1984 warning becoming reality 2021

Home Forums Decaffeinated Coffee 1984 warning becoming reality 2021

Viewing 35 posts - 101 through 135 (of 135 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #2000833
    🍫Syag Lchochma
    Participant

    Reb E- you got that backwards.if the vaccine worked we wouldn’t be masking up again

    #2000834
    rightwriter
    Participant

    Rev eliezer actually you got that confused. Antibodies DO work for delta, whereas the vaccine might/or rather the vaccine does not since the CDC already confirmed that.

    And where do you get this false information! From the medias propagandist narrative? Just use common sense if antibodies weren’t holding up there would have been a covid 2020 surge all over again because everyone would have gotten reinfected.

    The trick is whenever they mention unvaccinated people getting the virus they are clever to know that people will confuse that with all unvaccinated including those who were already infected and have antibodies. But really it’s those who never got a vaccine or exposed to virus.
    Aside for the fact that they keep saying that vaccinated are also getting infected and spreading so how are people so gullible to ignore this? They are admitting it but the blind sheep go to the slaughter.

    #2000855
    Yserbius123
    Participant

    @rightwriter Are you intentionally avoiding my responses to your questions? Like how COVID is nothing like the flu?

    Antibodies are a fine substitute to the vaccine. But you can’t expect everyone to have antibodies, so those who haven’t had COVID in some time (three months I think they say) need to get the shot.

    #2000860
    🍫Syag Lchochma
    Participant

    “three months I think they say”

    Actually, 12-18. So far.

    #2000863
    rightwriter
    Participant

    Yserbius”Are you intentionally avoiding my responses to your questions?”

    -are you intentionally trying to make us laugh with your ignorance? 3 months? Try 18 and months and counting, for many antibodies level even went up. You know it’s kind of scary how many people think like you who just follow blindly whatever the media wants them to believe. Seems like they did a great job brainwashing you.
    I mean honestly do you really just believe anything they say without even using half a brain of your own?

    They even admitted that vaccinated can get infected and can pass it to others. And you still don’t question why they push the vaccine on people if it’s solving so little?

    #2000945
    Yserbius123
    Participant

    @syag-lchochma and @rightwriter The studies that showed a years worth of immunity from a COVID-19 infection also say that it’s not nearly as effective against Delta. Furthermore, a lot of people I know who don’t want to get immunized because they have antibodies were tested positive for antibodies months ago and never actually showed COVID symptoms nor tested positive at any point. There’s no telling when antibodies wear out in those cases.

    #2000970

    > Actually, 12-18. So far.

    I don’t want to out anybody, but if you have 18 months of antibodies, you probably worked in the Wuhan lab or worked at the proverbial wet market butchering ferrets.

    #2000964

    I quoted before a paper that estimates that vaccine works better than prior infection. I would not say that paper is 100% convincing, but those who claim opposite, should bring their sources.

    #2000963

    YS > lot of people I know who don’t want to get immunized because they have antibodies were tested positive for antibodies months ago and never actually showed COVID symptoms nor tested positive at any point.

    non-professional understanding of theory: I think the issue is with T-cell protection. Antibodies are very specific and may be less effective with new variants. T-cell immunity is not helping with initial infection, but kicks in later to protect against serious disease and are also longer-lasting. T-cells generalize better and should be more protective against variants. Light cases of disease might not generate T-cell protection at all. Vaccines do, and possibly AZ and J&J more than mRNAs.

    Bottom line, suggest to them to get one vaccine, with their initial disease working as a prime.

    #2000961

    RebE > antibodies might not work for delta variant, whereas the vaccine does.

    Seems to be, just talked to a person who relied on previous infection to not vaccinate and just came out of ICU after the second infection. Anecdotes are not data, but those who think the same way please beware.

    #2000959

    > How come they never did this with the flu btw? To mandate that everyone gets the vaccine?

    a good comparison. Several reasons:
    1) Flu natural R0 is 1.3, COVID 2+ for the Wuhan original, and 4+ for Delta.
    2) Flu a- and pre-symptomatic transmission is not significant (see meta-study below). Thus, if you and your kids just stay home or SD or masked when sick, you won’t transmit
    3) Most population has flu antibodies and, thus, only very young and very old/weak are vulnerable
    4) Flu vaccines are less effective than COVID
    If you multiple these factors together, the difference is huge

    Eleni Patrozou, MDa,b and Leonard A. Mermel,Does Influenza Transmission Occur from Asymptomatic Infection or Prior to Symptom Onset? 2009

    #2000984
    🍫Syag Lchochma
    Participant

    Sorry, 17 months.
    I’m not denying the charges of course, but 18 months wasn’t pre pandemic.

