Science still not settled on Natural Immunity vs Vaccines

[JWags85]

So it's more whining vs a principled stand?

Do you take principled stands against things you rarely encounter? There are a couple ridiculous oversight issues where my parents live in St Pete, but they affect me twice a year so I complain a bit but whatever.  If it was the same in my own complex I would have a much more impassioned complaint or gripe.

I fly enough to feel strongly about TSA, but the majority of my ire gets dissipated by Pre-Check.   And honestly, if you want excessive intrusive security theater, travel to Asia or India.

It’s sheer inconvenience annoyance, got it.

Oh good, more of the “masks don’t bother me, so anyone who as an issue with them is a selfish whiner” ivory tower BS.  Thanks for the valuable contribution.

[🏀]

No, they bother me. Masks bother me.

But wearing one to stop viral spread isn’t an inconvenience.

[Jay Bee]

No, they bother me. Masks bother me.

But wearing one to stop viral spread isn’t an inconvenience.

But it isn’t helpful, so, why??

[jesmu84]

But it isn’t helpful, so, why??

Masks don't work?

[pacearrow02]

https://mobile.twitter.com/MartyMakary/status/1489365806060236803

[4everwarriors]

Which is exactly what would be expected based on the science. Prior infection is never brought into a mandated vaccine conversation, which is part of the smoke over the past two years, aina?



#fearandcontrol

[Skatastrophy]

The unvaccinated's daily cases of covid 2x as high as those that are vaxxed. The unvaccinated daily deaths are 20x as high those that are vaxxed. Weird that "natural immunity" isn't protecting the unvaccinated group. Good thing that the twitter doctors will provide palliative care in their time of need.

[Pakuni]

Oh good, more of the “masks don’t bother me, so anyone who as an issue with them is a selfish whiner” ivory tower BS.  Thanks for the valuable contribution.

He's not wrong.

[forgetful]

Which is exactly what would be expected based on the science. Prior infection is never brought into a mandated vaccine conversation, which is part of the smoke over the past two years, aina?

#fearandcontrol

As with most of these types of studies, there are serious flaws in their study. Very small sample sizes, and only has healthy young individuals in the data set. They acknowledge that another study indicated that up to 36% of those previously infected do not generate antibodies (likely in those less healthy that are not part of this data set). They also do not know if and how many of the individuals had multiple COVID infections.

The actual study also did not compare between those infected and those vaccinated. The second figure provided in the tweet is not in the published article. Likely because it would have been rejected with that figure due to the grossly different sample sizes.

Regardless, the authors note the actual take-home message, "Don't try and go get COVID," because the much safer route is vaccination. The take-home message is still go get vaccinated.

I don't understand the fascination with these studies. They never change the take-home message, and are very difficult to impossible to do robustly.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Which is exactly what would be expected based on the science. Prior infection is never brought into a mandated vaccine conversation, which is part of the smoke over the past two years, aina?

#fearandcontrol

How is vaccination "fear and control?"  Really, your points are getting worse and worse with each post.

[JWags85]

He's not wrong.

Expect this from you by this point. 

I noticed the sun came up this morning like I expect it to each day.  Look forward to your rebuttal on why thats incorrect.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

I don't understand the fascination with these studies. They never change the take-home message, and are very difficult to impossible to do robustly.

It's perplexing, isn't it? Somehow they imagine it makes some point.

Does it mean you should try to catch COVID to protect yourself from catching COVID? Obviously not if you have two brain cells to rub together.

Does it mean you shouldn't get vaccinated if you have already had COVID? Obviously not, since getting the vaccine and boosters even after having COVID significantly increases your chances of not dying from COVID.

But apparently those pushing this line of "thinking" really don't have two brain cells to rub together.

[Lighthouse 84]

How is vaccination "fear and control?"  Really, your points are getting worse and worse with each post.

It's fear and control when Zeke Emanuel goes on MSNBC to say kids under 5 better get vaccinated or else they'll get a serious case of omicron, when studies show the opposite, and he receives no push back.

[Pakuni]

nm

[Uncle Rico]

How is vaccination "fear and control?"  Really, your points are getting worse and worse with each post.

What’s scarier?  “Fear and control” or urban settings?  Tune into Scoop Fox News to find out next

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

It's fear and control when Zeke Emanuel goes on MSNBC to say kids under 5 better get vaccinated or else they'll get a serious case of omicron, when studies show the opposite, and he receives no push back.

