To Vaccinate or Not---The Rat Flu Odyssey Continues

[::: :::]

Dunning-Kruger troll, more like…

If only self-awareness was all he needed…

[Conundrum]

It's OK when for-profit health insurance companies do it.

Totally get your point. I was talking to ski dog primarily because he thinks there should be individual rights and freedumbs.

The hypocritical nature of these type of folks is boggling. “You can’t ask me to take personal responsibility for my choices unless it doesn’t cost me anything…”

[jono]

how do we simply ignore immunologists that disagree with each other? they exist. Some say natural immunity is better, some say natural + Vax..

Source or GTFO. No one, not one single person anywhere on planet earth, thinks that "natural immunity" is better than "natural + Vax." But maybe you can find one--please do. If we're going to dunk on someone it would be better to start at the bottom. Thanks for your service!

[old_newguy]

I don’t disagree completely. But this would be a tougher legal battle in the future. ACA and GINA prevent charging higher premiums for medical conditions. They also can’t charge more for pre-existing conditions. This is the reason insurers can’t test or ask about many health conditions as a status for employment or insurance costs. If you have antibodies without a vaccine or don’t have antibodies without a vaccine, it could fall into the above due to need to contract an illness to have them.

The laws on the books don’t govern insurance cost basis on vaccine status hence the ability to require vaccine for employment or premium calculations.

That’s why employers can’t do it that way without a law change. I realize you get boners from being contrarian so not sure why I’m taking the time here.

Wife delayed getting genetically tested for BRCA1 because of the active attempts to repeal ACA and the possibility it would be called a preexisting condition.

I personally have a similar concern with getting a positive COVID result in my medical record considering all of the unknown downstream issues aka Long COVID, heart and lung damage, etc

[jackattack]

how do we simply ignore immunologists that disagree with each other? they exist.

still trying to work out the meaning of consensus I see.

then there is this tidbit...lol

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-...rmal/100450154

clearly, you've never been to Singapore. from a North-American perspective, life is not "normal" there during non-covid times. just look at the extreme measures they're taking with 500 cases out of 5.7mil residents. if you went there, your ignorant ass would have a personal freedumb heart attack and die.

[mtuhockey33]

Source or GTFO. No one, not one single person anywhere on planet earth, thinks that "natural immunity" is better than "natural + Vax." But maybe you can find one--please do. If we're going to dunk on someone it would be better to start at the bottom. Thanks for your service!

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1....24.21262415v1

bUt ThAt’S nOt A rEpUtAbLe SoUrCe

[MultiVerse]

lol, mtuhockey33 self-owning once again. His source literally makes Jono's point:

"Individuals who were both previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta variant."

[mtuhockey33]

lol,

Individuals who were both previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta variant.

again - not denying that. But that clearly shows natural is as good if not better than vaccine in that study. But keep moving those goalposts.

[MagnificentUnicorn]

then there is this tidbit...lol

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-...rmal/100450154

It’s quite remarkable really. Only 35 severely ill patients with Covid out of 5.7 million. Those vaccines really work coupled with masking and social distancing.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[Conundrum]

again - not denying that. But that clearly shows natural is as good if not better than vaccine in that study. But keep moving those goalposts.

How about a response to the legal reasons why employers can’t test for antibodies? Oh right, because you only respond to things you think you can argue and say things like “keep moving goalposts”.

[jackattack]

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1....24.21262415v1

bUt ThAt’S nOt A rEpUtAbLe SoUrCe

If you had any understanding other than to repost an observational retrospective study from some worthless blog you follow, you would know that that "source" has not been peer-reviewed or had its findings validated by a CONSENSUS OF QUALIFIED EXPERTS. The disclaimer is at top of the article even includes a link to educate your ignorant brain :

This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed [what does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice.

Jesus, you fucks will just eat up any worthless fodder that meets your worldview and pass it off as gospel. Shit like this is why we have anti-vax movements in the first place.

AC was right, we're surrounded by Dunning-Kruger trolls

[SumJongGuy]

again - not denying that. But that clearly shows natural is as good if not better than vaccine in that study. But keep moving those goalposts.

You were asked for a source to support your claim there are immunologists who say natural immunity can be better than natural + vax.. Then YOU posted a source that contradicts your own claim. If anyone's moving goal posts it's YOU.

[ex-powderbroker]

antibody tests still seem to suffer from false positives and negatives.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile..../idUSL1N2P628Z

[mtuhockey33]

How about a response to the legal reasons why employers can’t test for antibodies? Oh right, because you only respond to things you think you can argue and say things like “keep moving goalposts”.

I misread his post thinking he was referring natural isn’t better than vaccinated. Yes, vaccinated + natural is the best defense - I literally said that lower.

You can’t mandate everyone gets a vaccine when it’s been proven it’s not more effective than natural infection.

[mcski]

Sure you can.

[jackattack]

You can’t mandate everyone gets a vaccine when it’s been proven it’s not more effective than natural infection.

Once again, this has not been proven.

It has been proven that vaccines are effective. Only a moron would go back to the dark ages and welcome the chance to gain a natural immunity to small pox.

[mtuhockey33]

antibody tests still seem to suffer from false positives and negatives.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile..../idUSL1N2P628Z

the original Covid tests literally said fruit had Covid and now you’re worried about accuracy of tests?? Seriously???

[Buster Highmen]

Canoe flogging.

[Conundrum]

I misread his post thinking he was referring natural isn’t better than vaccinated. Yes, vaccinated + natural is the best defense - I literally said that lower.

You can’t mandate everyone gets a vaccine when it’s been proven it’s not more effective than natural infection.

We’re a nation of laws and until challenged, those laws are the laws.

