COVID Developments and News

[MyHybridBurnsGasAndTires]

not an antivaxxer, just using all the same talking points as one. got it, thanks, your order is ready at the next window.

[86TOYO2k17]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

A booster. Some people got COVID in 2020 and may not have lasting immunity. We have had many cases of people getting COVID twice. Some nurses too. If someone could demonstrate they have robust immunity through a positive antibody test or provides a copy of their PCR results showing they were positive within a certain window like maybe within six months then I’m fine with them not getting a vaccine. They would need to eventually retest in the future and get a booster if they lost immunity.

Like the article says, getting a vaccine would be that much better for their immunity than just relying on immunity from exposure.

Sounds like we may have found some common ground. Of at least an exemption for natural immunity.

based on the studies it seems a part of the conclusion/reason for natural immunity being as good if not better was the duration immunity lasts, so someone who gets vaccinated would need to be in the same boat as needing booster shots / adequate testing etc... too.

So natural immunity plus whatever testing and possible booster if necessary at some point, possibly routinely/annually booster.

or

Vaccine 1-2jab plus whatever testing and possible booster if necessary at some point, most likely routinely/annual booster.

You would conclude those could be two possible reasonable alternatives to each other and an alternative scenario where vaccine wouldn't be required, at least not initial 2jab but maybe booster TBT?

[86TOYO2k17]

Originally Posted by MyHybridBurnsGasAndTires

not an antivaxxer, just using all the same talking points as one. got it, thanks, your order is ready at the next window.

most likely 99% of the "antivaxxers" you are referencing are not actually antivaxxers if you read the ending of my post you should have gotten that. but thanks for proving my point.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by 86TOYO2k17

Maybe we can find common ground on that, antibody testing to allow vaccine exemption?

You did say near zero, and it is near zero percent, but that is why I included exposure rate. since one would be drastically higher if it was 100% vaccination rate.

and if you included serious short term effects from vaccine it seems that is a much higher rate especially after 2nd shot.

I know several people that got covid after vaccination. In fact probably an equal number of people who got it after vaccination vs who weren't vaccination. and the outcome short and long term has been relatively the same for both groups, but that's just anecdotal obviously.

A common reoccurring sentiment I have heard over and over (again anecdotal) is after the 2nd shot that is the sickest I have ever been in my entire life. or last time I was this sick was back in 2002 when I had a serious case of the flu that knocked me out for over a week. The number of people I know that had serious short term Covid complications isn't even close to the number who had serious short term complications from the vaccine.

PS: I have encouraged anyone who wants to get the vaccine to get it, or anyone who is high risk group to look into getting it. by no means an anti vaxxer (which of whom rarely exists) anyone who is anti mandate is just labeled an anti vaxxer even if they support peoples rights to get the vaccine and support getting any vaccine in general. but if you have any alternative view that isn't the main stream view you are told to have in regards to covid/vaccine you are now a crazy conspiracist anti vaxxer.

I really don't think many care if someone had the vaccine or showed they had robust immunity with a antibody test. Really, no one is set on someone having the vaccine. People just want people to have immunity one way or the other, so we can stop the spread of this virus and reduce deaths. Just because an antibody test could be an alternative, doesn't mean our plan can be to allow everyone to be infected because obviously that is a non-starter; it would result in too many deaths, hospitalizations and hosts for new variants. I also feel like some idiots might actually have COVID parties like people had Chickenpox parties, so they get COVID, but avoid the vaccine.

Your anecdotal accounts are in stark contrast with the data from the whole US. The rates of infections, hospitalizations and deaths among the unvaccinated and vaccinated couldn't be more polar.

The 2nd shot does have a large incidence of flu like symptoms for 12 hours followed by a recovery period. Your friends who had these strong reactions were having an immune reaction that is uncomfortable, but medically speaking, mild. It isn't an allergic reaction (moderate), anaphylaxis (severe) or death (fatal/absolute). Those reactions are extremely rare. Most will just have a sore arm from the shot. Anyone having a flu reaction should take note of the experience because it is a small sampling of what COVID would be like on the mild to moderate end of the spectrum. Frankly, I look forward to having a reaction because it means my body created immunity because there are a small percentage of people that don't develop immunity from a vaccine, and I don't want to be in that group.

