Science is now cancelled? [USERS NOW BANNED FOR POLITICS]

[Burkey]

Hello; I will try again. Some around me have had a third shot. Some in other places who want one cannot get the first shot. A first shot was reported to give some immune protection. Fewer people with three or more shots seems a less practical use of a limited resource than many more with one shot. I saw a news story of a man in my country who had tried to get multiple shots from each vaccine type. Forget how many he managed to get before he was found out.

I do not dispute the cost benefit between shots and hospital beds. More the mandates that have forced shots into the naturally immune and a third shot.

Ok, this is a conversation worth having, but, it needs some clarity.
When you say “some around me” I presume you‘re referring to older people or those who meet certain criteria in terms of risk? Or not?

Without the benefit of any training in the relevant fields, it would “seem” that the primary objective would be to gain adequate protection for those who need it the most, first.
Whether that is entirely accurate I can’t say.

In that line of thinking you’d be double dosing the elderly and other high-risk groups first. Agreed?
Then there’s the inevitable delay time while the rest of the nation catches up, at which point, the earliest receivers “might” be due for a booster (Depending on the speed of the rollout and the uptake rate by the citizens etc etc).

I don’t really see any issue with giving third doses to high risk groups.
You yourself have constantly told us that the elderly and those with certain conditions are amongst those most likely to succumb to the virus.

I guess it all comes down to probability at some point.

My personal preference would be that you vac the higher risk groups first, followed by those that haven’t had the virus and finally those who have had the virus. However, in an imperfect world, I guess that there’s some other things that come into play, like vaccine hesitancy, lag between doses, availability etc etc.

Sponsored

 

[sk47]

Ok, this is a conversation worth having, but, it needs some clarity.
When you say “some around me” I presume you‘re referring to older people or those who meet certain criteria in terms of risk? Or not?

Without the benefit of any training in the relevant fields, it would “seem” that the primary objective would be to gain adequate protection for those who need it the most, first.
Whether that is entirely accurate I can’t say.

In that line of thinking you’d be double dosing the elderly and other high-risk groups first. Agreed?
Then there’s the inevitable delay time while the rest of the nation catches up, at which point, the earliest receivers “might” be due for a booster (Depending on the speed of the rollout and the uptake rate by the citizens etc etc).

I don’t really see any issue with giving third doses to high risk groups.
You yourself have constantly told us that the elderly and those with certain conditions are amongst those most likely to succumb to the virus.

I guess it all comes down to probability at some point.

My personal preference would be that you vac the higher risk groups first, followed by those that haven’t had the virus and finally those who have had the virus. However, in an imperfect world, I guess that there’s some other things that come into play, like vaccine hesitancy, lag between doses, availability etc etc.

Hello; I will get back on this later.

 

[GT Pony]

Hello; You have my sympathy.

Hello ... too bad your logic wasn't has strong as your "sympathy", lol. I know you have nothing of any value to say because you have zero legs to stand on, as usual. If legs were logic you'd be a double amputee.

 

[GT Pony]

The FDA responded after health officials in Finland said Thursday that males under age 30 should not receive the Moderna vaccine due to a slightly higher risk of developing myocarditis, an inflammation of the heart. A day earlier, Sweden said it would pause use of Moderna’s vaccine for people under 30, while Denmark paused use for people under 18 and Norway recommended people receive the Pfizer vaccine.

"The FDA is aware of these data. At this time, FDA continues to find that the known and potential benefits of vaccination outweigh the known and potential risks for the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine," an FDA official said in a statement.

All for a disease that kills less than 2%

It's both chicken little and the boy who cried wolf. Imagine if this killed 30%. People would be running in circles with their hands in the air.

It would probably take more than 30% of this county dead before you'd think anything needs to be done.

Someone will criticize me for thinking an over 98% survival rate is a good thing again I guess.

^^^ Same goes for you ... how many need to die before you get your head out of your arse? How long do you want this pandemic to continue?

