Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
UNOFFICIAL COVID-19: NOT the mainstream Narrative (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Rhythmdoctor
- Start date
IC FBGCav
Footballguy
I said, someone show me factual evidence that getting the vax after having covid helps. The opinion is get it. Yet, no factual proof.Nathan R. Jessep said:
I think that is malpractice to tell me to take something that can do harm that does no benefit. Seems simple to me.
Vaccines direct our immune systems.
I had covid and let's say you have vax. Tell me how long your vax works compared to my natural immunity. I don't think you can.
I said this a million times, if I didn't have covid I would take the jab.
I don't understand why people want me to take both risks without any proof of benefit.
Terminalxylem
Footballguy
I’m trying to figure out your original point, as I believe it’s off-base.IC FBGCav said:
As others have explained, viruses are gonna mutate regardless. Vaccines don’t alter that process. The potential downside of selective pressure in the event a vaccine-resistant mutant arises is more than offset by decreasing the total viral population, with commensurate decrease in opportunities to mutate.
Terminalxylem
Footballguy
Seeing as we don’t definitely know how durable natural or vaccine- induced immunity will be, no one can provide the evidence you want. But it’s not tough to understand how vaccine-induced immunity is more reliable, as reflected by higher antibody titers in vaccine recipients.
IC FBGCav
Footballguy
Why can't we just say we never administer a vaccine during a pandemic? Yet we just did and know all the results.
We fast tracked vaccines and they are better and safer than before ignoring all the protocols set before.
It is literally insane to come to these conclusions this fast, time will tell.
I am looking out for the polio variants now.
IC FBGCav
Footballguy
So, show me your study since its not tough to understand. I will get jabbed tomorrow. Or send chance4hope 1k if you cant.
Terminalxylem
Footballguy
While I'm sure you realize all viruses don't share the same potential for mutation, there actually are polio variants. But it's odd you didn't think about another vaccine preventable respiratory infection, one that has a penchant for being compared to SARS-CoV-2 and has many, many strains.
And safety protocols weren't ignored in obtaining EUAs for the covid vaccines. In your opinion, how much time must pass/how many vaccines must be given before you'll consider them safe?
Terminalxylem
Footballguy
It's clear you aren't getting vaccinated anytime soon, but here's a recent study looking at natural vs. vaccine-induced immunity:
This phenomenon doesn't apply to all infections or all vaccines - we're really fortunate mRNA vaccines work this well. It's too bad so many people are more concerned about unknown adverse effects of vaccination, despite little to no evidence or biologic plausibility suggesting long term, serious vaccine AEs.
The Commish
Footballguy
Late to this treat of a thread...holy cripes
You're correct and I covered this in the thread he started, that sorta died after the explanation was given. Our vaccines (sans J&J) will continue to be highly effective as long as the spike protein continues to exist or doesn't change in a way that causes antibodies to "miss" it. It's still left to be determined how effective J&J will be moving forward.
Oh, and viruses don't have a mental capacity to say "hey, this person has taken a vaccine, it's time to change it up". That's just nonsense. Viruses continually change in random ways. Sometimes their changes make them stronger, sometimes they become weaker and kill themselves. I'd wager a bet that there have been thousands of mutations at this point, yet we are left with a handful that have made them "stronger".
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
It's not a "narrative".
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
That's not right. The time savings wasn't due to the safety/testing piece cutting corners. Virtually all of it was having the entire world working on a vaccine at the same time, plus the fact that during the testing phase there was SO MUCH Covid around that it sped up the results. Normally you'd have to track the vax/no vax cohorts for a long time to get to statistical significance, but in this case the virus was raging and so it happened much faster.
Last edited by a moderator:
![[icon]](/data/avatars/m/5/5167.jpg?1660313464){kind=avatar}
[icon]
Insoxicated
Overly simplified:
- If you've had COVID or get Vaccinated, your body develops antibodies.
- The amount/strength of those antibodies varies based on LOTS of factors.
- An mRNA vaccination seems to generate a MUCH stronger immune response, so theoretically will last longer.
- That response deteriorates at an unknown rate, that seems to depend on factors we don't 100% understand yet.
- As your antibodies deteriorate, your resistance to infection declines.
