Coronavirus

[xjtony]

1) Those who are unvaccinated are far more likely to harbor/carry the virus.

Viruses mutate into new variants (such as the oft discussed delta variant) only when they have a host to harbor them. The unvaccinated increase the opportunity for the virus to mutate, become more infective or more resistant to the vaccines, thus potentially increasing both the length and severity of the pandemic.

2) We know that nearly all vaccines are less than 100% effective (rabies be an exception) so those vaccinated are not 100% protected. The more people who are unvaccinated, the more virus spread there is and the better chance a vaccinated person has to being exposed and contracting the virus.

3) "herd immunity" can greatly decrease the spread of a virus because there are not enough susceptible host to get infected and spread it to another susceptible individual. Natural infection does not accomplish this, vaccines can (thus we no longer worry about small pox, polio etc.)

1. I think time will tell on this one. Everyone I've known who has received the vaccine has been told that symptoms will be greatly reduced if they contract the virus. I feel like more people will become spreaders because they don't know they are infected. Just that fact may skew the numbers some. If you follow the numbers nation wide infections between vaxer and non are starting to close. That being said a sever infection requiring hospitalization seems to be the big difference
2. I agree with you here.

3. Really?! Herd immunity is impossible without vaccines? I didn't realize vaccines had been around for millions of years. At least we know what happened to the dinosaurs now. But again I agree that vaccines can GREATLY reduce the time and loss of life involved.

I'm a government contractor and will be getting mine ( they won't give it untill 3 months after an active infection). I was in the Air Force so I've been pumped full of gallons of crap over the years so it doesn't really matter to me. I do think there are going to be some major setbacks with the vaccines and the battle between vaxers and nons does nothing but decide.

How weird, government actions that inspire devision in the country. Seems familiar.....

 

[85CUCVKRAWLER]

Name a disease that natural herd immunity has ever eliminated?

The theory of natural herd immunity sounds fine and dandy, but just doesn't work.

Spanish flu. What do i win?

By the summer of 1919, the flu pandemic came to an end, as those that were infected either died or developed immunity.

Arent you a veterinarian? Do you recognize that every animal on this planet (particularly mammals) are infected with, and defeat, a whole host of viruses and diseases literally every day they exist? That there is an untold number of viruses we have defeated without even knowing it as its exactly what our immune system has evolved to do over millions of years?

 

[Houndoc]

Name a virus that mutates that a vaccine has ever eliminated.

The theory of a vaccine sounds fine and dandy...

The only viruses eliminated to date has been small pox. Polio is very close. And all viruses mutate, some more readily than others.
And yes, the goal of COVID is not really to eliminate it from existence. Just like the flu it isn't going to happen. By vaccines can save a heck of a lot of lives and sickness that waiting for people to get naturally exposed never will.

3. Really?! Herd immunity is impossible without vaccines? I didn't realize vaccines had been around for millions of years. At least we know what happened to the dinosaurs now. But again I agree that vaccines can GREATLY reduce the time and loss of life involved.

Yes, vaccine save lives and shorten outbreaks. And the only viruses eliminated (small pox and nearly there on polio) are from vaccines. Other diseases just wax and wane on how many people they kill each year.
Vaccines have had a remarkable impact on human and animal health that evolution never accomplished.

Spanish flu. What do i win?



Arent you a veterinarian? Do you recognize that every animal on this planet (particularly mammals) are infected with, and defeat, a whole host of viruses and diseases literally every day they exist? That there is an untold number of viruses we have defeated without even knowing it as its exactly what our immune system has evolved to do over millions of years?

You win nothing. "Spanish Flu" is a variant of the influenza virus that is still alive and well- and killing people. Did the pandemic of the late 1910s wane? Yes, in part because large enough portions of the population died that spread was decrease (exact same way that plague outbreaks of the middle ages eventually dropped back to a more 'normal' level of death.)

And yes, we are exposed to many viruses, bacteria etc that never make us sick or that cause minor disease. And those don't go away.

