Can't comment on the interaction between your covid and your following vaccinations.
From an abstract of a Lancet study: "Recently, The Lancet published a study on the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines and the waning of immunity with time. The study showed that immune function among vaccinated individuals 8 months after the administratio…
Can't comment on the interaction between your covid and your following vaccinations.
From an abstract of a Lancet study: "Recently, The Lancet published a study on the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines and the waning of immunity with time. The study showed that immune function among vaccinated individuals 8 months after the administration of two doses of COVID-19 vaccine was lower than that among the unvaccinated individuals. "
Someone please correct me if I'm misreading this. It's saying the vaccines REDUCED immune function against covid after 8 months compared to no vax.
I read about that study too. For every vaccine the effectiveness wanes, sometimes over months, sometimes years.
Recently several issues were raised that warrant (much) more research. And probably a stop when it comes to vaccinating children, teenagers, young people (young men). Covid is for now no longer the threat it posed in the beginning. We can now wait and see.
Unvaccinated individuals showing more immune function, these people probably got infected with Covid without having much symptoms. Who are they and how do they compare with groups of "average"persons ?
I wonder if the immunity was possible because so many people got vaccinated, shedding less virulent viruses in case of infection. Also eight months is not a long time, how about one of two years - I hope they do follow-ups in that cohort.
The study isn't just saying vaccine effectiveness wanes over time. It's saying, over time, it makes the vaccinated more susceptible to the disease the vaccine is intended to prevent. Is that normal for vaccines? Has it ever happened before? I don't think so.
What really bothers me about this whole vax thing is the constant goal post-shifting. And you're doing it now. Yes, all vaccines have some risks. In a perfect world, we'd be able to apply some arithmetic to determine how the risks balance against the benefits. It appears our government and media are deliberately turning a blind eye to the adverse effects of the jab. There are tons of anecdotal reports of myocarditis following the vax, and insurance company statistics reporting increases in excess deaths not caused by covid. And the government and media are strangely incurious in a way that is unprecedented. "Nothing to see here." The government expended a lot of effort to disparage repurposed medications, like ivermectin, for which the risks were well-understood and minimal. And it's clear that was done to enable the emergency use authorization which wouldn't have been possible had there been a viable treatment for covid. The government, through it's tech company surrogates, censored people who were critics of lockdowns, forced vaccination, masks, and other government initiatives.
The government plus a lot of left-leaning people have engaged in spin about covid and the covid vaccine. Spin is not science, it's politics.
I and my family made a considered decision not to vax. We had covid, once. it was rough, but we got over it. I have no doubt we made the right decision. You took a different path. That was your decision, and you made the best decision for yourself with the info you had at the time. I can't read your mind, but it appears you are trying to rationalize and justify the decision you made.
Millions of people are vaccinated, so if the shot makes people more susceptible to Covid we should see a significant uptick in the number of cases. Do you have those statistics ? And no one ever said that after the shot you could not get sick from Covid (again ), but the chance to die from it is significantly lower. Also, what do the statistic show: more sick people or better reporting/recording of cases ? My bout with Covid is nowhere in the statistics, no test available so early in the pandemic.
A number of people can stay unvaccinated and safe, if enough other people are willing to take the risk and get immunized. You profit from herd immunity. I do not think you took the decision lightly - there are risks attached to whatever decision made.
You wrote "In a perfect world, we'd be able to apply some arithmetic to determine how the risks balance against the benefits." That was done (probably Bayesian statistics) and the benefits were judged to outnumber the risks. In a perfect world - whatever that is - we would be able to determine who are most at risk from a shot, under what conditions, and decide not to vax them. (But, again, that goes for all vaccinations.)
And no, you cannot read my mind, so lease refrain from giving it a try.
There you go again, rewriting history. Yes, there indeed were some who said you could not get sick w/ Covid after taking the vax. Including Joe Biden, in his winter of death and misery/we're losing our patience speech. After the vaccinated started getting covid, only then did the claim emerge that it didn't prevent covid, but reduced severity A claim which has been challenged by experts in the field and discounted.
