News Forum - CCSA Covid-19 plan: domestic vaccines, “learning to live with it”

[Stonker]

14 minutes ago, AdamX said:

And from a reinfection point of view, the vaccines have been as much use as a torn prophylactic, wheras this is not seen in people with natural immunity.

Take the vaccine if you want, but the herd immunity from natural immunity is simply better. Much of tis is because natural immunity means exposure to all 27 parts of the virus and not one spike protien.

Not anti vax, just pro choice

As I asked, based on what?

On what actual evidence?

From where?

[JackIsAGoodBoy]

17 minutes ago, Stonker said:

Where do you get that from about vaccines and herd immunity ?

Israel have 5.4 million vaccinated out of 9 million, while Sweden have 5.5 million vaccinated out of 10 million, with more with a first dose vaccine than Israel.

Swedish officials chose more or less the herd immunity approach. Not much of restrictions except no over 50 people gatherings. No mandatory masks. Very light measures against the virus. Now they have the herd immunity unlike Israel.

Israel (Pop 9,2 million):

78,700 and 736 critical.

Sweden (Pop 10,4M):

23,939 and 39 critical.

 

[AdamX]

5 hours ago, Stonker said:

As I asked, based on what?

On what actual evidence?

From where?

http://wp.cov19longhaulfoundation.org/index.php/vaccine-news/this-ends-the-debate-israeli-study-shows-natural-immunity-13x-more-effective-than-vaccines-at-stopping-delta/

I don't expect you to believe it.

I'm posting for the open minded people who may be reading.

Full Disclosure: I now have natural immunity, yet am being socially pressured to get the vaccine. I find there is a deliberate suppression in the mainstream about this natural immunity about treatments in general. I believe people need to know that by now, given the extent of the virus, there will be more people with natural immunity than those that took a vax. They need to be informed so that they can choose if they wish to take the risks associated with vaccines that are now proven to cause blood clots.

I don't think it is controversial to recommend that people test for antibodies before testing for the virus and certainly before taking a vax

Edited August 31, 2021 by AdamX

[AdamX]

6 hours ago, Stonker said:

You can't run a country, an economy, or a health service based on how people "feel"!

Some would work, some wouldn't, so ypur production and GDP would drop and your health service would collapse.

Extraordinary.

What gives you the right to decide that "everyone is happy this way" when people are dying unnecessarily and the health system has collapsed?

... and how can anyone "take responsibility for their own health" when the third or more of the population who are vulnerable are completely dependent on the rest of the population behaving responsibly?

That isn't "taking responsibility" for anything, it's anarchy and denying responsibility for how your actions affect others.

There comes a point when a debate becomes circular as one, or perhaps both parties simply want to score points.

Our exchange on this thread has reached that point.

Edited August 31, 2021 by AdamX

[mcambl61]

7 hours ago, Soidog said:

Yes totally agree that lockdowns are responsible for mass problems. Totally agree that partial lockdowns are a waste of time and do more damage than good. 
 

I also agree that vulnerable people should isolate and take responsibility for their own safety. However, I don’t agree that everyone else should be allowed to get on with their life. That just prolongs the pandemic and could well block an ICU bed should the isolating person require medical treatment for some other illness. Chances are, if you are receiving treatment for cancer you are vulnerable and need to isolate more. So you stay at home while some party guy gets Covid and takes up my hospital bed. No thanks!
 

Similarly, what do you do if you work in a factory and feel vulnerable and want to stay isolated but the factory owner won’t allow it? That’s where government full  lockdowns work. 

Astonished that you continue to support the ridiculous lockdown strategies. 

 

There will never be a way to stop the spread of the virus that has a 95% chance of NOT being fatal and practically zero chance if you are younger. 

 

Pure draconian tyranny. 

Unacceptable. 

Edited August 31, 2021 by mcambl61

[Stonker]

7 hours ago, JackIsAGoodBoy said:

Now they have the herd immunity approach unlike Israel

What on earth are you talking about "unlike"?

They have roughly the same amount vaccinated, and fewer with post-infection immunity as they've had fewer cases.

It simply isn't physically possible for them to have greater herd immunity whether they've "chosen" to or not.