 

[xjtony]

You continue to just adjust so you are correct. Herd immunity per definition is not eliminating the virus. It's very simply reducing the impact on a population to "reasonable" levels. This has been happening for millions of years naturally. Sounds JUST like your synopsis in your above rebuttal. Per definition 85% and up seems to be well accepted as the threshold. Seeing as our current vaccines only have a 70% effective rate it'll be pretty hard to get there under current conditions even if EVERY human got the shot.
Again I am a believer in vaccines, the current numbers just don't add up to what you seem to believe they do. Can these vaccines save lives? Absolutely. Are the antivaxers the scourge that are going to kill everyone else? Let's get real. Are vaccines the only way to save humanity from viruses that we have been dealing with for thousands of years? Probably a stretch. You continue to apply black and white thinking to a very gray world.

 

[Herzog]

Measles,
Mumps,
Chicken pox,
Etc.

edit: clarification. People used to get their kids together when they caught these things so they'd all catch it and then get over it, then have immunity to it. It was very common to do. The only thing the vaccines do is give you the same thing but at a defeated dose so your body will take care of it faster and you'd have the immunity. No?

Recommended reading on polio: the moth in the iron lung
It's still around and they call it something else, but that's an entirely new subject. (in before laser shark mossad tank comments or whatever the ****)

My take on the flu virus vaccine - it's a bullshit money making racket. Eat healthier and you'll stop getting it too.

 

[Cody]

My take on the flu virus vaccine - it's a bullshit money making racket. Eat healthier and you'll stop getting it too.

I eat like shit. I'm good for a cold or flu about once a decade

 

[Houndoc]

Measles,
Mumps,
Chicken pox,
Etc.

edit: clarification. People used to get their kids together when they caught these things so they'd all catch it and then get over it, then have immunity to it. It was very common to do. The only thing the vaccines do is give you the same thing but at a defeated dose so your body will take care of it faster and you'd have the immunity. No?

Recommended reading on polio: the moth in the iron lung
It's still around and they call it something else, but that's an entirely new subject. (in before laser shark mossad tank comments or whatever the ****)

My take on the flu virus vaccine - it's a bullshit money making racket. Eat healthier and you'll stop getting it too.

measles and mumps both controlled via vaccination. Chicken pox one I can see going either way on the importance of vaccine- minor disease to most with rare very serious complication.

And I have no clue what you are claiming by saying polio is still around, just renamed. Nonsense on that one.

 

[Houndoc]

You continue to just adjust so you are correct. Herd immunity per definition is not eliminating the virus. It's very simply reducing the impact on a population to "reasonable" levels. This has been happening for millions of years naturally. Sounds JUST like your synopsis in your above rebuttal. Per definition 85% and up seems to be well accepted as the threshold. Seeing as our current vaccines only have a 70% effective rate it'll be pretty hard to get there under current conditions even if EVERY human got the shot.
Again I am a believer in vaccines, the current numbers just don't add up to what you seem to believe they do. Can these vaccines save lives? Absolutely. Are the antivaxers the scourge that are going to kill everyone else? Let's get real. Are vaccines the only way to save humanity from viruses that we have been dealing with for thousands of years? Probably a stretch. You continue to apply black and white thinking to a very gray world.

I guess I will concede you point that 'herd immunity' by your definition ("the disease didn't cause human extinction") is possible.

Middle ages plague pandemics came under control after killing roughly 30% of the population in Europe. U.S. is getting close to the 2% of the population killed by COVID. I guess we have a ways to go while still being an acceptable plan to some.

 

[anderson750]

U.S. is getting close to the 2% of the population killed by COVID. I guess we have a ways to go while still being an acceptable plan to some.

Not trying to play a tin foil hat card here, but do we really trust the numbers that are out there? This thing has been so politicized and incentivized that I personally cannot trust the numbers. Reporting of deaths and the constant backtracking and redefining done by the "experts" in the government leaves a lot of trust on the table.

