The irony in the case for masking kids.

Note send your kids to school with or without masks doesn't matter a damn one way or the other.

 

There is no one size fits all. The recommendation for boosters is targeted to those most vulnerable. I have no idea what you're talking about. Natural immunity as in having a naturally strong immune system to ward off a first infection with this virus is a bit naïve and romantic. Yes, some young and healthy people survive this a lot better but this is not a virus ANYBODY should be messing with, because the death toll from it is not all; organ damage among survivors is relatively frequent as shown by 30% of student athletes at Ohio State University showing up with heart damage after mild and even asymptomatic cases, in an iconic study that they published.

Now, regarding a SECOND infection, yes, there is significant natural immunity but it still happens (people still get re-infected). The study some here are quoting to say that natural immunity is better than the one afforded by the vaccine has many flaws. One, it's not even what the study said; it studied 3 groups, the people who had the virus before, the people with two vaccine doses who never had it, and the people who had the virus before then took one dose of the vaccine. Well, even if the first group seemed more protected against a second infection than the second group against a first infection, the BEST protection was in the 3rd group... an inconvenient fact that the people quoting this study never acknowledge.

They also don't acknowledge that the study didn't address people who had the virus plus 2 doses of the vaccine, nor people who never had the virus but had 3 doses of the vaccine (with a booster which many studies show restores high levels of neutralizing antibodies. So the study was very incomplete and preliminary, not addressing all possible situations.

Also people fail to realize that this is ONE study, while others showed that vaccines yield better protection than the natural immunity achieved with the natural infection (by focusing more on the S-protein rather than a diffuse immune response to less important viral proteins).

And the most blatant part is that people are comparing apples and oranges... sure, having had the natural infection confers some immunity... but also confers lots of organ damage. Thanks, but no thanks. I prefer NOT to catch it in the first place. So, you're comparing the odds of getting it twice (natural immunity + re-infection) with the odds of getting it once (vaccine protection) and EVEN if (big if, because that's not what other studies say) the natural protection is more than the protection from 2 doses without a booster, still, to achieve that better protection the person ALREADY got the virus, duh, and already incurred the risk of organ damage. Yeah, thanks but no thanks, I prefer 2 doses + a booster and never catching it, rather than catching it in order to avoid catching it a SECOND time.

 

Exactly. 30% of ultra-healthy student athletes at Ohio State University got heart damage from mild and even asymptomatic Covid-19 infection. Death is not all, with this virus, a fact I've been mentioning over and over, and I'm glad that at least one poster, you, gets it.

 

Nor should you run around outside in a thunderstorm carrying a ten foot metal pole hoisted into the air. And natural immunity is having already had covid and survived it. Such immunity has been found to be both longer lasting and far more effective than vaccines.

 

Well, no, it hasn't. Like I said, ONE study found that it was stronger than 2 doses of the vaccine but they did not include an arm of the study with 3 doses of the vaccine; and also even that ONE study found that natural infection + one dose of the vaccine is better than natural infection alone. And that's ONE study; others found the very opposite, that the vaccines are better than the natural infection to prevent subsequent infections.

So, OK, here is the study you guys have been quoting:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1

Do observe the last line of the conclusion: "Individuals who were both previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta variant."

So much for the vaccine being useless, LOL. The study actually shows that the vaccines are useful even for people who have the natural immunity.

And like I said, this study is flawed for not considering other common situations, such as having the virus plus getting TWO vaccine doses, or having the two basic vaccine doses PLUS a booster. Another study done in freaking 1.2 million recipients, showed that a booster dramatically increases by 10-11 fold the titers of neutralizing antibodies, restoring the competitiveness of the vaccines as compared to the natural immunity.

This study is pre-print, not peer-reviewed, and I did post an extensive post criticizing the methodology when it first came out (with some persistence you might find this post in my posting history). I think this study would have received significant dents from peer reviewers, if it had been submitted for that. Also do realize that this is an Israeli study; beware of transposing to the very genetically different US population, a study done in another country that has its unique ethnic background.

In any case, in science we don't go by just ONE study. We look at multiple because sometimes there is one outlier, and several others that go in a different direction. Lay people tend to read an article about ONE study (they rarely read the study itself, which would have taught them about the third group of natural immunity + vaccination in this study) and immediately assume it's the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, but this is far from being the case, since studies with controversial and opposing conclusions are more the rule than the exception in science, so it's advisable to look at the whole set of studies to better inform the person seeking understanding of the phenomenon.

Let's say, about the same situation, 1 study says A and 9 others say B. What's the odds that A is correct versus B being correct?

Here, one that is saying the opposite of what you're saying:

This is the article about it, on the CDC website:

https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0806-vaccination-protection.html

And this is the study itself:

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm?s_cid=mm7032e1_w

You may also want to consult this cute infographic made by the Brits:

https://www.immunology.org/coronavi...rces/covid-immunity-natural-infection-vaccine

Johns Hopkins, one of the top medical school/hospitals in the world, also agrees:

https://hub.jhu.edu/2021/09/10/infection-from-covid-vs-vaccines/

-------

So, it's not that it "has been found" that natural immunity is better than vaccine immunity. The complete phrase would have to be "it has been found in ONE study that natural immunity is better than two doses of the vaccine, but worse than natural immunity plus one dose of the vaccine, other studies have found the opposite, and this ONE study didn't consider other common situations."

There are OTHER problems with this study too. I detailed all of it in that older post of mine. I won't have the time to look it up now. My lunch break is about to end. See ya.

 

Please qualify your statement (In bold) by posting the risk factor for children.

 

If the vaccines are effective against Covid's spread, why is Harvard's highly vaccinated population now experiencing high rates of infection (by using PCR tests)? Why is the same pattern developing in Australia? Why is it that way in India, Israel, Iceland and virtually every other highly vaccinated country in the world?

Why are Illinois high school students, highly vaccinated by government mandate, experiencing high rates of infection?

I won't hold my breath.

 

Sweet!!!

Another appeal to emotion, the Fauci Factor offered up by Mr. Rampart.