Jump to content

Natural immunity and no vaccine shot


Recommended Posts

On 5/12/2021 at 11:46 PM, SelectSys said:

The virus, if you believe the scientists, is rapidly mutating.  As such, the disease you are exposed to isn't necessarily the same one you had before.  Common sense suggests that a vaccine for a new variant might well be a good idea.

 

Were it starts to get fuzzy for me is when science intersects with commerce. Big pharma is talking about annual booster shots with no end in sight.   Pfizer is talking about "durable demand"  for COVID vaccines like those associated with the flu.

 

While I am most certainly going to follow my doctor's recommendations, it is always curious when science intersects with commercial interest.   

 

Well, it's certainly clear that every crisis creates winners and losers.  COVID is probably the best thing to happen to Pfizer since "V" and is expected to account for 1/3 of all company revenues this year!   

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-56979406

Pfizer said it was expecting "durable demand" for the vaccine, in a similar way to flu vaccines.

In the first three months of 2021, the vaccine generated revenues of $3.5bn (£2.5bn) as governments scrambled to try to contain the pandemic.

Revenue from the treatment is expected to hit $26bn this year - accounting for more than one third of Pfizer's sales.

The forecast is based on already-signed contracts for 1.6 billion vaccine doses to be delivered this year.

Pfizer said it expected to sign more deals this year, and was in supply talks with several countries for 2022 and beyond.

 

Yes, Pfizer probably will make some money.  So has Amazon and mask companies.  Has ZIP to do with whether you should get a vaccine. Having Covid does not make you immune. We know someone who had a second illness. Just get the damn shot. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/14/2021 at 1:02 PM, TheOldBear said:

See my post #20 on this thread

 

Antibodies are the 'short term' component of immune response - perhaps lasting 90 - 120 days after an infection.

The long term 'T' and 'memory B' cells are more durable [years] - but their reactivity is not measured when checking for antibodies.

Mydaughter was really sick with Covid in May .  But she had an antibody test done in January when she had blood work done ( she has Lupus) and the antibody test showed "No antibodies".  Get the vaccine

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to add another data point - I had COVID in January, the medical group my PCP is part of called me in March to offer the vaccine and didn't bat an eyelash when I told them I had COVID 2 months prior, getting vaccinated was still recommended.  When I saw my PCP for an annual visit the day of my second shot (Pfizer), he also advised getting vaccinated even though I'd had the virus.

 

My sister and parents also had COVID and also all got vaccinated without a hesitation by the administering party.

 

I'm a regular blood donor, my first donation after having COVID (but before getting vaccinated) showed "reactive" for the antibody test the Red Cross does.  My most recent donation, 2 weeks after my second dose, showed positive on the antibody test.  I do not know if that is now because I have the vaccine or if it's a result of the previous infection.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/14/2021 at 12:16 PM, Toofarfromthesea said:


And you know what the hospitals are NOT filled with?  Vaccinated people who were infected by un-vaccinated people.  

 

Who were they infected by?  

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, LynnTTT said:

So has Amazon

Yes - Amazon has continued its relentless march to crush much of traditional retail.  COVID has certainly helped them immensely.   Tons of new "brick and mortar" store closings.  

 

2 hours ago, LynnTTT said:

Just get the damn shot

Do you think I haven't gotten a vaccine because big pharma is making money?  Hmmm.  I simply was making a point regarding pharma.  Pharma's favorite outcome is a chronic condition requiring endless drugs.  What would be better for Pfizer than annual COVID vaccines for an ever mutating virus with billions of annual doses required?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, SelectSys said:

What would be better for Pfizer than annual COVID vaccines for an ever mutating virus with billions of annual doses required?

 

I can't think of anything better for us than to have Pfizer and other companies having these new vaccine technologies available to use, as they were for the Covid vax, in months rather than the years-to-decades development pace in the past.