 

[xjtony]

Its not my definition, it's Webster's. Again I am in no way against vaccines. What I'm against is wild claims like "herd immunity is impossible without vaccines". Claims like that from either side are part of what causes all the mass confusion. It's already difficult to wade through all the internet BS to find real info. The numbers are fluid and data is changing. That's science. What we do with those numbers that cause the problems.

We know that the tests are really pretty unreliable. Example my wife contracted the virus, gave it to me, and showed clear in her test ( full symptoms and all). Mine was positive at the same time. Unfortunately that's not going to change. What IS changing is who is getting tested. People are being told that they may still contract the virus, but may have reduced or even no symptoms. They have shown the viral load in a vaccinated person is nearly identical to someone without the vaccine. This means that there are spreaders out there with no idea they are getting people sick. There are probably thousands out there infecting people with no idea they are. The fact that most of those people are not getting tested because they don't have symptoms is a HUGE variable. Of course more antivaxers are testing positive because those that have gotten the shot may not know they are spreading it and getting tested. And before it comes up these are not my words, these are doctor's talking to patients.

I guess my point in this whole rant is that we need to stop blaming the "others". Most people I know that won't get it, won't because they don't trust the people trying to force it on them. Some are just worried about future side effects, which is a reasonable concern.

I guess my overall view is
1. Vaccines, while a lifesaving and typically safe, are not the magic force field that some think they are.
2. Antivaxers are absolutely not the only current spreaders. Fully vaccinated people can spread the virus just the same

 

[mbryson]

Its not my definition, it's Webster's. Again I am in no way against vaccines. What I'm against is wild claims like "herd immunity is impossible without vaccines". Claims like that from either side are part of what causes all the mass confusion. It's already difficult to wade through all the internet BS to find real info. The numbers are fluid and data is changing. That's science. What we do with those numbers that cause the problems.

We know that the tests are really pretty unreliable. Example my wife contracted the virus, gave it to me, and showed clear in her test ( full symptoms and all). Mine was positive at the same time. Unfortunately that's not going to change. What IS changing is who is getting tested. People are being told that they may still contract the virus, but may have reduced or even no symptoms. They have shown the viral load in a vaccinated person is nearly identical to someone without the vaccine. This means that there are spreaders out there with no idea they are getting people sick. There are probably thousands out there infecting people with no idea they are. The fact that most of those people are not getting tested because they don't have symptoms is a HUGE variable. Of course more antivaxers are testing positive because those that have gotten the shot may not know they are spreading it and getting tested. And before it comes up these are not my words, these are doctor's talking to patients.

I guess my point in this whole rant is that we need to stop blaming the "others". Most people I know that won't get it, won't because they don't trust the people trying to force it on them. Some are just worried about future side effects, which is a reasonable concern.

I guess my overall view is
1. Vaccines, while a lifesaving and typically safe, are not the magic force field that some think they are.
2. Antivaxers are absolutely not the only current spreaders. Fully vaccinated people can spread the virus just the same

This sounds all to reasonable and thought out

 

[Pike2350]

Not trying to play a tin foil hat card here, but do we really trust the numbers that are out there? This thing has been so politicized and incentivized that I personally cannot trust the numbers. Reporting of deaths and the constant backtracking and redefining done by the "experts" in the government leaves a lot of trust on the table.

I trust the death numbers. Regardless if they may seem skewed....i looked at total deaths for 2020 numerous times back in December and it was in this thread back then. There were more than 300k MORE deaths in 2020 then 2019 even if you account foe natural increases of 8%/year as was common the past 15 years. Seeing as the big peak was in the winter it is very reasonable to believe that the 600k deaths reported is legit. There may be arguments about cause or what not...but 600k more deaths in the past 20 months is very reasonable and easy to verify per the CDC reporting ALL deaths when the year ends.

