4 ms·

This is a false dilemma. It is a dishonest position to take. I can only hope you're doing it with well intentions. But the reality of the matter is that 100 mil

This is a false dilemma. It is a dishonest position to take. I can only hope you're doing it with well intentions. But the reality of the matter is that 100 million Americans had covid by now, which means they have antibodies that are superior to those derived from vaccination. See the sources above. The "community" is not entitled to set rules to "minimize those costs." That's some Orwellian dictatorial nonsense. It would justify all kinds of evil. And it has justified all kinds of evil throughout history when sides were drawn this way and one side dehumanized the other. We don't think this way in America because we remember history, our own and the rest of the world's. We have experience. And there are those of us who are still old enough to remember. Edit for sources higher up the conv tree: https://www.science.org/content/article/having-sars-cov-2-once-confers-much-greater-immunity-vaccine-vaccination-remains-vital https://www.science.org/content/article/having-sars-cov-2-on... The natural immune protection that develops after a SARS-CoV-2 infection offers considerably more of a shield against the Delta variant of the pandemic coronavirus than two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, according to a large Israeli study that some scientists wish came with a “Don’t try this at home” label. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-08-27/previous-covid-prevents-delta-infection-better-than-pfizer-shot https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-08-27/previous-...

mthoms 5y ago
Where is this study proving 100M Americans have "superior" antibodies? Some experts in the linked article claim the exact opposite. So far you've made the "superior antibodies" claim no less than 9 times(!) in various comments and cited exactly 0 supporting evidence.
- throwawayfear 5y ago
  I've provided links supporting antibodies from natural immunity multiple times. Example: https://www.science.org/content/article/having-sars-cov-2-on https://www.science.org/content/article/having-sars-cov-2-on... The natural immune protection that develops after a SARS-CoV-2 infection offers considerably more of a shield against the Delta variant of the pandemic coronavirus than two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, according to a large Israeli study that some scientists wish came with a “Don’t try this at home” label. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-08-27/previous- https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-08-27/previous-... # of Americans who had covid: https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/public-health-now/news/one-three-americans-already-had-covid-19-end-2020 https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/public-health-now/news... A new study published in the journal Nature estimates that 103 million Americans, or 31 percent of the U.S. population, had been infected with SARS-CoV-2 by the end of 2020. It's impossible for you to have counted the # of times I made this claim in my comment history without noticing the links. Please be sure you're trying to see the sources when I provide them in parent comments.
  - jonnycomputer 5y ago
    You basically point two the same two links over and over, as if this is sufficient. But it isn't.
  - mthoms 5y ago
    The study you cited sounds very promising but is far from definitive evidence. It hasn't been published. Nor peer-reviewed, nor have its findings been collaborated by other studies. In fact, the very article we are commenting on has quotes from medical experts which contradict its findings. I think it would be more honest to add a qualifier to your repeated claims. As in, "it hasn't been collaborated yet, but there is a promising study suggesting that....." Stating it as fact, so vehemently, so frequently, is very misleading. What if that one study is found to be faulty? >It's impossible for you to have counted the # of times I made this claim in my comment history without noticing the links. I searched the (first page) comments for this story using the phrase "superior immunity". You mentioned this "fact" 7 times without providing the source (or any sort of qualifier as mentioned above). I do see now (after searching your name) that you have indeed provided a link to the source numerous times under other comments so it seems obvious that this wasn't intentional or malicious. Apologies for that. FWIW, I do hope this study ends up being proven correct. But in the mean time, I highly encourage you to be more honest in how you cite it.

mthoms 5y ago

Where is this study proving 100M Americans have "superior" antibodies? Some experts in the linked article claim the exact opposite. So far you've made the "superior antibodies" claim no less than 9 times(!) in various comments and cited exactly 0 supporting evidence.

throwawayfear 5y ago
I've provided links supporting antibodies from natural immunity multiple times. Example: https://www.science.org/content/article/having-sars-cov-2-on https://www.science.org/content/article/having-sars-cov-2-on... The natural immune protection that develops after a SARS-CoV-2 infection offers considerably more of a shield against the Delta variant of the pandemic coronavirus than two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, according to a large Israeli study that some scientists wish came with a “Don’t try this at home” label. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-08-27/previous- https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-08-27/previous-... # of Americans who had covid: https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/public-health-now/news/one-three-americans-already-had-covid-19-end-2020 https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/public-health-now/news... A new study published in the journal Nature estimates that 103 million Americans, or 31 percent of the U.S. population, had been infected with SARS-CoV-2 by the end of 2020. It's impossible for you to have counted the # of times I made this claim in my comment history without noticing the links. Please be sure you're trying to see the sources when I provide them in parent comments.
- jonnycomputer 5y ago
  You basically point two the same two links over and over, as if this is sufficient. But it isn't.
- mthoms 5y ago
  The study you cited sounds very promising but is far from definitive evidence. It hasn't been published. Nor peer-reviewed, nor have its findings been collaborated by other studies. In fact, the very article we are commenting on has quotes from medical experts which contradict its findings. I think it would be more honest to add a qualifier to your repeated claims. As in, "it hasn't been collaborated yet, but there is a promising study suggesting that....." Stating it as fact, so vehemently, so frequently, is very misleading. What if that one study is found to be faulty? >It's impossible for you to have counted the # of times I made this claim in my comment history without noticing the links. I searched the (first page) comments for this story using the phrase "superior immunity". You mentioned this "fact" 7 times without providing the source (or any sort of qualifier as mentioned above). I do see now (after searching your name) that you have indeed provided a link to the source numerous times under other comments so it seems obvious that this wasn't intentional or malicious. Apologies for that. FWIW, I do hope this study ends up being proven correct. But in the mean time, I highly encourage you to be more honest in how you cite it.