MavsBoard

Now back to basketball. We really need to finish this topic. Mavs preseason starts tommorrow and I am missing the usual hype.

(10-05-2021, 08:14 PM)dirkfansince1998 Wrote: [ -> ]@"Jannemann2"

A+ for effort. There is no way to adress all mentioned points on the list in the length and detail they deserve. Would probably need an individual thread for every single one of them. I already tried to cut it short and only adressed a topic that made a lot of headlines in the last couple of days. Really had no motivation to do it for more than one. I am coming to this place to escape work life and talk basketball. Not to read even more studies.
You don´t have to answer the question if you don´t want to but now I am curious. What do you mean with former biologist. Already retired? Changed profession?

Agreed. Well done Jannerman2, thank you for taking the time to make the points that seemed too exhausting for everyone else to elaborate on, one by one. 

Now let's play some ball!

@"Jannemann2", thank you so much!

Well shucks.  I'm old enough to know better than comment on a thread like this.  But I guess I'm still just a little silly as well.  I have been vaccinated, and will get a booster in the next few months.  It was my choice.  A well informed choice, by internet, and otherwise.  I have a younger brother who is a doctor.  I always ask his opinion.  Don't usually follow his advice though. He used to drive me nuts talking about all the years and hard work it took for him to become a doctor--and become board certified, etc, ad infinitum.  What did he think I was doing in all the years it took for me to get to the point in life I was in?  Lounging on a couch, drinking beer, and watching TV?   I don't think so!  Doctors, and scientists (which sort of includes me) are not Gods.  It takes a modicum of intelligence, hard work, and education to be a doctor.  Pretty much the same can be said about anybody who is reasonably successful in life.  If we measure by monetary rewards, well, doctors may be gods...in a minor sort of way...

The internet is a tool...one of the greatest tools mankind has invented.  It can be use, or misused.  Gosh...there's just too much for me to say on this, and other subjects.  This is why I generally don't get into most threads.  Sometimes I just want to stir the pot, but not this time.

Well, maybe this time as well.  I had measles and mumps, and many other sicknesses.  But I was vaccinated for smallpox and polio.  I get the flu shot every year.  Covid IS a pandemic.  Why is it so hard for some people to get the vaccination this time?  The left and the right.  Said another way--the radical democrats AND republicans.

Radical theory:  There are other countries who are using novel methods to destabilize the United States.  It's worth a thought...

You see what I mean?  Too much that can be said...either way...or in many ways.

Want to talk about immigrants?  Me neither.  It won't do any good anyway.  

Everybody has their own opinions--and their minds are made up, set in stone.  Mostly...

In response to Jam:

I think you would agree that not everyone needs the vaccine. If you've had covid, you have an immunity and more than proper to assume you do not need the vaccine, which is why I stated 100% vaccination is pointless since there is no need to vaccinate someone that no longer needs it.

But, if you risk factors change, given your personal circumstances, then by all means consider vaccination as I have. Moreover, the purpose of this vaccination campaign, has changed quite a bit over the past year and it's clear that mitigating serious illness is the goal for now. I think we can agree on that. 

Point #1: Of course it's not the common flu. For reference, flu shots have both good and bad effects in people, which is why a great deal of folks do not take them. That much we both know. Flu shots are also very ineffective in cold/flu mitigation (roughly 29-40% over the past 5 years) but it does reduce the risk of death however in high risk people. The current database of vaccine side effects is over 600k and most are logged. Do they outweigh the benefits? I'm sure there are quite a few that will beg to differ. But they aren't completely safe. Relatively, but not completely. And we still have no idea how this will affect people long term, despite how adamantly scientist suggest no possibility of harm. 

The current vaccine is a therapeutic/prophylactic. For definition: "A therapeutic vaccine is a vaccine which is administered after a disease or infection has already occurred. A therapeutic vaccine works by activating the immune system of a patient to fight an infection. Like prophylactic vaccines, therapeutic vaccines aim to teach the immune system how to destroy a pathogen or other disease-causing entity (e.g. cancer cells), by introducing an antigen associated with it. But rather than training it against new pathogens, the goal of therapeutic vaccines is to persuade the immune system to fight harder against an existing illness."