You're being argumentative. The effects reported in the Lancet study were subtle, but your rebuttal is we should see a significant uptick in cases. Since we're not, are you saying the Lancet study is false? You're making it sound like the statistics have been run properly, and we have an excellent analysis of the vax effects. Many have pointed to the large increase in reporting through the VAERS system. But the CDC itself discounts that, pointing to various flaws with VAERS, including that it's not mandatory, among other problems. They can mandate a vax, but not that report be made when someone is injured or dies?
I've already pointed out insurance company statistics showing a significant (yes, significant) increase in excess deaths. If the government is doing such a good job on the statistics, as you claim, why aren't they explaining it instead of ignoring it? How do you explain that?
I conceded I can't read your mind. I always try to put myself in another person's shoes and understand where they're coming from. You have a problem w/ that?
There may be other explanations why you are so argumentative and ignore and discount information not conforming to your views. But buyer's remorse is a plausible one.
One last thing- why do you post a contentless website in your substack handle?
I never said the Lancet study was false, do not put words in my mouth. I just wondered what was going on. I searched again and found several Lancet studies - that are far more nuanced of what you report here.
Like so many others I try to make some sense of what happened after getting so much incorrect/incomplete /no info.
I said statistics were done, whether they were done properly I do not know. Again you are putting words in my mouth, and then criticizing. A cheap trick. Just like the tit for tat, widening goalposts, argumentative, rewriting history, buyer's remorse, etc. If you cannot debate without demeaning the other party, just stop.
You were arguing about the credibility of the Lancet study. I don't know else to take your challenge for me to produce statistics showing an uptick in cases.
After some pushback showing your observation to be not well thought out, now you say you weren't questioning the lancet study.
You say government statistics should show the uptick, then when I point out the government not even giving credibility to it's own VAERS data, now you're saying you weren't saying the government statistics were done properly.
Do you really not see how that looks?
You're escalating the argument, not making it better by continuing to quibble.
The mistake was mine. I took your word for the Lancet study. Only after doing my own research I realized they (there are more L. studies published) give far more nuanced information. It does not just state what you wrote.
Obviously the statistics I referred to when wondering about the Lancet study are not the same as the statistics the vaccine manufacturers will produce. You make it sound like they re the same.
The excess death that so many anti-vaxers are referring to, implying those people are dying from complications with the "clot shot" are explained by 1. people having to wait for diagnoses/treatment for other serious problems as they were unable to visit an MF/hospital, 2. people more vulnerable to flu this past season thanks to the lockdown, 3. extreme heat in Europes previous summer leading to thousands of people dying, 4. more people again commuting/traveling and being involved in accidents, etc.
The one escalating & quibbling is you. Trying to give what I write another meaning. Sadly the internet is full of people like you. You make your nickname come true. I write under any own name. You do not even have the guts to do the same.
I don't know how you can say I misstated the lancet study. I copied and pasted from their abstract. No paraphrasing. Verbatim quotes.
I do owe you an apology for the cheap shot on the buyer's remorse and no content. I could make some lame excuse on how you provoked me to do it, but I won't. I was wrong to do that, and I apologize.
This isn't meant as a cheap shot. I have to ask, are you aware that the government finally, finally admitted that natural immunity is at least equal to vaccine immunity? Are you aware? I'm visiting w/ family at the moment, but if you doubt that's true I'll find the reporting and provide a link later.
I find it maddening that after the government has been lying and shifting their story for a couple of years, people like you still quote their propaganda, even when it's been solidly refuted.
Mark Twain supposedly said, "It's easier to fool people than convince them they've been fooled." There's no record he ever actually said it. But there's a lot of wisdom there, no matter who said it.
Cite the government study that, you claim, shows natural and vaccine immunity to be equal. I have read of no such study but i have heard this claim made often without evidence.