 

[Gregs24]

Antarctica's last 6 months were the coldest on record (msn.com)

I hope you read further than the headline and are not trying to make any connection between Antarctic weather and global climate. After all that would be very foolish.

 

[Gregs24]

Let's just get a few things clear.

The first dose of a double dose vaccine provides some immunity, which is why the UK adopted this strategy in the vaccine roll out here. There was some good scientific support for this but ironically the UK was criticised by some politicians (UK and elsewhere) for this policy. President Macron for one being outspoken and ill informed.

The first dose however can only be given when the logistics for the second dose are certain. The reason is that the second dose must be given within a window of the first dose in order to trigger an anamnestic response. If you miss this window for whatever reason you have to start again, this is the case with many double dose vaccines.

The third dose is more accurately a third primary dose rather than a booster in many cases. This is given (In the UK) to those with compromised immune systems and the old (same thing in general) This is the responsible thing to do, and the numbers of people getting third doses are pretty low compared to the overall total.

The immune response created by the vaccine is DIFFERENT to that from natural immunity and the two are complimentary. A nice summary here.

Natural vs. vaccine-induced COVID-19 immunity (news-medical.net)

This is before consideration is given to the vaccines changing with time to cover new variants, something that is being researched and discussed now. This article demonstrates just how variable the response to natural infection can be and how unprotected some people are post recovery. Recovery from COVID does not mean guaranteed immunity for the future, far from it.

Predictors of Nonseroconversion after SARS-CoV-2 Infection - Volume 27, Number 9—September 2021 - Emerging Infectious Diseases journal - CDC

Some trials have been done on giving people that have recovered from COVID just a single dose of vaccine and in SOME people this produced a very strong immune response . The problem is that even in those that were confirmed as having COVID before the response to a single dose was not always ideal (especially the old and immunocompromised), but it may help stretch doses as is being done in some countries.

Is one vaccine dose enough if you’ve had COVID? What the science says (nature.com)

I'm afraid it is a largely pointless argument by some on here who do not have the level of knowledge required to actually argue the case one way or the other on the complex subject of immunity post vaccine / natural exposure. I am a medical professional with some considerable experience and I know that I don't have the required expertise to advise governments on vaccination policy, where that leaves some on here is a moot point.

The point about vaccination costing less than hospitalisation is completely correct, but does not excuse inflated vaccine costs.

 

[CJJon]

Let's just get a few things clear.

The first dose of a double dose vaccine provides some immunity, which is why the UK adopted this strategy in the vaccine roll out here. There was some good scientific support for this but ironically the UK was criticised by some politicians (UK and elsewhere) for this policy. President Macron for one being outspoken and ill informed.

The first dose however can only be given when the logistics for the second dose are certain. The reason is that the second dose must be given within a window of the first dose in order to trigger an anamnestic response. If you miss this window for whatever reason you have to start again, this is the case with many double dose vaccines.

The third dose is more accurately a third primary dose rather than a booster in many cases. This is given (In the UK) to those with compromised immune systems and the old (same thing in general) This is the responsible thing to do, and the numbers of people getting third doses are pretty low compared to the overall total.

The immune response created by the vaccine is DIFFERENT to that from natural immunity and the two are complimentary. A nice summary here.

Natural vs. vaccine-induced COVID-19 immunity (news-medical.net)

This is before consideration is given to the vaccines changing with time to cover new variants, something that is being researched and discussed now. This article demonstrates just how variable the response to natural infection can be and how unprotected some people are post recovery. Recovery from COVID does not mean guaranteed immunity for the future, far from it.

Predictors of Nonseroconversion after SARS-CoV-2 Infection - Volume 27, Number 9—September 2021 - Emerging Infectious Diseases journal - CDC

Some trials have been done on giving people that have recovered from COVID just a single dose of vaccine and in SOME people this produced a very strong immune response . The problem is that even in those that were confirmed as having COVID before the response to a single dose was not always ideal (especially the old and immunocompromised), but it may help stretch doses as is being done in some countries.