This isn't misinformation. Understanding exactly what the vaccine is and how it functions is what was missing from the discourse over the past year and a half. This is why i call it what i call it. It's also why the definition was amended to fit this view (more on that later). 

Point #2: https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n2074 "Adults who have been fully vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 can carry the same viral load of the delta variant as those who are unvaccinated, a preliminary analysis of UK data suggests."

https://indiaeducationdiary.in/universit...ed-people/ "Anew study from the University of California, Davis, Genome Center and UC San Francisco shows no significant difference in viral load between vaccinated and unvaccinated people who tested positive for the delta variant of SARS-CoV-2. It also found no significant difference between infected people with or without symptoms."

Both groups carry the same viral load (more than likely not more, but there were some reporting of that earlier in the year).

Point #3: There is no data to suggest or intimate that vaccination helps against transmission or infection. The metrics you provided are post infection, nor pre infection. 

Moreover, "[The] Vaccines are designed to prevent serious illness, not to prevent infection or prevent any symptoms,” Dr. Anna Durbin, director of the Center for Immunization Research at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, said during a briefing Wednesday." https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/16/booster-...ptoms.html. Those responses are discovered in the animal trails to my knowledge. 

Point #-: We know very little about the immune systems' exceptional response to pathogens and other environmental changes like covid, but we have learned quite a lot in a short span of time. We may know what happens in some instances, but not why and exactly how (which is why it's very difficult to understand why each person responds to the infection differently). 

Sure we know quite a bit but crafting an immune response can be very dangerous. ADE is a strong possibility here as discussed previously. Cultivating a consistent immune response rather than a unique one in a large population of people is inherently dangerous. And from what i've read, this is exactly what we are doing--we are teaching everyone's immune systems to respond in a specific way, to a specific spike protein. There have been instances of adverse reactions to the crafted response that has seen the spike proteins roaming to different parts of the body and "flipping on switches". Furthermore this is a process that essentially provides a key to a persons defenses. For example:

"However, recent reports have raised some skepticism as to the biologic actions of the spike protein and the types of antibodies produced. One paper reported that certain antibodies in the blood of infected patients appear to change the shape of the spike protein so as to make it more likely to bind to cells, while other papers showed that the spike protein by itself (without being part of the corona virus) can damage endothelial cells and disrupt the blood-brain barrier. These findings may be even more relevant to the pathogenesis of long-COVID syndrome that may affect as many as 50% of those infected with SARS-CoV-2. In COVID-19, a response to oxidative stress is required by increasing anti-oxidant enzymes."

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34100279/

... or Merek's disease.

Point #5: 1 booster will be required--It's already in discussion. Additional boosters will probably be added since the vaccines efficacy wanes after 6-7 months. So, 1 will be the absolute minimum unless another treatment is found along the way. Suggesting that it's under debate is really being somewhat oblivious to the entire situation. Boosters are already underway in many parts of the world, and here as well. I mean there's really no point in taking a 6 month vaccine without boosting it for the other 6 months. 

Point #6: from what i understand, vaccine induced immunity is very specific/incomplete. Meaning, immunity from a natural infection is far more robust since it is building its response against the entirety of the virus and not simply the spike protein. In a way, you could say a proper response means the body is armed to respond to all intruders that look like covid 19--not the one in a wig and a mask if you get the metaphor. There is an Israel study that outlines this and quite a few other US studies that confirm it. 

Now the issue obviously, is that you have to take the risk of infection to gain the immunity but that risk must be weighed personally based on your demographic data. The reward of course is a lasting immunity, better than a vaccine, but it's your risk to make. Natural isn't always good, but in this case, it is. You have to make that call. 

Point #7: The vaccinated pose the same threat to the unvaccinated as the unvaccinated to the vaccinated. The difference, is that one has accepted a possible covid infection due to their own understanding of it or from being previously infected and, there's a greater then good possibility that any issues to have might be lessened. If they don't have it by now, it's by choice. Any reasoning outside of that infers a responsibility to someone else to take a substance to theoretically protect someone else. Either way, it's not right nor is it necessary or required for me to protect you by undergoing a medical procedure. If you're out and about, you assume those risks willingly or unwillingly. No one is obliged to protect you. 

Point #8: Breakthrough cases were coined at a time when the public believed the vaccine provided immunity to infection, but we know that was misinformation. The vaccine was never designed to do such a thing--it was for prophylactic/therapeutic purposes. The "science didn't change"--it was always that way.