[Stonker]

1 hour ago, AdamX said:

http://wp.cov19longhaulfoundation.org/index.php/vaccine-news/this-ends-the-debate-israeli-study-shows-natural-immunity-13x-more-effective-than-vaccines-at-stopping-delta/

I don't expect you to believe it.

I'm posting for the open minded people who may be reading.

Read it, thank you, unfortunately and unsurprisingly the attention-grabbing headline isn't remotely what the pre-published version of the actual study (which hasn't been released yet) says.

 

Comparing it with the pre-publication study, it's a combination of cherry-picking and assumption / blatant lying - rather like the rest of the anti-vaxxer nonsense posted here.

 

What the pre-published original study actually says, which is VERY different, is that while both vaccinated and natural immunity decline over time (or at least over the six months of the study), with results "suggesting" that  vaccinated immunity declines considerably more than natural immunity, vaccine boosters appear to make far more difference to the vaccinated than to the unvaccinated, so making vaccines all the more important.

 

So pretty much the polar opposite to your claim, and your link's headline.

 

Sadly, no real surprises there at all.

[AdamX]

5 minutes ago, Stonker said:

Read it, thank you, unfortunately and unsurprisingly the attention-grabbing headline isn't remotely what the pre-published version of the actual study (which hasn't been released yet) says.

Comparing it with the pre-publication study, it's a combination of cherry-picking and assumption / blatant lying - rather like the rest of the anti-vaxxer nonsense posted here.

What the pre-published original study actually says, which is VERY different, is that while both vaccinated and natural immunity decline over time (or at least over the six months of the study), with results "suggesting" that  vaccinated immunity declines considerably more than natural immunity, vaccine boosters appear to make far more difference to the vaccinated than to the unvaccinated, so making vaccines all the more important.

So pretty much the polar opposite to your claim, and your link's headline.

Sadly, no real surprises there at all.

So you accept natural immunity exists?

We can start from there

Not trying to convince you, instead breaking your argument into smaller pieces and refuting them and demonstrating the logical fallacies for the open minded reader

Edited August 31, 2021 by AdamX

[Stonker]

1 hour ago, mcambl61 said:

Astonished that you continue to support the ridiculous lockdown strategies. 

There will never be a way to stop the spread of the virus that has a 95% chance of NOT being fatal and practically zero chance if you are younger. 

Pure draconian tyranny. 

Unacceptable. 

Lockdowns aren't supposed or intended to "stop the spread of the virus" - just to delay it sufficiently to give breathing space while vaccines and other means are developed, produced and rolled out.

 

You're criticising lockdowns for not doing something they're not intended to do.

[Stonker]

1 minute ago, AdamX said:

So you accept natural immunity exists?

We can start from there

Of course it exists post-infection. I've never suggested otherwise.

[Stonker]

1 hour ago, AdamX said:

There comes a point when a debate becomes circular as one, or perhaps both parties simply want to score points.

Our exchange on this thread has reached that point.

Nothing to do with "scoring points" on my part.

[AdamX]

2 minutes ago, Stonker said:

Of course it exists post-infection. I've never suggested otherwise.

Do we need a vax if we have natural immunity?

[Rain]

1 minute ago, Stonker said:

Lockdowns aren't supposed or intended to "stop the spread of the virus" - just to delay it sufficiently to give breathing space while vaccines and other means are developed, produced and rolled out.

You're criticising lockdowns for not doing something they're not intended to do.

His critiques are born of conspiracies, indoctrinated flag-waving and political identity comparisons, little else.

'Tis wonder that he's able to comprehend anything - regardless of the subject matter - beyond his bubble world.

[BlueSphinx]

29 minutes ago, Stonker said:

What on earth are you talking about "unlike"?

They have roughly the same amount vaccinated, and fewer with post-infection immunity as they've had fewer cases.

It simply isn't physically possible for them to have greater herd immunity whether they've "chosen" to or not.

The immunity you acquire after overcoming covid-infection protects not only against the covid-strain by which you got infected, but also against its variants.   And that immunity is as good as ever-lasting.  So it is   FAR SUPERIOR than the vaccine-induced specific immunity which wanes after a couple of months. 

