Natural immunity and no vaccine shot

[Toofarfromthesea]

49 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣You are incredibly amusing. "in this case the ones double blinded would be the researchers"----You actually wrote that.🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

 

Do you have any idea what the meaning of DOUBLE  blind is?

 

Here's the dictionary definition:

 

"A testing procedure, designed to eliminate biased results, in which the identity of those receiving a test treatment is CONCEALED FROM BOTH ADMINISTRATORS AND SUBJECTS until after the study is completed.

 

What is it about the word DOUBLE that you do  not understand?

Maybe so.  So where is your blind study showing vaccine immunity lasts longer than natural immunity.  Using a word incorrectly does not bear on the substance of the argument.  You demand specific studies for people disagreeing with or questioning you but don't want to cite studies supporting YOUR position.  And when challenged you seize on my misusing a term, while my actual meaning was perfectly clear, to distract from the actual issue.

[Toofarfromthesea]

33 minutes ago, hallux said:

So, let's say that it's found that "natural immunity" through infection and recovery IS found to be lasting - how do you propose this is verified?  It seems as though the protection is not universally lasting so a test to confirm protection would be needed rather than just saying "I had it, here's my previous positive test to prove it" (by the way, how is this different from just providing a proof of vaccine card? for those that are against that).

 

Are you saying that anyone wanting to use "natural immunity" as their protection protocol will then need to submit to a blood test before boarding (and then provide THAT medical record)?

If natural immunity is found to be just as long or longer than vaccine immunity why would any special testing be needed for the former that is not equally needed for the latter?

[evandbob]

The number of claims of natural immunity from alleged cases of COVID will probably contain a large % of false claims from folk who are just opposed to public health mitigation efforts.....you know, the anti vaxxers and anti mask crowd. They would falsify their case to avoid any personal effort to be responsible community participants. 

 

Seems they don't imitate their cult leader though, who had COVID and later got vaxxed to prevent a 2nd case.  Maybe they should think why he got the shot (to save his butt).

[navybankerteacher]

3 hours ago, ontheweb said:

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣You are incredibly amusing. "in this case the ones double blinded would be the researchers"----You actually wrote that.🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

 

Do you have any idea what the meaning of DOUBLE  blind is?

 

Here's the dictionary definition:

 

"A testing procedure, designed to eliminate biased results, in which the identity of those receiving a test treatment is CONCEALED FROM BOTH ADMINISTRATORS AND SUBJECTS until after the study is completed.

 

What is it about the word DOUBLE that you do  not understand?

There is so much that these people do not (or do not want to) understand that trying to educate them is like whistling in the wind.   I do believe that the best way to react to their blather is by ignoring them, rather than wasting your attention on them.  Every time you reply you let them think their comments are worthy of response --- try not feeding them.

[Anita Latte]

@hallux No idea who you are directing your question to after pages of discussion. It’s definitely problematic to prove natural immunity. Antibodies go away in the natural course of events as they aren’t needed without active infection but the enduring immunity comes from the B and T cells. I’m not clear on how to test or sample B and T cells but I think it is more complicated than a simple blood test since the B cells at least are stored in the lymph. It’s fascinating to study because the knowledge could affect the need for future boosters as well as the need to vaccinate survivors. For survivors in poorer countries that have fewer choices in vaccines because of logistics...this knowledge could be invaluable especially if vaccines available aren’t quite as effective as the mRNA vaccines. I think the China produced vaccine has been especially problematic as of the 5 most vaccinated countries in world, only Israel is having a lower case load because they were using the Pfizer vaccine IIRC, the others are having surges. I only recall Chile as one example. But anyway, definitely a head scratcher. Nothing about this situation is cut and dried...and there really needs to be a global perspective to find a solution...as evidenced by the recently started thread regarding what is “an acceptable vaccine”.

[ontheweb]

34 minutes ago, navybankerteacher said:

There is so much that these people do not (or do not want to) understand that trying to educate them is like whistling in the wind.   I do believe that the best way to react to their blather is by ignoring them, rather than wasting your attention on them.  Every time you reply you let them think their comments are worthy of response --- try not feeding them.

