I think they may be hampered by an inability to live in fear or even rationally in the face of real and present dangers.
1 Like
My point is that if the definition changed, it changed a long time ago â sometime in the late 19th century, in fact.
I agree, and I think thereâs a reasonable discussion to be had about whether itâs possible to encourage mask use in most settings while still having occasions for human interactions that donât involve them. But the basis of that discussion has to be that masks work â and the claim I was responding to was that masks donât work.
5 Likes
@Randy I want to again thank you for your service to humanity and compassion for your patients. Also FWIW most of us understand the HIPAA limitations on you sharing details.
That study you linked puts me back on my heels for at least these reasons:
- It completely disagrees with many population (outcome!) studies that conclude the complete opposite.
- It does not even mention those other studies, why they think those studies are wrong, or what the data from those studies âactuallyâ says when run through their algorithm(s).
- This also is very important: It does not show how they got that âaORâ number from that data. That would make it possible to validate or recognize assumptions, run the math myself, etc. They report their âanswerâ, but especially since it radically disagrees with other studies, they need to show the work. When I was in High School math, I would get Failed if I didnât show my work.
Does anyone know how they got those numbers from that data? Iâve tried, but I canât find any way to come up with that number from that data.
In contrast the author of this WaPo article is of good repute and argues the opposite position: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/09/15/natural-immunity-vaccine-mandate
1 Like
Interesting articles, and it seems the devil is in the details on a lot of these studies, as they are limited to a particular set of circumstances and it is sometimes difficult to generalize what the significance of the findings are. This is the study I recall showing greater effectiveness of the vaccine, but it was done only in hospitalized patients I think, so might not indicate asymptomatic or mild infections: Laboratory-Confirmed COVID-19 Among Adults Hospitalized with COVID-19âLike Illness with Infection-Induced or mRNA Vaccine-Induced SARS-CoV-2 Immunity â Nine States, JanuaryâSeptember 2021 | MMWR
The article you referenced looks good, but when you look at the studies the article quoted, it is also difficult to reach conclusions beyond the scope of the studies. No doubt natural immunity is effective, but even one of those studies stated that immunization after infection gave increased benefit.
3 Likes
Oh, great question. As a matter of fact, I loved reading this article, as he references Spectrum in Grand Rapids, MI, which I belong to.
From a non scientific perspective, as a primary care doc, I was relieved to be able to write for exceptions to the vaccine when they allowed us to use IgG proof of past infection, as itâs been hard for many folks to choose a vaccine, and I hated to have them struggle over that.
Having said that, Spectrum recommends that we get the booster, still, and there are reasons outlined in Up to Date and CDC, which Iâll review and post. If you like, I will also see if I get a chance to ask one of the infectious disease and immunology docs about thatâthey have been great about explaining this.
@glipsnort will likely be able to help out in this, but we see immunity waning in both natural and vaccine treatments. In fact, that may be a variable, as @jpm put it, of how much infection we gotâbased on viral load and inoculation. So, if we have a mild case from a low grade inoculation, we may have less immunity. As the CDC article notes at the bottom, a higher and consistent vaccine related immunity may be a better standard.
Near the beginning of 2020, I saw a reinfection in 2 healthy young people who had both had ânaturalâ immunity, within 3 monthsâsomething I have not seen with the vaccine, to my recollection. Both immune causes seem to have a waning immunity at 6-8 months. It seem to be a function of IgA immunity, which, primarily active for upper respiratory infections, wanes quickly. Itâs not the âfaultâ of either the real or vaccine immunity.
I have to get on to some more work, but here are some CDC articles that are relevant, to start. I donât have time to respond to Makaryâs notes in detail yet. I would point out, though, that he is an oncology surgeon, not an epidemiologist. When a family doc calls for advice on infectious disease, we look up an ID, epidemiologist, or immunologist, not a surgeon. No matter how smart they are, they have not had the standard of studies that people in this area do. Again, I respect CDC the more I read their notes and research.
I note that Makary is, however, much in favor of the primary shots for those who have not had Covid.
I am surprised, and question Makaryâs claim that thousands of lives were lost because of boosters pushing others to the side. I would like to see some stats here.
Makary also mixes his analogies regarding immunity, as chickenpox does not have the same immunity memory as Covid and respiratory viruses (nor is it as lethal as Covid). Influenza, pneumovax, tetanus, Hep A, Hep B, yellow fever, and whooping cough, and sometimes measles, also need boosters. Anyone who has had a shingles booster, though, as the ACIP recommends at age 50 or more, has had a chickenpox booster because of waning efficacy. Shingles, which can be very painful and permanent in terms of pain, is recurrent chickenpox.