[MyHybridBurnsGasAndTires]

Originally Posted by 86TOYO2k17

most likely 99% of the "antivaxxers" you are referencing are not actually antivaxxers if you read the ending of my post you should have gotten that. but thanks for proving my point.

nope, yet again i will point out that you're making all of these arguments in bad faith and hedging your bets with that final statement in an effort to seem less extreme

[86TOYO2k17]

Originally Posted by MyHybridBurnsGasAndTires

nope, yet again i will point out that you're making all of these arguments in bad faith and hedging your bets with that final statement in an effort to seem less extreme

You are starting to sound like that, "I know you are but what am I" kid on the playground at recess.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by 86TOYO2k17

Sounds like we may have found some common ground. Of at least an exemption for natural immunity.

based on the studies it seems a part of the conclusion/reason for natural immunity being as good if not better was the duration immunity lasts, so someone who gets vaccinated would need to be in the same boat as needing booster shots / adequate testing etc... too.

So natural immunity plus whatever testing and possible booster if necessary at some point, possibly routinely/annually booster.

or

Vaccine 1-2jab plus whatever testing and possible booster if necessary at some point, most likely routinely/annual booster.

You would conclude those could be two possible reasonable alternatives to each other and an alternative scenario where vaccine wouldn't be required, at least not initial 2jab but maybe booster TBT?

I think natural immunity can be stronger, and it can be weaker. The vaccine might be specific to the Achilles heal of this virus--the spike protein--but natural immunity might be less specific, so instead of having a lot of antibodies for one protein, a person might have less but several antibodies, which might be lost more easily. Then again, having multiple parts of the immune system involved in natural immunity might make it more robust. There may also be the difference of the immunity acquired from an asymptomatic case versus a symptomatic case, which both people may have a positive antibody test, but the asymptomatic one could lose that immunity faster.

If the scientific community could make a predictable timeline or if the antibody testing was solid then I see no reason why such a plan would be a problem. I received my initial shot in January, and I will be available for the booster soon, and I believe they have said nine months is when immunity starts to go, so I am eager to get my booster. Vaccinated people are in the same boat of needing to comply with boosters if the evidence suggests immunity has waned.

If the government decided to give the option then I think the option would be that vaccinated people need to stay on a vaccination/booster schedule without a need for antibody testing or be subject to the unvaccinated plan. The unvaccinated plan is to test for antibodies in whatever frequency they determine is sufficient, whether that is weekly, biweekly or monthly or whatever. If an antibody test shows waning levels or comes back negative then a vaccine/booster would be administered.

I think if someone had a recent PCR test it could be possible to give them a period of time where they don't need to take an antibody test, but the problem is that some people can test positive for a PCR test for months, so it is more important to know when they were symptomatic, and that would require more than a PCR test; it would require a doctor's note or medical record indicating symptoms along with the PCR test. I could imagine this would be problematic, so I could imagine no waver of the antibody testing.

I don't think we need to double down on PCR testing twice a week and antibody testing. Either someone doesn't have immunity, and they take the vaccine/booster, or they have natural immunity and are immune.

The problem is determining if someone is truly immune from the antibody test. Some just say yes or no, but don't provide levels. Some provide levels, but they may not be measuring the most important antibodies. The testing would have to provide levels that the science shows demonstrates immunity, and as such is the case, the antibody testing would have to be standardized. But again, given that situation, unvaccinated people with natural immunity could have a few more months of not having to get the vaccine until they test negative.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-...covid-immunity

[wbradley]

All 5 members of the family a few doors down from us have been infected TWICE.

And their son who is friends with my 14 yr old, has still had at least his first vaccination.

So maybe natural immunity is better but I'll take immunity without getting sick, possibly more than once.

Some people just want to infect everybody and it will all be OK, for them, hopefully, or maybe irony will kick in, and it won't be ok for them either...

[86TOYO2k17]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

I really don't think many care if someone had the vaccine or showed they had robust immunity with a antibody test. Really, no one is set on someone having the vaccine.

I think this is the fundamental point we disagree on.

[86TOYO2k17]

Originally Posted by wbradley

All 5 members of the family a few doors down from us have been infected TWICE.

And their son who is friends with my 14 yr old, has still had at least his first vaccination.