Point #9: Agreed 100% will never happen and people should make up their own minds. At least in the US, we have the latitude to do this--not too sure about Germany but history may have already answered that question (sarc.). People reserve the right to fully understand and undertake any measure appropriate to protect themselves from harm, which includes the uptake of a vaccine. Calling it teenage rebellion is disrespect to the individual in general. Not doing what you want them to do is the freedom they exhibit in a few society and it's not a requirement for you to agree with it. 

Regarding the 100%
"The country [Israel] jumped out ahead of all other countries on vaccines, and 78% of eligible Israelis over 12 years old are vaccinated. But Israel has a young population, with many under the eligible age for vaccination, and about 1.1 million eligible Israelis, largely between the ages of 12 and 20, have declined to take even one dose of the vaccine. That means only 58% of Israel's total citizenry is fully vaccinated..."

The reference is to total eligible people, not kids and others (that do not need the vaccine). Same with the US. And i believe they are on a 4th booster.

Point #10:
before 9/1/21
Vaccine: A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but can also be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.
Vaccination: The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.

after 9/1/21
Vaccine: A preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but some can be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.
Vaccination: The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce protection from a specific disease.

Probably nothing major, but still. Perhaps that goes in tandem with their "realization" that the vaccines where far more prophylactic than they realized.

Point #11: Masks do very little as a whole against covid, but are somewhat effective with perfect usage, replacement, and type. The right masks, work for those symptomatic people. Also: https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical...ar-AANfurl. 

There are plenty of scientists on both sides of this equation but literally no places on earth where they actually work in practice for covid 19. In a test setting with all measures accounted for? Sure. But not at the local supermarket. And since the evidence for asymptomatic spread is scanty, you're essentially talking about logically masking symptomatic people that should more than often stay home. You may prove it in a lab, but real world metrics suggest that it doesn't work in actual practice.

Point #15: Expense isn't an issue. The restriction on Monoclonals is strictly political, which is why they were restricted in states along party lines (states with very high vaccination rates I might add).

Point #16: The death rate is very different from an IFR (which is a better indicator). This puts the rate at a fraction of all cases (hospitalized and otherwise). Measuring cases against deaths doesn't prove anything other than its effect against certain strata and not populations as a whole. Of the 700k, 95% were over the age of 50 (with side issues) and should consider vaccination, obviously. There's more than just the numbers when it comes to that. Most statisticians stopped used  death rate a year ago for this reason. We have a vaccine this year and the same number of people have died in 2021 that died in 2020: 350k+.

Point #17: I don't get your point here. Everyone will catch covid at some point. But the research regarding long covid and other related issues isn't even remotely tangible enough to suggest undergoing a vaccine to mitigate them. Especially without long term data. I'm not calling it fear mongering, but there will be associated risks for everything in life, including infection and disease. 

Point #18: The flu is far more deadly to a child than covid ever is/was. I'm not sure I need to say more about that.

That being said, there's a flip side to what you're saying in many respects. Science isn't settled and science is being censored and although I do not have your qualifications, i can only lean on those that can have this conversation with you, to do the talking for me. I'd rather that trove of information not reside only in a handful of individuals with life experience in biology. The good thing though, is there are thousands of biologists (ethically speaking) that are contradictory and honest in their approaches because being so isn't a given. 

My assertion is: we know a LOT. Problem is we're choosing to drive a four lane highway using only one lane. 

And this morning, Johns Hopkins’ Dr. Marty Makary, professor at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine says this....

“The data on natural immunity are now overwhelming,” stressed Makary. “It turns out the hypothesis that our public health leaders had that vaccinated immunity is better and stronger than natural immunity was wrong. They got it backwards. And now we’ve got data from Israel showing that natural immunity is 27 times more effective than vaccinated immunity. And that supports 15 other studies.” 

It's like I was saying...every so many days, it seems, another study comes out showing natural immunity provides more protection from the virus...every day.  

I've seen articles about people who have had the virus getting it again, but what is missing in this is the severity of the second case.  I haven't been able to find any raw data on that...or even any articles on it.  My concern is are people actually tracking this very important thing, to me.