 

There are an estimated 3 billion viruses we haven't a clue about. I am glad Big Pharma has a huge incentive to anticipate the plagues of the future. I just wish they could do the same to develop non-resistant antibiotics--or maybe the govt contracts buying vaxxes could stipulate a few billion for that research?

Edited by mayleeman
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SelectSys said:

 

Do you think I haven't gotten a vaccine because big pharma is making money?  Hmmm.  I simply was making a point regarding pharma.  Pharma's favorite outcome is a chronic condition requiring endless drugs.  What would be better for Pfizer than annual COVID vaccines for an ever mutating virus with billions of annual doses required?

I fail to understand the point you were trying to make. Are you trying to say that pharmaceutical  companies should not find, produce and sell drugs that treat chronicle conditions or provide a degree of immunity against infectious diseases? Are you saying that they should not develop improved vaccines that provide improved immunity against resistant viral strains? Or perhaps you are trying to say that pharmaceutical  companies should not be allowed to make a profit from the drugs they manufacture and sell? Just what point were you trying to make, and how is it relevant to the topic?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, mom says said:

I fail to understand the point you were trying to make. Are you trying to say that pharmaceutical  companies should not find, produce and sell drugs that treat chronicle conditions or provide a degree of immunity against infectious diseases? Are you saying that they should not develop improved vaccines that provide improved immunity against resistant viral strains? Or perhaps you are trying to say that pharmaceutical  companies should not be allowed to make a profit from the drugs they manufacture and sell? Just what point were you trying to make, and how is it relevant to the topic?

Perhaps anti-vaxxers feel the need to spread their opposition to vaccines to the manufacturers of those vaccines, in part because they are unable to convince the educated and informed people who opt to protect themselves as much as possible from dangerous infections.  

 

It's hard to tell with that lot just what their thought patterns are.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mayleeman said:

 

I can't think of anything better for us than to have Pfizer and other companies having these new vaccine technologies available to use, as they were for the Covid vax, in months rather than the years-to-decades development pace in the past.

 

There are an estimated 3 billion viruses we haven't a clue about. I am glad Big Pharma has a huge incentive to anticipate the plagues of the future. I just wish they could do the same to develop non-resistant antibiotics--or maybe the govt contracts buying vaxxes could stipulate a few billion for that research?

 

The sad fact is what everyone is suspicious off a vaccine that is developed in months opposed to years has always been possible but the reality is the will is normally not there. It would be nice if we could do this without a pandemic but I suspect it will just go back to business as normal. This is something we should be celebrating but instead you have all these people trying to tear it down😔

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, ilikeanswers said:

the reality is the will is normally not there

 

No, this one was different: After MERS and SARS, researchers figured out how to use genetic sequencing to develop vaccines differently and had discovered a way to apply that in a genetic technique, and they were able to "plug in" the Covid genetic data into that model. Previously, vax development involved use of living or dead viruses to trigger immune responses, and getting that correct took years. (This is a ridiculously paraphrased version of the process!  The "Are vaccines the light at the end of the tunnel?" thread in the Celebrity forum has hundreds or more posts explaining it written by experts.)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, SelectSys said:

Yes - Amazon has continued its relentless march to crush much of traditional retail.  COVID has certainly helped them immensely.   Tons of new "brick and mortar" store closings.  

 

I don't think Amazon should be blamed for having a 21st century business model that could operate during a pandemic.  And, let us not forget Amazon was wildly successful before.  

 

4 hours ago, SelectSys said:

Do you think I haven't gotten a vaccine because big pharma is making money?  Hmmm.  I simply was making a point regarding pharma.  Pharma's favorite outcome is a chronic condition requiring endless drugs.  What would be better for Pfizer than annual COVID vaccines for an ever mutating virus with billions of annual doses required?

 

I'm not sure we should condemn.  A lot of different businesses make a living off of responding to calamities.   Their services are needed and in many instances even critical.   

