New study of jabbed in the journal "Circulation"

[AllenRbrts]

I’ll dip my toe in this discussion.

For the folks that mistrust mRNA technology, why aren’t you instead lining up for J&J vaccine? It has more history behind it (Ebola) and is more similar to traditional vaccines.

I don’t understand complaints from folks about vaccines risks when some of those same people seem willing to ingest random drugs that have nothing more to recommend them than some post on the internet.

Finally, there is a lot of data that vaccinated people are much less likely to end up in the ICU. If somebody refuses the vaccine why is it that I have to pay for their very expensive treatment when an extremely low cost treatment is available? If you don’t want to take it, are you willing to pay for your own covid related medical expenses?

[Nord Sal]

Originally Posted by Tetepare

On the one hand, I think that may taking a bit of personal responsibility, without recognizing the influence of media. People pick up terms and pejoratives from what they read. It's readily observable that differing media sources identify people/ groups with differing names, depending how it will influence the target consumers.

Freedom Fighters v. Terrorists is probably the best example ever. Two bipolar extremes. How one refers to a group influences opinion. Omitting, twisting, or fabricating information reinforces the intended response.

Most people have an opinion without knowledge to back it up. Thus, we rely on others to help make informed decisions. Problem is, in almost every case that "information" is (at best) incomplete; and (worse) it denigrates others, allowing us to deny ourselves the desire to seek holistic understanding.

This is, of course, all intentional. Goes back to FOLLOW THE MONEY. Somebody is making money off denigrating "the other side".

I agree about media influence, bias and terminology. The terrorist vs. the freedom fighter is a perfect example of fitting the label to match the agenda.

I also strongly agree about following the money. In that light, it's noteworthy to observe that there's much much less money to be made from natural immunity.

[Tetepare]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

Finally, there is a lot of data that vaccinated people are much less likely to end up in the ICU. If somebody refuses the vaccine why is it that I have to pay for their very expensive treatment when an extremely low cost treatment is available? If you don’t want to take it, are you willing to pay for your own covid related medical expenses?

This is a slippery slope. When healthcare starts selectively treating based on lifestyle choices I guarantee it will bite us. Who should pay their own way? Smokers? Obese? HIV? Omnivores? Vegetarians? Skydivers? SCUBA divers? Motorcyclists? Sedentary people? McDonalds customers? Open the door and we all regret it.

[AllenRbrts]

Originally Posted by Tetepare

This is a slippery slope. When healthcare starts selectively treating based on lifestyle choices I guarantee it will bite us. Who should pay their own way? Smokers? Obese? HIV? Omnivores? Vegetarians? Skydivers? SCUBA divers? Motorcyclists? Sedentary people? McDonalds customers? Open the door and we all regret it.

That is already done. Higher insurance rates for smokers. Some insurers charging more for unvaccinated (Delta Airlines as an example). But I don’t think it is a crazy question. To perhaps unfairly categorize but people that don’t want the vaccine seem to say they want freedom of choice. Okay but are you willing to pay the costs of that decision?? If you aren’t why should I pay for your seeming poor choice??

Smokers, overeaters, those choices could be argued are medical conditions, not taking the vaccine seems more a choice like jumping out of plane ( perhaps without the chute [emoji3])

[Nord Sal]

Originally Posted by GordMay

No.

Thanks for the direct response. This is the same in the US as I'm confident you know.

Originally Posted by GordMay

Nor do we exempt drivers, who have demonstrated [ie: F1] extraordinary driving skills & reflexes, from safe driving laws/regulations.

This comparison assumes that a person who's not been vaccinated but recovered from a Covid-19 infection is unsafe to others and equates them with someone who drives recklessly or negligently. Clinical studies, many linked in this thread, have shown natural immunity to be highly effective. Furthermore, there's been no evidence, at least in the US, of people with natural immunity becoming re-infected with Covid-19 and passing it on to others.

Originally Posted by GordMay

It’s harder to document, and confirm, a previous infection, and the resulting level of immunity, than to track vaccination.

This is likely true. Nevertheless, it's not a good reason to not allow an individual's naturally-acquired immunity as a legitimate defense against spreading Covid-19 in public health policy.

As Greg K points out, the EU is able to manage these difficulties without major problems.

Originally Posted by GordMay

Natural infection provides a more varied/inconsistent immune response, than vaccination.

This is also likely true; however, varied/inconsistent doesn't mean the same as either inferior or insufficient. Studies of natural immunity linked in this thread by Greg K by Mike O show the exact opposite.

Originally Posted by GordMay

Studies have shown that those who have asymptomatic, or mild infections mount a considerably less robust immune response, than those who had symptoms, and also less robust, than those who have received a full vaccine series.