    #2000943
    Yserbius123
    Participant

    @rightwriter So the answer to my question is yes. You are just ignoring my response to your flu comparisons.

    #2000997
    rightwriter
    Participant

    Idk where you guys get your studies from. If the vaccine was so effective they wouldn’t be giving 3 shots of it and counting. They keep saying it’s NOT effective against variants and vaccinated are still getting infected and transmitting so who are you to say otherwise?

    And those who got reinfected, first of all the medical organizations constantly say its a rarity as of now, second of all you don’t know if that person got infected with COVID-19 or a combination of something else. Also, it’s possible that for some people the immunity doesn’t last as long or even did not gain antibodies in the first place. You are using 1 isolated case against the millions who have had covid and did NOT get reinfected. Is reinfection possible? It seems that it could be but very rare. Again if it was common, how do you explain the millions who have had COVID-19, did not get vaccinated, and have not gotten reinfected including with all the variants up until now? Common sense would dictate that there would have been a whole resurgence of reinfections by now if natural antibodies weren’t holding up or weren’t effective against the variants.

    Those of you who keep saying the vaccine Is effective against variants and lasts longer than natural antibodies. This is the complete opposite of what the CDC is saying. They won’t admit anything about natural antibodies but they do keep saying the vaccine only lasts about 3-6 months and is not effective against variants. Even Israel reduced the effectiveness estimate from 97% to around 65%.

    This is why you are seeing a 3rd booster shot going around since the vaccine is so “effective”. Don’t forget that they said you will need booster shots your whole life.
    We don’t know how long the natural antibodies will last. But as of now they are lasting longer than any vaccine and are effective against variants. So stop twisting the facts. Do some research about how antibodies work. I saw an article of a doctor explaining that even when antibodies go down there is memory in the cells that know to fight and resist the virus, since thats how natural immunity works.
    But keep spreading your propaganda. Did I say you should willingly go and be close to someone who has COVID-19? No of course you should be careful and not test your immunity. But to force everyone to take a potentially dangerous and non effective vaccine especially if they have natural antibodies goes against all scientific facts.

    #2001021

    RW, you keep saying “not effective” while mostly not using numbers, and when you use 97 -> 65, you are not clarifying effective against infection/hospitalization/death. And you are not giving any numbers for natural immunity effectiveness, and no sources for anything. And this is across multiple posts. I gave you some info I found, please reply with more specific data if you want to actually discuss something.

    #2001044
    rightwriter
    Participant

    https://www .reuters. com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/cdc-says-vaccine-protectiveness-slipped-amid-delta-variant-2021-08-18/

    https://www .google. com/amp/s/www.politico.com/amp/news/2021/08/17/cdc-data-booster-shots-505637

    https://www. google. com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2021/08/18/health/cdc-booster-shots.amp.html

    Here I posted sources from politico, new York times, and Washington post stating vaccine effectiveness declining and not effective for variants which is why they keep pushing boosters for whatever reason. Besides you can look it up yourself with a simple google search”vaccine effectiveness”.

    What numbers will I give for natural immunity when they aren’t reporting on them? You can see the numbers of natural immunity by the sheer fact that reinfection still remains rare. Common sense says if antibodies weren’t effective then all those who were infected would have been reinfected by now and you would have seen 2020 all over again. That hasn’t happened and hopefully won’t.

    Also you haven’t shown me numbers of how many people got infected and not been hospitalized. You won’t find it either because those numbers aren’t reported in order to seem they are non existent. Yes people are still getting infected. But getting infected does not mean they died some might have even have a mild cold. But to scale it down imagine 10 people got infected and 1000 did not or got a mild cold but only those 10 infected are reported in the news. Would sure seem like everyone is getting infected wouldn’t it since the others are nonexistent in the narrative. So i dont blame you for falling for the medias agenda.

    #2001081

    RW> What numbers will I give for natural immunity when they aren’t reporting on them?

    It may be google’s fault that you can’t find the numbers (not kidding). Google adapts their algorithms to what you click on – so you get Reuters, and I get Lancet… Here is what I found (all is for pre-Delta):

    PCR-based infected people are 80% protected against re-infection, 47% for those over 65. Does not decrease at 6-7 months. [1] similar 83% result for UK medical personnel [2]. comparisons are in both cases with uninfected unvaccinated people with the same demographics. So, other than with older people, previous infection is close to vaccines.

