I doubt he will run but if he does, a lot will depend on who the GOP runs against him.
Printable View
Not true. The flu harms millions every year. Kills tens of thousands. And I have the choice to not take a flu shot without losing my job.
Plus, my actions affect nobody bc I JUST HAD COVID TWO MONTHS AGO and the data says I pose zero risks. Certainly less risk than one who was vaxed in April.
I think so, for a few years anyway. We are going to be dealing with this for a long time, longer if we don't get it at least under some semblance of control. The thing a lot of you don't realize is that we get close to that at times with the flu. Throw this unchecked on top of the flu.............last year people were still mostly taking precautions that really knocked the flu back, hand washing, masks, distancing.....that kind of thing. Not so this year. There are already indications that this might be at best a normal flu year.
This ain't the flu. It's WAY more contagious. Delta is almost measles level in some studies. It's way deadlier than the flu. Flu kills on average an ESTIMATED 60,000 in the US. COVID is over 730,000 in about 19 months. We still mandate measles shots in most places, and measles isn't as deadly as covid. I know someone who got covid twice in two months. The vast majority of studies have shown that natural immunity is not as good as that provided by the MRNA vaccines. I know you can link others that say different, I've seen them too. Personally I would say based on what I've seen that three months would be a reasonable time to wait. The preponderance of the people who know enough to make a true informed choice seem to be saying 2-3 month after a documented case.
I didn't say it was the flu. You said weve "never had the freedom to make a choice that harms others." I told you the flu harms others when I spread it to them, and I've never been required to get a flu shot. Therefore, you're wrong. I cannot get a flu shot despite my choice to do so harming others. Speaking in absolutes is dangerous.
Please cite me the vast studies that say the covid vaccine is better than natural immunity. The most comprehensive blind study conducted on the topic says the exact opposite.
What he's leaving out is that all those "unvaccinated" were classified as such because they hadn't made it 14 days past their last shot. And a lot of the Covid cases were folks that had at least one dose of a vax. Folks have pretty much stopped getting vaxxed where I live and cases have fallen significantly since then.
No, do you have any relevant studies? I'm just going by the majority of the studies that I have seen that shown the MRNA vaccines to provide superior and longer lasting immune responses than natural immunity. Respiratory viruses, including the other corona viruses, do not provoke lasting immunity. The vaccines aren't going to either. The likely need for boosters was pointed out from the beginning. ALL the studies I have seen show that natural immunity combined with one of the MRNA vaccines is the strongest of all. That is the reason for the recommendation that those who have had COVID get the vaccine. At least one I saw said that that combination provided something like 85% protection against INFECTION. That is REALLY high for infection by anydisease. The measles vaccines don't even do that I don't think, although they are about 95% effective against the disease. My niece, age 20, did exactly that.
So you are saying the vaccine causes COVID. OH BROTHER not that crap again. That one has been used for every vaccine EVER. It's older than any of us on this board. Jeeze just look at the dang data from the MSDH. If you live in Mississippi they have fallen everywhere, just like they did this time last year. The next wave will start in late November. There is some optimism, with reason, that it won't be so bad this year. Way more vaccinated people, even in Mississippi, than last year. A lot more people will have residual natural immunity as well. That is assuming there won't be another mutant that is even more contagious than delta. Delta will eventually find all of those with no immunity at all. It will find some vaccinated and will find some again too.
There are plenty that show it both ways. The preponderance say the MRNA vaxx is better. Here is the first one that popped up. It is about your specific situation. Hence why they want you to get vaccinated too.
https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2...rotection.html
I assume that you are referring to the Israeli pre-print? EDIT: It has now been really published. The points below remain.
This is a great ARTICLE that touches on that and a lot more. This source is always a good read, even when I don't agree with it.
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/nat...nity-covid-19/
Then there is this. It's nota study but it has links to them to back what it's saying.
https://www.nebraskamed.com/COVID/co...us-vaccination
Yes. You can read the first sentence of the below article discussing the study. It says natural immunity provides far superior protection than vaccine immunity. Can you provide those studies you reference?
https://www.science.org/content/arti...-remains-vital
Thanks. Here is another good one. And I've had one dose and covid.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1....24.21262415v1
It ABSOLUTELY CAN NOT. It is IMPOSSIBLE. There is no live virus or whole inactivated virus in ANY of them. I can excuse ignorance. Spreading out right lies on this is beyond the pale. I will assume you are just ignorant. Ignorance is not stupidity. Know the difference before you respond.