This is one of the few recent articles from Healthline that talk about it.  
"However, it’s difficult to know how common reinfections are because scientists don’t routinely monitor for them, and symptoms may be less noticeable the second time around.

“A lot of reinfections are very mild. People don’t even realize they have gotten reinfected,” said Theodora Hatziioannou, PhD, a virologist at Rockefeller University. “So, I would guess that [reinfection] actually happens a lot.”

If you have had the virus, your re-infections are usually so mild that you don't even notice it...and their lead story is a got who got it really bad and his second case was REALLY mild.

As I said, I'm not against taking the vaccine if you haven't had COVID.  It seems to be a good stop gap, but I AM not convinced on being MADE to take the vaccine, especially if you have had COVID.  That's not okay and every day...every day...another study is released that supports that.  Like I said also, it was impossible to know this last year, because it was impossible to measure time that hadn't happened.

Now it has...the data is just getting more overwhelming (article from Science.org about immunity after having the virus).  It is disingenuous to continue to say "vaccinated" or "unvaccinated", when the truth is that "survived" is BETTER than vaccinated.

From the CDC website, it claims that you should get the vaccine even if you've had COVID because "Research has not yet shown how long you are protected from getting COVID-19 again after you recover from COVID-19."  They say that one study shows that you are 2.34 times MORE likely to get COVID if you have had COVID than if you have been vaccinated.  The study that they cite is a study earlier in the year from Kentucky with 246 people.  For example, the Israel study has 2.5 million people tracked in it.

More studies cited from this article above from Healthline...
"A study of more than 20,000 healthcare workers in the United Kingdom found that of the more than 6,600 people who had a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, only 44 contracted it again — less than 1 percent."

"These results, though, are in line with another study carried out by Dr. Stuart C. Sealfon, a professor of neurology, neuroscience, and pharmacological sciences at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, and colleagues.
This group followed more than 3,000 Marine recruits attending basic training in South Carolina, including almost 190 recruits who had a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection.
During the 6 weeks of the study, around 10 percent of those with a prior infection contracted another infection."

Why are we turning down 2.5 million subject studies - 20,000 subject studies - 3000 subject studies and keeping the base case a 246 member study in Kentucky?  I mean, come on...no matter what you believe, that is strange, and I'm not suggesting a conspiracy, but just stating a fact.

Contrary to the CDC, there HAS been research done...well-documented research from Israel, Cleveland, UW SoM, and many other studies (some listed above) that are not crackpots and kooks (there are crackpots and kooks, but they aren't ALL, by any means).  A telling sign should be "what were these people's reputation BEFORE they spoke out about COVID" --- For example, Makary was (and still is) a highly thought of doctor one of the world's leading medical schools.  He's not infallible, but he's not stupid.  He wrote out against the rising cause of healthcare and proposed ways to fix it.  This isn't some crackpot that seems to be trying to make a name for himself...and the data keeps mounting.

Here's a list of studies, some that contradict and support the Israeli study...  In fairness, even studies that support the Israeli study's (and other's findings) do still recommend the vaccine, but more in a cover your butt type of way by saying "here's our findings that support that, but more research needs to be done." (that's my personal opinion, so -- grain of salt for that).

I really think that at the end of the day, months or years from now, we'll look on the vaccine requirements and people losing their jobs, specifically people who have had COVID and survived, as a HUGE mistake that no one will really want to talk about for decades.  In a century, it will be an accepted part of history and a part, I hope, that we all learn a lot of lessons from and get better.

Again, I apologize is any of this is caustic.  I am getting more and more bold with my viewpoint, the more studies that I read.  There simply aren't things that we can measure without time, and in the short term, I totally get why people are shy to say this in leadership, because some knuckleheads will call the last cold they had "COVID" and run around like they are bulletproof, when they aren't...BUT, it's not fair to the MILLIONS of people who are safe, with study after study showing that, that they have to lose their job, not be able to go out or participate in things if THOSE people, who are most likely in better shape than an uninfected person who is FULLY vaccinated, while the less safe person is allowed to go free without any recompense..

That's just not right, imho.

I had it in Jan, got vaccinated in April. The choice should be made individually, not by the government. How these crooks continually get elected into office is beyond me. Stupid Americans!

Sounds like positives for natural immunity! I actually would prefer that option.

