Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm not talking about other vaccines. I'm talking about the vaccine mandates being enacted right now, that require you to be covid vaccinated to be in the military or work for the feds and now any large employer. The mandates don't say "vaccinated for covid within last 6 months".
Well, to be fair, I don't think we really know how long immunity lasts - at least 6 months but maybe longer, who knows?
Anyway, it's common to mandate vaccines and it's also common for vaccines to need boosters.
In which case, there should be studies showing mask use heps....but there are none. Many studies have shown no difference in infection rates among those who always use masks vs those who never use masks. Masks have been shown to prevent soread of Influenza (partiucle size 100u) but best study showed only 40% lower rate of spread for CoV. (Would you bother with aBCP that was only 40% effective at preventing pregnancy?)
The CoV spreads by droplets but also by aerosol. Big dif.
We shouldn't be arguing this anymore...Compare infection rates in highly regulated states lke CA or NY compared to low-reg states like FL & TX--- essentilally identical results.
...and politics has nothing to do with my interpretation of the data. Numbers, unlike bureaucrats, don't lie.
You're absolutely right that surgical masks don't stop all infections. That's why it's important that everyone be masked (not just a few individuals making a personal choice) and why people should wear N95s (or equivalent) instead of cloth or surgical masks. In particular, non-N95 masks are much better for source control than intake protection, which is why leaving mask wearing to personal choice during a pandemic is deadly and idiotic.
Well, to be fair, I don't think we really know how long immunity lasts - at least 6 months but maybe longer, who knows?
Anyway, it's common to mandate vaccines and it's also common for vaccines to need boosters.
It seems like the vaccine efficacy against severe illness/hospitalization lasts longer than protection against transmission. If we're counting on vaccination to prevent transmission, mandates should definitely have a 6mo expiration. I think someone, maybe Israel, is doing that already.
It seems like the vaccine efficacy against severe illness/hospitalization lasts longer than protection against transmission. If we're counting on vaccination to prevent transmission, mandates should definitely have a 6mo expiration. I think someone, maybe Israel, is doing that already.
Hey, all I know is that I am vaccinated and just got the booster as well. I also keep my immune system really ramped up. Never have gotten COVID to my knowledge and have never tested positive.
You're absolutely right that surgical masks don't stop all infections. That's why it's important that everyone be masked (not just a few individuals making a personal choice) and why people should wear N95s (or equivalent) instead of cloth or surgical masks. In particular, non-N95 masks are much better for source control than intake protection, which is why leaving mask wearing to personal choice during a pandemic is deadly and idiotic.
In that case, please explain why the cummulative infection rate patterns have been identical worldwide in the jursisdicitons that implemented very strict mask/soc distancing/business closure regs vs those with less stringent or absent regs, and why during the first six months of the epidemic (I haven't seen data since then) that healthcare workers with full access to the very best and most complete PPE (gloves, gowns, masks, face shields and well trained in their use) still had infection rates 6x higher than the general public.
It's not how many bugs you stop. It's how many still get thru-- and it doesn't take many.
In that case, please explain why the cummulative infection rate patterns have been identical worldwide in the jursisdicitons that implemented very strict mask/soc distancing/business closure regs vs those with less stringent or absent regs, and why during the first six months of the epidemic (I haven't seen data since then) that healthcare workers with full access to the very best and most complete PPE (gloves, gowns, masks, face shields and well trained in their use) still had infection rates 6x higher than the general public.
It's not how many bugs you stop. It's how many still get thru-- and it doesn't take many.
I can't explain something that didn't happen. If you want an example of what happens with strict anti-COVID regulations, China is probably the best example. I'm curious what jurisdictions experienced rampant spread even with mandatory masking and social distancing, because I can't think of any. There are plenty who got tired of prevention and opened the doors to the virus after businesses complained too much. Other than China, I can't think of any countries that truly treated the virus as an existential threat and responded accordingly.
If I have to explain to you why people who work with sick people might have higher infection rates than the general population without assuming fault in PPE, I'm not sure how I can. Setting that aside, we had a PPE shortage early in the pandemic, and some hospitals are even still requiring reuse of masks and other shortcuts. Assuming you have evidence for the 6x thing in the first place, I'm not familiar with that statistic.
