Official Thread: Coronavirus "COVID-19"

[koralis]

The key to these new pills is taking them within the first 3-5 days. Since lab tests take 3-4 days, a rapid test is your best bet if you're feeling ill.

The problem being th t the tests may give false negatives until about day 5

[Greasy]

The problem being th t the tests may give false negatives until about day 5

If you're already sick then the rapid test is very accurate. It's the opposite if you were exposed like I was, and never had any symptoms. That's why I waited and then got a PCR test.

[Java Cool Dude]

Whereas my lymph nodes got back to normal within 24 hours after my second Pfizer shot, my booster shot swelling went away after a whole week! No other side effects though thank God.🙏

[ugly]

3 snow leopards with COVID-19 die at Lincoln Children’s Zoo

Three snow leopards have died at the Lincoln Children’s Zoo in Nebraska of complications from COVID-19.

The zoo made the announcement in a Facebook post Friday, describing the deaths of the three leopards — named Ranney, Everest, and Makalu— as “truly heartbreaking.”

The zoo began treating the leopards and two Sumatran tigers for the virus last month. The zoo said the tigers, Axl and Kumar, have made a recovery.

The zoo said it remains open to the public and continues to take precautions to prevent the spread of COVID-19 to humans and animals.

Zoos across the country, including at the St. Louis Zoo and the Denver Zoo, have battled COVID-19 outbreaks among their animals.

[Greasy]

Getting my booster Tue. Gotta get my 5G signal back!

Booster acquired. Now I wait to see how I'm going to feel tomorrow.

[ugly]

Covid-19 vaccination paper criticised as 'disinformation' is being withdrawn, co-author Simon Thornley says

This is the miscarriage paper.

A senior lecturer at the University of Auckland says he will retract a widely-criticised paper he co-authored after a head of department publicly rebuked him in an email to staff.

Dr Simon Thornley, an epidemiologist at the university, co-authored a paper in an anti-vaccination journal that was used to incorrectly claim a link between Covid-19 vaccination and miscarriages.

In an email to staff citing Stuff’s coverage of the paper, Professor Robert Scragg – the head of the School of Population Health, of which Thornley is a member – criticised Thornley and called on him to retract the paper “because of the anxiety it is creating for expectant parents and those planning to have a child”.

“I am taking the extraordinary step in my regular COVID email to publicly criticise a recent publication by a member of staff, because of the public furore this article has created and to confirm with staff that I do not agree with the findings from the article,” Scragg wrote.

Describing the paper as being published “in a low ranking non-indexed journal”, Scragg notes that studies have shown the miscarriage rate is the same for vaccinated and unvaccinated people.

Thornley and Brock’s paper – which was completed before the correction, but published after – criticised the CDC paper on this count, and said it could not have concluded the vaccine was safe based on that data.

“The data presented in the original study could not be used to justify safety throughout pregnancy, and the authors needed to be more restrained in their conclusions,” Thornley and Brock told Stuff.

“That was our central concern and the fact that the article had not been updated after it was initially criticised by other groups was also of great concern.”

Their paper, however, went further.

Based on the CDC data, it recalculated a miscarriage rate for those who were vaccinated in their first and second trimesters: A shockingly high range of 82 per cent to 91 per cent.

Doing such a calculation, however, is mathematically meaningless. The only way for someone in their first – or early in their second – trimester to complete a pregnancy in three months is to have a miscarriage.

Thornley and Brock told Stuff they calculated and included that figure to highlight what they believed was an error in the original study – that it was wrong to make any miscarriage rate calculation based only on those who had completed their pregnancies in three months.

Their figure was nevertheless plucked from the paper and shared widely as fact among anti-vaccination groups and associated media outlets.

[Greasy]

Booster shot is kicking my ass today. Up all night with a headache and flu like aches and chills. No fever though. Advil is helping though. This is much worse than my second shot was.

[acroig]

Booster shot is kicking my ass today. Up all night with a headache and flu like aches and chills. No fever though. Advil is helping though. This is much worse than my second shot was.

