Those who get vaccinated are protected in any case, so what difference does it make? Okay, but I never get the flu. And I never get flu shots. So why inject myself with something when I don't need to?
If I could avoid it, then obviously I would. Though I'm not sure I see the relevance of this line of questioning.
Even 'carefully-researched' and fully-vetted drugs can be incredibly dangerous... anybody else remember the THALIDOMIDE horrors? The development of vaccines, especially, needs to be done with the utmost care and focus on rigorous scientific methodology -- and that's less likely to occur when conducted at "Warp Speed".... . "Who told these morons they know anything about 'Warp Speed'...?"
Same here. I got the flu when I was 19. This year, 40 years later, was the first time I had "flu-like" symptoms, but milder, for 5 days in January. By the time a vaccine is developed, most of us will likely be carrying the antibodies.
The flu will make people sick with or without the vaccine. Vaccines have low VE [vaccine effectiveness] rates and are least effective with the elderly...who are most likely to succumb to flu mortality (or any viral death). 2017-2018 Vaccine Effective (VE) Report: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/67/wr/mm6706a2.htm?s_cid=mm6706a2_w VE point estimates against medically attended influenza for all virus types varied by age group; statistically significant protection against medically attended influenza was found among children aged 6 months through 8 years (VE = 59%; CI = 44%–69%) and adults aged 18–49 years (VE = 33%; CI = 16%–47%), whereas no statistically significant protection was observed in other age groups.
Once a person's immune system breaks down, vaccines are ineffective. CDC shows effectiveness of the vaccine in younger, healthier people. Which begs the question, "Was the vaccine effective, or was it the younger healthier person's immune system which was effective?" I'm going with the latter.
No, those are your words, not mine. I quoted a study that found poorer children were more resistant to polio virus than wealthier children on average. But poorer does not mean they were living in filth or drinking polluted water. These were American children from the 1950's or thereabouts, not 5th century Europe. They had access to modern sanitation, clean water, adequate nourishment, etc. The main difference is that they tended to live in closer quarters with their families and their neighbors, and they tended to get more and varied exposure to their environment. That's a big difference from how you're attempting to characterize the situation.
Here is some potentially good news (if it turns out to be factual): https://www.foxnews.com/science/cov...rmaceutical-coronavirus-antibody-breakthrough I don't know anything about Sorrento Therapeutics or the "STI-1499 antibody", but it certainly bears watching for as long as needed to be certain that it is effective, and, safe. It is intriguing that Sorrento says that their antibody would have no side effects! I like the idea of a cure a lot more than than a "vaccine".... ("...bird in the hand is worth two in the bush....")
If there is no effective difference between naturally acquired immunity and artificially induced immunity, then what purpose does this distinction serve?
Wants to argue but doesn't understand the first thing about the topic. But natural acquired is more effective
The people shouting the loudest about "the science" often have no clue what actual science looks like.
I get the flu vaccine, have had the two pneumonia vaccines, shingles, tetanus why not COVID? I heard this morning the initial test subjects are showing COVID antibodies in their system. GREAT news.
Oh geez, because to acquire natural immunity you have to be infected with a live virus, "artificially" uses dead viruses or parts of them to trigger the immune system to create an antibody without you getting infected. In the end one you have the immunity there is no difference.