Thing is, to get natural immunity means you have to survive a COVID-19 infection, with associated medical costs, lost wages, possible hospitalization, possible ICU care, possible long-hauler symptoms, possible extended recovery time, possible reduced physical state, etc. All of which are worsened if you are older, overweight, diabetic, heart-compromised, immuno-compromised, etc. Anyone remember the truckloads of deceased in New York back before the vaccine? (when everyone was pining for one?)

So if someone is willing to roll the dice and hope they get natural immunity without dealing with acute or long-term effects, then go for it. Hell, let's just have infection parties. Oh, wait, some did that back in 2020 and filled up ICU beds as a result.

Apart from the personal cost of getting COVID, the un-vaccinated have filled up ICUs to the point that other medical emergencies are left in the hallways. Seems to be easing now, but let's hope we don't have another post-holiday surge like early this year.

I prefaced my first post with "no one wants the virus", and I'm not going to preface every post with the obvious disclaimers.

If we are going to have a legit discussion, don't create straw men that don't exist and take genuine posts made by sincere posters and lump them in with your fake group to make them look stupid.... That's counterproductive, arrogant and ignorant.  So stop being a moron.

I never suggested "vax parties" and that's exactly the type of ignorant stupid crap that people like you make up and attribute or attach to people to falsely discredit them when they can't actually meet them on an honest level when they debate and so they RUIN intelligent discussion.  When you can't just discuss, you make up crap and attribute or attach it to someone ..and that's lame.

At the risk of even more nonsense... we can't lament the 100s of millions of people that have had it, see the research of natural immunity (BY THE WAY, ALL IMMUNITY IS NATURAL BECAUSE YOUR BODY CREATES IT - it's just what triggers it and what your body reacts to), and then turn around and reduce people to two groups  --- Unvaccinated and vaccinated.  I suggested 3 groups, survived, vaccinated and unvaccinated and as I've said or hinted at in both posts, if you haven't had it, get the vaccine if you want.  If you have had it, I don't think the majority of the science coming out is trending toward that same solution.

But that's a you decision for you...and I'm not going to beat you up about it.

(10-07-2021, 12:06 PM)TXBamanut Wrote: [ -> ]I prefaced my first post with "no one wants the virus", and I'm not going to preface every post with the obvious disclaimers.

I'm sorry to tell, but we all will get the virus.

Otherwise we are locked away from society forever or dead very soon.

So I prefer to get in contact with the virus.

According to that, the best course of action is to find out, some way, if you can survive the virus. If you CAN survive the virus, and live, you're good to go. If you don't survive the virus, you're out of luck, unfortunate, dead...some such. But, you won't know, until you know. If you don't wake up that day, you lost the Covid 19 roulette.

(10-07-2021, 12:06 PM)TXBamanut Wrote: [ -> ]I suggested 3 groups, survived, vaccinated and unvaccinated

The EU-COVID pass works with a similar system. Vaccinated and fully recovered people have equal status. Difference is that the recovered status applies for six months. Vaccinated for one year. Recent studies and the impact of Delta indicate that different expiring dates aren´t necessary.

In the end the important question is. Immunity or no immunity. Vaccine data is easy to track. Previous infections can be tracked but we would miss a lot of asymptomatic cases. With the lack of knowledge about the virus we aren´t able to come up with a specific antibody treshold that could be used to verify the status. Research is on the way but it is possible that we will never get the required information from antibody tests because immune response is more complicated than a simple...antibodies/no antibodies.
A potential risk is the amount of people  that isn´t mounting a systematic antibody response. Especially in case of a low viral load, mild cases or no symptoms Also a possiblity when it comes to the vaccine. But less likely.

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/27/9/21-1042_article

But. Just like in many COVID related discussions it isn´t a one or the other situation. For fully recovered the best option is to have BOTH natural immunity and the vaccine (even mentioned in the study from Israel that @"TXBamanut" posted). Even learned something new. I thought the German/French guideline to give only one dose is the international standard. Based on the current data only one shot of mRNA vaccines is enough for previously infected. Additional shots did not lead to significant higher antibody numbers.

Otherwise the order is still the same. VACCINE > NO VACCINE. Not sure why any (even super healthy athlet) would risk the infection just to get natural immunity. The risk/reward calculation isn´t adding up.

