Natural immunity followed by a single dose is the strongest immunity available supposedly. Many of us likely have cross reactive immunity from a previous Coronavirus infection from before the pandemic.
Regarding "better antibodies", that doesn't make any sense to me. More in number perhaps, but better? It's the exact same formula being given as boosters.
>So, yes, vaccination may not prevent being infected, but for sure it helps immensely in avoiding being hospitalized and shortening the infection, which does actually translate in less people being infected.
On the flip side, infections in the vaccinated who are asymptomatic are more likely to leave the house, simply because they have no idea that they're sick. Perhaps they end up at a restaurant with their mask off and turn into a literal super spreaders (if we're to believe Omicron is 4X more transmissable). This was always a potential problem with vaccines that only reduce symptoms and don't prevent transmission. If Omicron is indeed mild and highly contagious as officials in South Africa claim, this could be a huge issue with anyone vaccinated.
Good comment, also: the vaccinated are a fertile ground for mutations that eventually evade the vaccine.
Unless you have a study that backs up the claim that this mutation phenomenon only happens in people not vaccinated for Covid-19, you should probably stop singling them out. The phenomenon occurs in both.
>Vaccines rapidly lose efficacy when the virus they target has free real estate (vectors) in which to mutate.
The finger pointing game really has to stop considering anyone vaccinated can contract, get sick from, act as a vector/petri dish, and consequently spread the mutated virus. Unvaccinated as well.
>The laughably slow vaccine uptake in the US (while the rest of the world couldn't secure doses) is to blame there, not anything else.
Instead of attempting to blame unvaccinated vectors for the poor vaccine performance, why not blame the actual culprit - the barely tested (with only ~200 clinical trial participants), rushed (sorry, expedited) vaccines?
I believe the word slip is 100% intentional. It's the same kind of people that conflate, on purpose, "the vaccines are 95% effective!" with the wishful notion that they stop the spread of the virus.
The author refers to getting innoculated as "immunized" which is about as scientific as flat earth. The rest of the article isn't much better.
If everyone was actually immunized, we would have hit Fauci's early number of 65% herd immunity months ago. What's the herd immunity threshold at these days.. 85%? 90%? Utter quackery.
He's talking about transmission, you are talking about reduction of symptoms.
The vaccines don't prevent transmission. Now follow that to its logical conclusion: "we forcefully vaccinated everyone on Earth, why are we still having outbreaks?" Because... Well, you get it
After you sit down and mull over this concept for a while, vaccine mandates make absolutely no sense. Vaccine passports make absolutely no sense. Unless your goal is a slight reduction in ICU patients, forcing people to get it is a straight up violation of human rights.
"Pandemic of the unvaccinated" yeah, right. Blame the leaky vaccine, not the people who already have natural immunity.
Interesting how this peer review argument comes out selectively and not when something like Surgisphere happens and their bogus findings are immediately passed off as the ultimate truth.
I see that towards the end of your comment that you're inferring the page has issues with the statistical calculations. Here's the easy solution to get past that and get us talking about what matters: disregard whatever problems you have with the page and look at the actual studies. I think it's absolutely preposterous that people are disregarding life saving research based on which web site serves as a vehicle to get them to it. Read through a few of the studies as I have, and let's have a conversation around the most promising.
That's up to the reader to judge. I always advise doing your own research. For example look at the history of the Atlantic, which political side do they align with, have they ever said anything unbiased about Ivermectin, etc.
Another thing to consider: one is an article and one is a site which points to medical studies so it's difficult to compare the two. You can weave a biased narrative easily with one article. It's a lot more difficult to do that across 60+ studies.
The current count of medical studies that show Ivermectin being beneficial for treating or preventing COVID-19 is 64. Out of those 64, 44 of them are peer reviewed.
Or we could throw the baby out with the bathwater because this article cherry picked a few of the worst studies to shape a narrative.
Took a look through through that Intercept article. It reads like any of the biased opinion based drivel passing for journalism these days. Trying to conflate politics with medicine and say Doctors who risked their careers to speak up for Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin are "extremely pro Trump". Immediate red flag.
They call out Simone Gold for posting anti-vax content on Twitter by retweeting Joe Rogan's experience that he got covid and treated it with a cocktail of drugs including Ivermectin. This first hand account of recovery was apparently not true because... Ivermectin isn't shown to be effective.
Just because I don't agree with Nazis who want to take my guns away, doesn't mean I want to censor them. It's much more useful to engage with them and get into an open discussion. I stand up for their right to say whatever they like because it's a foundational human right. Think old ACLU or NPR before they went full authoritarian and now fully embrace censorship.
If the question is WHO to censor, I've always thought the solution is not at the server side but on the client side. Any platform where sensitive topics are being discussed (conspiracies for example) is going to be spammed, trolled, forum slided, etc. The solution is to have filtering on the client side take away the spam. Similar to how you have ad lists which block adsense, googleanalytics, etc. Allow ALL speech, and then filter out just the ones you want. Much better than having a tyrannical government or corrupt media or powerful tech giants do it for me.
And for a fun case study, check out what happened in India when they used Ivermectin at a large scale. If those stores haven't been censored yet, that is.
Just trying to get out in front of this.