Jump to content

Sawbonz

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    14404
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

Posts posted by Sawbonz

  1. 46 minutes ago, SizzleChest said:

    That's because there aren't any.  But is a clinical study going to be conclusive?  The most confounding factor is it's very difficult to gauge natural immunity.

    Novavax came the closest in one of their clinical studies, but it wasn't conclusive:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/02/05/virus-variant-reinfection-south-africa/

    You can design a trial that includes people who tested positive for COVID and those that didn't and were mRNA vaccinated.  But, I don't know that you'll gain anything substantive because the technology to measure natural immunity is not as robust as the technology to measure vaccine immunity.  That's just based on what I've read and know from people I know in the industry.  One of the primary working theories is that because the vaccines, and particularly the mRNA vaccines with the two dose regimen, target primarily the spike protein, the vaccines have better and longer lasting immunity.  Does that mean there aren't cases where an individual person with natural immunity is better protected?  No, but until it's actually possible to study it effectively, I'll continue to believe that vaccine immunity is better.  Natural immunity will provide protections, but maybe for a variety of antigens, not specifically the spike protein.  Basically, natural immunity = crapshoot; vaccine immunity=better than a coin flip.

    As an aside, it does appear that the best immunity is COVID infected + two doses of mRNA, but again, that's more theoretical.  But it makes sense.

    That’s  a lot of words to say we don’t know. Which is my point.  As I said above, I would have gotten the vaccine whether or not I had contracted COVID-19. But I do not fault people who choose not to, having had the disease. Also mentioned upthread is the possible added benefit of T cell immunity after covid infection. T cell immunity actually is believed to confer the most immunity to the common coronaviruses, Although I have not seen studies specific to sars 1 or sars 2

     

     

  2. 29 minutes ago, SizzleChest said:

    do know that people who had a severe bout of COVID-19 do have stronger immunity than those who did not, but that immunity is still not as strong and long-lasting as vaccine

    Again you are going to need to link a clinical study that shows an increase in breakthrough infections in the natural immunity cohort vs vax. I have not seen this

  3. 31 minutes ago, SizzleChest said:

    positive test for a vaccinated person does not have the same impacts vis a vis transmissibility and clinical effect as a positive test for an unvaccinated individual.

    I believe he’s talking about natural immunity versus Vaxxed. Do you have a link showing there is a different rate of transmissibility with breakthrough infections between the groups?

  4. 26 minutes ago, Beantown Express 2.0 said:

    Just curious but all those people that argue it was about states rights, what exactly is the states right in question other than having slaves?  Did the South go to war because they wanted to grow cotton but the North wouldn’t let them?  Was the North putting a ban on biscuits and gravy and making them eat scrapple for breakfast?  It’s such a bullshit argument but our population is just so stupid they believe it.

    Forgie taught an upper division history course titled “events leading up to the Civil War.” I think if it was only slavery, that course would’ve taken five minutes rather than an entire semester. Maybe the biggest factor other than slavery was trade policy between the United States and other countries. Policy beneficial to thr industrialized north could be incredibly harmful to the agrarian south and vice versa. These were huge issues but not likely not sufficient to go to war over absent the issue of slavery. 

    • Hook 'Em 1
  5. 2 hours ago, hpslugga said:

    I was taught that it was a mixed bag of states’ rights and slavery at HP in the same period. The stuff about Lee and Grant someone else mentioned previously sounded about the same as what I heard.

    George Forgie taught me at UT in 92 that it took a perfect storm of factors for the civil war to happen, but the sine qua non was slavery. All the other differences would have been resolved peacefully but for slavery, and a peaceful solution to slavery would have been possible without the other divisions 

     

    Also Lee was unquestionably a military genius, and absolutely believed Virginia had the legal right to secede. Had he stayed w the Union the rebellion would have been put down quickly and decisively, or not even attempted. He was declining rapidly though which is why he chose to proceed with attacking after he failed to get the high ground at Gettysburg. 
     

    After the defeat at Gettysburg Union victory was inevitable. You had an industrialized nation vs farmers. 
     

    Grant was also unquestionably a great general. But he actually prosecuted the war, which for whatever reason his predecessors refused to do. Put him in at the start and Lee never gets to go on the offensive, and the war ends quickly. 
     

     

     

     

     

    • Hook 'Em 4
  6. 3 hours ago, NameAlreadyInUse said:

    So let's say the first 6 happen, and even the first part of the 7th.  Can you point me to the part of the Constitution that says that all acts of an impeached official that happened while they are in office are automatically null and void?  I'll admit I'm no Constitutional scholar, so I probably missed it.

    Once you buy into “a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away,” you don’t look too closely at all the plot holes that follow 

  7. Just now, jimmyjazz said:

    Is that another way of saying the vax "overshoots" necessary antibody response, at least to some degree?  Would that be by design?

    We don’t know if it overshoots. That’s where a clinical trial would be helpful. To me, I would go with the theoretical better vax mediated immunity if I had  had symptomatic Covid.

    conversely I don’t have a problem with recovered Covid patients holding off on getting the vax, especially since a few of the HCW I know who got vaxed after covid illness said it kicked their asses esp the 2nd Moderna dose. 
     

    another anecdotal point for going ahead and getting the vaccine in my opinion is the so-called long haulers seem to get a boost with the vaccine. these folks’ immune systems could not clear the virus without a little help, so there must be something better about those copies of the spike protein floating around 

    • Hook 'Em 3
  8. 1 hour ago, Captainant said:

    Clinical data has shown that vaccines offer more broad protection than natural immunity (source: NIH, study). Unless you have legitimate confounding factors that make it infeasible to safely get the vaccine... You should get the vaccine. 

    That’s not really clinical data. A clinical study would compare reinfection rates between the 2 groups and more importantly transmissibility by those in the reinfected subgroups. While it is noteworthy that the antibody response to the vax is broader than that from infection, it does not follow that natural immunity isn’t sufficient to protect the individual and help get us to herd immunity 

    • Hook 'Em 1
  9. 8 hours ago, Anastasis said:

    Premium surcharges for health behaviors are fairly common place at this point.  

    Can you point to a premium surcharge that comes close to paying for the total cost of the healthcare needed due to the behavior? I know we like to get pedantic around here but the point I was refuting was excluding coverage for anything covid related based on vax status. That would be a horrible precedent to set, and would require a repeal of a portion of ACA

     

    edit I would be fine with a premium surcharge for obesity, high lipids/cholesterol and uncontrolled DM (and covid vax status) similar to what is allowed for smoking. 

    • Hook 'Em 1
  10. 2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

    It's already been tied together, mostly incentive based. But there is a pretty stark distinction between fast food and COVID vaccination in terms of the immediacy of the negative outcomes.  If you want to get the actuaries involved, its a pretty clear cut picture in a world where outcomes are generally measured with 12 to 36 month run outs. 

    Where is access to healthcare tied to behavior?

  11. 8 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

    This brings up an important question:  why aren't the anti-vaxxers raging about autism and the covid vaccine?  Did I miss that particular angle?  I hear much more about "government control" and the random "5G", "Bill Gates chip", etc.

    What happened to autism?

    They aren’t vaccinating babies yet

  12. 13 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

    If only we could tie such things to a reliable medication intervention that could be implemented over the course of 21-28 days to basically totally obliterated the risk of serious outcomes.  

    Because tying healthcare access to behavior would stop with getting the Covid vaccine?

Ă—
Ă—
  • Create New...