Believe me, I am back to blocking him, but that was just too funny using double blind when defining it as the participants knew who was in each group.

 

I guess instead of a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, ignorance is bliss would have been a better description.

[ilikeanswers]

6 hours ago, Anita Latte said:

I find our bodies to be wonderfully made...our bodies are so capable of living, 

 

As someone who has spent a lot of time with degenerative diseases I would have to disagree our bodies our wonderfully made. All it takes is one wrong gene to switch on, one hormone to go a tiny bit below or above a threshold, one signal pathway to shut down and our bodies fall into a cycle of self destruction. One glass of wine is enough to compromise your immune system to let whose knows what in. Our bodies live on the knife edge of collapse. I know there is lot of emphasis these days on lifestyle and yes it is important but only by 50%. The rest is a lottery of genetics and modern medicine is really the best cheat we have against it. 

Edited May 22, 2021 by ilikeanswers

[Anita Latte]

23 minutes ago, ilikeanswers said:

 

As someone who has spent a lot of time with degenerative diseases I would have to disagree our bodies our wonderfully made. All it takes is one wrong gene to switch on, one hormone to go a tiny bit below or above a threshold, one signal pathway to shut down and our bodies fall into a cycle of self destruction. One glass of wine is enough to compromise your immune system to let whose knows what in. Our bodies live on the knife edge of collapse. I know there is lot of emphasis these days on lifestyle and yes it is important but only by 50%. The rest is a lottery of genetics and modern medicine is really the best cheat we have against it. 

I’m very sorry for your struggle. And I sincerely apologize if my comment seems flippant. I was indirectly referencing the scripture. And partly thinking of a person close to me that had had polio as an infant and what he has been able to accomplish physically. I don’t disagree about genes and how impactful they can be as I have close friends who had a child born with rare conditions and so they only lived for a relatively short time. There’s always two sides to a story and comments can be cutting when there is no intention for that. I’ve been on the receiving end of that and empathize...I’m sorry for being on the dishing out end.

[Toofarfromthesea]

15 hours ago, ontheweb said:

Believe me, I am back to blocking him, but that was just too funny using double blind when defining it as the participants knew who was in each group.

 

I guess instead of a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, ignorance is bliss would have been a better description.

And that conveniently lets you off the hook for producing the evidence you demand from the other side.

[navybankerteacher]

15 hours ago, Anita Latte said:

@hallux No idea who you are directing your question to after pages of discussion. It’s definitely problematic to prove natural immunity. Antibodies go away in the natural course of events as they aren’t needed without active infection but the enduring immunity comes from the B and T cells. I’m not clear on how to test or sample B and T cells but I think it is more complicated than a simple blood test since the B cells at least are stored in the lymph. It’s fascinating to study because the knowledge could affect the need for future boosters as well as the need to vaccinate survivors. For survivors in poorer countries that have fewer choices in vaccines because of logistics...this knowledge could be invaluable especially if vaccines available aren’t quite as effective as the mRNA vaccines. I think the China produced vaccine has been especially problematic as of the 5 most vaccinated countries in world, only Israel is having a lower case load because they were using the Pfizer vaccine IIRC, the others are having surges. I only recall Chile as one example. But anyway, definitely a head scratcher. Nothing about this situation is cut and dried...and there really needs to be a global perspective to find a solution...as evidenced by the recently started thread regarding what is “an acceptable vaccine”.

 

[navybankerteacher]

15 hours ago, Anita Latte said:

@hallux No idea who you are directing your question to after pages of discussion. It’s definitely problematic to prove natural immunity. …

Yes - it IS “…definitely problematic to prove natural immunity…”,  because something which seems not to exist tends to elude proof.

 

The fact, however,  that people have been re-infected with COVID symptoms after recovering  from COVID indicates the existence of a difficult-to-ignore DISPROOF of natural immunity.

 

At this point I doubt the utility of further discussion with folks who share your thought patterns, so please do not be offended if I ignore future posts.

