4 ms·

What are you basing your view on? According to the CDC, previously infected, but unvaccinated people outnumber vaccinated people, when it comes to laboratory-co

What are you basing your view on? According to the CDC, previously infected, but unvaccinated people outnumber vaccinated people, when it comes to laboratory-confirmed covid hospitalizations. >Among COVID-19–like illness hospitalizations among adults aged ≥18 years whose previous infection or vaccination occurred 90–179 days earlier, the adjusted odds of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 among unvaccinated adults with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection were 5.49-fold higher than the odds among fully vaccinated recipients of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine who had no previous documented infection (95% confidence interval = 2.75–10.99). https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7044e1.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7044e1.htm (I am far from an expert on any of this, so I just wondering, not claiming anything as factual either way.)

eggy 5y ago
>What are you basing your view on? According to the CDC,... There are many peer-reviewed studies that clearly show that natural immunity is equal if not better than the vaccine. The Israeli study for one, and that used 10 times the number of people then the study you are citing. Almost 700,000 people in Israel. The CDC study is from 9 states. The CDC seems to front page studies that ignore or counter natural immunity arguments, or cherry pick them like the Kentucky study. My common sense was telling me that natural immunity should be innocent until proven guilty, and novel vaccines should be guilty until proven innocent. And not just proving short-term "innocence", or safety as the analogy goes. Somehow this was flip-flopped in today's world. There is also this non-sequitur argument against natural immunity going around that it's risky to get COVID to attain natural immunity. I, like a lot of other recovered people, are not arguing that we think people should get COVID to acquire natural immunity. That is stupid. Get vaccinated if you are in a higher risk group. We are saying recognize that we already have it through no choice of our own, and don't disenfranchise us from society. Then they say the vaccine plus natural immunity is so much stronger. Well, if I am not in a high-risk group (obese, diabetic, etc.), and I have natural immunity with current antibody tests still coming back high, why should I be compelled to take a novel vaccine with no long-term safety data? My nephew who is very fit suffered myocarditis/pericarditis for a month and a half within days of getting the vaccine. His mother came down with Bell's Palsy after her vaccine. Miraculously, nobody I actually know died from COVID, but I have many colleagues and friends who have had COVID, and none of them were worse than the flu or hospitalized. Pfizer and Moderna eliminated their control groups for long-term studies by vaccinating them. There are no Random Clinical Trial studies currently being done that I know of, and not enough time has passed for them to have results for long-term safety. How can public officials say it is "almost 100% safe". Impossible even after long-term studies are done. There's always risk, and you should be free to make that decision with your healthcare provider. This is becoming a social medicince policy debate in a lot of circles, not science, ever since the slogan "a pandemic of the unvaccinated", or "the vaccinated vs. the unvaccinated"; it should be a "pandemic of the immune vs. the non-immune". Or a pandemic of "the young and healthy vs. the old, the obese and unhealthy", given serious illness, hospitalization, and mortality are disproportionately among that group. Download the data from the CDC yourself and remove anyone with at least one or two comorbidities and in the under 55 or so age group. Tell me the the actual risk, and compare it to the media hype. The 1957 and 1968 Hong Kong flu outbreaks were very similar to COVID's case fatality rate, and the world didn't shut down then. And it doesn't compare to the 50 million who died in the 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic even if the US deaths are close. Global pandemic remember? Why are we pushing vaccines that have no long-term safety clinical studies on 5 to 11 year olds when the IFR (Infection Fatality Ratio)for 0 to 17 year olds puts an 11-year old in the same risk category of dying with COVID as being struck by lightning [2]? My younger ones had COVID with me and my wife. We will not be vaccinating them, since they are not at risk, and given vaccinated people can get infected and infect others, the argument that I should do it for others is illogical. Kind of circling around to my original post about the dystopian movie, 'Songbird', I just read about Australia's "remote quarantine" or internment camps [3]. Maybe the movie wasn't as far-fetched as some criticized. [1] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scena... [2] https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/all-injuries/preventable-death-overview/odds-of-dying/ https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/all-injuries/preventable-death-o... [3] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/20/world/australia/howard-springs-quarantine.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/20/world/australia/howard-sp...
- cannabis_sam 5y ago
  Thank you!

eggy 5y ago

>What are you basing your view on? According to the CDC,... There are many peer-reviewed studies that clearly show that natural immunity is equal if not better than the vaccine. The Israeli study for one, and that used 10 times the number of people then the study you are citing. Almost 700,000 people in Israel. The CDC study is from 9 states. The CDC seems to front page studies that ignore or counter natural immunity arguments, or cherry pick them like the Kentucky study. My common sense was telling me that natural immunity should be innocent until proven guilty, and novel vaccines should be guilty until proven innocent. And not just proving short-term "innocence", or safety as the analogy goes. Somehow this was flip-flopped in today's world. There is also this non-sequitur argument against natural immunity going around that it's risky to get COVID to attain natural immunity. I, like a lot of other recovered people, are not arguing that we think people should get COVID to acquire natural immunity. That is stupid. Get vaccinated if you are in a higher risk group. We are saying recognize that we already have it through no choice of our own, and don't disenfranchise us from society. Then they say the vaccine plus natural immunity is so much stronger. Well, if I am not in a high-risk group (obese, diabetic, etc.), and I have natural immunity with current antibody tests still coming back high, why should I be compelled to take a novel vaccine with no long-term safety data? My nephew who is very fit suffered myocarditis/pericarditis for a month and a half within days of getting the vaccine. His mother came down with Bell's Palsy after her vaccine. Miraculously, nobody I actually know died from COVID, but I have many colleagues and friends who have had COVID, and none of them were worse than the flu or hospitalized. Pfizer and Moderna eliminated their control groups for long-term studies by vaccinating them. There are no Random Clinical Trial studies currently being done that I know of, and not enough time has passed for them to have results for long-term safety. How can public officials say it is "almost 100% safe". Impossible even after long-term studies are done. There's always risk, and you should be free to make that decision with your healthcare provider. This is becoming a social medicince policy debate in a lot of circles, not science, ever since the slogan "a pandemic of the unvaccinated", or "the vaccinated vs. the unvaccinated"; it should be a "pandemic of the immune vs. the non-immune". Or a pandemic of "the young and healthy vs. the old, the obese and unhealthy", given serious illness, hospitalization, and mortality are disproportionately among that group. Download the data from the CDC yourself and remove anyone with at least one or two comorbidities and in the under 55 or so age group. Tell me the the actual risk, and compare it to the media hype. The 1957 and 1968 Hong Kong flu outbreaks were very similar to COVID's case fatality rate, and the world didn't shut down then. And it doesn't compare to the 50 million who died in the 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic even if the US deaths are close. Global pandemic remember? Why are we pushing vaccines that have no long-term safety clinical studies on 5 to 11 year olds when the IFR (Infection Fatality Ratio)for 0 to 17 year olds puts an 11-year old in the same risk category of dying with COVID as being struck by lightning [2]? My younger ones had COVID with me and my wife. We will not be vaccinating them, since they are not at risk, and given vaccinated people can get infected and infect others, the argument that I should do it for others is illogical. Kind of circling around to my original post about the dystopian movie, 'Songbird', I just read about Australia's "remote quarantine" or internment camps [3]. Maybe the movie wasn't as far-fetched as some criticized. [1] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scena... [2] https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/all-injuries/preventable-death-overview/odds-of-dying/ https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/all-injuries/preventable-death-o... [3] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/20/world/australia/howard-springs-quarantine.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/20/world/australia/howard-sp...

cannabis_sam 5y ago
Thank you!