@"Jannemann2" @"luka_skywalker_77" @"dirkfansince1998" @"TXBamanut"  and others with your very detailed posts and to everyone that has been taking time to chime in and contribute to this discussion, I want to say Amen! 
Well done and articulated my friends.   
Again, we don't all need to fall in lockstep point for point but I will say after our debates on evolution and origins on the old board, this topic clearly is the meaningful and informative I've seen on the new board.  Go Mavs!  

I will add that this topic and title was more centrally positioned around the topic Country and Freedom as it relates to the topic of forcing vaccinations into people's bodies.   That drew me in even though like most of you I am short on time. 

I never took the thread to be primarily about exactly how good or how bad the vaccination itself is in terms of efficacy and let's not forget, adverse effects but we can understand that the forced vaccinations issue and how vaccinations efficacy issue feel naturally connected. 

1) Even if the vaccination were 100% effective and 100% safe it would still not be necessary to force it into citizens bodies.  
Medical science and leaders of the free societies could persuade the public without strong arming and using the suppression of dissenting opinions. Vaccinations become an excuse to play on public fears and force a level of control over people lives that would never be accepted normally.  Then using precedence as leverage that  level of power control inevitably gets extended to future public/government policy and laws.  

2) For the mainstream forces to apply the label anti-vaxxer to millions of people including many Doctors, Scientists and Medical Professionals is not only a misnomer but it is harmful and dangerous.  If you look at this discussion alone you can see that almost no one is really "anti-vaccine".  Those types of labels are tools that end up dumbing down and suppressing speech. 

I remain firmly anti-forced vaccinations, period, for a number of reasons, both rational in scientific terms and moral in ethical terms.  
I think we will continue to see this strong armed control extend from the government to human bodies however.
We will see and are seeing a mass step by step diminution of the personal liberties that helped make America so great.  
As a Theologian, I will add this is happening in large part because the movement to take away personal freedoms is actually prophetic in nature.  It falls very much in line with direction the world will go according to the framework of biblical prophecies so in the short term so to speak  , we that fight against that movement will find we are swimming upstream and losing ground. 
It was given power to wage war against God’s holy people and to conquer them. And it was given authority over every tribe, people, language and nation. Rev. 13:7 

I won't digress further into that but I add it for a few of my friends that understand scripture to consider. 
There are things we have to resist even though for a season we know our views will not prevail. 
There is a genius to our God though that the worldly wise cannot comprehend. 

I'm vaccinated. I've also had a very mild case of Covid, probably delta variant, before getting vaccinated. 

I also work in healthcare.

I don't think we should refuse to treat those who are not vaccinated. 

I also think that any country where they require any type of medical procedure or any vaccine isn't really a free country at all.

Back to the science, for a moment, the one area where I find the greatest disagreement and concern with the science presented by the strongest advocates for pushing the vaccinations comes in the area of adverse effects. 

Here is a fact that isn't difficult to validate, if the will is there to validate. There is some percentage of people that are quite literally being harmed by this vaccine and even to the point of death.  I posted the  CDC's own VAERS website and the vaccinations.daystar.com link only because it there are people giving their own stories reporting about the harm they have suffered and they have provided that proof in every way they possibly can as an everyday citizen.  

They report to the VAERS website, they go out of their way to find alternatives to mainstream social media and share their stories because the mainstream media and big tech social media have literally colluded to suppress them under the label of misinformation or "anti-vaxxer".  

I see statistics referenced here such as this by @"Jannemann2" 

Quote:Current data is good enough to strike the "may" in your first sentence. The vaccine does mitigate serious illness. Here in Germany, our RKI (function comparable to the CDC I'd say) reports per 2021-09-30 for the cases monitored through the last 4 weeks:

- protection against hospitalization:  ca. 93% (age 18-59yrs), 89% (age ≥60 yrs)
- protection against requiring intensive care : ca. 96% (age  18-59 yrs), 94% (age  ≥60 yrs)
- protection against death ca. 97% (age 18-59 yrs ), 88% (age ≥60 yrs)

I get your point however again, statistics are never any better than the data inputs there are fed.  As I've said, its' anecdotal of course but I personally know a few people that have had serious adverse effects and yes even died some directly after taking a vaccination.  I also know for certain their case and the case of others that have reported about this have not been counted into anyone's data inputs.   
There are cases reported posted in videos on the sites I referenced and others and that include video evidence of to use your words  "serious illness".  Don't you have to add the cases of serious illness that might be caused by the vaccine to the total result from those cases of Covid-19 specific illness that were reduced in order to get a real Net safety profile for the citizens that are choosing to take or not take the vaccine? 

