated, thereby reducing your risk while you're out there trying to get infected for natural immunity.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.

Ask an Attorney

Fuck the Amish


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinejunk_f00d
 User Gallery

Registered: 12/04/15
Posts: 933
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
Re: Coronavirus Chat [Re: feevers]
    #27546161 - 11/16/21 06:29 PM (2 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

feevers said:
Quote:

junk_f00d said:
I admit, I similarly don't know what risk continual reinfection of COVID may bring. But if natural immunity does more to prevent reinfection, it can be argued I'm doing my part to more quickly get rid of it entirely.




:kummeli:



Lol, fair enough. But do you really not get how that could be a hypothetical possibility? As I said earlier, if in some hypothetical natural immunity was like the sterilizing immunity gained from chickenpox or the measles vax, and vaccine-induced immunity, hypothetically, waned even faster, say 10x faster, and was also 10x less effective against spread than it is... You see how, logically, natural immunity could then lead to less spread over a lifetime, versus continual boosters which would continually enable spread?

I'm not saying this is the case, but to say it's logically impossible is ridiculous.


Edited by junk_f00d (11/16/21 06:40 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinejunk_f00d
 User Gallery

Registered: 12/04/15
Posts: 933
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
Re: Coronavirus Chat [Re: Enlil]
    #27546168 - 11/16/21 06:35 PM (2 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Enlil said:
Even assuming your natural immunity argument has some validity, which it doesn't appear to have, it would still be better to get vaccinated, thereby reducing your risk while you're out there trying to get infected for natural immunity.



Why do you think it doesn't have validity?

I've considered this position too, but have seen no data on immune response for this kind of situation, understandably. For example, if it for some reason provides no additional benefit over straight vaccine-induced immunity, then there's no benefit. Also, I would assume if this idea was working in practice, then 'waning efficacy' wouldn't be so prevalent.


Edited by junk_f00d (11/16/21 06:37 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < First | < Back | 174 | 175 | 176 | 177 | 178 | 179 | 180 | 181 | 182 | 183 | 184 | 185 | 186 | 187 | 188 | 189 | 190 | 191 | 192 | 193 | 194 | Next >

Shop: North Spore Cultivation Supplies   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Credibility fft2 677 7 07/15/04 07:08 PM
by Redo
* Christians on PalTalk Chat Service Tracked by Radical Islamic Web Site Rogues_Pierre 721 0 03/06/06 08:37 AM
by Rogues_Pierre
* Another rant about JFK and the government's credibility
( 1 2 all )
LearyfanS 1,838 26 06/08/03 04:08 PM
by mike
* PATERSON'S EXCUSE IS SIMPLY INN-CREDIBLE lonestar2004 480 5 03/25/08 09:50 AM
by lonestar2004
* WWII in chat newuser1492 564 4 07/22/05 10:27 AM
by Madtowntripper
* Capitalism at work
( 1 2 3 4 ... 24 25 )
Bigbadwooof 17,383 480 10/30/15 08:29 PM
by hostileuniverse
* This is why we need GMO labeling
( 1 2 3 4 ... 123 124 )
sweeper54 99,348 2,475 12/02/16 08:51 AM
by hostileuniverse
* Bernie 2016!
( 1 2 3 4 ... 250 251 )
elax420 116,019 5,003 01/14/17 04:00 AM
by GPryder

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
59,117 topic views. 3 members, 0 guests and 5 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.036 seconds spending 0.01 seconds on 15 queries.