Pfizer?

[Greasy]

Pfizer?

Yeah. This is much worse than my second shot was. Starting to feel better now though. Aches and chills are much better, and my head isn't pounding anymore.

[Silent-Runner]

over here the docs offices getting kinda trampled .... almost impossible to get a date for a booster shot. Also numbers still going through the roof. jesus, i'm so tired of this bs

[Java Cool Dude]

Yeah. This is much worse than my second shot was. Starting to feel better now though. Aches and chills are much better, and my head isn't pounding anymore.

3rd shot was much worse for both my wife and I; hers was 10 months apart from the 2nd and mine was 9.

[A2597]

....considering how hard the 2nd Moderna shot hit me, that makes me a little nervous if I get mandated for the booster.

[Java Cool Dude]

....considering how hard the 2nd Moderna shot hit me, that makes me a little nervous if I get mandated for the booster.

To be fair "much worse" for me was just a swollen lymph node for a week, I'm fragile that way!

[xCLAVEx]

Booster shot is kicking my ass today. Up all night with a headache and flu like aches and chills. No fever though. Advil is helping though. This is much worse than my second shot was.

Not even going to consider doing a booster shot until my work offers PTO specifically for the shot. I've already wasted two PTO days that could have been better served for actual days off for the last two shots. Not going through it again until it's officially covered.

[12Bass]

Not sure that avoiding a booster due to the side effects is wise considering that it produces much more antibodies than the second dose, giving longer and more robust protection from hospitalization and death, plus better protection against Delta. So, the trade off is a little suffering now to avoid serious suffering and/or death later. Will get mine when available.

[SirBaron]

Is there any proof that it gives you much more antibodies, or. Is just making up for the degradation from the time since the last shot.

Until you need a booster booster and then a booster booster booster etc.

Not sayinf to not get it of course, but kinda getting tired Of the never ending chase.

[xCLAVEx]

Not sure that avoiding a booster due to the side effects is wise considering that it produces much more antibodies than the second dose, giving longer and more robust protection from hospitalization and death, plus better protection against Delta. So, the trade off is a little suffering now to avoid serious suffering and/or death later. Will get mine when available.

More avoiding it because I don't want to waste PTO time for a guaranteed sick day or two. Besides, I'm low risk anyway having had both covid and the original shots.

[SD-[Inc]]

I am 61 and my wife is 56. We both boosted and had some side effects. I worked the whole day after my shot and felt it. Made me cranky but didn’t slow my day down. For most people, the after effects are mild and last less than a day. It is definitely different with everyone. But, not every experience is a bad one. I think it felt about the same as the second shot. But lasted a little longer. For us, it was no big deal.

[bill dennison]

i've participated enough in covid for now

i need a lot more data on the booster after having breakthrough delta with a side of monoclonal antibodies on top first


but they are doing wonders for pfizer & moderna stock

[Greasy]

Feeling much better now. Today and last night sucked though.

[12Bass]

Is there any proof that it gives you much more antibodies, or. Is just making up for the degradation from the time since the last shot.

Until you need a booster booster and then a booster booster booster etc.

Not sayinf to not get it of course, but kinda getting tired Of the never ending chase.

Yes. More below. Have seen other sources previously but can't find them at the moment.

SARS‐CoV‐2 is a novel coronavirus. We're learning as we go. Mutations are creating new variants. While, obviously, most of us want to put this behind us, the virus keeps on going and immunity fades over time... so boosters are required if you want to keep out of the hospital.

https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/moderna-covid-19-booster-may-protect-against-variants

The researchers analyzed antibody responses at points before and after the boosters. They also measured T and B cells—immune cells vital to protecting against the virus and forming an immune memory in case the virus is encountered again.

Both boosters increased levels of neutralizing antibodies against all known SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern. The increases lasted for at least eight weeks after the boosters. Antibody levels were significantly higher post-boost than after the first two doses. While it’s unknown what antibody levels are needed for immunity, higher levels indicate greater protection.