Is one vaccine dose enough if you’ve had COVID? What the science says (nature.com)

I'm afraid it is a largely pointless argument by some on here who do not have the level of knowledge required to actually argue the case one way or the other on the complex subject of immunity post vaccine / natural exposure. I am a medical professional with some considerable experience and I know that I don't have the required expertise to advise governments on vaccination policy, where that leaves some on here is a moot point.

The point about vaccination costing less than hospitalisation is completely correct, but does not excuse inflated vaccine costs.

Nice post.

I have friends and close colleagues who do advise governments (Fed and State) regarding vaccine policy. The biggest problem they all cite is vaccine hesitancy. Right now is truly a pandemic of the willfully ignorant unvaccinated (in the USA).

People who think they can forgo a vaccine in one country and just send it over to another poorer one are suffering some sort of altruistic delusion. They obviously haven't thought things through - even a bit.

Remember, guilt is a powerful tool oft used by the powerless.

 

[CJJon]

I hope you read further than the headline and are not trying to make any connection between Antarctic weather and global climate. After all that would be very foolish.

He is just throwing poop again. A tactic.

From the article

One extremely cold winter is intriguing from a record keeping standpoint, but one season alone does not change the long-term progression, which is rapid warming.

 

[CJJon]

I've been thinking about how the US can help vaccinate others in the world (like Africa).

I am truly not against the US helping others globally, but not if that means someone in the US goes without.

As apolitical as I can be, the US should light a fire under the IMF and help prop up the SDR system that can help poorer countries help themselves.

https://www.imf.org/en/About/Factsheets/Sheets/2016/08/01/14/51/Special-Drawing-Right-SDR

 

[sk47]

Let's just get a few things clear.

The first dose of a double dose vaccine provides some immunity, which is why the UK adopted this strategy in the vaccine roll out here. There was some good scientific support for this but ironically the UK was criticised by some politicians (UK and elsewhere) for this policy. President Macron for one being outspoken and ill informed.

The first dose however can only be given when the logistics for the second dose are certain. The reason is that the second dose must be given within a window of the first dose in order to trigger an anamnestic response. If you miss this window for whatever reason you have to start again, this is the case with many double dose vaccines.

The third dose is more accurately a third primary dose rather than a booster in many cases. This is given (In the UK) to those with compromised immune systems and the old (same thing in general) This is the responsible thing to do, and the numbers of people getting third doses are pretty low compared to the overall total.

The immune response created by the vaccine is DIFFERENT to that from natural immunity and the two are complimentary. A nice summary here.

Natural vs. vaccine-induced COVID-19 immunity (news-medical.net)

Natural vs. vaccine-induced COVID-19 immunity (news-medical.net)

Hello; From the link you posted. I will answer one thing at a time if you play fair.

“Immunity following natural infection”

“Immunity after natural infection is assessed in terms of protection against symptomatic and severe disease upon reinfection, rather than prevention of viral transmission. Some high-quality studies show that the rate of reinfection in the six months after natural infection was much lower than that which occurred in naïve people. “

Hello; the following describes a natural immune response. I underline some of the passages of interest. During an infection you get some early formed antibodies to start the fight with the virus. Later on those early antibodies fade and are replaced with longer lasting base level of protection. That B-cell protection gets better for months. As I recall one of the points which has been made many times is the number of antibodies fade after an infection and this is presented as a reason to get a shot after a natural recovery from infection. Thing is the fading of the early (short-lived lgM) antibodies is a normal part of the natural immune process. Then longer lasting and better protecting “high-affinity antibody repertoire” happens.

Thanks for the link. This appears to support my contention of fading early antibodies not being sufficient reason to give vaccine to the naturally immune. The shot would increase the number of short-lived antibodies for a while being the benefit which will also fade. The important part of long term immunity being what is described in parts b and c below. Such is what I have been driving at in several posts. That the temporary increase of quick antibody numbers appear to be the benefit of the shot, but it is the other mechanisms of the immune system which provide long term immunity.



