Covid vaccine after having covid

[CatNewBee]

Originally Posted by Montanan

People hospitalized with COVID-19 now have one overwhelming thing in common. They're not vaccinated.

In Minnesota, the HealthPartners system has seen a “precipitous decline” in COVID-19 hospitalizations, says Dr. Mark Sannes, an infectious disease physician and senior medical director for the system, which operates nine hospitals and more than 55 clinics. But now, nearly every admitted patient he does see is unvaccinated.

“Less than 1% of our hospitalized COVID patients are vaccinated," he said.

In Ohio, at University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, only 2% of the COVID-19 patients admitted in the last month were vaccinated, said Dr. Robert Salata, the hospital's physician-in-chief.

And at Sanford Health, which runs 44 medical centers and more than 200 clinics across the Dakotas, Minnesota and Iowa, less than 5% of the 1,456 patients admitted with COVID-19 so far this year were fully vaccinated.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/people-ho...100140919.html

Didn't they have it always since the beginning? Now more vaccinated people are hospitalized, 1%, then 2% then 5%.... That means less unvaccinated then before are hospitalized 100%...99%...98%...95%

Not sure if you can read the facts unbiased.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by CatNewBee

Didn't they have it always since the beginning? Now more vaccinated people are hospitalized, 1%, then 2% then 5%.... That means less unvaccinated then before are hospitalized 100%...99%...98%...95%

Not sure if you can read the facts unbiased.

Not sure you can follow basic logic.

Before there was the vaccine, 100% of those hospitalized were unvaccinated. Now that the vaccine is widely available, and a significant portion of the USA has been vaccinated, the total number of hospitalizations has seen a "precipitous decline." And of those who are hospitalized, the proportion who are vaccinated is running between 1% and 5%, which is exactly in line with the efficacy ratings of the vaccines.

You can do whatever backflips you like. The FACTS are entirely supportive of vaccines being effective. And given the exceedingly low serious adverse reaction numbers, they are also showing themselves to be safe.

Your comments remind me of the documentary about flat earthers. Their scientists were conducting experiments trying to disprove the round-earth "theory". They were good experiments -- and they kept showing that the Earth is round.

Instead of accepting the results, the flat earthers kept trying to re-interpret the data and re-jig the experiment. They couldn't, or more likely wouldn't, see the evidence that was as plain as day to everyone.

[NPCampbell]

Originally Posted by Greg K

Oh dear, another fine example of just parroting the news one has been fed by the MSN. Not an iota of critical thinking in evidence.

India, a nation of close to five times the population of the US, has just over half of the total deaths of the latter. Deaths per 1M pop are at 274 compared to 1,851 in the US, 2,300 in Brasil, and 1,800 in the UK and 2,100 of Italy. It is WAY down, even below Canada which is at 683, and is, in fact, one of the few countries which has an astounding small number of deaths/mil compared to Europe and the Americas.

But you saw it on cnn or bbc so it must be true, right? https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/?zarsrc=130

Here's a critical thinking exercise.

In Hyderabad, India, the excess mortality is 1800% higher than the reported Covid deaths for the entire state it resides in, Telangana. Yet Hyderabad only accounts for 1/5 the population. How accurate do you think worldofmeters is?

[NPCampbell]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

You can do whatever backflips you like. The FACTS are entirely supportive of vaccines being effective. And given the exceedingly low serious adverse reaction numbers, they are also showing themselves to be safe.

Coming full circle back to the title of this thread:

There's only one thing more effective than the Covid vaccine at preventing Covid ... drum roll ... having previously been infected with Covid! The re-infection rate is typically reported as < 1%. Obviously, the latter approach carries that pesky chance of death with it.

[Alan Mighty]

Originally Posted by NPCampbell

There's only one thing more effective than the Covid vaccine at preventing Covid ... drum roll ... having previously been infected with Covid! The re-infection rate is typically reported as < 1%. Obviously, the latter approach carries that pesky chance of death with it.

Hmm ... the cheese and kisses and I, were reinfected 16 months after our first infection.

And that's before Variants of Concern emerged.

The wise beard local to us today reckoned:

* from now on he will not use the term 'herd immunity';

* looks v likely that Covid is going to become endemic, partly because of its nature and partly because significant numbers of the local population and the international populations are unwilling to be injected with any of the first generation of vaccines;

* from now on he will prefer the term 'immunise' instead of 'vaccinate'.N He said his aim is to immunise widely. Vaccination is just one tool. Face masks and rapid test kits may be here for the foreseeable.

N: he has no objection to cows or words whose etymological source is with cows.

In summary, the local wise beard reckons the humans have lost the first round. We have to live to C-19 until we have the tools for a re-match.