The researchers also saw evidence that the boosters improved immune memory. Boosters rapidly restored memory B cells and T cells important for long-term protection against COVID-19.

Nine weeks following the boosters, macaques were exposed to the beta COVID-19 variant. The boosters protected the animals, limiting the virus’ ability to replicate in the lungs and nose. Viral levels were low or undetectable in the lungs and significantly reduced in the nose. This suggests that boosters may help limit the spread of infection in addition to protecting against disease.

Lastly, a measure of how the immune system adapts over time and increases the quality of the antibodies it produces continued to rise during the months after initial vaccination. Boosters caused a further improvement in this measure. Taken together, the results suggest that boosters can help to ensure strong and lasting immune protection against SARS-CoV-2. Both forms of the booster performed equally well at inducing neutralizing antibodies and preventing infection.

“Our results suggest that COVID-19 booster vaccines may significantly increase immunity against the virus,” Seder says. “Boosters may prevent severe illness or death, particularly among older adults and those with pre-existing health conditions. They could also potentially limit mild infection and transmission.”

[bill dennison]

Moderna COVID-19 booster may protect against variants

and i may win the powerball if i buy a ticket

...
got to take my sister in tomorow she had her two covid shots and now has the one virus they wouldn't give her a vaccine with it or for a while after it ......shingles

[acroig]

Feeling much better now. Today and last night sucked though.

[pax]

The border ifs finally reopening without tests in December. We can thank the vaccine for finally letting us out and right before cabin fever season. Not that we havent had cabin fever up here for almost 2 years now.

And in other vaccine news it looks like working alzheimers vaccine is showing promising results.

https://www.alzheimersresearchuk.org/potential-vaccine-against-alzheimers-show-promise-in-mice/

A team of scientists have developed a vaccine that reduces Alzheimer’s symptoms in mice with features of the disease. The scientific journal, Molecular Psychiatry, published the discovery today (Monday 15 November).

What did the scientists do?
A research team at the University Medical Center Göttingen and University of Leicester collaborated with scientists at the contract research organisation, LifeArc, to develop a new treatment approach for the leading cause of dementia.

Alzheimer’s disease affects roughly two thirds of all people with dementia in the UK.

Using two types of mice with features of Alzheimer’s disease, the scientists looked at the effect of injecting an antibody and engineered vaccine they developed.

The treatments target a shortened form of the hallmark Alzheimer’s protein, amyloid, which other Alzheimer’s drugs in development have not targeted.

What did they find?
Researchers looked at PET brain scans of the mice after treatment. They found treatment improved brain metabolism and also reduced the number of brain nerve cells lost.

They also found the mice performed better on a behavioural task.

If this works out it would be like curing cancer.

[12Bass]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nz7wGLPOTxg

[yt]Nz7wGLPOTxg[/yt]

Overview of the current situation with vaccines, boosters, herd immunity, etc...

TL;DR: With Delta's high transmission rate, we probably won't be seeing herd immunity anytime soon, immunity fades over time, and we'll probably be needing more boosters until... nobody knows...

As I said to a friend not long ago, I think the COVID-19 pandemic will last at least several more years. Unfortunately, viruses don't stop spreading and killing people because we are tired of living in a pandemic. Pretty much everyone will be exposed to SARS-CoV-2 at some point, so continued vaccination is still key to staying alive and out of the hospital.

[12Bass]

and i may win the powerball if i buy a ticket

Recent study shows efficacy of vaccines against variants of concern. The comparison to winning a lottery is off by many orders of magnitude. Vaccines work.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.28.21259420v3.full-text

BNT162b2 = Pfizer-BioNTech
mRNA-1273 = Moderna
ChAdOx1 = AstraZenica

Vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic infection

Against symptomatic infection caused by Alpha, vaccine effectiveness ≥14 days after the first dose was higher for mRNA-1273 (82%; 95% CI, 80–84%) than BNT162b2 (67%; 95% CI, 65– 68%) and ChAdOx1 (63%; 95% CI, 59–66%) (Figure 1a). Vaccine effectiveness was increased ≥7 days after the second dose against Alpha for all three vaccines: mRNA-1273=92% (95% CI, 88–95%), BNT162b2=89% (95% CI, 87–90%), and ChAdOx1=91% (95% CI, 62–98%).

