here’s more perspective
you are an island nation without a border problem like the US has, with much less international travel/flights
compare to our Hawaii.
your post provides no support that masks do squat. (just like fauci used to say)
here’s some additional perspective. the red line is the implementation of mask mandate. see any difference?
2 Likes
wait… you mean its okay to fudge the truth to prevent a hoarding panic that will make things worse?
2 Likes
which was still not the point, the only point being made was that immunity=immunity. of course a vaccine is preferable.
JayJay
85
Sure they do…look at this sentence:
The campaign against naturally-acquired immunity, and antibodies in particular, is singularly bizarre in the face of a vaccine “solution” that triggers a naturally-occurring immune response.
Why is a campaign against naturally-acquired immunity “bizarre”?
There is a campaign against it BECAUSE WE DON’T PEOPLE TO GET SICK. That’s precisely why a vaccine is “better”.
It’s not “bizarre” in the slightest…unless one feels we should encourage it to “move things along”.
JayJay
86
Remember that whole paragraph Angra quoted was in response to this tweet by the CDC:
While getting #COVID19 may offer some natural protection, the risk of severe illness and death from COVID-19 far outweighs any benefits of natural immunity. Getting a COVID-19 #vaccine will help protect you without having to be sick. Learn more: https://bit.ly/3fcCcoX.
So the definition of “better” according to the CDC was acquiring immunity without the risk of getting sick.
you should try reading it in context… may help.
in context, all they’re saying is that whether you get immunity from the vaccine or from exposure makes no difference to the immunity. they are saying we don’t need to vaccinate people who have already contracted covid and we can count them as “immune”. I’m not certain they’re 100% correct, but they are not advocating getting sick to gain immunity.
1 Like
JayJay
89
I just provided the context.
They were responding to a CDC tweet where the CDC said the vaccine was better because one could acquire immunity without the risk of getting sick.
That is the ONLY way the CDC was “campaigning” that the vaccine was “better”.
So it’s this group’s desire to argue against that stance that was “bizarre”.
they weren’t replying to anything, stop making ■■■■ up. they were stating a simple fact. immunity=immunity. Is it preferable to gain immunity from the vaccine? Of course it is. Does it make the immunity itself better? No.
JayJay
91
Just stop it. Why do you insist on arguing against the facts before your very eyes?
Of COURSE they were responding to the tweet!
They put the link to the tweet in the paragraph where they said there was a “campaign against natural immunity”!
Why do we have to go through five minutes of back and forth over obvious friggin’ reality?
because your reality isn’t exactly reality. they were not speaking to how immunity is gained, just that there was no difference in the result once it was gained. the cdc is recommending everyone, including people who have already had and recovered get vaccinated. they find it bizarre for people who have already gained immunity to be advised to gain immunity again when the objectibve is to get as many people immune as possible. wouldn’t those shots be better used on people who are not already immune?
1 Like
WuWei
93
Because it ignores every other way “immunity” occurs. “Sole solution” might have been better.
Fair enough, but just to clarify, getting sick with COVID does not offer the same protection as a vaccine.
You have basically two responses to infection, a Myeloid response and a Lymphoid response. Myeloid is the “first responder” and Lymphoid is the “calvary”, so to speak.
Myeloid responses are scorched earth, killer cells are sent to destroy the pathogen along with all the surrounding tissue, which can damage organs, like the lungs, where the pathogen tends to cluster. There is also a ton of inflammation due to other myeloid agents, cytokines, being released to stem the infection.
Lymphoid responses are usually up next, T cells learn about the pathogen and can specifically target the pathogen while sparing the adjacent tissue.
What has made COVID so nasty is that the Lymphoid response is so inadequate, and the Myeloid response so prevalent. Even after recovering you may have generated so little T cell immunity that you could actually catch it again.
The vaccine is pure lymphoid response.
tnt
95
Your posts are very helpful. Thanks for taking the time.
A team member of ours tested postive on a rapid test, negative on a PCR, and was sick for two weeks.
His doc said ‘dude, you have covid’, but then a month later he tested negative for anti-bodies. Could this be because he didn’t generate enough of a lymphoid response? And might that be becuase the viral load was low enough as to test neg. on one test, while pos. on another?
Kind of a puzzle, and he’s still strugling with after effects that are consistent with Covid according to his doc.
1 Like
tnt
96
Yeah, but it is unknown if that is true. We don’t know for sure how long either immunity lasts really.
That is precisely what happened. Pure Myeloid response, very little lymphoid and thus very little antibody generation. This is why COVID is so lethal, it is all scorched earth.
T cell immunity can last a lifetime, if it learns the lesson well. With boosters, we can get this under control long term.
WuWei
99
Should those who have had it be moved down on the list?
A matter of debate.
On one hand, the patient should have at least some antibodies present, but not guaranteed it is even a traceable amount.
On the other hand, if they caught it once it means they may be more vulnerable to catching it again over someone who has never caught it. Perhaps due to their occupation, habitus or location.
While I may not offer them preferred status, I wouldn’t put them at the end of the line.
1 Like
