CDC Says Natural Immunity Outperformed Vaccines Against Delta Strain

[audiophile]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medica ... ar-AASWPCZ

Those that had Covid, should not be Vaccine shamed - they're survivors, just like anyone else that had an illness.

[Matt]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medica ... ar-AASWPCZ

Those that had Covid, should not be Vaccine shamed - they're survivors, just like anyone else that had an illness.

Quit spreading misinformation. From your own damn link:

CDC: Vaccinated Americans with a prior Covid infection fared the best during the Delta outbreak

The term "natural immunity" is not accurate and should not be used. A prior natural infection does not mean you are immune to covid. You are correct in stating that the stigma associated with getting covid, if you're vaccinated. On 1/20/22, with the Trump vaccines available for over a year, anyone that is 18 or older, UNVACCINATED, and catches covid deserves TREMENDOUS ridicule.

[audiophile]

I did not spread misinformation.

Just because we have a difference of opinion on vaccine shaming does mean you are right, and I am wrong.

[Matt]

I did not spread misinformation.

Just because we have a difference of opinion on vaccine shaming does mean you are right, and I am wrong.

Your anti-vax lies are wrong.

[audiophile]

You must have me confused with someone else.

[bmw]

I don't know why Matt continues to spew his misinformation regarding the existence of natural immunity after a Covid infection. The average of 7 studies linked to on the CDC website found that after 7 months, efficacy from prior infection stood at 87% - meaning, that someone who previously had Covid was 87% less likely to get Covid (a second time) that was some who never had Covid to get it a first time. Several of these studies found that this level of efficacy remained even after 12 months.

I've posted this several times here before, but will post it again - see Table 2 here - https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nc ... unity.html

Vaccine efficacy, however, while starts at that same baseline of 87% efficacy after the first month after full vaccination, falls to a measly 47% after just 5 months - https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanc ... ltext#fig2

[SoutheastMIViewer]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medica ... ar-AASWPCZ

Those that had Covid, should not be Vaccine shamed - they're survivors, just like anyone else that had an illness.

Quit spreading misinformation. From your own damn link:

CDC: Vaccinated Americans with a prior Covid infection fared the best during the Delta outbreak

The term "natural immunity" is not accurate and should not be used. A prior natural infection does not mean you are immune to covid. You are correct in stating that the stigma associated with getting covid, if you're vaccinated. On 1/20/22, with the Trump vaccines available for over a year, anyone that is 18 or older, UNVACCINATED, and catches covid deserves TREMENDOUS ridicule.

Sounds like you should stop spreading misinformation as these are scientific studies by the CDC that audiophile posted.

[Robert Faygo]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medica ... ar-AASWPCZ

Those that had Covid, should not be Vaccine shamed - they're survivors, just like anyone else that had an illness.

Agreed! There should be no stigma against anyone that caught COVID. Period.

There really is no question that our immune systems work with COVID like they always have against other viruses - getting sick helps prevent you from getting sick from the exact same thing again. However, just like always, your mileage may vary depending on the next mutation down the line and how well your body remembers the virus. You might even be more susceptible to other viruses that you might otherwise fight off as your body recovers.

By the way, semantics do make a difference. Perhaps the word "initial" should be added and removed from the term "natural immunity" to reflect the clear difference between having almost no immunity against a novel virus before getting sick with it and the kind of immunity your body develops while recovering from an infection. Both terms are technically correct and I guess are "fun" to manipulate each other with.

[Deleted User 9015]

I have yet to see a compelling argument for not getting the vaccine and opting to waiting to get the virus. In both cases, your protection appears temporary. Even if developing a temporary immunity to covid can fare better for someone than getting a vaccine, that temporary immunity is predicated on getting covid, unprotected. Considering that the majority of people who enter the hospital because of covid have not yet been vaccinated, it seems like an unnecessary risk to take to wait to get the virus, rather than to get the vaccine. It also seems illogical to get a virus to gain temporary immunity against the virus.

[km1125]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medica ... ar-AASWPCZ

Those that had Covid, should not be Vaccine shamed - they're survivors, just like anyone else that had an illness.

Agreed! There should be no stigma against anyone that caught COVID. Period.

There really is no question that our immune systems work with COVID like they always have against other viruses - getting sick helps prevent you from getting sick from the exact same thing again. However, just like always, your mileage may vary depending on the next mutation down the line and how well your body remembers the virus. You might even be more susceptible to other viruses that you might otherwise fight off as your body recovers.

By the way, semantics do make a difference. Perhaps the word "initial" should be added and removed from the term "natural immunity" to reflect the clear difference between having almost no immunity against a novel virus before getting sick with it and the kind of immunity your body develops while recovering from an infection. Both terms are technically correct and I guess are "fun" to manipulate each other with.