Estimates of effectiveness against symptomatic infection caused by Beta (Figure 1b) were imprecise or were 100% because of low numbers, or absence, of vaccinated test-positive cases, respectively (Supplementary Table 1). Vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic infection caused by Gamma was higher after the first dose for mRNA-1273 (89%; 95% CI, 76– 95%) than ChAdOx1 (41%; 95% CI, 12–60%), and was intermediate for BNT162b2 (63%; 95% CI, 54–70%) (Figure 1c). Effectiveness against Gamma increased after the second dose for BNT162b2 but could not be reliably estimated for mRNA-1273 and ChAdOx1 because of zero vaccinated cases. Protection against symptomatic infection caused by Beta/Gamma appeared to be marginally higher (but with overlapping confidence intervals) after the first dose for mRNA-1273 (75%; 95% CI, 53–86%) than BNT162b2 (64%; 95% CI, 54–72%) and ChAdOx1 (62%; 95% CI, 37–77%) (Figure 1d). Receipt of the second dose increased vaccine effectiveness against Beta/Gamma for BNT162b2 (82%; 95% CI, 65–91%) and mRNA-1273 (89%; 95% CI, 21–98%) but could not be reliably estimated for ChAdOx1 due to an absence of any vaccinated cases (Supplementary Table 1).

Against Delta, vaccine effectiveness after the first dose was higher for mRNA-1273 (70%; 95% CI, 64–76%) and ChAdOx1 (68%; 95% CI, 57–76%) than BNT162b2 (57%; 95% CI, 53–61%) (Figure 1e). Vaccine effectiveness was increased after the second dose for all three vaccines, to 95% (95% CI, 91–97%) for mRNA-1273, 87% (95% CI, 69–95%) for ChAdOx1, and 92% (95% CI, 90–94%) for BNT162b2.

By product, vaccine effectiveness after one dose tended to be lower against Delta than against Alpha and Gamma for mRNA-1273 (70% vs. 82% and 89%) and for BNT162b2 (57% vs. 67% and 63%), but was similar to Alpha for ChAdOx1 (68% vs. 63%). Two doses of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 increased protection against Delta (92–95%) to levels comparable to Alpha (89–92%), Beta (87%), and Gamma (88%).

Vaccine effectiveness against hospitalization or death

Vaccine effectiveness against hospitalization or death caused by all four VOCs was generally higher than against symptomatic infection after the first dose for all three vaccines (Figure 2). In particular, against Delta, vaccine effectiveness against severe outcomes after the first dose of BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, and ChAdOx1 was 81% (95% CI, 76–85%), 90% (95% CI, 82–94%), and 91% (95% CI, 72–97%), respectively (Figure 2e). Receipt of the second dose was associated with vaccine effectiveness estimates above 90% against: Alpha, Beta, and Delta for BNT162b2; Alpha and Delta for mRNA-1273; and Delta for ChAdOx1. Estimates were in the 80% range against Gamma for BNT162b2 and Alpha for ChAdOx1, and could not be reliably estimated for other VOC-vaccine combinations due to low numbers, or absence, of vaccinated cases.

[12Bass]

A look at vaccine versus acquired natural immunity: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bamaEMftg4

[yt]9bamaEMftg4[/yt]

TL;DR: Natural immunity after infection may be stronger and longer lasting than only vaccine immunity. Natural immunity plus vaccination is likely stronger yet. Side effects of vaccination are more pronounced in people who were previously infected.