- If you still have sufficient antibodies remaining, you are resistant to infection. If not, you are not.
If you're low on gas (previously infected a while back, or had a low response), you can still drive... it's just a bit more risky. You don't NEED more gas, but if you top off (get vaccinated), you reduce risk and buy more time.
If you've got a lot of gas already, topping off has limited benefit.
Now imagine you don't really have a gas gauge. If you can't accurately tell when your tank will run dry, it's generally a good idea to top off when you get low... especially if you're getting a ####load of fuel (stronger mRNA vax immune response).
Now, antibody tests can give a general idea of how full your tank is, and immunity isn't a on/off full/empty scenario... so the analogy isn't perfect... but you get the idea.
Your decision to get vaccinated after having a natural infection involves a LOT of variables... your initial immune response, time since recovery, your personal risk tolerance, environmental risk (how prevalent is COVID, your risk of exposure).
Asking for concrete proof of something that we're still learning is basically just saying "I don't want to", which is fine. Just be honest about it instead of trying to hide behind convoluted "science".
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish
Footballguy
Antibodies created by the vaccine are different than the ones created by the body naturally. If I had my choice (without having to get the virus) I'd want both sets of antibodies in my body. It's multiple ways of attacking the virus and that's a positive with no negatives. The antibodies created by the body will likely become less effective faster than the ones created from vaccine since they don't target the spike protein specifically and rely on other protein markers that will likely change more frequently than the spike protein.
Gatorman
Supreme Elite Maximum Tier
Ok, here are the facts and if you want me to source them, sorry, I have work to do, but google is your friend.
1) The vaccine seems to be having its intended effect. As with most vaccines, it has boosted people immunity, and more importantly, has seemed to curb the "cytokine storm" style reactions that were overwhelming hospitals at the onset of this disease (If you don't believe hospitals were overwhelmed, then you know no one who worked in a hospital)
2) For those that have had COVID, there are some signs pointing to having had the vaccine actually helps. Most of this is anecdotal (to be fair, everything when it comes to this vaccine could be considered anecdotal because due to its speed to market structured peer reviewed studies have not really happened yet, so we have to deal with the "aggregate into the population"): Those who have had what is called "Long hauler" issues with COVID effects seem to get relief from some of them with a vaccine administer. Those without tend to have their "Possible reinfection" timeline increased by taking the injection.
3) Finally: At this point a large slice of the American Public has been vaccinated with little to no side effects (and certainly less so than what we are seeing with COVID). Occasionally science gets something so right it is almost unbelievable. The Pfizer and Moderna Vaccinations and their efficacy in the upper 90s was not something that even those working on them expected. Most would have been thrilled with a jnj style 70 percent efficacy with some side effects that would have needed to be closely monitored.
The fact is the world is jaded. Not just politically, but factually. No one wants to believe facts that do not jibe with their world view. I was skeptical of the vaccine BEFORE I saw those efficacy profiles. People still want to be jaded whether its masks as a political statement rather than a public health issue, the vaccine, the lockdown, etc. There is a lot about this disease that as we go through the numbers we likely could have done differently. The Vaccine is not one of them.
Gator
PS. Scientists have been working on COVID variant vaccines for a while now as they "future-casted" that it may be needed. That was the primary reason it was able to come to market so quickly. FYI
IC FBGCav
Footballguy
IC FBGCav
Footballguy
So this is the best and safest vaccine ever developed at warp speed. Noted. Thanks.
Terminalxylem
Footballguy
You’re right, but the line between “alternative” and demonstrably false is razor thin. That’s not to say the experts have been 100% correct throughout the pandemic. Such is the nature of science, even if politics weren’t muddying the waters further.
But I’m confused, as your tone appears sarcastic. Do you trust scientists or not? Who is most credible for vaccination advice?
IC FBGCav
Footballguy
Be honest, okay, I have endured covid and will have to deal with the long term effects of that. Honestly, I don't want to double down on long term effects of the vax especially when I don't know the up or down side.
IC FBGCav
Footballguy
I trust science and data. I said this before. If I didn't have covid already I would have been first in line for the jab.
We don't have enough data for me yet and that I am being sold to get the vax too is a huge turn off.
But all I want is a solid study telling me there is a bigger benefit then risk to get the vax.