(a) Kinetics of innate and adaptive immune responses following SARS-CoV-2 infection. Following rapid action by the innate immune system immediately after virus exposure, B and T cell responses develop within the first weeks. Short-lived IgM antibodies are produced by responding B cells initially and is followed by a more persistent and high-affinity class-switched response. (b) Production of highly diverse virus-specific antibodies. After cognate antigen encounter, activated naïve B cells enter the germinal center (GC) where they receive T cell help to generate a high-affinity antibody repertoire. Short-lived peripheral plasma cells produce most antibodies during the infection, while GC-derived memory B cells and bone marrow-resident plasma cells cooperate to provide long-lasting protection against re-infection. (c) Maturation of the antibody response following viral clearance. While the magnitude of the antibody response gradually wanes after the virus replication is controlled, the quality of the B cell response continues to improve for several months following the infection.

Hello; I found this in the link. I recall seeing similar information for the other brands of vaccine after the first shot.

“In real-world data, Pfizer vaccination in Israel reduced symptomatic infection by up to 74% with one dose, and up to 95% with two. In the United Kingdom, corresponding figures with the same vaccine were 70% and 85%. With respect to the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant, data from the U.K. claims 75% efficacy in preventing hospitalizations due to infection.”

 

[CJJon]

Natural vs. vaccine-induced COVID-19 immunity (news-medical.net)

Hello; From the link you posted. I will answer one thing at a time if you play fair.

“Immunity following natural infection”

“Immunity after natural infection is assessed in terms of protection against symptomatic and severe disease upon reinfection, rather than prevention of viral transmission. Some high-quality studies show that the rate of reinfection in the six months after natural infection was much lower than that which occurred in naïve people. “

Hello; the following describes a natural immune response. I underline some of the passages of interest. During an infection you get some early formed antibodies to start the fight with the virus. Later on those early antibodies fade and are replaced with longer lasting base level of protection. That B-cell protection gets better for months. As I recall one of the points which has been made many times is the number of antibodies fade after an infection and this is presented as a reason to get a shot after a natural recovery from infection. Thing is the fading of the early (short-lived lgM) antibodies is a normal part of the natural immune process. Then longer lasting and better protecting “high-affinity antibody repertoire” happens.

Thanks for the link. This appears to support my contention of fading early antibodies not being sufficient reason to give vaccine to the naturally immune. The shot would increase the number of short-lived antibodies for a while being the benefit which will also fade. The important part of long term immunity being what is described in parts b and c below. Such is what I have been driving at in several posts. That the temporary increase of quick antibody numbers appear to be the benefit of the shot, but it is the other mechanisms of the immune system which provide long term immunity.



(a) Kinetics of innate and adaptive immune responses following SARS-CoV-2 infection. Following rapid action by the innate immune system immediately after virus exposure, B and T cell responses develop within the first weeks. Short-lived IgM antibodies are produced by responding B cells initially and is followed by a more persistent and high-affinity class-switched response. (b) Production of highly diverse virus-specific antibodies. After cognate antigen encounter, activated naïve B cells enter the germinal center (GC) where they receive T cell help to generate a high-affinity antibody repertoire. Short-lived peripheral plasma cells produce most antibodies during the infection, while GC-derived memory B cells and bone marrow-resident plasma cells cooperate to provide long-lasting protection against re-infection. (c) Maturation of the antibody response following viral clearance. While the magnitude of the antibody response gradually wanes after the virus replication is controlled, the quality of the B cell response continues to improve for several months following the infection.

Hello; I found this in the link. I recall seeing similar information for the other brands of vaccine after the first shot.

“In real-world data, Pfizer vaccination in Israel reduced symptomatic infection by up to 74% with one dose, and up to 95% with two. In the United Kingdom, corresponding figures with the same vaccine were 70% and 85%. With respect to the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant, data from the U.K. claims 75% efficacy in preventing hospitalizations due to infection.”

Good post. Refreshing actually. I agree with almost all of it factually.