[t&atravel]

16 hours ago, Anita Latte said:

Antibodies go away in the natural course of events as they aren’t needed without active infection but the enduring immunity comes from the B and T cells. 

I believe you are incorrect in the statement that “antibodies go away in the natural course”.  There are several tests for the different antibodies VGg VGm VGa etc. I had a blood test just last week that showed antibodies for a past infection of EBV (mono) that I probably had as a teen (I’m 66).  My daughter while trying to conceive at age 35 was tested to see if she still had antibodies for measles mumps and rubella that she was vaccinated for as a baby (she did).  If your antibodies have “gone away”  with a blood test for antibodies that does not show them then you are no longer protected.  We don’t  know yet if the covid antibodies will last as we do not have enough data, but it is incorrect to say that you can’t prove “natural immunity” with a blood test.

[Anita Latte]

37 minutes ago, navybankerteacher said:

At this point I doubt the utility of further discussion with folks who share your thought patterns, so please do not be offended if I ignore future posts.

Dude, I don’t really care what you do. For the benefit of others that are actually interested in reading about research...the discuss of enduring natural immunity is a hot topic...here’s a start for those people...

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/search/research-news/12560/?utm_source=gquery&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=gquery-home

 

Notice the .gov address and the NIH...this is not some crack pot fringe propaganda that I’m sharing links to

 

 

[Anita Latte]

16 minutes ago, t&atravel said:

I believe you are incorrect in the statement that “antibodies go away in the natural course”.  There are several tests for the different antibodies VGg VGm VGa etc. I had a blood test just last week that showed antibodies for a past infection of EBV (mono) that I probably had as a teen (I’m 66).  My daughter while trying to conceive at age 35 was tested to see if she still had antibodies for measles mumps and rubella that she was vaccinated for as a baby (she did).  If your antibodies have “gone away”  with a blood test for antibodies that does not show them then you are no longer protected.  We don’t  know yet if the covid antibodies will last as we do not have enough data, but it is incorrect to say that you can’t prove “natural immunity” with a blood test.

I’ve read that antibody levels reach a peak following infection or vaccination and then diminish. I’ve read that tests of survivors of the Spanish Flu still have detectable antibodies. I didn’t mean to imply that the entire population of antibodies go away entirely, but the studies are saying that their levels are such that subsequent infection can become symptomatic but depending on the immune response may not become severe or last for very long. Good clarification.

Edited May 22, 2021 by Anita Latte
Clarification

[t&atravel]

18 minutes ago, Anita Latte said:

I’ve read that antibody levels reach a peak following infection or vaccination and then diminish. I’ve read that tests of survivors of the Spanish Flu still have detectable antibodies. I didn’t mean to imply that the entire population of antibodies go away entirely, but the studies are saying that their levels are such that subsequent infection can become symptomatic but depending on the immune response may not become severe or last for very long. Good clarification.

Hence the argument for vaccination.  There is not enough data as yet to determine if the antibodies from past infection will remain at a level that will protect you in the future or for new strains of the virus.  Getting vaccinated with possible annual boosters is the only way to keep it at bay “at this time”.  As more studies are completed and more time has past we may be able to make the statement that we can never get it again or as badly once we’ve had it.  In the meantime the more people who are vaccinated the better.  

[wowzz]

The medical specialists in the UK recommend that you are vaccinated even if you have had CV19 in the past.

Personally, I'm going to listen to these professionals, rather than those who base their position on selective reading of Wikipedia and Google. 

 

[frantic36]

2 hours ago, wowzz said:

The medical specialists in the UK recommend that you are vaccinated even if you have had CV19 in the past.

Personally, I'm going to listen to these professionals, rather than those who base their position on selective reading of Wikipedia and Google. 

 

 

Exactly right. Prince William had his first vaccination jab last week when his age group became eligible. He had Covid last year and took the medical advice to still get vaccinated.