I like when people use "acquired" when they are referring to immunity they've obtained from a prior infection. To me, "natural immunity" would be something in your system that makes you immune or mostly immune from a virus upon initial encounter, and I am SURE some folks have this and probably some have it more than others. Once you've been actually infected, then if your immune system is functioning as designed you would acquire an immunity naturally, or have "natural acquired immunity".

[km1125]

I have yet to see a compelling argument for not getting the vaccine and opting to waiting to get the virus. In both cases, your protection appears temporary. Even if developing a temporary immunity to covid can fare better for someone than getting a vaccine, that temporary immunity is predicated on getting covid, unprotected. Considering that the majority of people who enter the hospital because of covid have not yet been vaccinated, it seems like an unnecessary risk to take to wait to get the virus, rather than to get the vaccine. It also seems illogical to get a virus to gain temporary immunity against the virus.

Do some reading here:
https://dpbh.nv.gov/uploadedFiles/dpbhn ... NEFF~1.PDF

It's a published and reviewed MIT document. You can skip a lot of the detail that you might not understand (they go into a lot of technical details on how the vaccines were developed) but they cover several situations where the vaccine might prevent significant risks down the road. NONE of these have been investigated to rule them out to actually determine if the vaccine is "safe", so ANYONE you hear just saying "the vaccines are safe" does not know what they are talking about.

What is the risk? WE DON'T KNOW YET. We have a decent handle on the NEAR TERM risk of "vaccination" vs "COVID infection" and some data on the relative risk of death. We have NO IDEA on any of the longer-term risks, some of which are presented in the paper.

For example, if the vaccine had a 20% risk of giving you Parkinson's, would you take it? Would you take the booster if you've already had the first two shots? If you were pregnant and there was a 2% chance your baby would be permanently infected with COVID (and a super-spreader for their entire life), would you risk getting the vaccine?

[Deleted User 9015]

Do some reading here:
https://dpbh.nv.gov/uploadedFiles/dpbhn ... NEFF~1.PDF

It's a published and reviewed MIT document. You can skip a lot of the detail that you might not understand (they go into a lot of technical details on how the vaccines were developed) but they cover several situations where the vaccine might prevent significant risks down the road. NONE of these have been investigated to rule them out to actually determine if the vaccine is "safe", so ANYONE you hear just saying "the vaccines are safe" does not know what they are talking about.

What is the risk? WE DON'T KNOW YET. We have a decent handle on the NEAR TERM risk of "vaccination" vs "COVID infection" and some data on the relative risk of death. We have NO IDEA on any of the longer-term risks, some of which are presented in the paper.

For example, if the vaccine had a 20% risk of giving you Parkinson's, would you take it? Would you take the booster if you've already had the first two shots? If you were pregnant and there was a 2% chance your baby would be permanently infected with COVID (and a super-spreader for their entire life), would you risk getting the vaccine?

LMFAO!

The document linked was published in The International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research. The IJVTPR as gained a reputation as a go-to journal for articles with an anti-vax bias. As an example, there was an article that had been corrected and then retracted from one journal that they turned around and published in the IJVTPR.

Listen, you probably don't know much about scholarly publications, but there are plenty of journals that pop up for purposes other than to support the advancement of science. Some of these journals are "predatory journals" that will publish just to make a buck. Others are wrought with bias to support a position. The shitty journals become known pretty quickly in a discipline and scholars in a specific discipline will know the good from the bad. There are also watchdog sites that will call out the trash journals. The IJVTPR is one such journal that's been called out.

https://retractionwatch.com/2021/08/11/ ... al-issues/

As for the whole "its totally an MIT document, dude" thing, the woman who is first name on the paper, Stephanie Seneff, she is a lunatic. She has said in the past that glyphosate causes COVID.

https://www.acsh.org/news/2020/04/10/mi ... else-14706

You see? You sorta have to scrutinize what you're reading, man. The paper offers nothing empirical, just a mix of maybe's and bizarre discussion. Don't let a glitzy name confuse you.

[bmw]

the woman who is first name on the paper, Stephanie Seneff, she is a lunatic. She has said in the past that glyphosate causes COVID.

And Dr. Fauci has claimed in the past that you can get AIDS by being in the same room as someone else who has it. What's your point?

[Deleted User 9015]

And Dr. Fauci has claimed in the past that you can get AIDS by being in the same room as someone else who has it. What's your point?

I-I thought you were going to keep me on ignore because you didn't like how I respond to you?

Considering that we weren't talking about fauci and we were talking about an article written by a lunatic, i think its kinda clear that you're interested in dragging the discussion off-topic because you don't like how the facts played out.

Seneff is the author of the article cited by km, not Fauci. If you can't keep on-topic, excuse yourself to go make another bar graph because your bachelor degree education limits your capacity to describing data and not testing data. Otherwise, feel free to keep making a buffoon of yourself.

[Deleted User 9015]

I suggest taking a look at the journal that the article was published in. Some of the articles in that thing are fucking wild