So maybe natural immunity is better but I'll take immunity without getting sick, possibly more than once.

Some people just want to infect everybody and it will all be OK, for them, hopefully, or maybe irony will kick in, and it won't be ok for them either...

Anecdotal, also possibly false positive first or second time.

Some people maybe, but the vast majority do not want to infect anyone. Not wanting vaccine does not mean you want to infect somebody.

[wbradley]

Originally Posted by 86TOYO2k17

Anecdotal, also possibly false positive first or second time.

Some people maybe, but the vast majority do not want to infect anyone. Not wanting vaccine does not mean you want to infect somebody.

No, it's a whole family, unable to isolate from each other. 5 people, 10 PCR tests. How exactly would there have been a false positive? And how is this anecdotal? One of them came over here yesterday after school and we discussed it. His dad was quite sick for a month. The first time it was caught through the youngest from his daycare.

[wbradley]

Originally Posted by 86TOYO2k17

Anecdotal, also possibly false positive first or second time.

Some people maybe, but the vast majority do not want to infect anyone. Not wanting vaccine does not mean you want to infect somebody.

No, just that you disagree with all the doctors and you very definitely can negatively impact other people's lives if you stand a greater chance of contracting the virus or being hospitalized.

It is an anti-social attitude.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by 86TOYO2k17

I think this is the fundamental point we disagree on.

I think I am more likely to be correct, and here is why: if the science showed that an antibody test provided evidence of immunity to the same degree of protection as the vaccine then who would care to argue? Immunity is immunity. All people want is people to be immune from spreading the virus or reduced likelihood of getting hospitalized or dying from COVID. We know with a strong degree of certainty that the vaccines are extremely effective 90-99% (depending on the variant and the vaccine) at preventing severe COVID that would lead to hospitalizations and deaths. We know the vaccines are effective at reducing transmission. If the exact same thing is shown to be the case from previous exposure, and an antibody test could be standardized to demonstrate that robust immunity exists, then the community wouldn't care. The people on the vaccine side of the isle tend to side with science and have less attachment to a particular point of view in the presence of compelling evidence.*

The problem is that many people in support of alternatives to vaccines are only trying to further delay the inevitable, which is that a vaccine will eventually be needed when immunity wanes, pending getting exposed again and again and again, which brings up the second point: most people who don't want the vaccine seem to be fine with getting COVID and gaining natural immunity. For a long time, they have suggested we should let the virus steamroll over the nation, and yes, people will die, but we will reach herd immunity. Obviously this is a terrible idea because many people die, and we would overwhelm the hospitals, while also giving the virus an opportunity to mutate into new variants due to all the hosts, but given a choice between COVID and a vaccine, we know some people would choose to get COVID. Many people who are proponents of the vaccine would be wary of an agreement where someone could not get the vaccine because these proponents would fear that people would be stupid enough to expose themselves to COVID, which is not progressing us in the right direction.

*While both side of the political spectrum has people who are vaccine hesitant, there are more conservatives who are vaccine hesitant. Fundamentally, liberals tend to be open to change and side with science, and conservatives tend to be cautious of change and side more with the status quo or with dogma, whether that is religious dogma, political or whatever. As such is the case, liberals will move as the science evolves, so they will be less likely to demand vaccines if the science shows that alternatives are just as effective. The problem will be convincing conservatives and some liberals to get the vaccine when it is demonstrated that they don't have immunity. These holdouts fear microchips.

YouGov, another polling operation, asked a similar question this month about the COVID vaccine. Nearly a third (32%) of Republicans believe the vaccine is a tool for the government to implant microchips, compared to 14% of Democrats and 18% of independents who ascribe to the bizarre (and dangerous) theory. About two-thirds (65%) of Democrats and less than a third (32%) of Republicans believe the theory is "definitely false."

The nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation found that 75% of Democrats have already been vaccinated; just 41% of Republicans said the same.

https://www.usnews.com/news/the-repo...litical-divide

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by wbradley

How exactly would there have been a false positive?

Depending on the test, some do have false positives and false negatives. That's why, even if you get the quick test you often get the lab test. False negatives are less likely than a false positive.

For example, the Abott BinaxNow test is 85$ accurate with Positive and 98% accurate with Negative results.

Quidel QuickVue is 83% positive and 99% Negative in testing.