12 minutes ago, Boogyman said:

Well definitely not by picking up a history book and learning something.

Maybe fall back on your standby of latching on to the coattails of one of the resident trolls and giggling like a little girl at everything they post?

How about you latch onto deez nuts, Hermann Goring?

Here's a neat tool that shows "vaccine hesitancy" by county.

https://6abc.com/10515380/?ex_cid=TA_WPVI_FB&utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A Trending Content&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR32nhXNzmTDMcBUJ1eeedyqq1gdS5-woqHh7Dex1rzifwpmCjMg8eWVMDw

5 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

Here's a neat tool that shows "vaccine hesitancy" by county.

https://6abc.com/10515380/?ex_cid=TA_WPVI_FB&utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A Trending Content&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR32nhXNzmTDMcBUJ1eeedyqq1gdS5-woqHh7Dex1rzifwpmCjMg8eWVMDw

Rural America is full of the dumbest people on the planet.  I mean, there's obviously plenty of people that are equally as dumb in the Afgani countryside, but we don't have to live in the same country as them.  But holy sheet, how stupid do you have to be to get your health cues from Tucker Carlson.

2 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

Rural America is full of the dumbest people on the planet.  I mean, there's obviously plenty of people that are equally as dumb in the Afgani countryside, but we don't have to live in the same country as them.  But holy sheet, how stupid do you have to be to get your health cues from Tucker Carlson.

 

This conversation from yesterday between Gannan and I seems relevant:

  

16 hours ago, Gannan said:

I don't spend everyday in Afghanistan but the author probably doesn't either. However, I do read a lot, and used to work closely with the military. The urban areas are more progressive (for Afghanistan) and do like freedom (for Afghanistan). The rural areas are more antiquated, and want to go back to the old ways where young people and women had no rights, and no one had any freedom unless the old a-holes in charge said they could do something. Kind of like us. How the urban areas go, so does the whole of the country. So important for the government not to cave to the influence of the old guard in the outskirts. Kind of like us. 

 

Just now, EaglesRocker97 said:

 

This seems relevant:

  

 

Very true.  Unfortunately, when it comes to something like Covid, we're all in it together in a sense.  So, the mind-blowing stupidity of people in the sticks has an actual effect on the health of the clearly superior people living in the cities.

22 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

Here's a neat tool that shows "vaccine hesitancy" by county.

https://6abc.com/10515380/?ex_cid=TA_WPVI_FB&utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A Trending Content&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR32nhXNzmTDMcBUJ1eeedyqq1gdS5-woqHh7Dex1rzifwpmCjMg8eWVMDw

There really isn't much talk of forced vaccinations because some people actually believe you can convince these idiots but if a year from now we still have 70,000 cases a day you can bet these people will be forced into getting it somehow

12 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

Very true.  Unfortunately, when it comes to something like Covid, we're all in it together in a sense.  So, the mind-blowing stupidity of people in the sticks has an actual effect on the health of the clearly superior people living in the cities.

 

In both cases, I blame religion.

Interesting article:

Previous COVID-19 may cut risk of reinfection 84%

Filed Under: 

COVID-19

Mary Van Beusekom | News Writer | CIDRAP News

  | 

Apr 12, 2021

• Share
•  
• Tweet
•  
• LinkedIn
•  
• Email
•  
• Print & PDF

micrograph_of_sars-cov-2-niaid.jpg

NIAID

People who had COVID-19 had an 84% lower risk of becoming reinfected and a 93% lower risk of symptomatic infection during 7 months of follow-up, according to findings from a large, multicenter study published late last week in The Lancet.

The prospective cohort SARS-CoV-2 Immunity and Reinfection Evaluation (SIREN) study, by Public Health England Colindale researchers, involved 25,661 workers at public hospitals throughout England who were tested for SARS-CoV-2 every 2 to 4 weeks and antibodies at enrollment and every 4 weeks. Volunteers also completed questionnaires on symptoms and exposures every 2 weeks.

Of the 25,661 participants, 32.3% were assigned to the baseline positive (possibly or probably previously infected) group, and 67.7% were assigned to the negative group. Of the 8,278 positive participants, 91.2% had SARS-CoV-2 antibodies at study enrollment, while 7.0% were negative for antibodies but had a previously positive antibody and/or coronavirus test, and 1.8% had tested positive for COVID-19 but didn't have linked antibody data.

Far fewer symptomatic infections

From June 2020 to January 2021, 1.4% of the 8,278 participants who previously had COVID-19 were infected, compared with 9.8% of 17,383 initially coronavirus-naïve participants. Infections in the baseline-positive group peaked in the first week of April, while they peaked in the negative group the last week of December.

Incidence density was 7.6 new infections per 100,000 person-days in those previously infected, versus 57.3 per 100,000 person-days in those without previous infection. Compared with primary infections, the adjusted incidence rate ratio was 0.16 for reinfections. Median time between primary infection and reinfection was more than 200 days.

Among the baseline-positive group, 50.3% of infections were symptomatic, with 32.3% involving usual coronavirus symptoms. Among the baseline-negative cohort, 80.3% of infections were symptomatic, 66.1% of them involving usual COVID-19 symptoms.

The authors noted that, late in the follow-up period, from Dec 8, 2020, to Jan 11, 2021, 52.2% of all participants were vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2. Thus, 0.4% of the study's person-time follow-up included participants 21 or more days after vaccination, which the researchers said likely had only a modest effect on the results.

Median participant age in the baseline-positive cohort was 45.7 years, 84.2% were women, and 87.3% were White. Median follow-up was 275 days in the positive group and 195 days in the negative group.