The whole natural immunity argument is basically just survivorship bias. 10% of people who get infected get hospitalized or killed, and the other 90% run around crowing about how they are invincible. Not unlike all the old boomers who talk about how in their day they didn't need seat belts, while we don't hear anything from the ones who died in car accidents (for obvious reasons).
I doubt that "weaker and less long-lasting" is known at this time, however, I am curious to know if you have any current graphs of studies where we see how many of the recovered (not vaccinated) have been re-infected and had severe illness/death? I'm just curious.
You may have been on to something with the whole "survivorship bias" if it wasn't for the fact that those who have survived do not get the same treatment as the vaccinated, regarding immunity. If they did, you wouldn't hear squat, and they should.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankMiller
All I'm seeing is a lot of cherry-picked numbers right-wing media (this study says natural immunity protects 20% after 10 months but this completely different study shows vaccination protects only 50% in five months therefore blah blah blah), and expert testimony from this guy. Are there any actual studies that directly compared natural immunity to vaccination and found that natural immunity was superior? I'm pretty sure the answer is "no", because if actual evidence existed it would be posted on Facebook 1mil times a day.
Compare that to dozens of public studies around the world directly comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated people and showing that vaccination was effective.
FB decides what is posted 1M times on FB, so no, you wouldn't see that. At this point, it does not fit their narrative.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankMiller
This is a naive read of the situation. The CDC isn't tracking breakthroughs because they're in league with Capital more broadly to get people shopping, and the notion that vaccines aren't one-time invincibility potions contradicts their goal of throwing caution to the wind and winding up Wall Street. That's why Fauci the Man-killer avoids the topic of post-vaccination risks. The "natural immunity" myth is part of the same scam, that you don't need to be careful because getting sick is good for you actually, so go shop/work your heart out.
The fact that vaccines are not 100% effective does not mean that they are less effective than natural immunity, and there are multiple studies from all over the world demonstrating that vaccines are more effective and safer than natural immunity. The closest we can say scientifically is that some studies indicate infection-derived immunity + a follow-up vaccination "booster" shot provides protection at least as well as vaccination. Natural immunity by itself is worthless long-term if only because it doesn't resist variants as well as the vaccine, which targets the least mutable portion of the virus (the "spike protein" it relies on for infection).
You have no idea if the vaccines will continue to resist variants. Nor for how long. Not the point, though. Point is, apparently no one knows for sure about acquired immunity, studies (that science, you know) all over the place, studies coming from reliable papers/journals/healthcare institutions, differing in their conclusions. Ridiculous, however, many do agree that a "booster" of one of those mRNA shots would make you an Immune Superstar. What it won't make you is free of vaccine mandates. They need to do better.
Nor is vaccine immunity. Release the ignorance against the recovered and acknowledge the protection.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy
So what are you saying, that people should intentionally catch covid so that they will have natural immunity? Because that is the only way you can get it, and how will you know if all that natural immunity is still working, are you going to use a magic 8 ball?
By the way, this has nothing to do with car crashes or choking on food
So, "intentionally catching covid" is the ONLY way to get it? Ridiculous comment. How will you know if all that vaccine serum is still working?
Quote:
Originally Posted by KathrynAragon
Well, to be fair, I don't think we really know how long immunity lasts - at least 6 months but maybe longer, who knows?
Anyway, it's common to mandate vaccines and it's also common for vaccines to need boosters.
You completely missed the poster's point, twice. She was speaking that there were no expiration dates on the mandates of the COVID vaccines or the boosters. In other words, if your employer requires them, there is no date where they expire and you need to get a new one.....yet. It was to say that it should be the same for recovered.
You are right, though. No one appears to know how long immunity lasts for either the vaccine or the recovered.
I don't understand why "it's better to acquire immunity before you catch the deadly disease" is so controversial.
Who said it is "better"? We wouldn't be in this mess if no one caught this virus. (It's not a "deadly disease").
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