If would recommend to anyone who didn't have covid to get the vax.
There are also no studies saying that natural immunity after having covid is less effective.
I truly think the effective rate of the vax is less than what's being pimped and side effects are higher. Just my opinion.
Last edited by a moderator:
Worm
slimy ninja
Genuinely curious here - what do COVID freedom fighters feel is the "line" for the government, private businesses, etc. having the right to require masks, social distancing, and other restrictions?
If there is a bubonic plague scenario, does the government have the right to act in the interest of public health and "restrict" your freedom?
If there is a bubonic plague scenario, does the government have the right to act in the interest of public health and "restrict" your freedom?
IC FBGCav
Footballguy
If you are talking to me GB, I wore a mask every where and washed my hands excessively.
I still wear where required.
Where the government gets involved i have no idea. It's a hard sell for me to believe the same people that won't give healthcare to all citizens have our best interests involved.
Whether the vaccines cover the delta variant is not know but we opened up everywhere. We are in a live human trial.
Last edited by a moderator:
Worm
slimy ninja
I'm talking to the OP and others like him who feel that every facet of the pandemic restrictions are assaults against our freedom.
IC FBGCav
Footballguy
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
Every lab on the planet that could work on the problem, worked on the problem.
Testing went fast because so many people were getting sick it allowed the vax/no vax differences to be seen within weeks.
Do with that information whatever you want.
IC FBGCav
Footballguy
So what is Novavax doing? Wasting money?
Every lab on the planet that could work on the problem, worked on the problem.
Testing went fast because so many people were getting sick it allowed the vax/no vax differences to be seen within weeks.
Do with that information whatever you want.
IC FBGCav
Footballguy
I know your are an alias. What is your other. Not saying you are hiding, assuming other got TO.
Every lab on the planet that could work on the problem, worked on the problem.
Testing went fast because so many people were getting sick it allowed the vax/no vax differences to be seen within weeks.
Do with that information whatever you want.
IC FBGCav
Footballguy
Doug B
Footballguy
That's on the U.S. citizens, not any governmental entity. Vote for people who support it, then we can have single-payer healthcare in the U.S.A. within a decade.IC FBGCav said:
(Not debating the merits. Just making the point that if, say, 3/4 of the voting public wanted single-payer and sold out to vote for pro-single-payer candidates at the federal level ... it would happen before long)
Doug B
Footballguy
In a non-pandemic research environment, it was acceptable to spend an extra year or two or three chasing tiny gains in vaccine efficacy or other refinements. In other words -- typical vaccine development often had a lot of fluff built into the timeline as a 'cultural' thing in the field.IC FBGCav said:
Something else: Pfizer and Moderna built upon much prior research to get their mRNA vaccines to trial quickly. Genomic sequencing today is a mature employable technology, but it wasn't available when familiar old-line vaccines were developed in the 20th century. Prior work on a vaccine for SARS-CoV-1 in the early- to mid-2000s also helped shorten the path for COVID vaccine development. Researchers weren't starting from scratch.
Doug B
Footballguy
This is a good point ... very important factor. If a disease is rare in the environment, trials will take much longer just trying to collect enough cases among the control group to derive meaningful data. And so, in past vaccine development -- not responding to a pandemic -- it was acceptable and often necessary to let a trial run a few years.Dinsy Ejotuz said:
Doug B
Footballguy
Not hardly. Eventually, the world will need a few dozen COVID vaccine producers as it has for influenza vaccines. Novavax will be instrumental in getting the billions living in the developing world vaccinated.IC FBGCav said:
Besides, it's uncommon (maybe never happens, actually) that the first few vaccines developed for a disease remain the top vaccination choices forever. Vaccines are improved over time (not necessarily in efficacy, but also in storage, side effects, etc.). For instance, three polio vaccines were developed by 1961 and though they all helped beat back polio worldwide, none of these are used today in the U.S. The current polio vaccine given to infants and toddlers in the U.S. came to market in 1987.