"This study shows that previous infection with SARS-CoV-2 induces effective immunity to future infections in most individuals," the authors wrote. "The importance of understanding the nature and rate of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection to guide non-pharmaceutical interventions and public health control measures is essential in this evolving pandemic."

Natural immunity vs vaccine protection

In a commentary in the same journal, Florian Krammer, PhD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, said that although natural infection tends to induce lower and more variable antibody concentrations than COVID-19 vaccines, "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.

He added, "The SIREN study adds to a growing number of studies, which demonstrate that infection does protect against reinfection, and probably in an antibody-dependent manner."

Krammer pointed out that the researchers didn't link quantitative antibody measurements to protection against infection afforded by natural infection versus vaccines, a topic that should be a priority for future studies.

"Establishment of antibody titres as a correlate of protection and defining a protective titre would be extremely important for public health considerations and for patient management," he wrote. "A correlate of protection and a protective threshold would also allow for the development of additional SARS-CoV-2 vaccines based on small immunogenicity-based phase 3 trials rather than large and costly field efficacy trials, which are becoming exceedingly difficult to perform."

 

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

15 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

 

In both cases, I blame religion.

In large part, I do too, but then I'm reminded what happens when these people turn away from religion.  They just attach themselves to secular demagogues like Trump.  It's a lose-lose with them.  They're too stupid to function properly without step-by-step guidance.  So, the best you can ask for is for them to attach themselves to a good role model like Jesus.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/14/health/breakthrough-infections-covid-vaccines-cdc/index.html

Terrible move pausing the J&J VACCINE

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/04/15/world/covid-vaccine-coronavirus-cases

6 minutes ago, Joe Shades 73 said:

https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/14/health/breakthrough-infections-covid-vaccines-cdc/index.html

 

I know they said the numbers will lag, but just for a quick estimate, 5,800/77,000,000=an incidence of  roughly .008%, and that's assuming all of them were fully vaccinated and adhering to mitigation. So, this is encouraging news.

5 minutes ago, Joe Shades 73 said:

https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/14/health/breakthrough-infections-covid-vaccines-cdc/index.html

Once again, 95% =/= 100%. Do I need to repost the 538 parody? 

4 minutes ago, Joe Shades 73 said:

Terrible move pausing the J&J VACCINE

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/04/15/world/covid-vaccine-coronavirus-cases

 

There's no ideal solution. If they kept administering it while more and more adverse reactions cropped up, the reputation of both the vaccine and the regulatory bodies would be even more greatly damaged. Better to show the people that you are following through on safety.

1 minute ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Once again, 95% =/= 100%. Do I need to repost the 538 parody? 

What makes you think I was assuming this was bad ?

1 minute ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

 

There's no ideal solution. If they kept administering it and more and more adverse reactions cropped up, the reputation of both the vaccine and the regulatory bodies would be even more greatly damaged. Better to show the people that you are following through on safety.

Exactly, short term pain to engender long term trust. With the luxury of two already approved and superior options, I'm on board with the decision. Would be a different story if we didn't have them.

1 minute ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

 

There's no ideal solution. If they kept administering it and more and more adverse reactions cropped up, the reputation of both the vaccine and the regulatory bodies would be even more greatly damaged. Better to show the people that you are following through on safety.

Sure, if you are dealing with rational people, but the anti vaxxers are not

1 minute ago, Joe Shades 73 said:

What makes you think I was assuming this was bad ?

Nothing besides literally every single thing you've said since this all started.

1 minute ago, Joe Shades 73 said:

Sure, if you are dealing with rational people, but the anti vaxxers are not

There are still plenty of people legitimately on the fence. Even if it's just 5%, that's still a group worth convincing.

Just now, we_gotta_believe said:

Nothing besides literally every single thing you've said since this all started.

Weren't we told these vaccines protect 100% against hospitalizations and death?

Just now, Joe Shades 73 said:

Weren't we told these vaccines protect 100% against hospitalizations and death?

No. And if anyone did, they were technically wrong if you want to be pedantic. If they said 99.99% they'd be right. You're bordering on trolling right now.

2 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

No. And if anyone did, they were technically wrong if you want to be pedantic. If they said 99.99% they'd be right. You're bordering on trolling right now.

https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/public-health/what-doctors-wish-patients-knew-about-johnson-johnson-vaccine

It prevents hospitalization

While J&J’s vaccine has 66.3% effectiveness overall and 74.4% effectiveness in the United States, it has "100% efficacy against hospitalization and death from the virus,” said Dr. Irons. "That's really what we have to focus on.

Just now, Joe Shades 73 said:

https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/public-health/what-doctors-wish-patients-knew-about-johnson-johnson-vaccine

It prevents hospitalization

While J&J’s vaccine has 66.3% effectiveness overall and 74.4% effectiveness in the United States, it has "100% efficacy against hospitalization and death from the virus,” said Dr. Irons. "That's really what we have to focus on.

Take it up with whoever Dr. Irons is for having not said 99.99% instead of 100%.

10 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

 

There's no ideal solution. If they kept administering it while more and more adverse reactions cropped up, the reputation of both the vaccine and the regulatory bodies would be even more greatly damaged. Better to show the people that you are following through on safety.

Right, and also making sure clots from this vaccine are treated correctly. That information probably would have saved the one woman who died I'm not sure how she was treated. I just feel like at this point the damage is done on J&J. Moderna/Pfizer might very well have reactions on their own but it seems like the adenovirus/blood clot issues are consistent enough. If J&J was the only option then you don't stop with the risk being so low. However, we have plenty of the other vaccines so just keep going.

2 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Take it up with whoever Dr. Irons is for having not said 99.99% instead of 100%.

Seems crazy to me that we are arguing about 100% vs. 99.99% or about 1 person dying out of 7.5 million J&J vaccines. People are suddenly so in tune with minute numbers.