Lorna. We were all in the same boat, with the same hypotheses early on. Unfortunately, as more empirical - credentialed - data came in that presented a more balanced view on WHO is most AT RISK (vulnerable) - basically very frail 80 year olds, or anyone with the metabolic presentation of a frail 80 year old, the govt agencies and the 'msm' stuck to the same, naive, view from early 2020.
SARS-CoV-2-naïve vaccinees had a 13.06-fold (95% CI, 8.08 to 21.11) increased risk for breakthrough infection with the Delta variant compared to those previously infected, when the first event (infection or vaccination) occurred during January and February of 2021. This study demonstrated that natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity.
You reported that the Lancet study stated that "over time, it makes the vaccinated more susceptible to the disease the vaccine is intended to prevent." I cannot find that remark in the Lancet studies I found. Can you help me out here ?
There is more than one Lancet study and they compare original immunity with the immunity achieved by having had Covid. Many European countries, when it came to limitation re. travel etc., equated a proven case of Covid with having been vaxed. So no news there, at least not for me. But maybe for you.
The complex and detailed (meta) study also indicates that immunity wanes, differently when it comes to the various variants that have popped up. So both types of immunity work, but the achieved immunity for both has a shelf-life. It peters out, becomes after a period to weak to be real protection. Maybe some people become infected again, without symptoms, and acquire additional natural protection. Maybe for the unvaxed that works better than for the vaxed. We need more research into that.
I have no buyers remorse. I waited for about 18 months after my original infection and then went for a shot. As said, I do not need another round of Covid (I thought I was dying) and I decided that the shot was the lesser of two evils for me.
That said, I was appalled that 1. the first Covid shot given, on tv, was done incorrectly (giver standing, receiver sitting) - I emailed the CDC about this, 2. that when in the UK it was discovered how a longer period between the two mRNA shots gave better results, the US stubbornly adhered to the two week-period, 3. that young children/teenagers were vaxed without more research being done.
The one where I quoted from the abstract included these words: "Recently, The Lancet published a study on the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines and the waning of immunity with time. The study showed that immune function among vaccinated individuals 8 months after the administration of two doses of COVID-19 vaccine was lower than that among the unvaccinated individuals.
So. Are your claiming I mischaracterized words from the abstract when I wrote, "over time, it makes the vaccinated more susceptible to the disease the vaccine is intended to prevent"?
If so, help me out. How is that different from "The study showed that IMMUNE FUNCTION among vaccinated individuals 8 months after the administration of two doses of COVID-19 vaccine WAS LOWER THAN that among the unvaccinated individuals" ?
You had to have read my post with the direct quote and the link to the study, b/c you replied to it. Unless you replied without reading it. But that can't be, b/c you said you had read about the study.
I still want to know, are you aware the government now concedes natural immunity is at least equal to immunity from the vaccine?
For a long time, the government said that wasn't true, vax immunity was far superior. It was part of their drive to make people take the vax. And you have to see where I'm going with this. You had covid. Whatever natural immunity you had, the government discounted it, and convinced you - and millions of other people - your immunity would be enhanced with the vax.
Eventually they had to admit natural immunity is as good as vax immunity. You may think the jab is 0 risk. If you're right, no harm. I don't think it's 0 risk. Whatever the risk is, you accepted it without getting any benefit. b/c the government - well, I'll be kind and say they misinformed you. Just my opinion, they lied.
You're still saying stuff like nobody ever said the vax would stop covid. Yes, they did say it. And you're saying the vax was meant not to stop the disease, but to reduce the disease severity. That's been discredited by expert researchers in the field. It doesn't do that. I don't blame you, b/c State Media keeps this stuff low. They don't want the public to be informed.
That doesn't mean you have to remain uninformed. The info is out there, but it's not going to be spoon-fed to you. You'll have to seek it out. This substack is a good start, but don't stop here.
Can't comment on the interaction between your covid and your following vaccinations.
