Dangers of a Half-Vaccinated Public:

[speeder]

The short version for anyone TLDR is that it will help vaccine resistant strains mutate and then we are truly fk'ed:

https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2021-08-17/fast-spreading-coronavirus-half-vaccinated-public-disaster

[thor66]

yup

There is a cost to stupidity and others bear part of that cost.

[cabmandone]

Where do they come up with the Pfizer vaccine being 90% effective against the Delta variant?

[cabmandone]

And something that doesn't make sense to me is, why aren't they updating the vaccine when a variant is discovered? They have the ability to rapidly identify changes and the ability, if I'm not mistaken, to modify the mRNA vaccine to adjust for the new variant. So why aren't they?

You know I'm not in the anti vax group. Just asking questions that this article made me think of.

[gordner]

I have been wondering that myself cab, I thought one of the touted benefits of mRNA was quick adaptability.

[Sooner or later]

Originally Posted by cabmando

And something that doesn't make sense to me is, why aren't they updating the vaccine when a variant is discovered? They have the ability to rapidly identify changes and the ability, if I'm not mistaken, to modify the mRNA vaccine to adjust for the new variant. So why aren't they?

You know I'm not in the anti vax group. Just asking questions that this article made me think of.

Pfizer Delta trial should start this month.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/08/pfizer-says-it-is-developing-a-covid-booster-shot-to-target-the-highly-transmissible-delta-variant.html

[rusnak]

The article does not say that a vaccine will prevent infection or eradicate the virus. It will help the recipient in their immune response. But the virus will still infect a vaccinated person. And it will still mutate, so the article is coming to some faulty conclusions. This is entirely conjecture and bad statistical "science".

[cabmandone]

Originally Posted by rusnak

The article does not say that a vaccine will prevent infection or eradicate the virus. It will help the recipient in their immune response. But the virus will still infect a vaccinated person. And it will still mutate, so the article is coming to some faulty conclusions. This is entirely conjecture and bad statistical "science".

Technically... that depends on the viral load the infected person experiences... as I understand it anyhow. If the person has what is considered an asymptomatic case, their viral load is lower and they don't shed the virus like someone with a higher viral load and symptoms would.

[cabmandone]

Originally Posted by Sooner or later

Pfizer Delta trial should start this month.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/08/pfizer-says-it-is-developing-a-covid-booster-shot-to-target-the-highly-transmissible-delta-variant.html

What's the point in a trial if the new vaccine is doing what the old vaccine did, just with some tweaks to the spike protein?

[Sooner or later]

To make sure the tweaks are effective.

[WPOZZZ]

Originally Posted by cabmando

Where do they come up with the Pfizer vaccine being 90% effective against the Delta variant?

I was reading this morning that after 6 months, Pfizer tapers down to about 50% effectiveness, thus the need for a booster. Scientist were saying the 3 week period between shots may have been too short to build up T and C cells, or something like that. I am wondering about my J&J.

[cstreit]

Originally Posted by WPOZZZ

I was reading this morning that after 6 months, Pfizer tapers down to about 50% effectiveness, thus the need for a booster. Scientist were saying the 3 week period between shots may have been too short to build up T and C cells, or something like that. I am wondering about my J&J.

This is interesting, because I learned something recently.

The "effectiveness" of the vaccine is not measured its absolute ability to protect against the virus. Its measured as the differential between the general populations immunity vs. those vaccinated. So while the media has been *freaking out* about the 43-50% effectivity of the vaccines against Delta - they missed this REALLY important bit.

So if the vaccine was 99% effective - but the general population was now 95% immune through natural processes - the vaccine's efficacy would be listed as 4% effective.

So what this means is that the falling percentage of efficacy isn't really a concern per se. Unless people start losing natural immunity, the efficacy of the vaccines will be in decline.

[Steve Carlton]

^ that doesn't sound right. Try reading this and see what you think:

https://www.cdc.gov/csels/dsepd/ss1978/lesson3/section6.html

From what I've read, effectiveness can be measured in different ways. The typical way is to look at the percentage chance of not getting infected. More important is the reduction in serious illness/hospitalization and death. The last numbers I saw put these outcomes to be composed of around 99% unvaccinated people.

[dewolf]

Interesting read on aspirin;

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04365309

[beepbeep]

https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/08/pandemic-of-unvaccinated-continues-to-rage-as-states-set-new-covid-records/

[Seahawk]

This thread has been good so far so I will endeavor to persevere in that.

From the WSJ. https://www.wsj.com/articles/vaccine-mandate-natural-immunity-lawsuit-covid-19-coronavirus-11628281507?st=7ihb8k2eglrvpqx&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

There is a lot of information here as well...links to the general CDC discussion on Natural Immunity and the rebuttals:

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2021/08/more-voodoo-epidemiology-at-the-cdc.php

A key take away (link provided above):

Martin Kuldorff, another highly respected epidemiologist at Harvard Medical School, also critiqued Dr.Collins on this point.

The CDC has ignored at least 3 studies that have shown that natural immunity is equivalent (if not superior to vaccinated immunity).

1. An Oxford University study (~11,000 people) showed 90% and 85% effectiveness of the vaccine and natural immunity, respectively. This difference was not statistically significant, and differed by only one patient.

2. A study of the entire Israeli population (6.3M people) showed 92.8% vs. 94.8 effectiveness of vaccine and natural immunity, respectively. The superiority of natural immunity held for every age group, and for all severities of illness.

3. A Cleveland Clinic Study of (~52,000 people), demonstrated 99.3%% and 100% effectiveness of vaccine and natural immunity, respectively. No individual in this study who previously got COVID, got reinfected.

These last two studies, though methodologically robust, have been inexplicably held up in the peer-review process for political reasons, but the CDC publishes this minor but yet substantially flawed study simply to promote its narrative. MMWR is not externally peer reviewed, only internally cleared. The CDCs use of this study has given corporations, universities, and other institutions justification to coerce vaccinations on the naturally immune. So many of us physicians and scientists are so frustrated and disgusted by how critical thought and medical evidence has been thrown out the door in order to achieve political gain.

I have written that I am currently in a study doing much the same work. I get blood drawn again today.

[beepbeep]

Natural immunity is great, as long as you survive the "process" of obtaining it.
Therein lies the rub.

[Tobra]

The young man who mentioned he is in a study did not even realize he had it. Maybe he takes ASA every day. I need to contact his study people as my history parallels his fairly closely on this vax jazz

Originally Posted by rusnak

The article does not say that a vaccine will prevent infection or eradicate the virus. It will help the recipient in their immune response. But the virus will still infect a vaccinated person. And it will still mutate, so the article is coming to some faulty conclusions. This is entirely conjecture and bad statistical "science".

This my friends, is the crux of it

For the vaccine to have "worked," it would have needed to be rolled out everywhere at the same time. Even then you would see variants. The virus mutates to defeat the vaccine if it is able. Influenza and corona viruses appear to be pretty able.

What percentage of the income for the CDC and the people making the recommendations is from vaccines?

FFS no conflict there

It is reasonable to predict that asymptomatic jabbed and non-jabbed are both low to no risk and there is no indication that one or the other is a greater risk. Show me I am wrong

[beepbeep]

Originally Posted by Tobra

Show me I am wrong

[cabmandone]

Originally Posted by beepbeep

Natural immunity is great, as long as you survive the "process" of obtaining it.
Therein lies the rub.

So then natural immunity is great for greater than 97% of the population based on current known cases vs known deaths... right?

Not a good statement on your part... IMO.