The crux of the issue is - Immunity is not a switch, it isn't all or nothing. It is quite difficult to measure the "level of immunity" someone has (however you define the term). The fact also is that the vaccine affords better protection for the naïve and those that have had previous infection. Meaning, less people die and the damn pandemic can come to an end.

Do you not agree with the above paragraph? If not, please be specific as to why.

 

[Gregs24]

Natural vs. vaccine-induced COVID-19 immunity (news-medical.net)

Hello; From the link you posted. I will answer one thing at a time if you play fair.

“Immunity following natural infection”

“Immunity after natural infection is assessed in terms of protection against symptomatic and severe disease upon reinfection, rather than prevention of viral transmission. Some high-quality studies show that the rate of reinfection in the six months after natural infection was much lower than that which occurred in naïve people. “

Hello; the following describes a natural immune response. I underline some of the passages of interest. During an infection you get some early formed antibodies to start the fight with the virus. Later on those early antibodies fade and are replaced with longer lasting base level of protection. That B-cell protection gets better for months. As I recall one of the points which has been made many times is the number of antibodies fade after an infection and this is presented as a reason to get a shot after a natural recovery from infection. Thing is the fading of the early (short-lived lgM) antibodies is a normal part of the natural immune process. Then longer lasting and better protecting “high-affinity antibody repertoire” happens.

Thanks for the link. This appears to support my contention of fading early antibodies not being sufficient reason to give vaccine to the naturally immune. The shot would increase the number of short-lived antibodies for a while being the benefit which will also fade. The important part of long term immunity being what is described in parts b and c below. Such is what I have been driving at in several posts. That the temporary increase of quick antibody numbers appear to be the benefit of the shot, but it is the other mechanisms of the immune system which provide long term immunity.



(a) Kinetics of innate and adaptive immune responses following SARS-CoV-2 infection. Following rapid action by the innate immune system immediately after virus exposure, B and T cell responses develop within the first weeks. Short-lived IgM antibodies are produced by responding B cells initially and is followed by a more persistent and high-affinity class-switched response. (b) Production of highly diverse virus-specific antibodies. After cognate antigen encounter, activated naïve B cells enter the germinal center (GC) where they receive T cell help to generate a high-affinity antibody repertoire. Short-lived peripheral plasma cells produce most antibodies during the infection, while GC-derived memory B cells and bone marrow-resident plasma cells cooperate to provide long-lasting protection against re-infection. (c) Maturation of the antibody response following viral clearance. While the magnitude of the antibody response gradually wanes after the virus replication is controlled, the quality of the B cell response continues to improve for several months following the infection.

Hello; I found this in the link. I recall seeing similar information for the other brands of vaccine after the first shot.

“In real-world data, Pfizer vaccination in Israel reduced symptomatic infection by up to 74% with one dose, and up to 95% with two. In the United Kingdom, corresponding figures with the same vaccine were 70% and 85%. With respect to the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant, data from the U.K. claims 75% efficacy in preventing hospitalizations due to infection.”

Regarding the last paragraph a single dose provides less protection for a shorter period but better than nothing which is why the UK government took the approach it did. It undoubtedly saved lives but it isn't a good idea to go beyond 12 weeks for the second dose or you risk losing the benefits.

'This appears to support my contention of fading early antibodies not being sufficient reason to give vaccine to the naturally immune'. - Indeed antibody levels do not tell the whole story, but this is not a reason to hold off vaccination. You are choosing to assume that lack of antibodies doesn't mean they are not still immune, whereas the reality is that vaccination provides additional benefits whatever the antibody levels are. A lack of antibodies could mean they have some protection still from other mechanisms, BUT it could also mean they are unprotected. Why would anybody take that risk when the vaccine is cheap and safe, which is why the professional advice is what it is.

So putting you on the spot, as I know you want to avoid vaccinating people who have had COVID - what would your protocol be ?

How would you determine they had really had COVID?
When would you measure antibodies?
How often and frequently would you repeat it?
When would you advise vaccination?
Would you use one or two doses and why?
What if people choose to be vaccinated - would you deny it?
Would the official advice be to get vaccinated or not get vaccinated if you have had COVID?
Consider the costs of this protocol, visits to see a medical practitioner, testing costs etc etc
How is this administered at a state or federal level concerning things such as overseas travel when vaccination is mandatory for many countries whether you have had COVID or not.