From an abstract of a Lancet study: "Recently, The Lancet published a study on the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines and the waning of immunity with time. The study showed that immune function among vaccinated individuals 8 months after the administration of two doses of COVID-19 vaccine was lower than that among the unvaccinated individuals. "
Someone please correct me if I'm misreading this. It's saying the vaccines REDUCED immune function against covid after 8 months compared to no vax.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35659687/
I read about that study too. For every vaccine the effectiveness wanes, sometimes over months, sometimes years.
Recently several issues were raised that warrant (much) more research. And probably a stop when it comes to vaccinating children, teenagers, young people (young men). Covid is for now no longer the threat it posed in the beginning. We can now wait and see.
Unvaccinated individuals showing more immune function, these people probably got infected with Covid without having much symptoms. Who are they and how do they compare with groups of "average"persons ?
I wonder if the immunity was possible because so many people got vaccinated, shedding less virulent viruses in case of infection. Also eight months is not a long time, how about one of two years - I hope they do follow-ups in that cohort.
Don't want to get into a tit-for-tat argument.
The study isn't just saying vaccine effectiveness wanes over time. It's saying, over time, it makes the vaccinated more susceptible to the disease the vaccine is intended to prevent. Is that normal for vaccines? Has it ever happened before? I don't think so.
What really bothers me about this whole vax thing is the constant goal post-shifting. And you're doing it now. Yes, all vaccines have some risks. In a perfect world, we'd be able to apply some arithmetic to determine how the risks balance against the benefits. It appears our government and media are deliberately turning a blind eye to the adverse effects of the jab. There are tons of anecdotal reports of myocarditis following the vax, and insurance company statistics reporting increases in excess deaths not caused by covid. And the government and media are strangely incurious in a way that is unprecedented. "Nothing to see here." The government expended a lot of effort to disparage repurposed medications, like ivermectin, for which the risks were well-understood and minimal. And it's clear that was done to enable the emergency use authorization which wouldn't have been possible had there been a viable treatment for covid. The government, through it's tech company surrogates, censored people who were critics of lockdowns, forced vaccination, masks, and other government initiatives.
The government plus a lot of left-leaning people have engaged in spin about covid and the covid vaccine. Spin is not science, it's politics.
I and my family made a considered decision not to vax. We had covid, once. it was rough, but we got over it. I have no doubt we made the right decision. You took a different path. That was your decision, and you made the best decision for yourself with the info you had at the time. I can't read your mind, but it appears you are trying to rationalize and justify the decision you made.
Millions of people are vaccinated, so if the shot makes people more susceptible to Covid we should see a significant uptick in the number of cases. Do you have those statistics ? And no one ever said that after the shot you could not get sick from Covid (again ), but the chance to die from it is significantly lower. Also, what do the statistic show: more sick people or better reporting/recording of cases ? My bout with Covid is nowhere in the statistics, no test available so early in the pandemic.
A number of people can stay unvaccinated and safe, if enough other people are willing to take the risk and get immunized. You profit from herd immunity. I do not think you took the decision lightly - there are risks attached to whatever decision made.
You wrote "In a perfect world, we'd be able to apply some arithmetic to determine how the risks balance against the benefits." That was done (probably Bayesian statistics) and the benefits were judged to outnumber the risks. In a perfect world - whatever that is - we would be able to determine who are most at risk from a shot, under what conditions, and decide not to vax them. (But, again, that goes for all vaccinations.)
And no, you cannot read my mind, so lease refrain from giving it a try.
"And no one ever said that after the shot you could not get sick from Covid (again )".
Well...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqaN68vBvXQ&t=118s
There you go again, rewriting history. Yes, there indeed were some who said you could not get sick w/ Covid after taking the vax. Including Joe Biden, in his winter of death and misery/we're losing our patience speech. After the vaccinated started getting covid, only then did the claim emerge that it didn't prevent covid, but reduced severity A claim which has been challenged by experts in the field and discounted.
You're being argumentative. The effects reported in the Lancet study were subtle, but your rebuttal is we should see a significant uptick in cases. Since we're not, are you saying the Lancet study is false? You're making it sound like the statistics have been run properly, and we have an excellent analysis of the vax effects. Many have pointed to the large increase in reporting through the VAERS system. But the CDC itself discounts that, pointing to various flaws with VAERS, including that it's not mandatory, among other problems. They can mandate a vax, but not that report be made when someone is injured or dies?