I actually had to look this guy up to see who he is.  OK...not sure what his statement has to do with "fear and control" by the government.  But I guess being outraged about anything Covid related is the what some people want to do.

But why *not* get your children vaccinated?  Seems like a pretty smart thing to do.

[MU82]

This limited study specifically recommends avoiding Covid, and the best way to do so is by getting vaccinated.

So thanks for confirming what's already been scientifically proven by study after study after study.

I believe the scientific term is "Duh!"

[Lighthouse 84]

This limited study specifically recommends avoiding Covid, and the best way to do so is by getting vaccinated.

So thanks for confirming what's already been scientifically proven by study after study after study.

I believe the scientific term is "Duh!"

"Scientifically proven by study after study" that there are no long term effects from the Covid vaccine on children under 5?

I believe the scientific term is "Huh!"

[Pakuni]

It's fear and control when Zeke Emanuel goes on MSNBC to say kids under 5 better get vaccinated or else they'll get a serious case of omicron, when studies show the opposite, and he receives no push back.

That sounds bad, unless you put his comment in its full context.
If you watch the entire answer, it's pretty obvious he's saying that kids who get omicron are likely to face a serious case if they're unvaccinated relative to kids who are vaccinated.
That still might be wrong. I don't know, though I suspect it's probably true. But it's not quite the "fear and control" you make it out to be.
Here's the full interview.
https://www.msnbc.com/andrea-mitchell-reports/watch/dr-zeke-emanuel-vaccinating-children-5-and-above-seems-like-it-s-a-no-brainer-132282949889

That said, do you consider it "fear and control" when a doctor tells a patient to eat healthier or stop smoking? Is 4ever using #fearandcontrol every time he tells a patient to floss?

[pacearrow02]

I actually had to look this guy up to see who he is.  OK...not sure what his statement has to do with "fear and control" by the government.  But I guess being outraged about anything Covid related is the what some people want to do.

But why *not* get your children vaccinated?  Seems like a pretty smart thing to do.

Why not get your children under 5 vaccinated?  Cause Pfizer’s own data says it doesn’t make a lick of difference, so I guess why should you?

They’re currently collecting data to see if a 3 shot regime for this age population will show some level of efficacy but their 2 shot data for this age group helped zippo.

[MU82]

"Scientifically proven by study after study" that there are no long term effects from the Covid vaccine on children under 5?

I believe the scientific term is "Huh!"

I was talking about the numerous studies on the general population, which you knew.

[pacearrow02]

I was talking about the numerous studies on the general population, which you knew.

So use data from adult studies to justify pediatric use??  Scientific term remains, “huh”?

Not sure if that’s your argument or not for 5 and younger.  Thread has jumped around a little so apologies if I’m misrepresenting.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Why not get your children under 5 vaccinated?  Cause Pfizer’s own data says it doesn’t make a lick of difference, so I guess why should you?

They’re currently collecting data to see if a 3 shot regime for this age population will show some level of efficacy but their 2 shot data for this age group helped zippo.

Define "a lick of difference" because last I checked, that wasn't a scientific term.

[Lighthouse 84]

I was talking about the numerous studies on the general population, which you knew.

Actually, I didn't know that's what you were talking about.  You seemed to be replying to my post, which dealt specifically with studies on children showing that children aren't more likely to get a serious case of covid if not vaccinated so I had no reason to know you were talking about the general population.   If you truly meant general population, then I don't disagree with you.

[pacearrow02]

Define "a lick of difference" because last I checked, that wasn't a scientific term.

Below is part of Pfizers definition for "lick of difference".  Too long, I prefer and stick with the previously stated phrase, not a lick of difference.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the study is ongoing and remains blinded, a pre-specified immunogenicity analysis was conducted on a subset of the study population one month following the second dose. Compared to the 16- to 25-year-old population in which high efficacy was demonstrated, non-inferiority was met for the 6- to 24-month-old population but not for the 2- to under 5-year-old population in this analysis. No safety concerns were identified and the 3 µg dose demonstrated a favorable safety profile in children 6 months to under 5 years of age.

The decision to evaluate a third dose of 3 µg for children 6 months to under 5 years of age reflects the companies’ commitment to carefully select the right dose to maximize the risk-
benefit profile. If the three-dose study is successful, Pfizer and BioNTech expect to submit data to regulators to support an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for children 6 months to under 5 years of age in the first half of 2022.