And there is no mandate that everyone gets a vaccination. Only certain employers are mandated and I thought that ensuring everyone gets a job is socialism. Doesn’t work in a country based on liberty.

[MagnificentUnicorn]

let’s make it even easier - testing for anti-bodies. If you have them, your insurance shouldn’t go up regardless of how you got them. If you don’t have them; boom, kick up that insurance. Antibodies, regardless of how they’re gotten, are what keep you out of the hospital. Vaccines, and natural immunity, are already showing they wane over time so ever year just take an antibody test before your insurance comes in.

You don’t really understand what antibodies are and what testing for them means.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[Adolf Allerbush]

I don’t disagree completely. But this would be a tougher legal battle in the future. ACA and GINA prevent charging higher premiums for medical conditions. They also can’t charge more for pre-existing conditions. This is the reason insurers can’t test or ask about many health conditions as a status for employment or insurance costs. If you have antibodies without a vaccine or don’t have antibodies without a vaccine, it could fall into the above due to need to contract an illness to have them.

The laws on the books don’t govern insurance cost basis on vaccine status hence the ability to require vaccine for employment or premium calculations.

That’s why employers can’t do it that way without a law change. I realize you get boners from being contrarian so not sure why I’m taking the time here.

Antibody levels diminish over time correct? mtuhockey's idea to either show proof of vaccination or a positive antibodies test within the last month or something might be fine I guess. then like others have said, if you're antivaxxer with antibodies and have long-haul then you are sort of the problem with regards to overburdening the HC system.

[huckbucket]

again - not denying that. But that clearly shows natural is as good if not better than vaccine in that study. But keep moving those goalposts.

So do you take argument with the exceptionally well presented analysis in the VERY FIRST posting in the comments section? I'll put it below to make it easier for you and wait for your reasoned response.


In regard to generalizability:
- Due to the matching process, only 4% of the available data is used (i.e. for model 1 only 32430/736559) and as a consequence the study population is fairly younger (with expectedly less comorbidity) than the source population (i.e. vaccinated individuals, infected individuals). Therefore, the study population may not be representative of this source population which severely limits the external validity of results for all vaccinated/infected people.
- Naturally, subjects who died due to previous SARS-CoV-2 infection were not included in the study. Yet, without information on morbidity and mortality and contribution to the spread of SARS-CoV-2 from the primary infection, the results of the study are not informative for the question whether people without previous SARS-CoV-2 infection should be vaccinated or await natural infection.
- All three study groups – vaccinated or infected at baseline (28th of February) – were established upon future information (no infection, no additional vaccination after June 1, 2021), which severely limits the use of the results for today’s decision making.

In regard to selection bias:
- People with a SARS-CoV-2 infection between February 28, 2021 and June 1, 2021, or those who received a first (infected group) or third vaccine (vaccinated group) between February 28, 2021 and August 14, 2021 were excluded from this study. Thus the study population of group 2 consists of previously infected people that do not take the opportunity to receive a booster vaccine, which may well be the less vulnerable people with a lower baseline risk of getting infected/hospitalized. This would bias the estimate in favor of the infected group.
- Similarly, though at a smaller scale, people who died from COVID were not included in the analysis. This decreases the vulnerability of the infected group for secondary infections and/or hospitalization. This too would bias the estimate in favor of the infected group.

In regard to information bias:
- A difference in willingness to test between the vaccinated and previously infected group can result in biased estimates. Vaccinated people may be more on guard in regard to COVID-19 symptoms (especially if they adhere less to regulations because they are vaccinated) and will be tested more frequently. This can bias the estimate, again in favor of the infected group. However, this form of bias should not have affected the outcome hospitalization due to COVID-19, for which differences had the same direction. Yet, the number of those endpoints was low, limiting statistical power.

In regard to confounding:
- The authors acknowledge absence of information about health behavior, such as social distancing and masking. If the vaccinated group would adhere less to these preventive measures due to a sense of safety, this would also bias the estimates in favor of the infected group.
- A potential important aspect is the young average age (36 years) of the study population. As they were all fully vaccinated before February 28th, we thought that a large proportion may have been health care workers, who have a higher chance of exposure to SARS-CoV-2, and thus infection after vaccination. This would also bias the estimate in favor of the infected group.

We have scrutinized the paper in search of the fatal flaw; the one major methodological limitation that could explain the extreme effect in favor of the infected group, as reported. We conclude that it is not there, as we don’t think that any of the above biases can explain all of the effect. However, we did found several weaknesses that each have the potential to yield a modest bias, all in the same direction. Five modest biases may yield a large effect estimate. We, therefore, consider the question whether natural immunity provides better protection than full vaccination with Pfizer/BioNTech’s COVID vaccine remains unanswered.

[Skidog]

He’s a fuckin’ unoriginal troll. He'll say his thoughts are his own but everything he says falls in line with the prevailing talking points coming out of the usual fever swamps.

yeah but im all vaxxed....explain that dipshit..

I just dont close my ears to only what i want to hear...

[Skidog]

again - not denying that. But that clearly shows natural is as good if not better than vaccine in that study. But keep moving those goalposts.

ADDITIONAL...does that mean if they didnt get it they'd have died? For sure become sick? Or MAYBE JUST MAYBE the natural antibodies might work enough?

Things that make ya go...HMMM?

[jono]

Antibody levels diminish over time correct? mtuhockey's idea to either show proof of vaccination or a positive antibodies test within the last month or something might be fine I guess. then like others have said, if you're antivaxxer with antibodies and have long-haul then you are sort of the problem with regards to overburdening the HC system.

Build an incentive for lunatic humans to maintain a reservoir for later infections in order to show antibodies...what could possibly go wrong?