[pax]

Ya but unless you are relatively young and healthy I wouldnt seek out the virus at least until we can see what another round of reformulated vaccination gives us before we catch it. We are still seeing some significant numbers in ICU from older, frail and susceptible people with the current vaccine. Tho much lower than the unvaccinated its still with very low rates of overall positive tests. ~80 tests leaving about 20 in hospital in NB and a third of those in icu tho those tests are usually only for those who are symptomatic so its a liberal guess as to how many are contracting it. If those numbers were to grow into 3 figures here icu's would still be overwhelmed.

[12Bass]

Ya but unless you are relatively young and healthy I wouldnt seek out the virus at least until we can see what another round of reformulated vaccination gives us before we catch it. We are still seeing some significant numbers in ICU from older, frail and susceptible people with the current vaccine. Tho much lower than the unvaccinated its still with very low rates of overall positive tests. ~80 tests leaving about 20 in hospital in NB and a third of those in icu tho those tests are usually only for those who are symptomatic so its a liberal guess as to how many are contracting it. If those numbers were to grow into 3 figures here icu's would still be overwhelmed.

My post was not suggesting that people get infected with COVID-19 to acquire immunity. That's not a good strategy given the risks. Rather, it is focused on comparing acquired natural immunity with immunity via vaccination.

From a public policy perspective it may be unwise to treat those who have acquired natural immunity as if they are the same as unvaccinated people without any immunity, especially if natural immunity is more robust than via vaccination alone. Dr. Campbell notes that the UK treats people who have acquired natural immunity as equivalent to being vaccinated, while the US and Canada do not. Current data seems to suggest that natural immunity from previous infection is no less effective than vaccination, so perhaps our current policies are out of sync with the science.

[koralis]

Current data seems to suggest that natural immunity from previous infection is no less effective than vaccination, so perhaps our current policies are out of sync with the science.

Well, the problem is HOW infected the people were. Dosing matters. Someone that had a light brush with covid and didn't really impact them probably didn't trigger much in the way of immune response. Someone that got it bad and beat it off probably has a healthy immune response now. On the other hand, vaccines are exactly the same from dose to dose, so it's quantifiable.

There's also the problem of "recovered infection" being a self-reporting thing. People can easily just lie unless it was bad enough to put them in the hospital and they bring their bill as proof.

Eventually none of this will matter as everyone gets exposed to some level or other, transmission goes down, and hospitalizations are minimal. We're not there yet though.

[12Bass]

Well, the problem is HOW infected the people were. Dosing matters. Someone that had a light brush with covid and didn't really impact them probably didn't trigger much in the way of immune response. Someone that got it bad and beat it off probably has a healthy immune response now. On the other hand, vaccines are exactly the same from dose to dose, so it's quantifiable.

There's also the problem of "recovered infection" being a self-reporting thing. People can easily just lie unless it was bad enough to put them in the hospital and they bring their bill as proof.

Eventually none of this will matter as everyone gets exposed to some level or other, transmission goes down, and hospitalizations are minimal. We're not there yet though.

Antibody, B, and T-cell production from vaccination varies individually as well, with older and immunocompromised people requiring more shots for equivalent protection. So, yes, dosing might be the same, while immune response can vary considerably from individual to individual. People with robust immune systems may have better immunity after one or two doses than immunocompromised folks have after three (should we consider immunocompromised folks "unvaccinated"?).

Quantifying actual individual immunity in millions of people would be much more difficult than simply counting the number of vaccinations. So instead of working with actual individual immunity data, policy makers push for high vaccination numbers, never mind actual individual immunity.

Note that none of this is anti-vaccine... just taking issue with the seemingly blunt policies in place. I think that the UK has it right by considering people who have recovered from COVID to be equivalent to vaccinated, provided this can be reliably established (and provided further research shows that natural immunity is as good or better than vaccination).

Put another way, I think public health emphasis ought to be on establishing a high degree of immunity, however that occurs, rather than pushing for high vaccination numbers without regard for already existing immunity.

[pax]

My post was not suggesting that people get infected with COVID-19 to acquire immunity. That's not a good strategy given the risks. Rather, it is focused on comparing acquired natural immunity with immunity via vaccination.