This article is a good summery AND it has links to a FEW of the studies.
https://www.nebraskamed.com/COVID/co...us-vaccination
[QUOTE=Liverpooldawg;1374543]Lol, If you only knew![/QUOTE
Since you like stats, do you look at yesterday's traffic patterns and crash statistics to determine how much you drive the next day? Stop living in fear. As a preacher I figured you would put your faith in the Lord.
First it's me to get the shot to keep my job, then it will be my wife, then my kids. I've see the argument businesses are doing this to keep insurance costs down. What happens when they say they will only cover a family of four going forward to save on costs? Are you going to adjust how many kids you wanted to have based on that?
That's the same study your article and my article were talking about. It has been seized on by every anti vaxxer and crank out there. It doesn't say what they, and you, think it says. It DOES say some of it, but people are leaving out context also contained in the study, such as the actual numbers and not just the ratios. It is also one study. If all you will pay attention to are ones that agree with you then I cant help you. That study was the one I was referencing above when I said I knew you could provide something to back your assertion. Its THE one most linked on certain media. I saw it right after the pre-print came out. Fact remains, even in that study, that you are better off getting the vax even if you have had it.
Why do you people always assume anyone that has the point of view I do is living in fear? As I have been saying above to that nut that follows me around the internet, if you only knew. WHERE did you get that I'm a preacher? LORD HELP US if that were true, LOL! I'm in a clinical healthcare field, not a physician. I've posted that numerous times. I look at this stuff because I have to to do my job as safely as possible. I even have to sort through CDC stuff directed at my field and try to decipher exactly what it means. This is serious business for me. It's not some bizarre hobby. It's not my first rodeo with stuff like this either. When AIDS first got going it was much the same, the unknown. We did the same then as we are doing now, following the best available recommendations from people who study this kind of things their whole lives. We got a handle on that after a few years, even though we are STILL having to live with and work with what that meant. COVID is going to be no different. At least we DO have a vaxx for COVID, and a pretty good one considering what type of virus and disease it is.
That links to the same study you cited above.
And it is about antibodies, which have nothing to do with long term immunity. That's why the T cell studies are so important and why the double blind Israel study is the gold standard. At least that's what my doctor said.
I just googled it.
Care to retort the Israel study that is recognized by the gold standard? It was 32,000 people, not a couple hundred like the American ones and the KY one you linked.
At best, you can say that it is inconclusive whether the vaccine or natural immunity is better. That being the case, why would you insist the ones with natural immunity be treated worse than those with the vaccine?
Because there are other studies that show different, in fact most of them do. It's still an unknown. If we start to see a lot of well done studies by other researchers (there are still questions about that one) ("questions" don't mean that the study is bogus,) that say the same thing then ok. Read that science based medicine article closely. That guy does a better job explaining it than I ever could. His credentials are also way better than mine. Even the Israeli one says that you are way better off getting the vaccine if you have had COVID. Most all studies are in agreement you are something like two and a half times less likely to be re-infected if you get the vaccine. That well worth doing. I haven't got the booster yet. I was Moderna. I will be in the first or second group when the guidelines are issued. I got my 1st dose in January . If the guidelines are the same as for Pfizer I will be in the first one, job related. I will get it as soon as possible. I would like to stick with Moderna, it's number are a bit better than Pfizer so far.
Thread lock in 3,2,1
I happened to bump into him on his run to the bourbon store 2 days ago. Figured y'all needed to vent.**
https://c.tenor.com/YbCmX8_obPgAAAAd/ace-ventura.gif
This is an add on. I was still looking at that study last night. I ran across something from a fairly reputable source that had a plausible theory to back up what the Israeli study shows. That's the first time I had seen one of the observations it made. It was technical stuff, cell physiology level minutia, but it gave a frame work that would lead me to accept the hypothesis, IF we get other good studies that duplicate the results. What I would like to see is a non-retrospective study that gets the same result. Retrospective studies can sometimes give wonky results. You need to have an explanation for the results that makes sense. I don't have time to link it right now as I'd have to go back and find it again, if I can I will.
I know it's a fact checker but this kind of lays it out there about that study.
https://www.factcheck.org/2021/09/sc...ural-immunity/
As I said there are questions about it. That doesn't mean it won't turn out to be correct.