Folks. Consider this a knock it off.
Arguing about what someone else said months ago is likely to get exiled to bickering. I see little value in rehashing.
Focus on what you think now and what other people are saying now.
3 Likes
He’s not even making an argument over something anyone actually said months ago. He’s just fabricated something he thought we said and claims victory.
3 Likes
Cite or ban.
3 Likes
Just to clear up any confusion, you absolutely do get a robust T-cell response from vaccines. Also, you should 100% still get the vaccine even if you think you’ve already been infected.
Messenger-RNA (mRNA) vaccines against the coronavirus that causes COVID-19 provoke a swift and strong response by the immune system’s T cells – the heavy armor of the immune system – according to a study from researchers in the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania. Although recent studies of vaccines tend to focus on the antibody response, the T-cell response is also an important and potentially more durable source of protection – yet little has been reported so far on the T-cell response to COVID-19 vaccines.
2 Likes
Honestly, what’s wrong with you?
4 Likes
I don’t think this thread should be misleading people about such an important matter of public health.
I really can’t wrap my brain around throwing away a good job for this. Apparently they were on a probationary period as new employees of <6 months so they got canned instead of placed on unpaid leave. There’s still 671 out of compliance but would get unpaid leave if they don’t agree to testing.
Well they might have gotten fired but did you consider that they owned the libs?
7 Likes
Fwiw it’s worth the current claim of immune system memory in vaxxed vs virus acquired immunity should stay here. There is a lot of covidiots using the “I got pozzed so that as good as or better as being vaxxed” line. It’s an important discussion. It’s hard to help that misinterpretation of the data and facts is happening from a repeat offender.
3 Likes
Here’s another article on the same topic. I thought KHN was a relatively reputable outlet, but this article—which has some good info in it—suffers from excessive both-sidesing. As in equal time to people saying “natural immunity is good enough” and people saying “we don’t know enough yet”.
That said, evidence is growing that contracting SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes covid-19, is generally as effective as vaccination at stimulating your immune system to prevent the disease. Yet federal officials have been reluctant to recognize any equivalency, citing the wide variation in covid patients’ immune response to infection.
I’m not following this “controversy” that closely, but I’m not even sure the bolded is true. Maybe “both-sidesing” is giving the author too much credit.
It’s one thing to refuse to get vaccinated for some idiotic reason. It’s another to also refuse to be regularly tested. The only reason you’d do this is if you don’t really believe there’s a pandemic, and you reject any public health or safety concerns. No sympathy.
Also, 6’2 and 225 here…but 35 and realized I’m overweight so am rowing (on a machine) and playing hockey again to try and drop 25 lbs over the next 3-4 months
8 Likes
Sorry, but I don’t see anything wrong with the article. Are you expecting the writer to take an advocacy position on vaccines being more effective than infection in terms of providing immunity? There seems to be real division among “experts”, and that’s what the article reflects. I personally know of several vaccinated people who have gotten covid. I know of some unvaccinated as well, but I don’t personally know of unvaccinated people who have had a second case of covid. How does herd immunity work if infected people don’t receive any future protection as a result of their infection?
1 Like
I don’t think anyone is saying that getting infected can convey no immunity. The pushback comes from the false equivalency between catching COVID and getting vaccinated. One is better than the other, full stop.
I don’t think anybody is arguing that infected people don’t receive any protection. What they’re saying, as I understand it, is that there is “wide variation in covid patients’ immune response to infection” plus unknown effectiveness against variants, so they should get vaccinated to be sure they are protected.
Meanwhile, the other side is saying things like
“The research on natural immunity is quite definitive now,” he told KHN. “It’s better than immunity conferred by vaccines.”
I think this statement, especially with this level of certainty, is completely unjustified.
Yeah I agree. I think that which is better (vaxxed or pozzed) is an interesting scientific question. And I’m not convinced that anyone knows for sure.
However, what there should be no disagreement on is that vaxxed + pozzed, is almost certainly better than either alone. So the answer to the first question is nearly irrelevant to whether a pozzed person should get vaxxed.
“The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt” bertrand russell
2 Likes
Yeah, but the example he uses in the article is based on this lawsuit, and that’s what the plaintiff is contending. His next sentence says the view is not shared by the scientific community. A lot of times writers will use a news event, like a lawsuit, as an example to examine the broader issue, and that’s all he’s doing here. I don’t think the writer needs to ignore that quote, just like I don’t think you can ignore other ridiculous things that other people say. Can’t really write about Trump (for example) saying something outrageous and leave out the outrageous thing he says.
Strongly disagree with this. It’s heavily weighted towards vaccine.
1 Like