    Kentucky residents with previous infections: those of them who were unvaccinated had 2.3 more infections compared with those who were fully vaccinated [3]. So, vaccination provides additional benefit to those who were previously infected

    [1] Hansen Assessment of protection against reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 among 4 million PCR-tested individuals in Denmark in 2020: a population-level observational study, Lancet, March 2021
    [2] V Hall Do antibody positive healthcare workers have lower SARS-CoV-2 infection rates than antibody negative healthcare workers? preprint
    [2] Alyson M. Cavanaugh, Reduced Risk of Reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 After COVID-19 Vaccination — Kentucky, May–June 2021

    #2001089
    rightwriter
    Participant

    You do realize that reinfection remains a rarity right?

    #2001100

    RW > You do realize that reinfection remains a rarity right?

    maybe I did not clarify enough. This data is saying that for pre-Delta COVID:

    – reinfections is 5-6x less likely than regular infection. [similar, a little lower, to infections among mRNA vaccines that were 10-20 less likely
    – reinfections among 65x older is 2x lower than first-time infections

    more details in the papers. I don’t think you read them, as there are 8 minutes between our posts. It took me longer to process them.

    #2001128
    Yserbius123
    Participant

    @rightwriter You keep harping on vague statements like “ineffective” and “rare”. Look at the actual numbers as to how effective vaccinations are compared to someone who tested positive for antibodies months ago.

    #2001134
    rightwriter
    Participant

    I didn’t say it. The CDC you can look at the links.

    #2001137
    rightwriter
    Participant

    Here’s a link from health line which is a known medical site giving sources for natural antibody immunity and that reinfection remains rare and if reinfected it tends to be mild.

    https://www. healthline.com/health-news/can-you-get-delta-variant-if-you-already-had-covid-19

    Here is another article saying how natural antibodies are likely to be developed for life.
    “Many people who have been infected with SARS-CoV-2 will probably make antibodies against the virus for most of their lives. So suggest researchers who have identified long-lived antibody-producing cells in the bone marrow of people who have recovered from COVID-19”
    https://www .nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01442-9

    Again of course there are always exceptions to generalizations. So if you choose to vaccinate that’s fine. But stop forcing others especially those with natural immunity and twisting the facts by saying the natural immunity is basically worthless when in fact it’s superior to all the vaccines to date.

    You wanted sources, you got them. And I have no shortage of sources.

    #2001159

    RW, thanks for the sources. The Nature article talks about exactly the issue I mentioned – longer lasting protection from B Cells (that will produce antibodies in the future) that are developed both by (at least) mild Covid cases and vaccine. This is indeed hopeful. They have a caveat that variants might block this production of antibodies.

    Healthline refers to the paper “Necessity of COVID-19 vaccination in previously infected individuals”. This paper shows 97% effectiveness of mRNA vaccines for those without previous infection and 66%(3x) effectiveness for those with previous infection – the author conclude from the latter that there is no benefit of giving vaccines to previously infected. This judgment is made from the world /WHO perspective that it is better to re-allocate vaccines to poor countries.

    My note: High effectiveness of both vaccine and previous infection in this paper comparing to the ones I quoted is due to several factors: other papers I quoted defined previous infection as PCR tests given to everyone. This paper use only highly symptomatic cases as “infected” (those who were sick and went to take a test, with %age of positive test varying over time from 5% to 20% – higher than usual testing). Similarly, they measure 2nd infection as people coming for a test. So, these results are for “at least mild symptomatic COVID”. They also do not seem to adjust for demographics, while acknowledging that unvaccinated were younger (39 v 42 average age).

    Bottom line: there is support to say that those with a symptomatic mild case have immunity comparable to vaccines. It could be further enhanced by one does of vaccine – unless you want to ethically donate it to 3rd world. Easy cases may be more risky. All of this pre-Delta.

    And, of course, none of these papers suggest any benefit of actually not taking a vaccine and waiting for “natural immunity”.

    #2001331
    Yserbius123
    Participant

    @rightwriter The links you posted confirm that it’s far safer to take the vaccine than to rely on having had COVID a year ago.

    #2001366
    rightwriter
    Participant

    ok yserbius thats why Israel is having a wave and mostly by vaccinated

    #2001420

    YS >it’s far safer to take the vaccine than to rely on having had COVID a year ago

    I read this that in first 3-6 months and with an at least mild case, and with the same variant, having COVID provides reasonable protection. Significant exception: people over 65, where vaccines are 3x better. And that those who had COVID, one vaccine adds further 3x protection, making it comparable with mRNA vaccine by my count. So, seems like at least one vaccine for older people should be recommended.

    Both protections decline with time and with change of variant, we are just finding out. Decline is more in transmission (antibodies) than in protection against serious disease (T- and B-cells)

    It is possible that COVID provides longer protection against same variant, but it seems likely that vaccine provides better protection against variants.