I've already pointed out insurance company statistics showing a significant (yes, significant) increase in excess deaths. If the government is doing such a good job on the statistics, as you claim, why aren't they explaining it instead of ignoring it? How do you explain that?
I conceded I can't read your mind. I always try to put myself in another person's shoes and understand where they're coming from. You have a problem w/ that?
There may be other explanations why you are so argumentative and ignore and discount information not conforming to your views. But buyer's remorse is a plausible one.
One last thing- why do you post a contentless website in your substack handle?
I never said the Lancet study was false, do not put words in my mouth. I just wondered what was going on. I searched again and found several Lancet studies - that are far more nuanced of what you report here.
Like so many others I try to make some sense of what happened after getting so much incorrect/incomplete /no info.
I said statistics were done, whether they were done properly I do not know. Again you are putting words in my mouth, and then criticizing. A cheap trick. Just like the tit for tat, widening goalposts, argumentative, rewriting history, buyer's remorse, etc. If you cannot debate without demeaning the other party, just stop.
You were arguing about the credibility of the Lancet study. I don't know else to take your challenge for me to produce statistics showing an uptick in cases.
After some pushback showing your observation to be not well thought out, now you say you weren't questioning the lancet study.
You say government statistics should show the uptick, then when I point out the government not even giving credibility to it's own VAERS data, now you're saying you weren't saying the government statistics were done properly.
Do you really not see how that looks?
You're escalating the argument, not making it better by continuing to quibble.
The mistake was mine. I took your word for the Lancet study. Only after doing my own research I realized they (there are more L. studies published) give far more nuanced information. It does not just state what you wrote.
Obviously the statistics I referred to when wondering about the Lancet study are not the same as the statistics the vaccine manufacturers will produce. You make it sound like they re the same.
The excess death that so many anti-vaxers are referring to, implying those people are dying from complications with the "clot shot" are explained by 1. people having to wait for diagnoses/treatment for other serious problems as they were unable to visit an MF/hospital, 2. people more vulnerable to flu this past season thanks to the lockdown, 3. extreme heat in Europes previous summer leading to thousands of people dying, 4. more people again commuting/traveling and being involved in accidents, etc.
The one escalating & quibbling is you. Trying to give what I write another meaning. Sadly the internet is full of people like you. You make your nickname come true. I write under any own name. You do not even have the guts to do the same.
I don't know how you can say I misstated the lancet study. I copied and pasted from their abstract. No paraphrasing. Verbatim quotes.
I do owe you an apology for the cheap shot on the buyer's remorse and no content. I could make some lame excuse on how you provoked me to do it, but I won't. I was wrong to do that, and I apologize.
This isn't meant as a cheap shot. I have to ask, are you aware that the government finally, finally admitted that natural immunity is at least equal to vaccine immunity? Are you aware? I'm visiting w/ family at the moment, but if you doubt that's true I'll find the reporting and provide a link later.
I find it maddening that after the government has been lying and shifting their story for a couple of years, people like you still quote their propaganda, even when it's been solidly refuted.
Mark Twain supposedly said, "It's easier to fool people than convince them they've been fooled." There's no record he ever actually said it. But there's a lot of wisdom there, no matter who said it.
Cite the government study that, you claim, shows natural and vaccine immunity to be equal. I have read of no such study but i have heard this claim made often without evidence.
FYI #2.
https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/75/1/e545/6563799?login=false
Lorna. We were all in the same boat, with the same hypotheses early on. Unfortunately, as more empirical - credentialed - data came in that presented a more balanced view on WHO is most AT RISK (vulnerable) - basically very frail 80 year olds, or anyone with the metabolic presentation of a frail 80 year old, the govt agencies and the 'msm' stuck to the same, naive, view from early 2020.