From a public policy perspective it may be unwise to treat those who have acquired natural immunity as if they are the same as unvaccinated people without any immunity, especially if natural immunity is more robust than via vaccination alone. Dr. Campbell notes that the UK treats people who have acquired natural immunity as equivalent to being vaccinated, while the US and Canada do not. Current data seems to suggest that natural immunity from previous infection is no less effective than vaccination, so perhaps our current policies are out of sync with the science.

I just wanted things to be clear because anti vaxxers latch on to anything to justify and spread their misinformation. People who survive an earlier infection may get reinfected. With the evolution of variants the safe way of doing things has to be to target policies to the vulnerable. Most people are healthy enough after a round of vaccine or natural acquired immunity but it really depends on a lot of factors to determine who remains vulnerable and might end up in hospital.

Gov policies remain on the side of prudence and getting everyone who doesnt have a medical reason to be vaccinated is the way to go. You can only be better protected if you get a vaccine. NB here just laid off 2000 workers who refused the vaccine today and cant say Im against it.

People who refuse vaccines on the basis of an early infection may use that same argument when/if variants and the newer vaccines that come out to deal with them creating more major waves in the pandemic.

[12Bass]

Dr. Campbell's video on the topic is worth watching, IMO. I changed my mind somewhat after watching it. I used to be in favor of mandatory vaccination, but now I can see cases where that may go too far and not actually serve the public good (e.g. where someone can't receive a vaccine for whatever reason, already has natural immunity, yet still loses their job because of it). If a person already has immunity, that is the most important thing, not the means by which they acquired immunity. Dr. Campbell is looking at it from a patient-focused medical perspective rather than in terms of blanket public policy.

[pax]

UK has had a lot of infections this year so the timing to see the immunity you got from the virus has a lot to do with what immunity you retain till now maybe more easily established there than here. They are at, officially, ~10 million infected and to leave a group that big unvaccinated may bite us in the ass in a year or 2...

This is an evolving pandemic with an evolving virus and to experiment with the one tool we have to in the midst of it that is known to work well at this time isnt an experiment I think we can risk. We will need yearly or even 2x a year vaccinations for the foreseeable future.

[12Bass]

UK has had a lot of infections this year so the timing to see the immunity you got from the virus has a lot to do with what immunity you retain till now maybe more easily established there than here. They are at, officially, ~10 million infected and to leave a group that big unvaccinated may bite us in the ass in a year or 2...

This is an evolving pandemic with an evolving virus and to experiment with the one tool we have to in the midst of it that is known to work well at this time isnt an experiment I think we can risk. We will need yearly or even 2x a year vaccinations for the foreseeable future.

Dr. Campbell cites a recent Israeli study which showed that the natural immunity provided by previous infection seems to be lasting longer than the vaccines. I realize Canada has gone "all-in" on vaccination, but what if we're making a mistake by disregarding what the science says about natural immunity and blindly requiring unnecessary vaccination of people who already have superior immunity? Speaking of tools, surely that is making vaccines a hammer and blindly turning every citizen into a nail....

And surely there's room for some nuance on this issue. We ought to be heeding the science. The goal is to get herd immunity. How we get there isn't nearly as important as getting there.

Vaccines are low risk, but not zero risk, and adverse reactions are significantly greater in people who have already had COVID. Natural immunity can protect against a lot more than the spike protein. Some people fall through the cracks with vaccines and it doesn't seem fair to punish them with restrictive public policy and possible termination if they already have natural immunity, especially if that immunity is already more robust than the vaccinated.

[pax]

The mistake of insisting on vaccinations for those medically eligible (99%+ of the pop) would have what as a consequence? The annoyance of a couple days of side effects that most vaccines have? There are the few blood clots issue but that was mostly J&J and the 2 main vaccines pfizer and moderna have very low risk associated.