Obviously these facts impact 'herd immunity'.  So we simply cannot talk about general 'herd immunity' anymore without differentiating between natural acquired herd-immunity and vaccine-induced herd-immunity.  The ratio natural/vaccin-induced immunity in Sweden will be far higher than in Israel and it is that factor that is important.  The highly-vaxxed countries might have achieved 'general herd immunity' but it is of the the strain-specific and quickly waning kind, and it explains the problems they are currently encountering.

[BlueSphinx]

14 minutes ago, AdamX said:

Do we need a vax if we have natural immunity?

Do we need a vax if we have natural immunity? 

Thanks, this is the all important question and shunned by vaccination-enthusiasts.  And it's why many virologists pleaded to 'let the infection rip' in the none-or-hardly-at-risk groups like children and healthy young adults.  When a significant part of the population has natural immunity the spread of the virus diminishes.  The vaccines should have ONLY been used for the high-risk groups (mostly elderly with underlying conditions) and that was the sensible Focused Protection approach advocated by the Great Barrington Declaration. 

Unfortunately and coerced by Big Pharma the 'jab everybody' cash-cow was opted for, which does NOT provide the benefits that natural immunity gives and creates ever bigger problems as the high-vaxxed countries are showing us.

[Shuddup]

32 minutes ago, Stonker said:

Nothing to do with "scoring points" on my part.

I stand corrected,after reading most of the comments on this thread about wearing or more to the point not wearing a mask. My perception of mask wearing is to offer yourself and OTHERS some level of protection.As we know one can be asymptotic with the virus, so the mask may just help those people you personally  interact with if you are unfortunate enough to contract this virus . But I’m sure you posters that continually try to outpoint each other will bring me up to speed on this.

[Shuddup]

30 minutes ago, BlueSphinx said:

Do we need a vax if we have natural immunity? 

Thanks, this is the all important question and shunned by vaccination-enthusiasts.  And it's why many virologists pleaded to 'let the infection rip' in the none-or-hardly-at-risk groups like children and healthy young adults.  When a significant part of the population has natural immunity the spread of the virus diminishes.  The vaccines should have ONLY been used for the high-risk groups (mostly elderly with underlying conditions) and that was the sensible Focused Protection approach advocated by the Great Barrington Declaration. 

Unfortunately and coerced by Big Pharma the 'jab everybody' cash-cow was opted for, which does NOT provide the benefits that natural immunity gives and creates ever bigger problems as the high-vaxxed countries are showing us.

 

10 minutes ago, Shuddup said:

I stand corrected,after reading most of the comments on this thread about wearing or more to the point not wearing a mask. My perception of mask wearing is to offer yourself and OTHERS some level of protection.As we know one can be asymptotic with the virus, so the mask may just help those people you personally  interact with if you are unfortunate enough to contract this virus . But I’m sure you posters that continually try to outpoint each other will bring me up to speed on this.

I sorry clear this up for me . Wouldn’t the all important herd immunity be obtained much much quicker by vaccination than waiting for people to get sick and pass it on to family and friends.

[BlueSphinx]

4 minutes ago, Shuddup said:

I sorry clear this up for me . Wouldn’t the all important herd immunity be obtained much much quicker by vaccination than waiting for people to get sick and pass it on to family and friends.

I actually already answered your question in the post right above the one you quoted. > https://thethaiger.com/talk/topic/4416-news-forum-ccsa-covid-19-plan-domestic-vaccines-“learning-to-live-with-it”/?do=findComment&comment=47686

 

[Shuddup]

3 minutes ago, BlueSphinx said:

I actually already answered your question in the post right above the one you quoted. > https://thethaiger.com/talk/topic/4416-news-forum-ccsa-covid-19-plan-domestic-vaccines-“learning-to-live-with-it”/?do=findComment&comment=47686

As yet unproven speculation.

[Stonker]

1 hour ago, AdamX said:

So you accept natural immunity exists?

We can start from there

Not trying to convince you, instead breaking your argument into smaller pieces and refuting them and demonstrating the logical fallacies for the open minded reader

So "refuting" my argument is to ask me something I've said very clearly is correct, and to give a link to an article by an anti-vax nut-job that, if you take the time to read it beyond the headline, not only doesn't say what you claim but doesn't even say what the reputable study it claims to be based on says?

An interesting  tactic .....

[AdamX]

Just now, Stonker said:

So "refuting" my argument is to ask me something I've said very clearly is correct, and to give a link to an article by an anti-vax nut-job that, if you take the time to read it beyond the headline, not only doesn't say what you claim but doesn't even say what the reputable study it claims to be based on says?