FYI: Meta analysis.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(22)02465-5/fulltext
CDC: Natural Immunity Offered Stronger Protection Against COVID Than Vaccines During Delta Wave
https://fee.org/articles/cdc-natural-immunity-offered-stronger-protection-against-covid-than-vaccines-during-delta-wave/
SARS-CoV-2-naïve vaccinees had a 13.06-fold (95% CI, 8.08 to 21.11) increased risk for breakthrough infection with the Delta variant compared to those previously infected, when the first event (infection or vaccination) occurred during January and February of 2021. This study demonstrated that natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1
What's the matter with you Lorna? I found these references in under 60 seconds. If I could do it why can't you?
You're just trying to harass, not really find out if natural immunity is superior to vax immunity.
You reported that the Lancet study stated that "over time, it makes the vaccinated more susceptible to the disease the vaccine is intended to prevent." I cannot find that remark in the Lancet studies I found. Can you help me out here ?
There is more than one Lancet study and they compare original immunity with the immunity achieved by having had Covid. Many European countries, when it came to limitation re. travel etc., equated a proven case of Covid with having been vaxed. So no news there, at least not for me. But maybe for you.
The complex and detailed (meta) study also indicates that immunity wanes, differently when it comes to the various variants that have popped up. So both types of immunity work, but the achieved immunity for both has a shelf-life. It peters out, becomes after a period to weak to be real protection. Maybe some people become infected again, without symptoms, and acquire additional natural protection. Maybe for the unvaxed that works better than for the vaxed. We need more research into that.
I have no buyers remorse. I waited for about 18 months after my original infection and then went for a shot. As said, I do not need another round of Covid (I thought I was dying) and I decided that the shot was the lesser of two evils for me.
That said, I was appalled that 1. the first Covid shot given, on tv, was done incorrectly (giver standing, receiver sitting) - I emailed the CDC about this, 2. that when in the UK it was discovered how a longer period between the two mRNA shots gave better results, the US stubbornly adhered to the two week-period, 3. that young children/teenagers were vaxed without more research being done.
Umm. You're quoting from the wrong post.
The one where I quoted from the abstract included these words: "Recently, The Lancet published a study on the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines and the waning of immunity with time. The study showed that immune function among vaccinated individuals 8 months after the administration of two doses of COVID-19 vaccine was lower than that among the unvaccinated individuals.
Here's the link. Again: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35659687/
So. Are your claiming I mischaracterized words from the abstract when I wrote, "over time, it makes the vaccinated more susceptible to the disease the vaccine is intended to prevent"?
If so, help me out. How is that different from "The study showed that IMMUNE FUNCTION among vaccinated individuals 8 months after the administration of two doses of COVID-19 vaccine WAS LOWER THAN that among the unvaccinated individuals" ?
You had to have read my post with the direct quote and the link to the study, b/c you replied to it. Unless you replied without reading it. But that can't be, b/c you said you had read about the study.
I still want to know, are you aware the government now concedes natural immunity is at least equal to immunity from the vaccine?
For a long time, the government said that wasn't true, vax immunity was far superior. It was part of their drive to make people take the vax. And you have to see where I'm going with this. You had covid. Whatever natural immunity you had, the government discounted it, and convinced you - and millions of other people - your immunity would be enhanced with the vax.
Eventually they had to admit natural immunity is as good as vax immunity. You may think the jab is 0 risk. If you're right, no harm. I don't think it's 0 risk. Whatever the risk is, you accepted it without getting any benefit. b/c the government - well, I'll be kind and say they misinformed you. Just my opinion, they lied.
You're still saying stuff like nobody ever said the vax would stop covid. Yes, they did say it. And you're saying the vax was meant not to stop the disease, but to reduce the disease severity. That's been discredited by expert researchers in the field. It doesn't do that. I don't blame you, b/c State Media keeps this stuff low. They don't want the public to be informed.
That doesn't mean you have to remain uninformed. The info is out there, but it's not going to be spoon-fed to you. You'll have to seek it out. This substack is a good start, but don't stop here.