 

[mbryson]

You have FAR more medical training than my college biology teacher taught me (HALF of you will FAIL----what a douchebag that guy was). However, it seems that if one develops antibodies naturally from fighting off the virus through their own immune system, they would be MORE effective than an introduced virus to the body fighting off a dead or synthesized virus through a vaccine (or other method if there is such a delivery mechanism?)

So, an article (USA Today… not exactly a super reliable source in my mind but there are NONE of those out there) speaking to my question.

Natural infection isn't enough to protect against COVID-19, experts say. You still need a vaccine. — USA TODAY

Although antibodies from having COVID-19 may provide some protection, health experts say nothing protects better than the vaccines.

apple.news

Natural infection isn't enough to protect against COVID-19, experts say. You still need vaccine.


Updated 3:49 pm EDT Aug. 9, 2021


As concerned friends and family members try to convince loved ones to get vaccinated, many are met with the argument: "I already got COVID, so I can't get it again."


Health experts say that just isn't true.


Although antibodies from natural infection may provide some protection against the virus, evidence shows nothing protects against COVID-19 better than vaccines.


People who have recovered from COVID-19 should get vaccinated to reduce their risk of reinfection, which will prevent transmission and suppress the opportunity for more variants – like the highly contagious delta – to emerge.


“Natural infection will cause your immune system to make many types of antibodies and immune response to all parts of the virus, but only a small fraction of that response is actually protective,” said Nicole Iovine, chief hospital epidemiologist at University of Florida Health in Gainesville. “When you get the vaccine, the entire response is targeted to the virus's spike protein.”


A study published Friday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found unvaccinated people who have had COVID-19 are more than twice as likely to be reinfected with the virus compared with people who were fully vaccinated after contracting the virus.


The study included hundreds of Kentucky residents with previous COVID-19 infections from May through June. It showed those who were unvaccinated were 2.34 times more likely to be reinfected compared with those who were fully vaccinated.


“If you have had COVID-19 before, please still get vaccinated,” CDC Director Rochelle Walensky said in a statement. “This study shows you are twice as likely to get infected again if you are unvaccinated. Getting the vaccine is the best way to protect yourself and others around you, especially as the more contagious delta variant spreads around the country.”


Anyone can be at risk for reinfection, health experts said, regardless of age or health status.


'A surge of straight stupidity': The vaccinated are angry. That's understandable but unproductive, health experts say


Will COVID-19 vaccine booster shots be needed? It's likely, experts say, but the immunocompromised should be prioritized.


A study in April published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine found multiple COVID-19 reinfections in the U.S. Marines Corps, a population considered to be the picture of health. Among the 189 Marines who were infected from May to November 2020, 10% tested positive again.


People reinfected with the virus are more likely to be asymptomatic, which increases the chances of spread, said Michael Grosso, chief medical officer and chair of pediatrics at Northwell Health’s Huntington Hospital in Long Island, New York.


“Individuals who have partial immunity, and therefore susceptible to asymptomatic infection, absolutely place people around them at risk because they don’t know they’re ill, and we know now that they can transmit COVID under those conditions,” he said.


Those with asymptomatic infection can unknowingly expose friends or loved ones who may be older or have weakened immune systems, health experts said, putting them at risk of infection if they’re vaccinated, or worse, at risk of severe disease and death if they’re unvaccinated.


Although most people present milder symptoms during their second bout of COVID-19, Iovine said she's seen a fair share of hospitalizations.


A 25-year-old man in Nevada was the first reported case of COVID-19 reinfection in October 2020, according to a case study published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases. Researchers said his second go-around was “symptomatically more severe than the first.”


Spreading the disease gives the virus more opportunity to mutate, heath experts said, allowing more variants to emerge. According to the CDC, the delta variant accounts for more than 90% of sequenced cases in the USA.


“With this delta variant, you want to have the odds in your favor,” Iovine said. “You don’t want to leave yourself with excess risk, and that’s where vaccination is going to give you that extra layer of protection that natural infection cannot.”


