COVID-19 Outbreak Information Updates (Reboot) [over 150.000,000 US cases (est.), 6,422,520 US hospitilizations, 1,148,691 US deaths.] (2 Viewers)

[bigdaddysaints]

The subject is covid, the entire premise of this thread, do you refute the data that prior infection of covid has more robust immunity than the vaccine for covid?

But for you inane question that has nothing to do with this. No, if for example, my child got chicken pox, I would not give them the chicken pox vaccine after the fact, because natural immunity is superior to a vaccine. Hell you can see this in many videos prior to 2019 on youtube from doctors talking about things exactly like this, they plainly state that natural immunity is superior to a vaccine.

No, i don't refute it. Do we have data on how long the natural immunity lasts with Covid? it is that robust for life? is for 6 months, year, 5 years? Do you have this data?

As with the chicken pox, since you brought up the CDC, do they recommend still getting the vaccine even though your child had been infected? I am betting yes.

 

[St. Widge]

Then you are clearly anti-science, because based on the data from the CDC, natural immunity is more robust than the vaccine. Are you suggesting the data from the CDC is wrong?

As I said, even if natural immunity is more robust than the vaccine immunity, it doesn't mean that you don't need to be vaccinated later or that being vaccinated prior to getting COVID isn't a good idea. The science doesn't say that natural immunity lasts forever. We know that just like immunity from the vaccine, it doesn't last forever. Natural immunity being better than the vaccine doesn't mean that your immunity lasts forever and doesn't mean that you should not get vaccinated. You still need the vaccine after the natural immunity wanes. Either that or you have to be dumb enough to purposely get infected with COVID again after your natural immunity fades.

 

[St. Widge]

The subject is covid, the entire premise of this thread, do you refute the data that prior infection of covid has more robust immunity than the vaccine for covid?

But for you inane question that has nothing to do with this. No, if for example, my child got chicken pox, I would not give them the chicken pox vaccine after the fact, because natural immunity is superior to a vaccine. Hell you can see this in many videos prior to 2019 on youtube from doctors talking about things exactly like this, they plainly state that natural immunity is superior to a vaccine.

Chicken Pox is a vastly different disease. And while you would not give them the Chicken Pox vaccine. They should get the Shingles Vaccine in their late 40s or early 50s.

 

[Arathrael]

Then you are clearly anti-science, because based on the data from the CDC, natural immunity is more robust than the vaccine. Are you suggesting the data from the CDC is wrong?

The CDC's report is (mostly) fine. The problem is on your end, because you appear to not understand it.

This seems to mirror the information released from Israel a few months back.

Prior COVID infection more protective than vaccination during Delta surge -U.S. study

People who had previously been infected with COVID-19 were better protected against the Delta variant than those who were vaccinated alone, suggesting that natural immunity was a more potent shield than vaccines against that variant, California and New York health officials reported on Wednesday.

www.reuters.com

Source link from CDC: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e1.htm?s_cid=mm7104e1_w#contribAff

and to highlight: During May–November 2021, case and hospitalization rates were highest among persons who were unvaccinated without a previous diagnosis. Before Delta became the predominant variant in June, case rates were higher among persons who survived a previous infection than persons who were vaccinated alone. By early October, persons who survived a previous infection had lower case rates than persons who were vaccinated alone.

First, you apparently completely ignored the sentence before the one you highlighted. This one:

Before Delta became the predominant variant in June, case rates were higher among persons who survived a previous infection than persons who were vaccinated alone.

This should tell you that the conclusion is clearly not that vaccination isn't more effective than natural immunity in preventing infection, because that data indicates that actually it can be and, the data indicates, was, before Delta. As the discussion section states again, "Case rates were initially lowest among vaccinated persons without a previous COVID-19 diagnosis". So that indicates which is more effective, in terms of case rates between cohorts, depends on factors like the timing and variant.

You should also consider that infection-induced immunity can vary depending on the individual and infection, whereas vaccine-induced immunity tends to be more consistent (given standardised dosing). That is, the group, 'people with a previous infection' might, overall, have good protection, but individuals in that group may have very little. Because infection-induced immunity varies a lot depending on the individual and the infection; some people will have next to no protection against reinfection. So when considering the best approach, you need to account not just for rates across the group, but the range of immune responses in individuals in those groups. Vaccination response also varies between individuals but it tends to offer a more consistent response, because it has consistent dosing and intervals to achieve that.

In other words, you wouldn't even use this data to draw the conclusion you're trying to draw; case rates between cohorts alone is not sufficient to do that.

You've also apparently either ignored or not understood the limitations of the study, including in particular that "persons with undiagnosed infection are misclassified as having no previous COVID-19 diagnosis" and "uncertainty in the population size of the unvaccinated group without a previous COVID-19 diagnosis", as well as that "this analysis did not ascertain receipt of additional or booster COVID-19 vaccine doses and was conducted before many persons were eligible or had received additional or booster vaccine doses, which have been shown to confer additional protection", and that "this analysis was conducted before the emergence of the Omicron variant, for which vaccine or infection-derived immunity might be diminished."

And, glaringly, you've also ignored the conclusion of the report:

Although the epidemiology of COVID-19 might change as new variants emerge, vaccination remains the safest strategy for averting future SARS-CoV-2 infections, hospitalizations, long-term sequelae, and death. Primary vaccination, additional doses, and booster doses are recommended for all eligible persons.

You're claiming the CDC have got it right, but you're simply disregarding their own conclusions, that everyone eligible should be fully vaccinated. That should be a glaring red flag to you that you haven't fully grasped it.

In other words, you've seen the report, taken one cherry-picked sentence, ignored the rest, and failed to understand the meaning of the report as a result. Don't do that.

 

[WhoDatPhan78]

Do you believe they need to get they vaccine if they have had prior infection?