Some tidbits from the article below:
Executive Summary
Key findings and considerations for this brief are as follows:
- Available evidence shows that fully vaccinated individuals and those previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 each have a low risk of subsequent infection for at least 6 months. Data are presently insufficient to determine an antibody titer threshold that indicates when an individual is protected from infection. At this time, there is no FDA-authorized or approved test that providers or the public can use to reliably determine whether a person is protected from infection.
- The immunity provided by vaccine and prior infection are both high but not complete (i.e., not 100%).
- Multiple studies have shown that antibody titers correlate with protection at a population level, but protective titers at the individual level remain unknown.
- Whereas there is a wide range in antibody titers in response to infection with SARS-CoV-2, completion of a primary vaccine series, especially with mRNA vaccines, typically leads to a more consistent and higher-titer initial antibody response.
- For certain populations, such as the elderly and immunocompromised, the levels of protection may be decreased following both vaccination and infection.
- Current evidence indicates that the level of protection may not be the same for all viral variants.
- The body of evidence for infection-induced immunity is more limited than that for vaccine-induced immunity in terms of the quality of evidence (e.g., probable bias towards symptomatic or medically-attended infections) and types of studies (e.g., observational cohort studies, mostly retrospective versus a mix of randomized controlled trials, case-control studies, and cohort studies for vaccine-induced immunity). There are insufficient data to extend the findings related to infection-induced immunity at this time to persons with very mild or asymptomatic infection or children.
- Substantial immunologic evidence and a growing body of epidemiologic evidence indicate that vaccination after infection significantly enhances protection and further reduces risk of reinfection, which lays the foundation for CDC recommendations.
Science Brief: SARS-CoV-2 Infection-induced and Vaccine-induced Immunity | CDC
Following comes also a shorter paper on Covid reinfection rates if one has also had the vaccine, in a short time in Kentucky:
CDC does comment that itâs ok to wait 3 months after Covid to get a booster, as itâs very seldom we get breakthrough infections during that time. It seems that itâs not that we are so worried about the illness being severe, as we are about spreading. For example, a family member nurse who has Covid now but had the shot 8 months ago is only mildly symptomatic, but has to isolate to avoid transmission to others. She left the US for the mission field before the booster came out. I am around Covid all the time now, have had my booster (and wear the mask), and have not gotten the illness. The booster likely has kept me from getting a mild case that could carry it on to someone else.
Thanks. I look forward to your kind discussion.
7 Likes
Iâve seen a number of conflicting results on the protection afforded by vaccination vs that from prior infection and I donât really have time to figure out if thereâs a consistent picture in there or not. The last study I looked at (here) concluded that prior infection less than six months earlier was substantially better than vaccination but that the former did show signs of substantial waning after six months. (I canât find anything in the paper about time since vaccination, but given when the data was collected most vaccination was likely recent. I also donât know how sick the previously infected were when they were previously infected.) This is for protection against symptomatic illness, not severe illness or death.
4 Likes
Thanks.
Yes, and CDC in the position paper notes that the studies likely skew to symptomatic illnesses, which would potentially give a stronger antibody response, as the asymptomatic ones may have been missed.
The position paper by CDC seems to take quite a few variables into consideration and make a pragmatic recommendation. Itâs not an easy question. Thank you!
@Marty, you asked a question Iâve really been wanting to look up more about, so thank you; I am learning, too.
2 Likes
7 Likes
Very helpful presentation!
1 Like
Yes, I thought so too. Is DaughterOfEve still around?
I just tried to share the video on Facebook but got the message that it could not be shared. Okay thatâs triggering me to suppose Facebook has an algorithm to suppress posts that could suppress strife and with it their profits. Feel my self getting sucked down a rabbit hole. I may need an intervention.
5 Likes
I was re-reading Haidtâs âThe Righteous Mindâ this week, and am convinced we failed in many cases by trying to appeal to the rational side of people (the rider) when we should have concentrated more on the emotional aspects (the elephant). We needed to alter the elephants path though appeals aided at making our tribe strong by getting through the storm, by equaling vaccination with loyality and patriotism. Unfortunately, those in a position to lead us in that direction chose not to do so.
5 Likes
Good thoughts; I thought that Fauci and the others tried, though. I remember him warning that we would likely all know someone who dies from Covid if we donât alter our behavior.