Contributing: Christine Fernando


Follow Adrianna Rodriguez on Twitter: @AdriannaUSAT.


Health and patient safety coverage at USA TODAY is made possible in part by a grant from the Masimo Foundation for Ethics, Innovation and Competition in Healthcare. The Masimo Foundation does not provide editorial input.


50 states.
Countless
viewpoints.


USA TODAY brings you the
nation's perspectives for greater
understanding of today's world.


GET OUR FREE APP


Originally Published 3:38 pm EDT Aug. 9, 2021


**Updated 3:49 pm EDT Aug. 9, 2021**

 

[Houndoc]

Its not my definition, it's Webster's. Again I am in no way against vaccines. What I'm against is wild claims like "herd immunity is impossible without vaccines". Claims like that from either side are part of what causes all the mass confusion. It's already difficult to wade through all the internet BS to find real info. The numbers are fluid and data is changing. That's science. What we do with those numbers that cause the problems.

We know that the tests are really pretty unreliable. Example my wife contracted the virus, gave it to me, and showed clear in her test ( full symptoms and all). Mine was positive at the same time. Unfortunately that's not going to change. What IS changing is who is getting tested. People are being told that they may still contract the virus, but may have reduced or even no symptoms. They have shown the viral load in a vaccinated person is nearly identical to someone without the vaccine. This means that there are spreaders out there with no idea they are getting people sick. There are probably thousands out there infecting people with no idea they are. The fact that most of those people are not getting tested because they don't have symptoms is a HUGE variable. Of course more antivaxers are testing positive because those that have gotten the shot may not know they are spreading it and getting tested. And before it comes up these are not my words, these are doctor's talking to patients.

I guess my point in this whole rant is that we need to stop blaming the "others". Most people I know that won't get it, won't because they don't trust the people trying to force it on them. Some are just worried about future side effects, which is a reasonable concern.

I guess my overall view is
1. Vaccines, while a lifesaving and typically safe, are not the magic force field that some think they are.
2. Antivaxers are absolutely not the only current spreaders. Fully vaccinated people can spread the virus just the same

The post that followed bring up some very valid points- mostly that COVID (like the flu, unlike chicken pox) does not appear to be a 'get it once and you are done' disease, which does make the idea of natural herd immunity even more unattainable.

It is true that no medical test is 100% accurate (false negatives as with your wife supports that case numbers are actually higher than reported) and no vaccine offers 100% protection. But that does not lessen the importance of either.

No matter how it is spun, the simple fact is that fewer people will be hospitalized and fewer people will die if the vast majority of the population steps up to the plate and gets vaccinated.

It is very frustrating to me to see so many people here refusing to get vaccinated while I speak with friends in developing countries wishing they had access to the vaccines to help them come out of the extreme impacts of the pandemic. Very sad, really.

 

[Houndoc]

Not trying to play a tin foil hat card here, but do we really trust the numbers that are out there? This thing has been so politicized and incentivized that I personally cannot trust the numbers. Reporting of deaths and the constant backtracking and redefining done by the "experts" in the government leaves a lot of trust on the table.

I can't say there is a reason to distrust the numbers, other than that they make us uncomfortable.

The steps that are taken, from the individual doctors on up to state health departments, to confirm that COVID is the cause of death are very extensive. Contrary to what some claim, not everyone who has COVID at the time of death is even counted- it must be shown that they would not have died at that time had they not been infected.

 

[mbryson]

The post that followed bring up some very valid points- mostly that COVID (like the flu, unlike chicken pox) does not appear to be a 'get it once and you are done' disease, which does make the idea of natural herd immunity even more unattainable.

It is true that no medical test is 100% accurate (false negatives as with your wife supports that case numbers are actually higher than reported) and no vaccine offers 100% protection. But that does not lessen the importance of either.

No matter how it is spun, the simple fact is that fewer people will be hospitalized and fewer people will die if the vast majority of the population steps up to the plate and gets vaccinated.