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, mayleeman said:

No, this one was different: After MERS and SARS, researchers figured out how to use genetic sequencing to develop vaccines differently and had discovered a way to apply that in a genetic technique, and they were able to "plug in" the Covid genetic data into that model. Previously, vax development involved use of living or dead viruses to trigger immune responses, and getting that correct took years. (This is a ridiculously paraphrased version of the process!  The "Are vaccines the light at the end of the tunnel?" thread in the Celebrity forum has hundreds or more posts explaining it written by experts.)

 

I would disagree. The Ebola vaccine could have been created 20 years ago but there was no sense of urgency so funding was cut. The same can be said about SARS and MERS, so many vaccines were in developement some already up to human trials and when the problem went away the funding also got cut. The mRNA techonolgy has been in development since the 90s, Katalin Karikó who discovered the technology could barely get grants to cover her research and Moderna spent years just raising money. This vaccine is really the first product the have created. It is the same problem with antibiotics, the money in that industry has dropped so significantly that the last time we had a new class of antibiotics was in the 80s. To me there is no denying that when the money starts rolling in and people take serious interest everything moves a lot faster.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ilikeanswers Ah, sorry! I misunderstood your comment. I thought you were saying our existing vaccines (measles, etc) scould have been developed in months if the will had been there (I have heard people say similar things). You clearly know your history of this stuff better than I do!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, hallux said:

Just to add another data point - I had COVID in January, the medical group my PCP is part of called me in March to offer the vaccine and didn't bat an eyelash when I told them I had COVID 2 months prior, getting vaccinated was still recommended.  When I saw my PCP for an annual visit the day of my second shot (Pfizer), he also advised getting vaccinated even though I'd had the virus.

 

My sister and parents also had COVID and also all got vaccinated without a hesitation by the administering party.

 

I'm a regular blood donor, my first donation after having COVID (but before getting vaccinated) showed "reactive" for the antibody test the Red Cross does.  My most recent donation, 2 weeks after my second dose, showed positive on the antibody test.  I do not know if that is now because I have the vaccine or if it's a result of the previous infection.

Just an FYI. The antibody test done by Red Cross would not show positive from the Pfizer vaccine. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, ldubs said:

 

Who were they infected by?  


By un-vaccinated people.  In tiny numbers.  Which is why the hospitals are NOT filled with such people and we see no statistically valid data that this is happening and are reduced to hearing anecdotal stories.  Like the ones in this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, mayleeman said:

 

I can't think of anything better for us than to have Pfizer and other companies having these new vaccine technologies available to use, as they were for the Covid vax, in months rather than the years-to-decades development pace in the past.

 

There are an estimated 3 billion viruses we haven't a clue about. I am glad Big Pharma has a huge incentive to anticipate the plagues of the future. I just wish they could do the same to develop non-resistant antibiotics--or maybe the govt contracts buying vaxxes could stipulate a few billion for that research?


You buried the lede.  It is exactly our medical professional that caused antibiotic resistant bacteria with their promiscuous prescribing of antibiotics unnecessarily.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, ilikeanswers said:

 

The sad fact is what everyone is suspicious off a vaccine that is developed in months opposed to years has always been possible but the reality is the will is normally not there. It would be nice if we could do this without a pandemic but I suspect it will just go back to business as normal. This is something we should be celebrating but instead you have all these people trying to tear it down😔


Why should people be suspicious?  Could it be that the very notion of developing a vaccine this quickly was derided as delusional?  Or that we were being told it would take years to develop a vaccine and that it would take a miracle for it to happen faster?  Or that prominent politicians, including a future VP, were saying they wouldn't take a vaccine developed under the then administration?

When "the science" turns on a dime in lockstep with political developments, people are naturally suspicious.  Look at the 180* turnaround on whether vaccinated people need to wear masks due to "evolving" science.  And how so many "follow the science" folks were outraged by that and vowed to remain masked.

