4 ms·

> the aggressive dismissal and censorship of natural immunity who agressively dismissed this?

by jahnu 5y ago

twofornone 5y ago
Your friendly neighborhood fact checkers who suppress virtually anything which could justify opposition to vaccine mandates. Including news media.
HWR_14 5y ago
I angrily dismiss it. It's a nonverifiable bullshit excuse to avoid a needle prick. Tests have some error, it's unclear if you got a sufficient dose, spaced exposures are better, the vaccine has shown better variant resilience, choose your reasons. If you haven't gotten a vaccine, I don't care if you've had COVID or not. Either way you should get a shot. It might be different if there were any cost to it. But there isn't. So invariably the people bitching about natural immunity are just doing it to make a point, usually political.
- jahnu 5y ago
  I agree people should get the shot. It's so amazingly clear that it's effective at helping your immune system to fight the virus quicker. But the CDC did announce that since delta people who recovered from an infection have better immune response than those who are only vaccinated. I asked the OP to clarify because there is false information out there that this fact is being suppressed "aggressively" when in fact the CDC announced it!
  - HWR_14 5y ago
    Of course people who get multiple exposures (vaccines, boosters, cases) have a better immune response. That's separate from whether they have a better experience - sometimes COVID causes damage to organs that is cumulative between cases for instance. The point isn't that infection carries no immune benefits. It's that vaccines always carry immune benefits so everyone should be forced to get one (very rare cases of immune system maladies aside).
    - jahnu 5y ago
      I do actually support vaccine mandates in emergencies such as these. I don't know what I said that makes you think otherwise.
      - HWR_14 5y ago
        > I do actually support vaccine mandates in emergencies such as these. I don't know what I said that makes you think otherwise. Sure, happy to explain my reasoning. You said "I agree people should get the shot." Unfortunately, a lot of times that phrase is followed, either explicitly or based on context with the rest of the conversion, by "but it's their choice and I oppose mandates". The use of "should" that people use for "should eat right" not "should wear a seatbelt". It's gotten to the point that if I see such a phrase without specifying something like "everyone should get vaccinated", I assume it's an anti-mandate (and often antivaxer)
        jahnu 5y ago
        I hope our interaction has appropriately updated our priors ;)
- Vrondi 5y ago
  So, not only did you not RTFA (which mentions lasting natural immunity up through 450 days so far), you refuse to believe any science that isn't suiting your political agenda. You should not have the power to require anyone to get an unnecessary medical treatment, and neither should the government. https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/lasting-immunity-found-after-recovery-covid-19 https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/lasting...
  - HWR_14 5y ago
    It mentions data on 450 days not "hey, you're totally immune for 450 days". And obviously some people who are naturally infected will be immune forever. Some people. But even if we knew natural infection prevented future infections in all (which it doesn't, people get double or triple infected), it still wouldn't make sense. (For if it leaves you open to reinfection, see spaced exposure, initial viral load, etc.) Because we don't have the records to corroborate everyone's claims they were infected. And, a lot of the people who would claim to have already been infected I have little trust in to be honest, let alone the difficulty of self-diagnosing. There's no cost to getting the damn shot, so what's the fucking problem with requiring it? You make an impassioned and personally attacking me case that natural immunity should exempt you, but why not get the vaccine?
    - chasd00 5y ago
      Maybe someone just doesn’t feel like getting the vaccine. That’s 100% reason enough, it’s not your decision to make.
- spookthesunset 5y ago
  > So invariably the people bitching about natural immunity are just doing it to make a point, usually political. Bodily autonomy is kind of an important topic, is it not? Why should some asshole force me to get an unnecessary medical procedure for a common respiratory virus I already had in order to work or enter many places of business? Why does the government get to force this medical procedure on me? You can't argue for bodily autonomy and simultaneously support vaccination passports and things like that. I mean you can, but it makes your argument a whole lot weaker.
  - joyeuse6701 5y ago
    - spookthesunset 5y ago
      You are vaccinated. Stop with the dramatic language. Get over Covid. Move on.
Vrondi 5y ago
Every single company and policy maker who is requiring vaccination without considering prior infection.
- jahnu 5y ago
  Rubbish. The CDC advises all policy on this matter in the US and they publicly published that infection and recovery from Delta and subsequent variants gives a stronger immune response than vaccination alone. It's trivial to find this information. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=cdc+natural+immunity&t=brave&iar=news&ia=news&iai=https%3A%2F%2Fijr.com%2Fcdc-study-natural-immunity-significantly-protection-covid%2F&pn=2 https://duckduckgo.com/?q=cdc+natural+immunity&t=brave&iar=n...
  - Izkata 5y ago
    First result: > The CDC is finally recognizing 'natural immunity' — legislators should follow suit > The Hill on MSN.com|1 day ago https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/the-cdc-is-finally-recognizing-natural-immunity-legislators-should-follow-suit/ar-AATqW9y https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/the-cdc-is-finally-... This just confirms their point, the vaccine passports in the US don't have any allowances for natural immunity - it's vaccine or nothing.