In fact, itâs odd, but it seems that conspiracy theorists blame us for fearmongering.
It may be the sin of Cainâwhere we blame each other for the problem, rather than Covid.
2 Likes
John Cook is wonderful! Iâve posted some of his other videos here.
3 Likes
Now this is funny!
Jordan Klepper vs. Anti-Vaxxers in SoCal
Vaccine mandates are just like the Nazi police state!
âSo Jewish people are fleeing Poland because they canât get into gyms?â
6 Likes
Thanks for sharing beaglelady
2 Likes
Well, Iâm going to be the dissenter here again! Not that I like doing it, but Iâm troubled.
First, I want to remind everyone that the problem is not binary: people are not either right or wrong. They are right about some things and wrong about other things. Everybody here is at least partially wrong in their understanding of those they disagree with, and are partially wrong, period. This is true on almost every subject. A corollary is that everybody is at least partially right.
I have tried to steer this thread to help people hold dialog instead of âotheringâ people. I felt there has been some success.
Iâm worried that the posting of this video is a step backwards. It claims to teach us about âconspiracy theoriesâ in general, but thatâs not really its intent. It uses a straw man to make its case, and by extension (he says, âWhy stop there?â) anyone who disagrees with any part of the âofficialâ narrative is as shallow and obviously wrong as the quoted portions of the Mikovits video. Itâs just the wrong approach! As soon as you start classifying people, you have stopped treating them as individuals and you are wrong.
Remember that âwe will know them by their fruit.â So if watching this video helped you gain compassion and a desire to engage thoughtfully with others, then it is a healthy video. My suspicion is that for most people who watch the Cook video (or the Mikovits video!), it makes them less capable of engaging in caring and fruitful conversation. I think we should oppose any presentation that encourages you to classify fellow human beings so that you can dismiss their opinions rather than engage.
The Cook video, like most of the news these days, takes a few selective facts, paints a narrative around those few facts, just ignores or even denies other facts, and takes a side in the âculture wars.â Letâs not do that!
This video pretends to educate, but in that guise intends to divide, isolate, and diminish fellow human beings. For those of us here who are Christians, we are not allowed to do that. Hope Iâm not being too preachy here, but to me, whatever this video has right is incidental to its divisive, disingenuous approach.
Care to explain?
The latest is that the elderly husband of Judy Mikovits has died. They are not disclosing the cause of death so it might even be covid. We shall see.
Donât be afraid to express dissenting opinions. Sometimes people need to be challenged. But you do need to be prepared to defend your challenge. Especially if youâre told in response that youâre not getting your facts straight.
It depends on what you are talking about. There are a lot of subjects for which this is not even remotely true in the slightest. The Earth can not be both round and flat at the same time. It can not be both six thousand years old and 4.5 billion years old at the same time. In questions such as these, one side is right and the other is wrong, period. Furthermore, in many subjects, determining which side is right and which side is wrong is either (a) blatantly obvious even to the layman, or (b) a matter of life and death. Would you get on board a flight from London to Los Angeles if you knew the pilot was a flat earther?
Thatâs the problem with postmodernism. It sounds nice and warm and fuzzy and lovey-dovey in theory to say that there are two sides to every story, but it completely breaks down in the Real World when you have to Get Things Done without killing people in the process. Like, for example, protecting your loved ones in the middle of a pandemic.
Youâll need to explain what you mean here. What exactly is the straw man that he is using, and why exactly is it a straw man?
His description may sound inaccurate if you think that he is describing your own position. And you may well be right on that front. But many of us have friends and relatives who get taken in by the most ridiculous and far-fetched arguments imaginable from anti-vaxxers and the like. And just about all of us have had to respond to such bad arguments for which his descriptions are completely, 100%, spot-on accurate.
To be honest, if you think that the video is trying to âclassifyâ people or portray âanyone who disagrees with any part of the âofficialâ narrativeâ as âshallow and obviously wrong,â I think you must be, to paraphrase CS Lewis, reading between the lines without actually bothering to read the lines themselves. On the contrary, as far as I can see, it is simply giving some criteria by which you can differentiate between conspiracies that are genuinely plausible and conspiracy theories that are not.
Yes, it includes some examples. Yes, those examples come from those who dissent from the consensus of mainstream science. But if there is anything wrong with that, if he is not getting his facts straight, please make it clear precisely what facts he is not getting straight and why.
10 Likes