Very little of this has to do with actual science and everything to do with politics.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, ldubs said:

 

 

 

I'm not sure we should condemn.  A lot of different businesses make a living off of responding to calamities.   Their services are needed and in many instances even critical.   

I suppose the makers of bandaids, fire engines, ambulances and smoke detectors fall into the category of businesses (like pharma) which make their livings by responding to calamities — and many of them just remedially rather than preemptively.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Toofarfromthesea said:


By un-vaccinated people.  In tiny numbers.  Which is why the hospitals are NOT filled with such people and we see no statistically valid data that this is happening and are reduced to hearing anecdotal stories.  Like the ones in this thread.

 

I guess some might think it OK for unvaccinated people to expose others to COVID because the number who get sick enough to be hospitalized represents a small percent.  Wonderful.   

Edited by ldubs
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ldubs said:

 

I guess some might think it OK for unvaccinated people to infect others because the number who get sick enough to be hospitalized represents a small percent.  Wonderful.   

What sort of thinking do you expect from COVID-deniers and anti-vaxxers?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, navybankerteacher said:

What sort of thinking do you expect from COVID-deniers and anti-vaxxers?

 

That smart guy with the wild gray hair once said something like the difference between a lack of good judgement and genius is genius has limits. 

 

I'm getting tired of hearing the anti-vaxxer nonsense and the PC rules that say I'm supposed to pretend they are free to have their own reality.  If someone doesn't want the vaccine, don't take it and take responsibility by staying the heck away from those of us doing our part to eliminate this pandemic. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, ldubs said:

 

 

I'm getting tired of hearing the anti-vaxxer nonsense and the PC rules that say I'm supposed to pretend they are free to have their own reality.  If someone doesn't want the vaccine, don't take it and take responsibility by staying the heck away from those of us doing our part to eliminate this pandemic. 

The problem is that they seem to be trying to convert others to their cause by posting their cockamamie “statistics”, “facts”, etc.  The more successful they are, the longer society as a whole will have to deal with COVID. We have just over 50% in the US now immunized - the remaining tens of millions can feed a pandemic for a long time -especially as they are unlikely to take any precautions which are not forced upon them.

Edited by navybankerteacher
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

".....Very little of this has to do with actual science and everything to do with politics."   

 

    well then,  It's a good thing I minored in polisci

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, navybankerteacher said:

The problem is that they seem to be trying to convert others to their cause by posting their cockamamie “statistics”, “facts”, etc.  The more successful they are, the longer society as a whole will have to deal with COVID. We have just over 50% in the US now immunized - the remaining tens of millions can feed a pandemic for a long time -especially as they are unlikely to take any precautions which are not forced upon them.

 

Your last sentence is the problem. 

 

I know someone who is frightened of the vaccine.  It is irrational but the fear is real.  The difference is she is responsible for her actions.  She understands her situation and is prepared to remain isolated and take precautions to protect herself and others until such a time as the pandemic is no longer an issue.    We all hope she will change her mind about the vaccine so she can join us in travel.  But I suspect she will wait years before boarding a plane if that is what is needed.       

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

What sort of thinking do you expect from COVID-deniers and anti-vaxxers?

I saw that exact thinking on the news just now.  There was a story about the relaxed mask rules in Las Vegas, for those that are vaccinated.  They interviewed someone that had been in several places without a mask, and openly (and proudly) admitted on camera that he is not vaccinated...

Edited by hallux
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Thank You for 25 Years - Click for Fun Stuff!
      • Forum Assistance
      • New Cruisers
      • Cruise Lines “A – O”
      • Cruise Lines “P – Z”
      • River Cruising
      • ROLL CALLS
      • Digital Photography & Cruise Technology
      • Special Interest Cruising
      • Cruise Discussion Topics
      • UK Cruising
      • Australia & New Zealand Cruisers
      • Canadian Cruisers
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations
×
×
  • Create New...