@eladar saidThat's not what I said, idiot.
Ok, COVID is something never seen before, a virus which you cannot acquire immunity naturally.
I suppose you can believe that if you like. I believe it is clap trap proposed by people who stand to benefit (or friends and relatives) from selling vaccines.
Why do you feel it sooooooooo necessary to blatantly lie about my positions?
@no1marauder saidYou said that vaccines give immunity and getting sick and recovering does not.
That's not what I said, idiot.
Why do you feel it sooooooooo necessary to blatantly lie about my positions?
This of course is a lie, but you believe it is true.
@eladar saidGeez, El. He said "The main point being the natural immunity response might vary among individuals." How did you get from there to "vaccines give immunity and getting sick and recovering does not"?
You said that vaccines give immunity and getting sick and recovering does not.
This of course is a lie, but you believe it is true.
It's not all or nothing. It could be true BOTH that:
1. Having COVID and recovering gives you some level of natural immunity; AND
2. For some people, that immunity will not be as good as being vaccinated
I mean, I've been in as many fights with no1 as the next guy, but do be fair.
@sh76 saidVaccines do not give immunity 100 percent of the time either. Seems to me to be a bit one sided as if natural exposure is somehow less reliable than a vaccine.
Geez, El. He said "The main point being the natural immunity response might vary among individuals." How did you get from there to "vaccines give immunity and getting sick and recovering does not"?
It's not all or nothing. It could be true BOTH that:
1. Having COVID and recovering gives you some level of natural immunity; AND
2. For some people, that immunity will not be ...[text shortened]... as being vaccinated
I mean, I've been in as many fights with no1 as the next guy, but do be fair.
That is why I gave that response. His information was nonsense.
1 edit
@eladar saidI think the weight of the evidence is that the vaccines are stronger against variants than natural exposure to another variant. For example, if you got Wuhan-COVID in March, 2020 and I got the Pfizer vax in February, I think I am better protected against severe outcomes from the Delta variant than you are.
Vaccines do not give immunity 100 percent of the time either. Seems to me to be a bit one sided as if natural exposure is somehow less reliable than a vaccine.
That is why I gave that response. His information was nonsense.
@sh76 saidWhat data? I have not seen any such data. Perhaps you could provide a link to the study and how they have identified all people who have had covid.
I think the weight of the evidence is that the vaccines are stronger against variants than natural exposure to another variant. For example, if you got Wuhan-COVID in March, 2020 and I got the Pfizer vax in February, I think I am better protected against severe outcomes from the Delta variant than you are.
@eladar saidBy closely examining the results, the researchers uncovered important differences between acquired immunity in people who’d been vaccinated and unvaccinated people who’d been previously infected with SARS-CoV-2. Specifically, antibodies elicited by the mRNA vaccine were more focused to the RBD compared to antibodies elicited by an infection, which more often targeted other portions of the spike protein. Importantly, the vaccine-elicited antibodies targeted a broader range of places on the RBD than those elicited by natural infection.
What data? I have not seen any such data. Perhaps you could provide a link to the study and how they have identified all people who have had covid.
These findings suggest that natural immunity and vaccine-generated immunity to SARS-CoV-2 will differ in how they recognize new viral variants. What’s more, antibodies acquired with the help of a vaccine may be more likely to target new SARS-CoV-2 variants potently, even when the variants carry new mutations in the RBD.
https://directorsblog.nih.gov/2021/06/22/how-immunity-generated-from-covid-19-vaccines-differs-from-an-infection/
@sh76 saidSo lots of thoughts and beliefs, but no actual data.
[i]By closely examining the results, the researchers uncovered important differences between acquired immunity in people who’d been vaccinated and unvaccinated people who’d been previously infected with SARS-CoV-2. Specifically, antibodies elicited by the mRNA vaccine were more focused to the RBD compared to antibodies elicited by an infection, which more often targeted other po ...[text shortened]... torsblog.nih.gov/2021/06/22/how-immunity-generated-from-covid-19-vaccines-differs-from-an-infection/
@eladar saidThat was the result of a study, not a thought or belief.
So lots of thoughts and beliefs, but no actual data.
You want to set up a randomized control trial where everyone's been previously infected to match the vaccinated against the placebo group of previously infected? Go for it. It would be hard to set up and ethically questionable. Until then, I'll settle for results of scientific studies,
@sh76 saidThere was no study of actual people just theoretical results. Face it, there is no real data, just supposition.
That was the result of a study, not a thought or belief.
You want to set up a randomized control trial where everyone's been previously infected to match the vaccinated against the placebo group of previously infected? Go for it. It would be hard to set up and ethically questionable. Until then, I'll settle for results of scientific studies,
The only data I will count as data is large scale study of those who are known to only have immunity naturally and only those have immunity purely by vaccine.
No double counting for vaccine people who already had immunity from natural exposure.
2 edits
@eladar saidIt is literally impossible to run a blinded randomized control trial where one group was all previously infected and the other not. By definition, all subjects will know whether they are in the control group or in the vaccine group.
There was no study of actual people just theoretical results. Face it, there is no real data, just supposition.
The only data I will count as data is large scale study of those who are known to only have immunity naturally and only those have immunity purely by vaccine.
No double counting for vaccine people who already had immunity from natural exposure.
So, essentially, you will accept no evidence that is possible to produce?
Or, do you want "in the wild" data, which would be meaningless due to to enormous confounding variables (starting with the fact that all the previously infected survived COVID, skewing that sample to the less vulnerable side). I suppose they could figure out a way to unskew it, but then you'd no doubt accuse them of manipulating the data.
Seems like you are determined not to believe in the vaccine efficacy.
Your choice. Do as you please. I'm happy with my vax, thank you.
@sh76 saidIt need not be double blind. Simply follow the two different groups and run the appropriate test to see if there is a statistically significant difference in results.
It is literally impossible to run a blinded randomized control trial where one group was all previously infected and the other not. By definition, all subjects will know whether they are in the control group or in the vaccine group.
So, essentially, you will accept no evidence that is possible to produce?
Or, do you want "in the wild" data, which would be meaningle ...[text shortened]... believe in the vaccine efficacy.
Your choice. Do as you please. I'm happy with my vax, thank you.
@eladar saidI'm sure they will, but there's far too little time to have done this with regard to the Delta variant
It need not be double blind. Simply follow the two different groups and run the appropriate test to see if there is a statistically significant difference in results.