    #2001423
    rightwriter
    Participant

    “It is possible that COVID provides longer protection against same variant, but it seems likely that vaccine provides better protection against variants”

    Yserbius and alwaysask, at this point it’s obvious you are either both trolling or just ignorant. First of all the article said that people who had covid likely develop antibodies for most of their life. Second of all noone said you should try to get covid we are discussing if you already had covid after the fact and you now have natural antibodies.
    Also you keep going in circles. You are wrong! The CDC admitted the vaccines do not provide sufficient protection against variants and the proof is that there is a huge wave of vaccinated patients with covid and some even serious and they are pushing a third booster. So obviously the vaccine is effective right?

    Secondly, the natural antibodies have been lasting for the past year and a half, and apparently DO protect against variants and the proof is that if they didn’t protect, everyone would have gotten reinfected by now.
    You keep twisting the facts and manipulating information that at this point it’s getting boring to keep going on circles.

    Also on a side note, there is no test to determine variants. They just assume that the people getting sick got the variants. They don’t know for sure. So just keep that in mind.

    #2001440

    RW > first of all the article said that people who had covid likely develop antibodies for most of their life.

    RW, I think I see why we disagree. This is a very complicated issue and changing over time. you seem to read popular articles where reporters digest research papers for us. This is often fine. When we know a lot about, say, flu, and a new article about flu comes out and adds one more item about it, a popular article would easily explain it to us. Here we have research papers done very quickly, often preprints, sometimes written in a hurry, that address multiple issues. Your healthline reporter will have to simplify to make it readable, even presuming he understood the article.

    If you click on the actual research paper, you will see that the paper does not say what you just said. I tried to summarize what the paper say. I may be mistaken also.

    #2001441

    RW > there is no test to determine variants. They just assume that the people getting sick got the variants

    there are tests for variants. They are done on a random sample of collected samples.
    ourworldofdata, for example, has statistics of variants by country and time.

    #2001442

    RW > everyone would have gotten reinfected by now.

    RW, you are appealing to (your own) emotions. You first find articles that uncover problems with vaccines, then you find other articles that talk about immunity from COVID. And then you combine these two stories without knowing how they align.

    I quoted articles that compare people under same conditions – some with vaccines, some with COVID.

    #2001444

    RW > Second of all noone said you should try to get covid we are discussing if you already had covid after the fact and you now have natural antibodies.

    I agree, nobody wants to experiment with getting COVID to prevent it in the future. Then, for practical applications, the question is not – is vaccine protection better or worse than having COVID, BUT for a person who had COVID, should they take a vaccine?

    from the papers, it seems that ONE mRNA vaccine decreases infection chances by 3x. While one paper dismisses it, but I am not sure why. The argument might be if you want to donate this vaccine to the poor countries.

    #2001456
    rightwriter
    Participant

    Yes the discussion is if those who already had covid should get the vaccine. And again, as the vaccines are being proven to not be so effective especially against variants (aside for the side effects both short and long term), then most likely it would be a good idea to avoid them for now especially with antibodies still lasting and being effective against variants. And hopefully if it stays that way, it doesnt make any sense to ever get a vaccine for anyone who is naturally immune.

    And I’m not talking based on any feeling. I was stating a fact that If people with antibodies weren’t protected against reinfection whether variants or not, then almost everyone would have been reinfected by now. But reinfection remains rare and the medical experts are admitting that for now regardless of how much they don’t want to. And hopefully it will stay that way so that people will be immune. Because the situation in the world is getting out of control both by the virus and the governments.

    Hopefully the vaccine will work, but the only issue is that they are forcing unnecessary candidates to take it. That’s the only issue. Also if the vaccine works then it shouldn’t depend on the other. Of course if everyone got vaccinated it would make it “safer”. And if everyone wore a n95 all day every day it would also make it safer. Or if you just depopulate or kill everyone on the planet, that would probably be the safest option because that would reduce the chances of anyone getting sick from anything down to zero.

    #2001948
    philosopher
    Participant

    rightwriter, the “vaccines” are losing their eficacy according to the CDC themselves. That’s why they are recommending masking and social distancing and booster shots which will likely eventually be recommended reinfection every few months. That is not a successful vaccine at all. On top of that, we have no real studies on its long-term effects.

    #2001965

    > abtibodies might not work for delta variant, whereas the vaccine does.

    should we say, the difference is b’dieved v. lehathilah?

    #2001986
    rightwriter
    Participant

    alwaysask-“> abtibodies might not work for delta variant, whereas the vaccine does.

    should we say, the difference is b’dieved v. lehathilah?”

    -no, we should just say that its quite the opposite

Viewing 35 posts - 101 through 135 (of 135 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.