What i believe is irrelevant, if the CDC says so, then yes.

 

[sfidc3]

And, glaringly, you've also ignored the conclusion of the report:

Although the epidemiology of COVID-19 might change as new variants emerge, vaccination remains the safest strategy for averting future SARS-CoV-2 infections, hospitalizations, long-term sequelae, and death. Primary vaccination, additional doses, and booster doses are recommended for all eligible persons.

You're claiming the CDC have got it right, but you're simply disregarding their own conclusions, that everyone eligible should be fully vaccinated. That should be a glaring red flag to you that you haven't fully grasped it.

In other words, you've seen the report, taken one cherry-picked sentence, ignored the rest, and failed to understand the meaning of the report as a result. Don't do that.

I think this is a brilliant, informed response to a stellar example of "someone....doing their own research....."

Well done

 

[jahsoul357]

Over quoting, but a lot going on here.

Let's start by saying it is pretty obvious that people who aren't vaccinated carry a higher risk of death or complications, all other things being equal.

However, the point about hundreds of thousands avoiding the vaccine and choosing death is a bit harder to prove, since so many died of (or with) covid19 before vaccines were available. Especially in the 65+ age group. So, it's also suspect to try to use their high vaccination rates NOW as any kind of argument about effectiveness THEN, when it wasn't an option.

I think jahsoul could have done a better job explaining their point. It was incredibly ambiguous. If the point is that now, over 55 years of age has the highest overall vaccination rates, and younger folks tend to be lower, and under 55 age group hasn't had hundreds of thousands of confirmed covid19 deaths... ok, sure. Many people still refusing may be in an age cohort where the risk is low to them. But many age groups are hovering in the 10+% of total deaths range. Younger is still like 6-7%? (In my head, I should actually calculate it).

What I was going for is we really can't make COVID deaths a black and white. To say that hundreds of thousands of people have died avoiding the vaccine goes against all available data and I only brought up vaccination rate to show the fact that we can't make that a definitive statement when the group that is being hit the hardest is also this nations most vaccinated. This isn't to say that there weren't people in that demographic avoiding the shot but in 2021, they would have had a higher probability of being vaccinated than not. The problem is, we will never know because the CDC is too busy spoon feeding us rates while the UK is providing both rates and raw data in a palatable format every week.

 

[Mr. Sparkle]

Mayor Avegno is dropping out of KDV. Not sure what it means for the rest of MG but I guess she painted herself in a corner with the new mask mandate and scare tactics

Krewe du Vieux to 'scale down' 2022 parade, Avegno drops out

According to a post on the krewe’s Facebook page, the parade will have to largely skip the Marigny rectangle.

www.wwltv.com

 

[bonnjer]

I guess regular ol' Omicron BA.1 just wasn't good enough.

New Omicron Offshoot BA.2 Arrives In U.S. After Spreading In U.K., Denmark, India

Just as the Omicron wave may have broken across the U.S. comes word of another version of the more transmissible variant, dubbed BA.2. It’s been nicknamed by some “stealth Omicron” because it seems to evade identification better than its predecessor. While other new variants that seemed...

www.yahoo.com

 

[superchuck500]

 

[efil4stnias]

Welp, 2 years into Covid 19, we ( family ) has first case. Oldest tested positive last night. It was inevitable. Should rename Omicron to Thanos.

 

[livefromDC]

What I was going for is we really can't make COVID deaths a black and white. To say that hundreds of thousands of people have died avoiding the vaccine goes against all available data and I only brought up vaccination rate to show the fact that we can't make that a definitive statement when the group that is being hit the hardest is also this nations most vaccinated. This isn't to say that there weren't people in that demographic avoiding the shot but in 2021, they would have had a higher probability of being vaccinated than not. The problem is, we will never know because the CDC is too busy spoon feeding us rates while the UK is providing both rates and raw data in a palatable format every week.

That's not how numbers work. Let's say there's an outbreak of jubilation in the Superdome on gameday causing people to obstinately do the wave. For some reason, the upper level is hit the hardest with a lot more people participating uncontrollably. Having a beer effectively stops a person from participating in the wave. To stop the madness, the team sends out beer vendors, opting to send more beer venders to the upper level because that's the population most affected.

The top level is the most vulnerable population still despite a proven remedy. Even with the top level consuming the most beer, it doesn't affect the those who haven't had a beer because again, it's still the most vulnerable population. And since this was the group hardest hit by wave excitement, those we eschew having a beer still succumb to the wave.

Keep in mind that while the top level was the first and most often group to get beer, the superdome released beer to all other groups shortly after thereby limiting the spread of the wave in those levels that weren't hit as hard as the upper level seats.

But there's more! As people drink a beer and not do the wave or only partially participate in the wave halfheartedly a couple times before realizing, "this is silly", we can see the results of this happening right in front of us. Despite that, there's a couple of people in each section, some holding a beer and sitting safely in their seat, saying, "how do we know beer is helping?"

All silliness aside, the incidence of severe infection is much higher in unvaccinated populations. The data released by CDC shows this. The vaccine protects more people, but the elderly are still the most vulnerable population especially if they are unvaccinated.

 

[nolaswede]

In Ontario our mandates are still in effect.

Yes and no IMO! We definitely could have reduced the death rate in the U.S. However, unfortunately we, as a population, in the U.S. are not healthy enough to reduce it like Norway and Denmark etc. I wish we were, but we are in a bad situation!


Just chatted with my friend in Norway. He said that a lot of people are getting Omicron right now, but very few people are getting sick, due to(Omicron, Vaccine and people are generally very healthy)! So they are easing on the restaurant restrictions etc!

 

[superchuck500]

 

[bigdaddysaints]

Some here aren't gonna like this data..Even if it only Ms.