The word maybe was in my post.
Just saying google it, is not very good. Post a google link? I know there are many articles revealed by google, but post the one you would like me to refer to.
The weakness of the mRNA vaccine, compared to a naturally created immunity is the narrow target of the mRNA vaccines. The spike protein. The mRNA vaccines create immune system responses to the spike protein. But the covid virus is more complex than that. And it evolves. Natural immunity is created by the system reacting to the virus in totality. This does not mean the virus can’t also mutate to evade this immunity. But it would likely require more or drastic mutations.
It seems the Omicron has in fact mutated that spike protein. Which has helped it evade the mRNA vaccines more effectively. But thankfully, it also lessens the severity of the infection. The spike protein is very destructive. Early on it was noted that such a leaky vaccine as the mRNA ones would drive mutations. The vaccine does not immunize fully, but immunizes against certain aspects. It primes to fight spike proteins, but not the virus as a whole. Lessening the bad effects, but not the spread.
Natural immunity primes to fight the virus as a whole. This helps defeat reproduction of the virus in the host, not just attacking one product of it.
You are wrong and are spreading bad information. Stop.
@Kedikat, this thread is already chock full of cites that refute your claims, and you’ve provided none to back you claims. You’re wrong on the facts. If you disagree, bring some cites.
Even if you’re not wrong on the facts, that’s still no reason not to get vaccinated. Vaccination will certainly help prevent you from dying (the unvaxxed are dying at 20x the rate of the vaxxed from Omicron). If you happen to acquire natural immunity without dying, being hospitalized, or spreading it and killing others, yay for you! Now, get vaccinated anyway. Who knows how effective the vaccine will be for the next variant? Better to be prepared.
Actually, the mRNA vaccines are far more effective than the Chinese vaccine that’s the whole dead virus. Most modern vaccines target a single antigen that the virus uses to enter cells. You get better “neutralizing” activity with fewer side effects.
A lot of the damage covid does comes from overstimulating the immune system. The vaccines are carefully designed to reduce this risk while still teaching your immune system to mount a targeted and effective response against the mechanism the virus uses to get into cells. If it can’t get into cells, it doesn’t have a chance of reproducing and causing trouble.
It’s also helped it evades immunity from prior infection.
Noted by whom? What does it even mean to be a “leaky vaccine”. Can you explain that concept in English, and provide a cite backing up whatever it is you are claiming?
Fwiw, this hasn’t been seen in the wild.
- the virus mutates in everyone. It’s what they do
- the faster your immune system clears it, the less it mutates
- the mRNA vaccines are good at speeding the rate at which you clear it. It’s immune-naive and even moreso immune-compromised people who are responsible for much of the mutation. Thus the international drive to immunize as many people as possible, to reduce mutations.
- that being said, omicron appears to have evolved in mice and jumped back to humans. Sadly, we will never wipe out a virus with lots of animal hosts, and like the flu (which infects fowl and pigs as well as people) we are going to see mutations indefinitely.
It’s unclear, and a matter of a great degree of study, whether immunity from the vaccines or from prior infection is more potent. This thread is full of cites of studies into this. At the moment it appears that the strongest immunity is held by those who survived covid and were also vaccinated.
@puzzlegal, one of the problems with letting previous COVID infection exempt someone from vaccine requirements is that it gives anti-vaxxers another excuse not to get vaccinated, and to spread misinformation to discourage others from getting vaccinated.
That’s on top of the logistics issues involved with tracking it, the booster questions, and the COVID party problem.
I’m just wondering if the progress of this thread has changed your mind at all about using a previous COVID infection work in place of vaccination.
It’s still too early to have Omicron studies but stay tuned. Study authors have to add the disclaimer that vaccines work otherwise it won’t get published.
No, it hasn’t.
Most other countries track prior infection along with vaccination to monitor immune status. We do that for most other diseases. We already have the infrastructure to do it for covid.
Are there people trying to catch measles to avoid the vaccine? Probably, but the way to address that is with education. I still feel that there’s a real strain of “punish the bad people” in this debate, that feeds the sense of us vs. them, and makes education and outreach harder.
I do seem to be the only person in this thread who knows moderate antivaxxers. That might be related to my different perspective from many of you.
Wait… really? What if you (hypothetically) authored a study that showed, with great certainty, that vaccines don’t work. Do you still have to add the disclaimer to get published? Because that would be absurd.
Does this apply to all professional journals or just some? Can you name them?
Can you link to some examples of this disclaimer?
I think you miss that the punishment is self inflicted.
Like what Philipp Dettmer, of Kurzgesagt fame points out:
Dettmer likens people who eschew vaccines and prefer to gain immunity through “natural” infections to those going to a self-defense class where the instructors use real guns and swords.
Measles? Yes. Chickenpox? Definitely. Nothing more fun than exposing a child to a virus that can some day give them shingles!
Anyway, that’s a rant for another thread. Thanks for responding.
A similar disclaimer is required for mask studies as was noted here in the peer-reviewed British Medical Journal:
Danish mask study that was well done, showed masks didn’t work. The journal said if they wanted it published, the authors would have to come to a conclusion that masks worked
So regardless of the study results, the studies must affirm that vaccines and masks work. This forced compliance with the narrative helps to build confidence that science is not corrupted by politics.
I’m anxiously awaiting the moment when you post a cite that actually does support your position.
We’re not there yet.
From this latest article:
Except that if you read the published paper you find almost the exact opposite.345 The trial is inconclusive rather than negative, and it points to a likely benefit of mask wearing to the wearer—it did not examine the wider potential benefit of reduced spread of infection to others—and this even in a population where mask wearing isn’t mandatory and prevalence of infection is low. This finding is in keeping with summaries of evidence from Cochrane.
Yeah, that article is entirely about social media reporting on the study, and nothing about requirements for publication of the study. Also, it’s an opinion piece. So…yeah. Doesn’t support your claim at all.
Disclaimer: Let me just state for the record that vaccines and masks are highly effective and safe and no current or futures studies show otherwise.
It looks like you didn’t read the opinion piece you linked to. It doesn’t agree that masks are ineffective or say that a conclusion of effectiveness has been required for publication. It tries to make a case that mask critics are being censored in Orwellian fashion on social media, which involves a certain amount of hyperbole.*
As to “immunity” after Covid infection being enough to supersede vaccine requirements, I would be sympathetic to such a view except for a few nagging details. These include the difficulty in documenting infection. Positive tests, while largely reliable include a small percentage of false positives meaning there was no actual infection. Establishing that someone was sick can be tricky; we’ve seen docs faking vaccine exemptions for $$ and there’s no reason to think some wouldn’t be similarly tempted/ideologically inclined to report fake illnesses.
Then there’s the matter of waning immunity after illness, and improved immune status in such people after vaccination. This becomes more critical for workers in sensitive occupations like health care, where you want to maximize protection and minimize risk of infecting the general public.
*including a reference to epidemiologist Tom Jefferson as an “eminent professor of evidence-based medicine”. Unless sarcasm was involved, that’s a questionable characterization, given Jefferson’s dubious diatribes against flu vaccination and giving credibility to off-the-wall antivaxers (he once appeared on Gary Null’s show).
You have yet to show any evidence that your first disclaimer claim is valid.
So why do you suppose they were having so much trouble getting it published? Did you miss that part?
Is it your claim that wearing a mask doesn’t prevent the spread from an infected person to others? That study didn’t set out to prove that, but your statement seems broader than the study.
Is “that part” really more important to the topic of a global pandemic than the fact that you, again, posted a citation that directly contradicts your premise ?
IMHO … no. It isn’t.
YMMV.