Latest Coronavirus - Yikes

5 days ago he said by the end of May. Now that he's saying the middle of May, he gets a new headline? You are one of his herd.
Trump translation: "President rages about end of May timeline: demands staff now say middle of May which isn't supported by science"
 
50s66p.jpg
 
I believe the antibody/immune response is much stronger from the vaccine, providing a longer and more comprehensive immunity.

I just got over covid and my symptoms were hardly more than a body ache one evening and a cough for two days. I've had worse hangovers, this month...

Not a virologist but I think the lasting "protection" afforded by my illness pales to those who had a longer bout of trouble with 'rona.
This would actually be an unexpected finding, if it ever proved true. Naturally-acquired immunity is usually "stronger and more comprehensive." Remember: vaccines really only function by emulating the real thing.

Let me explain with this particular infection. The current vaccines only mimic the spike protein of the virion, rather than the entire virus, which has other antibody targets. Our immune system is able to recognize multiple antigens of most infectious agents, causing a more "comprehensive," and possibly more lasting response.

There are readily-accessible papers (some of which I have shared) documenting lasting immunity after natural infection -- most recently at least 6-8 months.

The duration of immunity from vaccination is currently unknown, as is comparison to natural infection.
 
My point being there is currently greater evidence of long term effects from infection rather than vaccine... which makes sense.
The problem is that there are no long-term studies of vaccine effects. That's the issue many people have with it.

Don't get me wrong: I don't think there will be any major long-term issues. But, FDA approval and the practice of medicine aren't based on "thinking," they are based on evidence. We do, occasionally, F up royally. See: RSV vaccine that ended up increasing serious illness, nausea medication given for morning sickness that caused horrific both defects, etc.

As far as long-term effects from CV19 in the younger, healthy population? Virtually non-existent. I just read a paper yesterday disposing of last year's fear about cardiac problems in recovered athletes. I don't know of a single child with persistent issues.
 
The problem is that there are no long-term studies of vaccine effects. That's the issue many people have with it.

Don't get me wrong: I don't think there will be any major long-term issues. But, FDA approval and the practice of medicine aren't based on "thinking," they are based on evidence. We do, occasionally, F up royally. See: RSV vaccine that ended up increasing serious illness, nausea medication given for morning sickness that caused horrific both defects, etc.

As far as long-term effects from CV19 in the younger, healthy population? Virtually non-existent. I just read a paper yesterday disposing of last year's fear about cardiac problems in recovered athletes. I don't know of a single child with persistent issues.
I’ve had a few young, otherwise healthy adults that have required some serious lung procedures after recovering from covid. It’s anecdotal of course and could just be an anomaly. The fact remains, though, the chances of long term effects from the viral infection are more likely than long term effects from one of the vaccines.
As always, time and evidence will tell the story eventually.
 
The fact remains, though, the chances of long term effects from the viral infection are more likely than long term effects from one of the vaccines.
As always, time and evidence will tell the story eventually.
This is actually an error, according to the scientific method. It can't be a "fact" that the outcome from one treatment path is better than the other if one is completely unknown.

Again, you are probably correct.
 
Let me clarify:

Suppose that, in 10-20 years, we find an increase of autoimmune conditions, malignancy, or infertility associated with CV19 vaccination in 0.1% of teenagers/adults aged 16-29 at the time of vaccination. That number is higher than the current mortality rate and known long-term sequelae.
 
This is actually an error, according to the scientific method. It can't be a "fact" that the outcome from one treatment path is better than the other if one is completely unknown.

Again, you are probably correct.
Ok, figure of speech.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sea Ray

I don’t think I’ve ever seen a group of people beg harder for the guillotine.

We shouldn’t have to teach, we’re not essential.

Virtual teaching is harder than in person teaching.

We should be first in line for a vaccine (for their apparently non essential job)

Your property tax money (of which the lion’s share goes to education) does not guarantee a right to an education.
 
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a group of people beg harder for the guillotine.

We shouldn’t have to teach, we’re not essential.

Virtual teaching is harder than in person teaching.

We should be first in line for a vaccine (for their apparently non essential job)

Your property tax money (of which the lion’s share goes to education) does not guarantee a right to an education.
My opinion of them has never been lower. For many municipalities they should be fired. No debate. Just gone. They love to ignore the science and try to manipulate this.
 
Neither do you or anyone else. I’ll take my chances with my natural immune system that has already kicked the virus’s ass once. Thanks for caring though.
I'll just rely on the fact that I'm a 31-year-old healthy male with a 99%+ chance of minor symptoms and a miniscule chance of death from COVID. My parents have made the decision to get vaccines- good on them, they're adults.
 
This would actually be an unexpected finding, if it ever proved true. Naturally-acquired immunity is usually "stronger and more comprehensive." Remember: vaccines really only function by emulating the real thing.

Let me explain with this particular infection. The current vaccines only mimic the spike protein of the virion, rather than the entire virus, which has other antibody targets. Our immune system is able to recognize multiple antigens of most infectious agents, causing a more "comprehensive," and possibly more lasting response.

There are readily-accessible papers (some of which I have shared) documenting lasting immunity after natural infection -- most recently at least 6-8 months.

The duration of immunity from vaccination is currently unknown, as is comparison to natural infection.

That's quite fascinating and in contradiction to the below. I'm obviously no physician or expert, just a laymen regurgitating what I'd read below.

Why a vaccine can provide better immunity than an actual infection

Though this article below seems to agree more closely with your assessment, e.g. that it depends on the vaccine.

What's the Difference Between Antibodies From Infection and Vaccines?

Deferring to your expertise I'm now left wondering if those with a very mild illness (like me) will have built a stronger/longer immunity that I would have with a vaccine.
 

VN Store



Back
Top