It is very frustrating to me to see so many people here refusing to get vaccinated while I speak with friends in developing countries wishing they had access to the vaccines to help them come out of the extreme impacts of the pandemic. Very sad, really.

So, with your medical knowledge, can you enlighten us to why a vaccine is more effective than internally produced antibodies? From my understanding COVID is basically a "common cold" variant and that's why there's a vaccine that was able to be "engineered" against it's "signature" (Moderna and Phizer according to my understanding)? So this "immunity" against variants is possibly only good against the EXACT variant (like a common cold?) that the body has already had?

How does the vaccine protect better than the antibody?

 

[xjtony]

It is very frustrating to me to see so many people here refusing to get vaccinated while I speak with friends in developing countries wishing they had access to the vaccines to help them come out of the extreme impacts of the pandemic. Very sad, really.

I'd say this same sentiment could be applied to more than just this vaccine. I've wondered recently if some of these fairly new prep drugs for HIV are being distributed to countries in Africa where they are really needed, or if they are just for folks in developed countries with the $$$.

I think that a lot of people are weary of a new vaccine (or really any medication) but the difference is that here we have options. I work with a guy who doesn't feel comfortable getting it. He lives in Vernon and works on Dugway so his chance of contracting the virus is very low. To him his chances of getting sick from the virus are not much worse than having a complication from the vaccine, and he has the right to make that call. Its a much different situation than someone in say India, or even a major US city, where there is very little else some people can do to protect themselves.

I think we could all sometimes take a step back and look closely before we make a determination that "X is wrong and Y is right, period". I think that its been hard for people who live in more rural areas to understand how bad things have been in places like NYC, India, etc. We are lucky to live in a country were we have the right to make those choices. It better to try and understand why someone made the choice they did, and maybe be able to provide a different point of view instead of just accusing and attacking. My coworker has a very low risk of contracting, let alone becoming a spreader. In his case there is very little risk in him staying unvaccinated.

I'll throw my @Herzog tin foil hat on for a second here. Has anyone else notice that since the delta variant has come along to wipe us all out the federal government has come up with $4.5 trillion worth of stuff to spend money on? Interesting how that works...

 

[anderson750]

I'll throw my @Herzog tin foil hat on for a second here. Has anyone else notice that since the delta variant has come along to wipe us all out the federal government has come up with $4.5 trillion worth of stuff to spend money on? Interesting how that works...

Never let a good crisis go to waste.

 

[Houndoc]

So, with your medical knowledge, can you enlighten us to why a vaccine is more effective than internally produced antibodies? From my understanding COVID is basically a "common cold" variant and that's why there's a vaccine that was able to be "engineered" against it's "signature" (Moderna and Phizer according to my understanding)? So this "immunity" against variants is possibly only good against the EXACT variant (like a common cold?) that the body has already had?

How does the vaccine protect better than the antibody?

I would not say that COVID is a 'variant of the common cold' at all. Many of the viruses that cause 'colds' are corona viruses, as is COVID-19. But they are not closely related at all, any more than your house cat and a tiger are lumped together as felines.

As to why a vaccine may trigger a better immune response and longer lasting immunity than a natural occurring infection, my understanding is that the vaccines are able to use a both a more purified, specific viral particle that stimulate the immune response and in a higher concentration than what the body is exposed to in a naturally occurring infection.

 

[mbryson]

I would not say that COVID is a 'variant of the common cold' at all. Many of the viruses that cause 'colds' are corona viruses, as is COVID-19. But they are not closely related at all, any more than your house cat and a tiger are lumped together as felines.

As to why a vaccine may trigger a better immune response and longer lasting immunity than a natural occurring infection, my understanding is that the vaccines are able to use a both a more purified, specific viral particle that stimulate the immune response and in a higher concentration than what the body is exposed to in a naturally occurring infection.

If COVID-19 is not that similar to the "common cold", how were the drug companies able to come up with a vaccine (3-4 to my knowledge) so fast? Maybe a year development at best?