[Anita Latte]

5 hours ago, t&atravel said:

Hence the argument for vaccination.  There is not enough data as yet to determine if the antibodies from past infection will remain at a level that will protect you in the future or for new strains of the virus.  Getting vaccinated with possible annual boosters is the only way to keep it at bay “at this time”.  As more studies are completed and more time has past we may be able to make the statement that we can never get it again or as badly once we’ve had it.  In the meantime the more people who are vaccinated the better.  

This is why the study of the B cells is so important. Your body’s B cells are the library your body keeps for the blue prints of the viruses that your body has encountered. Our bodies are very efficient machines always striving for more efficiency in everything it does, which explains why you may have to change up your exercise routine to continue to make headway toward the original goal that motivated you to start exercising in the first place. Hence the discussions for how to get past a weight loss plateau whenever you are seeking to lose a great percentage of your body weight. You may have so much to lose and your body’s own ability to improve efficiency (defined by doing the same work with decreasing or streamlined  effort) may mean that you have to pursue multiple different strategies as you continue to lose weight. 
 

So bringing it back to antibodies in the blood. Your body increases or reduces the number of antibodies that patrol the blood stream if you will because the perceived threat is more or less eminent. Regardless, your body keeps the blue print on how to make more antibodies which are the B cells stored in the body’s lymph. Body immune health will determine how well the body fights repeated infection or attempt to infect, exposure I guess. If the antibodies in the blood stream are good enough, great. If they aren’t, then the body can manufacture more. The question is how few antibodies in the blood can most tolerate and still fight future infection. How often do you need to boost that? Trigger the body to make more?

 

Booster shots to vaccines are definitely a way. But how often do you need them? That’s a question that this research seeks to answer. In pursuit of that answer, they also have to answer how adaptive are the body’s antibodies to variations in the virus? And, how adaptive are the body’s B cells to modify blue prints to make antibodies that are capable of fighting infection when exposed to a virus variant.

 

And they’re finding that regardless of whether or not the current level of immune response was triggered by vaccine or natural infection, there’s is actually an adaptability inherent in the body’s B cells if not antibodies. B cells change and evolve similarly to how the virus itself does. How good are B cells at anticipating and responding to the way the virus actually evolves and changes and varies? Figuring out the particulars in the way the immune system works is the job of scientists studying the questions, the answers can have a great impact on recommendations for boosters and vaccines in general. For the doctors of the world, they are making recommendations based on their interpretation of current knowledge. The thing is, these doctor recommendations are fluid. They are based on changing knowledge as more studies find more answers. It is called a medical practice. It’s what they do, practice doing different things in response to changing data to see what results in the best outcomes. And these best practices could end up being different for different people because not everyone has the same body chemistry. For now, I would imagine that doctors are erring on what they think is the side of caution, but that doesn’t mean that other actions are necessarily wrong. Time will tell. 

[Donald]

Relax everyone.

The situation is not nearly as dire as it seems.

To get a better perspective, you should visit “The Darwin Awards” at www.darwinawards.com 

 

This organization bestows awards to those who improve the development of the human genome by accidentally or intentionally removing themselves from the breeding gene pool, thereby ensuring that they cannot produce more geniuses like themselves.

 

Typically, the winners of these awards do things like tuck loaded handguns into their trousers and shoot off their genitalia; or light a match to see how much fuel is left in the gas tank of their car. Oddly, a high percentage of the award winners are either from Florida or Texas.

Claiming dubious immunity to a deadly disease, and then daring Mother Nature to call their bluff is certainly a great first step to earning this award. We just need to be quietly careful around them, so as not to be award co-winners, and wait until these folks permanently vacate their houses, jobs, and parking places. 

[2wheelin]

9 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

Yes - it IS “…definitely problematic to prove natural immunity…”,  because something which seems not to exist tends to elude proof.

 

The fact, however,  that people have been re-infected with COVID symptoms after recovering  from COVID indicates the existence of a difficult-to-ignore DISPROOF of natural immunity.

 

At this point I doubt the utility of further discussion with folks who share your thought patterns, so please do not be offended if I ignore future posts.