I'm really not trying to be alarmist here because from my own observations its clear that most people will not have that sort of severe adverse reaction however what are the real numbers?   I heard references that according a study (Harvard? don't have time right now to look it up) the CDC VAERS site which already documents thousands of adverse reaction cases is said to only represent anywhere from 1% to 10% of the real number of adverse reaction cases. 
 
Some people report trying to get counted on VAERS and not being able even get into the count and the site vary clearly isn't trying to make it easy for people see the numbers with graphs or charts or anything easily consumable.   

In addition as the 57 top doctors who advocated stopping the vaccinations  pointed out this serious issue in the link I posted earlier.  We have a vaccine where some percentage people that may have a serious adverse reaction also are being position to have no legal recourse for themselves or their families.  How is this acceptable for a vaccination that those same people may be been coerced or outright forced to take, only to have no recourse for damages to their lives? 

Yes, there is risk in every vaccine and every medicine, so no one needs to reply to me with that.  The question is HOW MUCH risk? 
Who exactly is at risk?  We know the older people are at the most risk but we also know that its only a certain percentage of the older people. 
Also since the young and children who were already at extremely low risk for Covid to begin with are being included in the vaccination numbers, isn't the real risk for those that might most benefit from the vaccine is being masked by quoting artificially low numbers including the young and children. 

There is also a factor where if people have adverse outcomes shortly after the vaccination, it is not possible for them or anyone to say definitively that it was caused by the vaccine or not.  There are number of very high profile and celebrity cases like this for example where shortly after vaccination, severe outcomes have occurred.   Usually they don't blame it on the vaccine, most take for granted it is safe, but the proximity to injections is very worrying to say the least.   

Again, none of this is counted in the numbers for the safety profile. 

If there is a major push to quickly get everyone vaccinated at record speed, are these people that getting adverse effects simply the sacrificial lambs for the greater good?  
What is the true number of adverse effects compared to say Small Pox which has been referenced as a precedent for comparision? 

There are some more alarmist risks I've seen and could easily reference you to from Doctors, some with a lot of specialized background in immunology and related fields that claim the vaccinations either are or could be weakening people immune system defenses against other diseases even though their risk against COVID is greatly reduced.  

I could say more but I'm going to leave those in a more extreme category of concern and discussion right now, but I do think its worth considering because the sources are also highly credentialed and experienced medical doctors. 

My main takeaway here is that the nature of this vaccine is still not tested enough to be forced on people.  Yes I understand that massive numbers of people have taken and it and they are fine but without serious efforts to get reliable adverse event and adverse effect data and with clear suppression of any adverse news taking place the public needs to know if their risk of adverse outcomes (compared to say relying on natural immunity) is .01% .1% 1.% 2% 5%  ?  

Do we really know?  I interact with a fair amount of people but my anecdotal evidence is far too small to take too much from however it does concern me when for the small sample size I have there are several cases.   

I do believe that the vaccines are being improved and adjustments are being made for safety (too late for at least a few of the early lab rats) and that has been pointed out here.
The least we can do is let people choose for themselves.

(10-07-2021, 01:28 PM)dirkfansince1998 Wrote: [ -> ]The EU-COVID pass works with a similar system. Vaccinated and fully recovered people have equal status. Difference is that the recovered status applies for six months. Vaccinated for one year. Recent studies and the impact of Delta indicate that different expiring dates aren´t necessary.

In the end the important question is. Immunity or no immunity. Vaccine data is easy to track. Previous infections can be tracked but we would miss a lot of asymptomatic cases. With the lack of knowledge about the virus we aren´t able to come up with a specific antibody treshold that could be used to verify the status. Research is on the way but it is possible that we will never get the required information from antibody tests because immune response is more complicated than a simple...antibodies/no antibodies.
A potential risk is the amount of people  that isn´t mounting a systematic antibody response. Especially in case of a low viral load, mild cases or no symptoms Also a possiblity when it comes to the vaccine. But less likely.