[Greg K]

Originally Posted by NPCampbell

Here's a critical thinking exercise.

In Hyderabad, India, the excess mortality is 1800% higher than the reported Covid deaths for the entire state it resides in, Telangana. Yet Hyderabad only accounts for 1/5 the population. How accurate do you think worldofmeters is?

That's an interesting anomaly, if true. Excess mortality, or the lack of it statistically, has often been presented as an argument against the stated total number of covid deaths claimed, especially in the US.

Since you're looking at India, how about having a look at when and which states in India rolled out the vaccination programs and began to prohibit the use of Ivermectin and compare their official death tolls for that period to those Indian states like Goa ( for example) which continued with state wide availability of Ivermectin. What do the numbers tell you?

[danstanford]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Not sure you can follow basic logic.

Before there was the vaccine, 100% of those hospitalized were unvaccinated. Now that the vaccine is widely available, and a significant portion of the USA has been vaccinated, the total number of hospitalizations has seen a "precipitous decline." And of those who are hospitalized, the proportion who are vaccinated is running between 1% and 5%, which is exactly in line with the efficacy ratings of the vaccines.

You can do whatever backflips you like. The FACTS are entirely supportive of vaccines being effective. And given the exceedingly low serious adverse reaction numbers, they are also showing themselves to be safe.

Your comments remind me of the documentary about flat earthers. Their scientists were conducting experiments trying to disprove the round-earth "theory". They were good experiments -- and they kept showing that the Earth is round.

Instead of accepting the results, the flat earthers kept trying to re-interpret the data and re-jig the experiment. They couldn't, or more likely wouldn't, see the evidence that was as plain as day to everyone.

Seth Godin once wrote that customers are never irrational. He went on to explain that it was their money and they would spend it as they thought best whether you agree with it or not. Obviously they often have a different set of "facts" from yours so they make different choices than you might.
Some prefer full keel "bluewater boats", some prefer faster more maneuverable boats, and some prefer cats. Each will make choices based on their information and will not risk their lives on a choice they believe is a threat to that. Again, your views may differ based on your knowledge/experience.
Obviously vaccine hesitant folks believe the vaccine may represent more risk than covid to them particularly if they have seen virtually everyone they know who got infected recovered nicely and didn't die.
I go for my second shot today without hesitation but I certainly have no problem understanding folks who choose not to.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by NPCampbell

Coming full circle back to the title of this thread:

There's only one thing more effective than the Covid vaccine at preventing Covid ... drum roll ... having previously been infected with Covid! The re-infection rate is typically reported as < 1%. Obviously, the latter approach carries that pesky chance of death with it.

Do you have a source for this NP? I've read one study so far which found statistically identical levels of protection, but I've read a number which find vaccines are superior (ranging from slightly to significantly). I've also read some research pointing to the differences induced by natural exposure vs vaccine. Seems to me we don't yet know the answer to "which is better." Although it's clear both routes provide some level of protection.

But as you point out, the big negative to the natural method is that it results in significant mortality, and an even larger morbidity rate. In the USA the mortality rate is 1.8% (case fatality ratio). Often the claim here is that it is only 1%, which is still huge, but in reality it's almost double.

In other words, a lot of people have to die to achieve herd immunity via natural exposure. Compared to vaccines-induced immunity..., there really is no comparison. The mortality rate associated with Covid-19 vaccines is many magnitudes lower.

Here's a couple of recent papers or news stories about recent research:

Natural Acquisition Versus Vaccine – Which is More Effective?

Striking difference identified between mRNA vaccination vs. SARS-CoV-2 infection immune responses

Mortality Rate and Characteristics of Deaths Following COVID-19 Vaccination

And of course:

Fully Vaccinated Adults 65 and Older Are 94% Less Likely to Be Hospitalized with COVID-19

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Greg K

That's an interesting anomaly, if true. Excess mortality, or the lack of it statistically, has often been presented as an argument against the stated total number of covid deaths claimed, especially in the US.

A deeper analysis of US excess deaths will show that the actual COVID mortality is probably higher than the stated count of 600k. Hint - 2020 was not a normal year, with fewer non-COVID deaths , so using a "normal" baseline from years past actually hides a significant amount of 2020's deaths.

Since you're looking at India, how about having a look at when and which states in India rolled out the vaccination programs and began to prohibit the use of Ivermectin and compare their official death tolls for that period to those Indian states like Goa ( for example) which continued with state wide availability of Ivermectin. What do the numbers tell you?

Sure. Point us to them.

[Greg K]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Given how the numbers are going, the walking dead are the non-vaccinated. So I guess we know who the real brain dead, sheeple, zombies are .

