Vaccine

met61 said:
LOL! Seriously, fat shaming? so schoolgirl of you. You win again!
Click to expand...
Lighten up. He probably looks no more like his picture than you look like yours. Welcome to the internet. Images are misleading here.

The point is that the best spokesman for his position is a surgeon. Not a virologist, epidemiologist, or vaccine researcher. A surgeon. Not even remotely qualified to interpret the data.
 
what-happened said:
But it gets better, "they" can't even figure out why natural immunity out performs vaccine immunity, by a long shot.. You would have thought this would have been studied concurrently. For many, vaccination is the way to go, also for many, it's not the way to go if you've already caught the big 19.

The government wanting to vaccinate those already infected, older or immnocompromised should make everyone's ears perk up.
Click to expand...
Funny how Dad goes after the Surgeon rather than the data that the surgeon links where virologist, epidemiologist, or vaccine researchers do interpret the data that is referenced in the post. Poor guy. He's getting peppered with facts that he is ill qualified to refute since he is not a virologist, epidemiologist, or vaccine researcher himself.
 
what-happened said:
But it gets better, "they" can't even figure out why natural immunity out performs vaccine immunity, by a long shot.. You would have thought this would have been studied concurrently. For many, vaccination is the way to go, also for many, it's not the way to go if you've already caught the big 19.

The government wanting to vaccinate those already infected, older or immnocompromised should make everyone's ears perk up.
Click to expand...
Maybe "they" can't figure out the cause because it isn't actually true.

Mr. Makary provides no link for his "27 times" claim.

He does link to a CDC study. The study says that vaccination after an infection improves your immunity. (Natural + vax is better than natural alone.)

Makary misreads this to mean natural immunity is better than vaccinated.

You have a surgeon who is having trouble reading even a basic scientific paper. Do you have anyone qualified?
 
dad4 said:
Maybe "they" can't figure out the cause because it isn't actually true.

Mr. Makary provides no link for his "27 times" claim.

He does link to a CDC study. The study says that vaccination after an infection improves your immunity. (Natural + vax is better than natural alone.)

Makary misreads this to mean natural immunity is better than vaccinated.

You have a surgeon who is having trouble reading even a basic scientific paper. Do you have anyone qualified?
Click to expand...
You didn't read the Wall Street article. No wonder you missed the link.
 
dad4 said:
Maybe "they" can't figure out the cause because it isn't actually true.

Mr. Makary provides no link for his "27 times" claim.

He does link to a CDC study. The study says that vaccination after an infection improves your immunity. (Natural + vax is better than natural alone.)

Makary misreads this to mean natural immunity is better than vaccinated.

You have a surgeon who is having trouble reading even a basic scientific paper. Do you have anyone qualified?
Click to expand...
Comparing SARS-CoV-2 natural immunity to vaccine-induced immunity: reinfections versus breakthrough infections
 
Results
Overall, 673,676 MHS members 16 years and older were eligible for the study group of fully vaccinated SARS-CoV-2-naïve individuals; 62,883 were eligible for the study group of unvaccinated previously infected individuals and 42,099 individuals were eligible for the study group of previously infected and single-dose vaccinees.

Model 1 – previously infected vs. vaccinated individuals, with matching for time of first event
In model 1, we matched 16,215 persons in each group. Overall, demographic characteristics were similar between the groups, with some differences in their comorbidity profile (Table 1a).
Table 1a.

Table 1b.

During the follow-up period, 257 cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection were recorded, of which 238 occurred in the vaccinated group (breakthrough infections) and 19 in the previously infected group (reinfections). After adjusting for comorbidities, we found a statistically significant 13.06-fold (95% CI, 8.08 to 21.11) increased risk for breakthrough infection as opposed to reinfection (P<0.001). Apart from age ≥60 years, there was no statistical evidence that any of the assessed comorbidities significantly affected the risk of an infection during the follow-up period (Table 2a). As for symptomatic SARS-COV-2 infections during the follow-up period, 199 cases were recorded, 191 of which were in the vaccinated group and 8 in the previously infected group. Symptoms for all analyses were recorded in the central database within 5 days of the positive RT-PCR test for 90% of the patients, and included chiefly fever, cough, breathing difficulties, diarrhea, loss of taste or smell, myalgia, weakness, headache and sore throat. After adjusting for comorbidities, we found a 27.02-fold risk (95% CI, 12.7 to 57.5) for symptomatic breakthrough infection as opposed to symptomatic reinfection (P<0.001) (Table 2b). None of the covariates were significant, except for age ≥60 years.

Nine cases of COVID-19-related hospitalizations were recorded, 8 of which were in the vaccinated group and 1 in the previously infected group (Table S1). No COVID-19-related deaths were recorded in our cohorts.
 
That obesity is an important only risk factor for poor COVID outcomes was known early in the epidemic. Nevertheless, we adopted lockdowns which caused more obesity. The worse COVID results in turn increased demand for lockdown...