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/27/9/21-1042_article

But. Just like in many COVID related discussions it isn´t a one or the other situation. For fully recovered the best option is to have BOTH natural immunity and the vaccine (even mentioned in the study from Israel that @"TXBamanut" posted). Even learned something new. I thought the German/French guideline to give only one dose is the international standard. Based on the current data only one shot of mRNA vaccines is enough for previously infected. Additional shots did not lead to significant higher antibody numbers.

Otherwise the order is still the same. VACCINE > NO VACCINE. Not sure why any (even super healthy athlet) would risk the infection just to get natural immunity. The risk/reward calculation isn´t adding up.

I liked your post, but I will point out, that you are slightly misreading an important part of almost every study that I've posted that has shown natural immunity is greater (the data from the studies are really strong on that).  Each one that recommended the vaccine had that under the caveat of "more study".  They weren't saying that 100% the vaccine plus immunity acquired from the virus is the end all, but saying that they were advocating for more study on natural immunity being both lasting and better because they felt their study showed that there was something there to that.

So that's different than a blanket statement of vaccinated > unvaccinated, because that's not what the studies and those that did them said.  The truth is that many of them believe we should be studying immunity acquired by virus and peer reviewing the studies that are there to confirm what their findings have shown because it could take helps end the pandemic status of COVID.

That's all.

(10-07-2021, 12:37 PM)david75090 Wrote: [ -> ]According to that, the best course of action is to find out, some way, if you can survive the virus. If you CAN survive the virus, and live, you're good to go. If you don't survive the virus, you're out of luck, unfortunate, dead...some such. But, you won't know, until you know. If you don't wake up that day, you lost the Covid 19 roulette.

That's logically flawed and presented with a lot of slanted bias... Which is EXACTLY what I talked about in my other post.

(10-07-2021, 10:32 AM)ItsGoTime Wrote: [ -> ]I had it in Jan, got vaccinated in April. The choice should be made individually, not by the government. How these crooks continually get elected into office is beyond me. Stupid Americans!

You just reminded me of this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxsQ7jJJcEA

(10-07-2021, 10:45 AM)michaeltex Wrote: [ -> ]Sounds like positives for natural immunity! I actually would prefer that option.

Thing is, to get natural immunity means you have to survive a COVID-19 infection, with associated medical costs, lost wages, possible hospitalization, possible ICU care, possible long-hauler symptoms, possible extended recovery time, possible reduced physical state, etc. All of which are worsened if you are older, overweight, diabetic, heart-compromised, immuno-compromised, etc. Anyone remember the truckloads of deceased in New York back before the vaccine? (when everyone was pining for one?)

So if someone is willing to roll the dice and hope they get natural immunity without dealing with acute or long-term effects, then go for it. Hell, let's just have infection parties. Oh, wait, some did that back in 2020 and filled up ICU beds as a result.

Apart from the personal cost of getting COVID, the un-vaccinated have filled up ICUs to the point that other medical emergencies are left in the hallways. Seems to be easing now, but let's hope we don't have another post-holiday surge like early this year.

In terms of natural immunity, some people encounter COVID infections and will never even know it because they are asymptomatic or symptoms were so mild it came and went.   So they never really go through a survival experience in the manner you might be implying.  

Covid Antibody test can be taken by anyone to see whether they have already generated the protective antibodies.  I guess that also doesn't count anymore since the push is to induce the antibodies with vaccinations, whether people already have them or not.      

Yet another reason I suppose there is an entire booming black market industry now for fake vaccination Ids. When you prohibition style force things on the public against their will you get criminal activity.  This also further skews your data inputs and statistics.

I have too many friends and associations that have died or suffered greatly from COVID to say that lightly so please don't take it that way. 
I pray everyone does everything in their power and knowledge base to work with their God designed natural immunity and be safe from this pandemic.  The vaccinations work with our natural immunity too as @"TXBamanut" pointed out so it really isn't Vax vs NI as much as a question of how to best strengthen our NI to protect us against this and all other health threats.

(10-07-2021, 03:42 PM)Dahlsim Wrote: [ -> ]a question of how to best strengthen our NI to protect us against this and all other health threats.

1) Drink only water.
2) Whole-plant diet.
3) 7-9 hours of sleep a night.
4) Daily sunlight and outdoor time.
5) Active lifestyle that includes a lot of walking.