Time will tell. Interesting paper from the NIH suggests potentially serious long term consequences for at least some of those vaccinated.

"It is generally thought that the sole function of viral membrane fusion proteins is to allow the viruses to bind to the host cells for the purpose of viral entry into the cells, so that the genetic materials can be released and the viral replication and amplification can take place. However, recent observations suggest that the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein can by itself trigger cell signaling that can lead to various biological processes. It is reasonable to assume that such events, in some cases, result in the pathogenesis of certain diseases."

"PAH is a serious disease without a cure that can affect males and females of any age including children. The increased pulmonary vascular resistance in PAH results in right heart failure and subsequently death. Patients diagnosed with PAH only live for 2–3 years from the time of diagnosis on average if untreated [

30

,

31

]. Even with currently available therapies, only 60–70% of PAH patients survive for three years [

32

,

33

,

34

,

35

]. "

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art...lUxbZ5HA0ekbYA

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by danstanford

I go for my second shot today without hesitation but I certainly have no problem understanding folks who choose not to.

Dan, I can comprehend what people claim. But that doesn't make their claims any more true or correct. Facts still matter. People can believe all manner of things, but facts can show which of these beliefs are based in reality, and which are not.

Humans make mistakes all the time. It is easy to show that some beliefs are simply wrong. The whole reason for using science to answer questions is that we want to find actual answers, not just ones based on personal belief which is often fed by a poor understanding of statistics (anecdote for example).

But I think you are absolutely correct in that we need to understand what is driving a false belief. Facts and data do not necessarily move beliefs (as we can amply see in this discussion here). Emotion is the principle driver for most of us, which is why I support pragmatic approaches to moving the honestly hesitant towards taking the vaccine.

There is nothing that will change the minds' of the true anti-vaxxers (again, as we can see here in this discussion), but there are people who have honest questions which can be addressed through various practical means.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Your comments remind me of the documentary about flat earthers. Their scientists were conducting experiments trying to disprove the round-earth "theory". They were good experiments -- and they kept showing that the Earth is round.

There's a very simple proof; if the earth was flat, cats would have long ago knocked everything off of it.

Originally Posted by danstanford

Seth Godin once wrote that customers are never irrational. He went on to explain that it was their money and they would spend it as they thought best whether you agree with it or not. Obviously they often have a different set of "facts" from yours so they make different choices than you might.

If customers were never irrational, advertising wouldn't work

[danstanford]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

If customers were never irrational, advertising wouldn't work

Quite the opposite. We have to really recognize that the advertising and advertorials they view help to form their belief structure in one way or another. The salient point is that they are making 'sound' decisions based on their knowledge.
Where this really comes home to roost is businesses who are convinced that their clients are idiots for the choices they make. The good strategy would be to stock and sell the product they want while concurrently and gently trying to inform. The reality is that many companies fail by refusing to understand this fact and want clients to adapt to their product line.

Sorry for the thread drift.
Dan

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by danstanford

Quite the opposite. We have to really recognize that the advertising and advertorials they view help to form their belief structure in one way or another. The salient point is that they are making 'sound' decisions based on their knowledge.
Where this really comes home to roost is businesses who are convinced that their clients are idiots for the choices they make. The good strategy would be to stock and sell the product they want while concurrently and gently trying to inform. The reality is that many companies fail by refusing to understand this fact and want clients to adapt to their product line.

Sorry for the thread drift.
Dan

I was in advertising for over a decade (please forgive me; it was mostly in a technical role). When convincing someone to buy something - especially discretionary purchases... you're not playing to their rational side. You're feeding their rationalization process, sure... but it's usually not the "rational" argument that wins them over. [/derail]

[NPCampbell]

Originally Posted by Greg K

That's an interesting anomaly, if true. Excess mortality, or the lack of it statistically, has often been presented as an argument against the stated total number of covid deaths claimed, especially in the US.

There's no anomaly. There is always a difference between the infection fatality rate and case fatality rate for every disease due to lack of or poor testing and reporting. Population fatality rate is normally free from the economics and politics of reporting so it can be used to estimate IFR either up or down.

In the US, the flu IR and IFR is always a SWAG due to this. Covid is no different.

Originally Posted by Greg K

Since you're looking at India, how about having a look at when and which states in India rolled out the vaccination programs and began to prohibit the use of Ivermectin and compare their official death tolls for that period to those Indian states like Goa ( for example) which continued with state wide availability of Ivermectin. What do the numbers tell you?

Half my team works in India but I have no idea what treatments were available. I can tell you that until recently, getting tested was way tougher for team members than in the US. You can't "officially" contract or die from Covid unless you get tested for it. Therein lies the problem.