But the consequence of letting 10-20-30% or more of your pop go unvaccinated and then we have a variant that might not just undo some of the vaccination but that of people who got early infections from likely less virulent variants could be catastrophic.

Determining the level of immunity on an ongoing basis would necessitate blanket repeated testing at a time when the labs are full on testing for covid. Immunity wanes overtime no matter how you acquire it so a yearly regimen of vaccination, and the policies for those who reject it, is the way forward until the science is sufficiently established to say otherwise.

Evolving pathogen evolving science.

[Sasquach]

At this point things are starting to feel more or less normal, or at least the "new" normal.......

Our numbers have dropped to a steady rate, and things are opened. i feel like the restrictions we have now (pretty much vaccine passports and masking, limiting capacity and social distancing) are all we need to keep this in check, enough to keep things opened as is.
I doubt we'll see "full open" anytime soon until we know this thing is kept under control. AB already made that mistake, i doubt they would want to do it again....but our government are complete morons so never know......

of course its also on the onus of people to not be complete dickbags and keep on following the rules and stop whining about MUH FREEDUMS!!!

[Nascar24]

Definitely not under control here in Michigan, you're new epicenter of the pandemic for a second time. More cases then we have ever had are happening right now. I just got boosted!

Edit: Now up to 8990 new cases a day.

[pax]

At this point things are starting to feel more or less normal, or at least the "new" normal.......

Our numbers have dropped to a steady rate, and things are opened. i feel like the restrictions we have now (pretty much vaccine passports and masking, limiting capacity and social distancing) are all we need to keep this in check, enough to keep things opened as is.
I doubt we'll see "full open" anytime soon until we know this thing is kept under control. AB already made that mistake, i doubt they would want to do it again....but our government are complete morons so never know......

of course its also on the onus of people to not be complete dickbags and keep on following the rules and stop whining about MUH FREEDUMS!!!

Its to hope that works but here in Sept we had every patient vaccinated and still got a 5% death rate over a month. Its still less than the ~10% death rate another facility in town got in the spring where they hadnt given out the vaccine yet but it shows we need probably a few years regimen of vaccinations to reduce this to an acceptable level.

Understand this is from a vulnerable and aged segment of the population but its a large segment nonetheless. Rules for those who are vaccinated should be modest and reasonable but Id keep em pretty strict for those who refuse it.

[12Bass]

Unvaccinated ≠ lacking immunity to SARS‐CoV‐2 if natural immunity has been acquired.

The rhetoric has become a heated "us against antivaxxers" narrative instead of "us united against SARS‐CoV‐2". I think many people have become far too tribal about this (including some here) and are looking for ways to punish others for non-compliance rather than looking at the science. Ultimately, we want to eradicate SARS‐CoV‐2, not persecute other humans.

If the science says that acquired natural immunity is equivalent or better than vaccine immunity, then we don't need to push vaccine mandates on unvaccinated people who already have robust immunity, as doing so is unnecessarily authoritarian, with no underlying scientific rationale.

Currently, the UK acknowledges this. We should too.

What we want is maximal immunity in the population. Vaccination is one way to move toward that goal, but it is not the only way. If some people already have robust natural immunity to SARS‐CoV‐2, and this immunity is better than via vaccination, then it makes little sense to treat them like second class citizens, ostracize them, and fire them from their jobs, etc.... as they are not likely to cause further spread, at least not any more likely than vaccinated people.

Now, I'll admit that we ought to seek to further studies to see if they back up the Israeli findings regarding the superiority of natural immunity. If that's what the science tells us, public policy should follow the science, not tribalism or crude, heavy-handed, political expediency.

As I stated earlier, vaccines are low risk, but not zero risk. Physicians and other medical personnel should do no harm. If vaccination presents a significant risk to certain people with existing natural immunity, then it would be unethical to vaccinate them, as the risks may outweigh the potential benefit.

We want is maximal immunity in the herd, not necessarily maximal vaccinations, especially if robust immunity already exists. The goal is to beat SARS‐CoV‐2 into submission, not our fellow humans....