[icon]
Insoxicated
Yes
"We recently reported vaccine effectiveness (VE) estimates against symptomatic disease with the Delta (B.1.617.2) variant.(1) After a full course, VE reached 88% with the Pfizer/BioNTech BNT162b2 vaccine and 67% with the AstraZeneca ChAdOx1 AZD1222 vaccine. This provided important evidence that despite modest reductions in protection, vaccines remain effective against Delta."
https://khub.net/documents/135939561/479607266/Effectiveness+of+COVID-19+vaccines+against+hospital+admission+with+the+Delta+(B.1.617.2)+variant.pdf/1c213463-3997-ed16-2a6f-14e5deb0b997?version=1.4&t=1623689315431&download=true
IC FBGCav
Footballguy
Yeah, the control doesn't have to do with who we vote for, it about the control on people that run. But you know that.
IC FBGCav
Footballguy
Terminalxylem
Footballguy
The Commish
Footballguy
What's NOT known is if antibodies created from having a different strand will work or be as effective. That's the question every single time a new strand pops up. People either don't get that or ignore it. With the vaccine the question is only if the new variant changed the spike protein to make it undetectable to antibodies created by the vaccine.
I keep hearing this narrative by the media yet at the same time I have heard of a LOT more breakthrough COVID cases than reinfections of people previously diagnosed with COVID. As a matter of fact, according to this article, the reinfection rate appears to be around 0.4% after 90 days.[icon] said:
https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/public-health/covid-19-reinfection-rate-around-0-4-epic-data-suggests.html
Compare that to the 95% efficacy of the Pfizer vaccine and it seems that natural immunity appears to be better than vaccine immunity.
Alex P Keaton
Footballguy
Except....natural immunity implies you've already had COVID. And I'm not interested in having COVID first, to achieve natural immunity.
[icon]
Insoxicated
Wait....
Just to be clear you're taking "0.4% of COVID patients test positive again outside 90 days" and comparing it to the 96% Efficacy/protection rate of the Vaccine.... and saying that proves natural infection is stronger than a vaccine protection?
If so I don't think you know what either of those data points actually mean... which wouldn't be terribly surprising given your posts over the last 18 months, I guess.
Last edited by a moderator:
Doug B
Footballguy
On top of what Alex Keaton wrote: symptom severity counts in the vaccines' favor, too. If the vaccines are reckoned to pass/fail on the measure of symptomatic infection, I wonder that that percentage would be?
Alex P Keaton
Footballguy
NopeWait....
Just to be clear you're taking "0.4% of COVID patients test positive again outside 90 days" and comparing it to the 96% Efficacy/protection rate of the Vaccine.... and saying that proves natural infection is stronger than a vaccine protection?
If so I don't think you know what either of those data points actually mean... which wouldn't be terribly surprising given your posts over the last 18 months, I guess.
I'm not proving anything. Just saying "vaccine" immunity is stronger than natural immunity is a statement that has yet to be proven.
Last edited by a moderator:
Nathan R. Jessep
Footballguy
I've recovered from COVID19, why do I need a vaccine?
Several good points she makes (with data to back it up), but this one in particular:
Several good points she makes (with data to back it up), but this one in particular:
Second, the vaccine looks to better protect against variants than natural infection. This Qatar study was before rampant spread of variants of concern (as well as other factors, like younger crowd, different level of public health compliance, etc.). We have reason to believe natural infection just doesn’t work as well against new variants.
For example, up until now, Israel has restricted previously infected individuals from getting the vaccine because they were considered protected. Israel has been incredibly methodical in COVID-19 testing throughout the entire pandemic. So, the Israelis have a good handle on who was infected with the virus.
But this policy initiated an intense debate among scientists once variants of concern started spreading. This eventually sparked a small study (and others), in which scientists took blood samples among healthcare workers at three time points:
After “natural” infection (participants were considered mild or asymptomatic);
Before vaccination;
After vaccination.
Then, scientists “infected” the blood samples with variants of concern to see how well antibodies responded. What did they find?
Panel A and B: Vaccines were better at increasing the number of neutralizing antibodies than natural infection. In other words, you have more soldiers.
Panel C andVaccines had more neutralizing antibodies against B.1.351 (variant in South Africa) and P.1. (variant first detected in Brazil) compared to natural immunity. This also probably means vaccines can protect against the NY variant and new “double” variant first discovered in India.
So, Israel changed directions and vaccines are now open (and encouraged) for everyone.