Jay Bhattacharya
Professor Stanford School of Medicine. MD, PhD. Health policy: infectious diseases, COVID, health economics. Scientific freedom
 
dad4 said:
Lighten up. He probably looks no more like his picture than you look like yours. Welcome to the internet. Images are misleading here.

The point is that the best spokesman for his position is a surgeon. Not a virologist, epidemiologist, or vaccine researcher. A surgeon. Not even remotely qualified to interpret the data.
Click to expand...
I agree, images are misleading here...yours should be an "L"
 
Bruddah IZ said:
You mean because virologist, epidemiologist, or vaccine researchers see patients? Please continue.
Click to expand...
How, exactly, does doing a gastric bypass operation prepare someone to understand medical research papers on coronavirus immunity?

I don’t doubt whether he is qualified to remove colon polyps. I doubt whether he is qualified to write an article on covid immunity.

The medarxiv article itself is interesting. It does not, however, say what Makary claimed it said. ( 1 versus 8 hospitalizations is not the same as “27 times as much protection.” )
 
Listening to the testimony of the gymnasts molested by Nassar should remind us all that the government, particularly bureaucrats, don't have our best interests in mind when it comes to public health. Bureaucrats are only interested in covering their own ass. And when bureaucrats fail, other bureaucrats circle the wagons to protect them. The fact that the Justice Department refuses to prosecute the FBI employees who failed to investigate the abuse is very troubling.
 
Bruddah IZ said:
Results
Overall, 673,676 MHS members 16 years and older were eligible for the study group of fully vaccinated SARS-CoV-2-naïve individuals; 62,883 were eligible for the study group of unvaccinated previously infected individuals and 42,099 individuals were eligible for the study group of previously infected and single-dose vaccinees.

Model 1 – previously infected vs. vaccinated individuals, with matching for time of first event
In model 1, we matched 16,215 persons in each group. Overall, demographic characteristics were similar between the groups, with some differences in their comorbidity profile (Table 1a).
Table 1a.

Table 1b.

During the follow-up period, 257 cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection were recorded, of which 238 occurred in the vaccinated group (breakthrough infections) and 19 in the previously infected group (reinfections). After adjusting for comorbidities, we found a statistically significant 13.06-fold (95% CI, 8.08 to 21.11) increased risk for breakthrough infection as opposed to reinfection (P<0.001). Apart from age ≥60 years, there was no statistical evidence that any of the assessed comorbidities significantly affected the risk of an infection during the follow-up period (Table 2a). As for symptomatic SARS-COV-2 infections during the follow-up period, 199 cases were recorded, 191 of which were in the vaccinated group and 8 in the previously infected group. Symptoms for all analyses were recorded in the central database within 5 days of the positive RT-PCR test for 90% of the patients, and included chiefly fever, cough, breathing difficulties, diarrhea, loss of taste or smell, myalgia, weakness, headache and sore throat. After adjusting for comorbidities, we found a 27.02-fold risk (95% CI, 12.7 to 57.5) for symptomatic breakthrough infection as opposed to symptomatic reinfection (P<0.001) (Table 2b). None of the covariates were significant, except for age ≥60 years.

Nine cases of COVID-19-related hospitalizations were recorded, 8 of which were in the vaccinated group and 1 in the previously infected group (Table S1). No COVID-19-related deaths were recorded in our cohorts.
Click to expand...

Why is it that anti-vaxxers claim vaccines are unsafe despite every study imaginable telling them otherwise because "only time will tell" and the future is "unknowable", yet they claim that natural immunity is safer for us in the long term because a study tells us that? Why is it that the future is knowable to them only if they think it supports their narrative, but is not when it doesn't?

Regardless, this study is a perfect example of the lengths to which anti-vaxxers will go to misrepresent what something means, or they're just too stupid to understand what a study does and doesn't mean. Yes, those with natural immunity have longer lasting protection against infection, just like pretty much everyone who develops natural immunity from an illness that doesn't kill them, like polio and smallpox had stronger immunity than a vaccine could provide. Do you see where this is going?

The other thing about this study is that it compares people who got vaccinated with a sample of those who got Covid, excluding the approximately 700,000 unvaccinated people who have died from it plus all the others who have suffered debilitating long term complications. I guess we don't need seatbelts, because if you exclude all the people who died not wearing them, no one dies from not wearing seatbelts. I guess we don't need penicillin because if you just exclude all the people who die from infections because they did not take penicillin, no one dies from infections.