Are you claiming that natural immunity does not exist? Certainly not. Can you please post a link to the data that proves those reinfected got the same variant again. You develop immunity when you have a rhinovirus but you certainly can catch another one a month later, just not the same one. 

There is good reason most of us are ignoring your comments as well.

[Joebucks]

21 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

Yes - it IS “…definitely problematic to prove natural immunity…”,  because something which seems not to exist tends to elude proof.

 

The fact, however,  that people have been re-infected with COVID symptoms after recovering  from COVID indicates the existence of a difficult-to-ignore DISPROOF of natural immunity.

 

At this point I doubt the utility of further discussion with folks who share your thought patterns, so please do not be offended if I ignore future posts.

 

"People have been reinfected?" Is this some widespread problem? If "people have been reinfected" am I good to say "people have still gotten COVID and died while vaccinated?"

 

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2021/04/previous-covid-19-may-cut-risk-reinfection-84

 

Since you're so into science, there's a study that shows a 93% chance of not have a symptomatic reinfection. The findings of the authors suggest that infection and the development of an antibody response provides protection similar to or even better than currently used SARS-CoV-2 vaccines.

 

Of course there are going to be health experts out there who recommend vaccination even if you've had COVID. We've seen constant over-cautious guidance. That still hasn't definitively proved that natural immunity isn't sufficient. If the big victory between natural immunity and vaccination is "proof of immunity," that's not enough of a benefit to convince people they need it.

[broberts]

2 hours ago, Joebucks said:

 

"People have been reinfected?" Is this some widespread problem? If "people have been reinfected" am I good to say "people have still gotten COVID and died while vaccinated?"

 

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2021/04/previous-covid-19-may-cut-risk-reinfection-84

 

Since you're so into science, there's a study that shows a 93% chance of not have a symptomatic reinfection. The findings of the authors suggest that infection and the development of an antibody response provides protection similar to or even better than currently used SARS-CoV-2 vaccines.

 

Of course there are going to be health experts out there who recommend vaccination even if you've had COVID. We've seen constant over-cautious guidance. That still hasn't definitively proved that natural immunity isn't sufficient. If the big victory between natural immunity and vaccination is "proof of immunity," that's not enough of a benefit to convince people they need it.

 

It's a question not of science but of public health policy. There is no easy and rapid way to prove immunity. There is a way to quickly and inexpensively prove vaccination.

[Toofarfromthesea]

On 5/22/2021 at 11:01 AM, navybankerteacher said:

Yes - it IS “…definitely problematic to prove natural immunity…”,  because something which seems not to exist tends to elude proof.

 

The fact, however,  that people have been re-infected with COVID symptoms after recovering  from COVID indicates the existence of a difficult-to-ignore DISPROOF of natural immunity.

 

At this point I doubt the utility of further discussion with folks who share your thought patterns, so please do not be offended if I ignore future posts.

And yet we don't hear this argument when someone becomes infected AFTER having been vaccinated.  Is this a 'difficult-to-ignore DISPROOF of' the effectiveness of the vaccine?

[Toofarfromthesea]

16 hours ago, 2wheelin said:

Are you claiming that natural immunity does not exist? Certainly not. Can you please post a link to the data that proves those reinfected got the same variant again. You develop immunity when you have a rhinovirus but you certainly can catch another one a month later, just not the same one. 

There is good reason most of us are ignoring your comments as well.

I'm old enough to remember when a kid in the neighborhood getting chickenpox would be the signal for the moms to organize playdates with their kids and the infected kid so their kids could become infected and thereby become immune.

It is amazing the extent to which COVID caused us to jettison things we have known for decades, like the inefficacy of masks to control infectious respiratory diseases, the unlikelihood of virus transmission through hard surfaces, the existence of natural immunity among previously infected people, etc.

[Toofarfromthesea]

1 hour ago, broberts said:

 

It's a question not of science but of public health policy. There is no easy and rapid way to prove immunity. There is a way to quickly and inexpensively prove vaccination.

Oh good, someone is realizing that it is not a matter of science.