An interesting  tactic .....

Does natural immunity exist?

[BlueSphinx]

38 minutes ago, Shuddup said:

As yet unproven speculation.

See link to article > http://wp.cov19longhaulfoundation.org/index.php/vaccine-news/this-ends-the-debate-israeli-study-shows-natural-immunity-13x-more-effective-than-vaccines-at-stopping-delta/ as well as the pre-print of the study on which it was based.

Results and conclusions of the study attached below, hardly qualifies as 'unproven speculation':

Results:
SARS-CoV-2-naïve vaccinees had a 13.06-fold (95% CI, 8.08 to 21.11) increased risk for breakthrough infection with the Delta variant compared to those previously infected, when the first event (infection or vaccination) occurred during January and February of 2021. The increased risk was significant (P<0.001) for symptomatic disease as well. When allowing the infection to occur at any time before vaccination (from March 2020 to February 2021), evidence of waning natural immunity was demonstrated, though SARS-CoV-2 naïve vaccinees had a 5.96-fold (95% CI, 4.85 to 7.33) increased risk for breakthrough infection and a 7.13-fold (95% CI, 5.51 to 9.21) increased risk for symptomatic disease. SARS-CoV-2-naïve vaccinees were also at a greater risk for COVID-19-related-hospitalizations compared to those that were previously infected.
Conclusions:
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. Individuals who were both previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta variant.

Comparing SARS-CoV-2 natural immunity to vaccine-induced immunity.pdf

[AdamX]

13 minutes ago, Stonker said:

...give a link to an article by an anti-vax nut-job ....

"The study was described by Bloomberg as “the largest real-world analysis comparing natural immunity – gained from an earlier infection – to the protection provided by one of the most potent vaccines currently in use.”

 

"Here’s an excerpt from a report by Science Magazine:

The new analysis relies on the database of Maccabi Healthcare Services, which enrolls about 2.5 million Israelis. The study, led by Tal Patalon and Sivan Gazit at KSM, the system’s research and innovation arm, found in two analyses that people who were vaccinated in January and February were, in June, July, and the first half of August, six to 13 times more likely to get infected than unvaccinated people who were previously infected with the coronavirus. In one analysis, comparing more than 32,000 people in the health system, the risk of developing symptomatic COVID-19 was 27 times higher among the vaccinated, and the risk of hospitalization eight times higher."

anti-vax nutjob you say?

Pot Kettle Black methinks

[Stonker]

1 hour ago, BlueSphinx said:

The immunity you acquire after overcoming covid-infection protects not only against the covid-strain by which you got infected, but also against its variants.   And that immunity is as good as ever-lasting.  So it is   FAR SUPERIOR than the vaccine-induced specific immunity which wanes after a couple of months. 

Really?

 

This sort of ignorance and fantasy would be funny if people weren't dying as a result of it - one of the most recent being the well-known American radio host and anti-vaxxer Marc Bernier.

His final words in his last tweet before he died of Covid-19: "Get the shot!"

 

So post-infection immunity "protects against variants" and is "as good as everlasting"? 

 

That's odd, because the link @AdamX just linked to, albeit indirectly and clearly without reading the study, says the complete opposite!  

 

So any links to actual studies that say that, rather than to a nut-job repeating another nut-job misquoting a real study which actually contradicts you?

 

[BlueSphinx]

3 minutes ago, Stonker said:

Really?

This sort of ignorance and fantasy would be funny if people weren't dying as a result of it - one of the most recent being the well-known American radio host and anti-vaxxer Marc Bernier.

His final words in his last tweet before he died of Covid-19: "Get the shot!"

So post-infection immunity "protects against variants" and is "as good as everlasting"? 

That's odd, because the link @AdamX just linked to, albeit indirectly and clearly without reading the study, says the complete opposite!  

So any links to actual studies that say that, rather than to a nut-job repeating another nut-job misquoting a real study which actually contradicts you?

Yes, really - 2 posts above yours > https://thethaiger.com/talk/topic/4416-news-forum-ccsa-covid-19-plan-domestic-vaccines-“learning-to-live-with-it”/?do=findComment&comment=47764