None of this changes the unquestionable conclusion that acquired immunity through vaccination is safer overall than natural immunity. If you get vaccinated, it is much less likely you will get Covid than if you aren't, and there is virtually a 0% chance that you will get seriously ill let alone die from Covid. If you rely on natural immunity, however, you'll only be in much better shape unless it kills you or you become seriously ill from it of course. Natural immunity has a 100% chance of saving your life if you aren't like one of the approximately 700,000 so far for whom it didn't work at all. And if you're vaccinated, you are a much lower risk to transmit it to someone else, whereas if you rely on "natural immunity", you only become a reduced risk to transmit it to others after you've already given it to everyone around you when you got it.
 
dad4 said:
How, exactly, does doing a gastric bypass operation prepare someone to understand medical research papers on coronavirus immunity?
Click to expand...
There is this thing called med school. Maybe you've heard of it?

dad4 said:
I don’t doubt whether he is qualified to remove colon polyps. I doubt whether he is qualified to write an article on covid immunity.
Click to expand...
There is this thing called med school. Maybe you've heard of it? But to your point, you'll notice he cites a study that you didn't read. Or worse, you did read it and did comprehend it but can't bring yourself to admit that there is an Army of doctors out there that are smarter than you

dad4 said:
The medarxiv article itself is interesting. It does not, however, say what Makary claimed it said. ( 1 versus 8 hospitalizations is not the same as “27 times as much protection.” )
Click to expand...
Okay. You got me there. 27.02 is what it said. Happy?
 
Bruddah IZ said:
Funny how Dad goes after the Surgeon rather than the data that the surgeon links where virologist, epidemiologist, or vaccine researchers do interpret the data that is referenced in the post. Poor guy. He's getting peppered with facts that he is ill qualified to refute since he is not a virologist, epidemiologist, or vaccine researcher himself.
Click to expand...
I still don’t get what you are advocating. You seem to think that the best way to reduce covid infections is for everyone to get infected with covid.

That’s like solving alcoholism by getting so drunk you can’t walk to the liquor cabinet.
 
watfly said:
Listening to the testimony of the gymnasts molested by Nassar should remind us all that the government, particularly bureaucrats, don't have our best interests in mind when it comes to public health. Bureaucrats are only interested in covering their own ass. And when bureaucrats fail, other bureaucrats circle the wagons to protect them. The fact that the Justice Department refuses to prosecute the FBI employees who failed to investigate the abuse is very troubling.
Click to expand...

If a Michigan State employee covered up molestation by Nasser, that definitely means we should not listen to what medical experts say about vaccines, or anything for that matter.

You should ask a mental health expert about paranoid personality disorder, the essential characteristic of which is "a relentless mistrust and suspicion of others without adequate reason to be suspicious." Be careful, however, because the mental health expert may be in on the conspiracy.
 
GoldenGate said:
If a Michigan State employee covered up molestation by Nasser, that definitely means we should not listen to what medical experts say about vaccines, or anything for that matter.

You should ask a mental health expert about paranoid personality disorder, the essential characteristic of which is "a relentless mistrust and suspicion of others without adequate reason to be suspicious." Be careful, however, because the mental health expert may be in on the conspiracy.
Click to expand...
I wish it had only been a Michigan State employee that covered it up. Unfortunately, the FBI participated as well and now the Justice Department refuses to prosecute. I hope that the might change given the Democrats strong worded objections to lack of prosecution.

You're again barking up the wrong tree. I'm pro-Vax, but you're gaslighting by claiming vaccines are better than natural immunity from prior infection. My point is trust but verify when it comes to vaccines. You want us to ignore any criticism of the vaccines. "Nothing to see here, just obey".
 
GoldenGate said:
The other thing about this study is that it compares people who got vaccinated with a sample of those who got Covid, excluding the approximately 700,000 unvaccinated people who have died from it plus all the others who have suffered debilitating long term complications.
Click to expand...

This particular study has been linked and/or regurgitated out of twitter feeds several times now. If you look more broadly it is clearly a talisman link for the anti-vaxx crowd. I posted a critique of it many pages back but maybe worth repeating a few points. A cohort study like they did is a fine approach to examine the issue of sustained immunity, but it does come with some associated problems. One problem is if the outcome of interest (in this case delta infection) is rare within the cohorts. Then you can get statistical artifacts with how the outcome bins between the two groups. That is a possibility in this study where there are only ~250 cases of delta infection. In some ways, the main conclusion of the study is that, regardless of immune priming by viral infection vs vaccination, subsequent reinfection is rare. The next question becomes what's different about the small ~250 people that had acquired immunity but were re-infected? From a biological standpoint, that's interesting and, from my back and forth with the editors at Science, that's why they decided to do a highlight of it (even prior to completion of peer review). It's known that different people maintain different levels of circulating antibodies post infection or vaxx. It can vary widely. Examples of that phenomenon have even been posted on this site. The why of that probably has to do with lots of stuff that are of interest to immunologists and epidemiologists. At any rate, if those factors are in effect a "comorbitity" that was not accounted for in setting up the original cohorts, and vaxxed represent something like 70-ish percent of the study population, you will also tend to see biased binning between the cohorts.

Anyway, it was an interesting exchange with the editors at Science. The issue becomes, in a raging infodemic, to what extent do scientists bear a responsibility to insulate their work from being mis-appropriated. Or is that not a responsibility that should be placed up them. There is no bright line, but editorial policies probably need to change to address the issue. Unfortunately, the outcome in this case is that how ~250 cases bin one way or another gets expressed as an odds risk of 13X which is then talisman linked to mean that there is now indisputable evidence that "natural immunity" (as if there is any other kind) due to viral infection much better than vaccination. It's rediculous, and a silly argument anyway. But that's a extbook example of the infodemic in action.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top