> the aggressive dismissal and censorship of natural immunity who agressively dismissed this?

by jahnu 5y ago

> the aggressive dismissal and censorship of natural immunity who agressively dismissed this?

Your friendly neighborhood fact checkers who suppress virtually anything which could justify opposition to vaccine mandates. Including news media.

HWR_14 5y ago

I angrily dismiss it. It's a nonverifiable bullshit excuse to avoid a needle prick. Tests have some error, it's unclear if you got a sufficient dose, spaced exposures are better, the vaccine has shown better variant resilience, choose your reasons. If you haven't gotten a vaccine, I don't care if you've had COVID or not. Either way you should get a shot. It might be different if there were any cost to it. But there isn't. So invariably the people bitching about natural immunity are just doing it to make a point, usually political.

jahnu 5y ago
I agree people should get the shot. It's so amazingly clear that it's effective at helping your immune system to fight the virus quicker. But the CDC did announce that since delta people who recovered from an infection have better immune response than those who are only vaccinated. I asked the OP to clarify because there is false information out there that this fact is being suppressed "aggressively" when in fact the CDC announced it!
- HWR_14 5y ago
  Of course people who get multiple exposures (vaccines, boosters, cases) have a better immune response. That's separate from whether they have a better experience - sometimes COVID causes damage to organs that is cumulative between cases for instance. The point isn't that infection carries no immune benefits. It's that vaccines always carry immune benefits so everyone should be forced to get one (very rare cases of immune system maladies aside).
  - jahnu 5y ago
    I do actually support vaccine mandates in emergencies such as these. I don't know what I said that makes you think otherwise.
    - HWR_14 5y ago
      > I do actually support vaccine mandates in emergencies such as these. I don't know what I said that makes you think otherwise. Sure, happy to explain my reasoning. You said "I agree people should get the shot." Unfortunately, a lot of times that phrase is followed, either explicitly or based on context with the rest of the conversion, by "but it's their choice and I oppose mandates". The use of "should" that people use for "should eat right" not "should wear a seatbelt". It's gotten to the point that if I see such a phrase without specifying something like "everyone should get vaccinated", I assume it's an anti-mandate (and often antivaxer)
      - jahnu 5y ago
        I hope our interaction has appropriately updated our priors ;)
Vrondi 5y ago
So, not only did you not RTFA (which mentions lasting natural immunity up through 450 days so far), you refuse to believe any science that isn't suiting your political agenda. You should not have the power to require anyone to get an unnecessary medical treatment, and neither should the government. https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/lasting-immunity-found-after-recovery-covid-19 https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/lasting...
- HWR_14 5y ago
  It mentions data on 450 days not "hey, you're totally immune for 450 days". And obviously some people who are naturally infected will be immune forever. Some people. But even if we knew natural infection prevented future infections in all (which it doesn't, people get double or triple infected), it still wouldn't make sense. (For if it leaves you open to reinfection, see spaced exposure, initial viral load, etc.) Because we don't have the records to corroborate everyone's claims they were infected. And, a lot of the people who would claim to have already been infected I have little trust in to be honest, let alone the difficulty of self-diagnosing. There's no cost to getting the damn shot, so what's the fucking problem with requiring it? You make an impassioned and personally attacking me case that natural immunity should exempt you, but why not get the vaccine?
  - chasd00 5y ago
    Maybe someone just doesn’t feel like getting the vaccine. That’s 100% reason enough, it’s not your decision to make.
spookthesunset 5y ago
> So invariably the people bitching about natural immunity are just doing it to make a point, usually political. Bodily autonomy is kind of an important topic, is it not? Why should some asshole force me to get an unnecessary medical procedure for a common respiratory virus I already had in order to work or enter many places of business? Why does the government get to force this medical procedure on me? You can't argue for bodily autonomy and simultaneously support vaccination passports and things like that. I mean you can, but it makes your argument a whole lot weaker.
- joyeuse6701 5y ago
  - spookthesunset 5y ago
    You are vaccinated. Stop with the dramatic language. Get over Covid. Move on.

Vrondi 5y ago

Every single company and policy maker who is requiring vaccination without considering prior infection.

jahnu 5y ago
Rubbish. The CDC advises all policy on this matter in the US and they publicly published that infection and recovery from Delta and subsequent variants gives a stronger immune response than vaccination alone. It's trivial to find this information. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=cdc+natural+immunity&t=brave&iar=news&ia=news&iai=https%3A%2F%2Fijr.com%2Fcdc-study-natural-immunity-significantly-protection-covid%2F&pn=2 https://duckduckgo.com/?q=cdc+natural+immunity&t=brave&iar=n...
- Izkata 5y ago
  First result: > The CDC is finally recognizing 'natural immunity' — legislators should follow suit > The Hill on MSN.com|1 day ago https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/the-cdc-is-finally-recognizing-natural-immunity-legislators-should-follow-suit/ar-AATqW9y https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/the-cdc-is-finally-... This just confirms their point, the vaccine passports in the US don't have any allowances for natural immunity - it's vaccine or nothing.