As I linked above, there's no evidence, at least in the US, that these individuals can pass the disease to others. Given that, isn't this then about the risk to those individuals and not the risk to the general population? With respect to the individual's risk, given that infection fatality rates (IFRs) are on the order of 1% for all infections in the overall population, wouldn't you think they'd be much lower (and probably less frequent as well) for an individual possessing natural immunity even if it is not as robust? Forgetting the IFR number (which I welcome debate about) for a minute, I think it is unreasonable to expect the IFRs associated with reinfection to be same or higher than IFRs for an initial infection.[/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by GordMay

The messaging, therefore, has been that everyone should get vaccinated, regardless of previous infection, and no one should intentionally attempt to get infected.

I think most of us get the message from the authorities just fine. While I think there are valid reasons for some individuals to use the new vaccines, I also believe there are very valid reasons, with sufficient evidence, that others are healthy enough to not get them.

I do not think a 'one size fits all' solution is best or even desirable.[/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Still, the anti-vaccine community has embraced the idea of natural immunity, arguing that the value, and level of natural immunity has been ignored.

I'd prefer to state your closing sentence differently, by substituting my words in italics below for your words "anti-vaccine community". I've made my case in posts above why I think we should stop using this language. I don't think my edits materially change the meaning of your sentence, but they are your words after all so do let us know if you think I've altered its meaning.

Still, many of those who express concerns about the new vaccines have embraced the idea of natural immunity, arguing that the value, and level of natural immunity has been ignored.

Responding to that, and adding that natural immunity isn't merely an idea, I'd say this:

Natural immunity, while not ignored, has been discounted despite both historical evidence of its effectiveness against past pandemics and current evidence (see links in this thread by others) of its effectiveness against the spread of Covid-19.

[GordMay]

I didn’t realise that the EU countries issued “Recovery Passports”. Thanks to Greg K, and Nord Sal, for the information.

An EU Digital COVID Certificate is a digital proof that a person has either
- been vaccinated against COVID-19
- received a negative test result or
- recovered from COVID-19

Certificates of recovery (indicating that a person has recovered from an infection with COVID-19) can only be issued following a positive NAAT (nucleic acid amplification test) such as RT-PCR test. They can be issued 11 days after the date of the initial test.
Recovered persons, holding an EU Digital COVID Certificate should be exempt from travel-related testing or quarantine during the first 180 days after a positive PCR test.

More ➥ https://ec.europa.eu/info/live-work-...id-certificate

[donradcliffe]

Originally Posted by danstanford

In my city there are far more suicides currently than Covid deaths.

Easy to check, and not true in mine. While suicide ranks as the 10th leading cause of death, the score in Santa Cruz is suicides 41, covid 224. Just what city do you live in?

[danstanford]

Originally Posted by donradcliffe

Easy to check, and not true in mine. While suicide ranks as the 10th leading cause of death, the score in Santa Cruz is suicides 41, covid 224. Just what city do you live in?

Peterborough Ontario Canada.

I had assumed it would be difficult to get a count on suicides from the public domain and in a brief effort I was unable to find it. Interestingly, I did find a somewhat related article from a year ago saying suicide deaths for those having Covid were being listed as Covid deaths.

Our Regional count is 23 deaths from Covid over the course of the pandemic as listed by our Health Unit. All the fatalities are in people over 60 years of age but I don't have a profile of ages.

[senormechanico]

Remember the Good Old Days when we only argued about anchors?

[Greg K]

Originally Posted by GordMay

I didn’t realise that the EU countries issued “Recovery Passports”. Thanks to Greg K, and Nord Sal, for the information.

An EU Digital COVID Certificate is a digital proof that a person has either
- been vaccinated against COVID-19
- received a negative test result or
- recovered from COVID-19

Certificates of recovery (indicating that a person has recovered from an infection with COVID-19) can only be issued following a positive NAAT (nucleic acid amplification test) such as RT-PCR test. They can be issued 11 days after the date of the initial test.
Recovered persons, holding an EU Digital COVID Certificate should be exempt from travel-related testing or quarantine during the first 180 days after a positive PCR test.

More ➥ https://ec.europa.eu/info/live-work-...id-certificate

Does this new information in any way change your stance on the validity and viability of recognizing natural immunity within the current mandates/restrictions in Canada or the USA?

[Janet H]

This thread is being closed. There is much speculation here and this thread runs afoul of special rules for covid topics.

https://www.cruisersforum.com/forums...ml#post3096745

- Is it true?
- Is it helpful?
- Is it kind?