 

[GT Pony]

What nobody talks about is the fact that many people who had Covid and recovered have long term issues and some need a lot of post recovery care. You don't see this happening with people who get vaccinated. Which route is more risky?

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases...th/coronavirus-long-term-effects/art-20490351

https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/hea...us/coronavirus-recovery-after-a-hospital-stay

 

[sk47]

Regarding the last paragraph a single dose provides less protection for a shorter period but better than nothing which is why the UK government took the approach it did. It undoubtedly saved lives but it isn't a good idea to go beyond 12 weeks for the second dose or you risk losing the benefits.

'This appears to support my contention of fading early antibodies not being sufficient reason to give vaccine to the naturally immune'. - Indeed antibody levels do not tell the whole story, but this is not a reason to hold off vaccination. You are choosing to assume that lack of antibodies doesn't mean they are not still immune, whereas the reality is that vaccination provides additional benefits whatever the antibody levels are. A lack of antibodies could mean they have some protection still from other mechanisms, BUT it could also mean they are unprotected. Why would anybody take that risk when the vaccine is cheap and safe, which is why the professional advice is what it is.

So putting you on the spot, as I know you want to avoid vaccinating people who have had COVID - what would your protocol be ?

How would you determine they had really had COVID?
When would you measure antibodies?
How often and frequently would you repeat it?
When would you advise vaccination?
Would you use one or two doses and why?
What if people choose to be vaccinated - would you deny it?
Would the official advice be to get vaccinated or not get vaccinated if you have had COVID?
Consider the costs of this protocol, visits to see a medical practitioner, testing costs etc etc
How is this administered at a state or federal level concerning things such as overseas travel when vaccination is mandatory for many countries whether you have had COVID or not.

Hello; It should not be as hard to figure as the list you present.
First is those who had asymptomatic or very mild cases of covid may have good immunity as was presented in a recent link. Thing is they may not know themselves they actually had the virus. They likely will be thinking they never had the virus unless some positive way is used to test for the immunity. If they have such a test and it is positive for antibodies, they will know the natural protection is present. If not tested they will not know and will be like all the unvaccinated in terms of a decision to have the shots.

For the millions who had the virus and know for sure the answer is simple enough. That they survived and recovered will be evidence their immune system worked. Not sure why any tests or other such will be needed. As to the level of immunity, this is the same for the vaccinated and the naturally immune is my understanding. Both can catch the virus. Both can get bad cases. Both can and do die.
It would seem much depends on the persons immune system. With the shots there has not been a crucible type test to check the immune system. With the actual infection the body has met the challenge. At some basic level this entire shots vs natural immunity gets down to the individuals immune system.

The rest is included in a basic answer. It is up to the individual as to getting a shot or not. The only tests needed are when they are actually sick with the initial infection and may have been tested. Lots of people get these tests when they see a doctor. Lots get tested for other reasons.
If the person suspects they had the virus but were not tested at the time, which was my case. They can have an antibody test which is what I did. I paid for that test myself and would not have had the shots if it had been positive.

The last bit about mandatory vaccination rules to work, travel, eat, go to school are part of things having very little to do with science facts and more to do with intruding into peoples lives. I have a vaccine card and that is good enough to allow me to do all the things listed and more. Yet it is proven I can be infected and can be shedding virus even with my two shots. A person with natural immunity is no more likely to have an active infection, perhaps less likely, than I am. Yet the naturally immune are restricted. The shots and that card are not a guarantee in any real sense in terms of infection, only that I have complied with an edict. Back when I took the shots it was still strictly voluntary and I did not know I was joining a cult.

 

[GT Pony]

Back when I took the shots it was still strictly voluntary and I did not know I was joining a cult.

Maybe you can run for president of the vaccinated anti-vaxxer cult.

Sponsored