1. The KillerFrogs

COVID-19 Threads

Discussion in 'The Pit' started by TxFrog1999, Mar 11, 2020.

  1. Salfrog and froginmn like this.
  2. You sure like the “LOLs” this AM, LOL. (Yes, I’m purposely being hypocritical!)

    Anyway the data is clear- people who have been previously infected do not have as consistently robust immune response as those vaccinated. And that makes sense. Not every natural infection is the same. Some have a very low viral load. With the vaccine you get a consistent dose and more consistent immune response.
  3. Where is it clear relative to COVID that vaccination of previously infected subjects decreases reinfection risk? The Cleveland Clinic study shows the opposite, with an overall population of 50,000.

    Which study has contradicted that one?
  4. There is no doubt that people who have gotten infected have some immunity. But the question will be how long and to what degree of protection. That study is obviously short term and doesn't look at longer term immunity. If a vaccinated person has much higher antibody levels than a recovered person, it would follow that their protection would stronger for a longer period of time. Of note, the cleveland clinic still recommeds the vaccine after infection and the lead author still recommends getting vaccinated after having covid because of waning immunity concerns. The conclusion of their paper is that people who have been infected could wait if vaccine supply is low and prioritize those who haven't been infected first. Since the vaccine is supply is now robust, it is kinda a moot point. Everyone should get it. The study has been misinterpreted by some to mean that people who have had Covid don't need the vaccine.
  5. So, there isn't clear data or a study showing that vaccination reduces reinfection risk among those who had COVID.
  6. The idea is that people who have recovered have an even better response to the vaccination, which makes sense since their system has been "primed" by the primary infection. In particular, recent study shows robust neutralizing antibodies to the variants (this study also supports fairly long last immunity to convalescent patients):


    Vaccination increases all components of the humoral response, and as expected, results in serum neutralizing activities against variants of concern that are comparable to or greater than neutralizing activity against the original Wuhan Hu-1 achieved by vaccination of naive individuals... In addition, B cell clones expressing broad and potent antibodies are selectively retained in the repertoire over time and expand dramatically after vaccination. The data suggest that immunity in convalescent individuals will be very long lasting and that convalescent individuals who receive available mRNA vaccines will produce antibodies and memory B cells that should be protective against circulating SARS-CoV-2 variants.
  7. This is why it's unproductive to discuss with you. You can't answer a simple question and acknowledge truth.

    Have a good day
    Salfrog, Eight, AZfrogs and 3 others like this.
  8. I can appreciate your dedication to your position and understand you want to make every argument you can to support it, but this take is in direct contradiction to every professional virological study I’ve read or heard references.
  9. You're kidding right? I honestly thought this was a good back and forth discussion.
  10. I guess I would want to know what studies you are talking about or even more generally, what was their conclusion? But two things I understand that argue against engineering. First, there are no unique proteins not found in other coronaviruses. Just ones that work better. Second, the constellation of characteristics (mild/ asymptomatic spread, severe illness in a minority) is a perfect storm for a pandemic. I find it unlikely that a scientist could engineer a virus in that pandemic "sweet spot" like Covid. To me, it has the underpinnings of a natural source the result of trial and error that only nature can accomplish. I do think it could still be a lab accident of a natural virus, though.
  11. I'm referring to people who have had COVID. Hearing more and more that people who had COVID have more antibodies than the vaccinated. Not to mention how it was originally 3 months from when you had COVID before you are contagious, then 6 months, and now people who had it a year ago are showing antibodies.

    A friend of mine had COVID in early May of 2020, gave blood the first part of this month and it showed he has COVID antibodies. Why would he get vaccinated? I truly don't understand and it seems strange to get a vaccine for something you have antibodies.
  12. Again, the idea is that you get a more robust and long lasting immune response the second time an antigen is presented.
  13. Sorry.....I hadn't seen the question was already raised as well as the been back and forth when I asked the question. I didn't realize there are such great minds as mine on this board either.

    Noted your response and not sure I agree. Going to trust the doctors and virologists opinions who were correct from the beginning on this entire episode, while Dr. Ego was making up crap and lying. If they were correct from the beginning, I'm going to trust they know what they are talking with regards to COVID antibodies vs. vaccination. That and my personal physician's advice.
  14. I appreciate the tone and no big deal- I think we all know it's super hard to change someone's opinion on a message board or the internet in general. I think it is a law of physics or something!
  15. There is zero reason any average person under the age of 20 needs to get vaccinated. I'd say 30 or even 40 but I'm trying to be nice. I know more people under age 20 that have had COVID than I know that haven't, by a wide margin. Not one of them has had any issues whatsoever.

    "If you're vaccinated, why do you care if I'm vaccinated?"

    The "oh, but what about the immunocompromised or people that can't get the vaccine?" argument falls flat with me. If the vaccine is such that certain people shouldn't take it, then someone who doesn't need it shouldn't take it.
  16. There’s a three word phrase if added to your vocabulary that greatly increases credibility:

    “I don’t know”.
    Salfrog, Eight and AroundWorldFrog like this.
  17. We've been struggling with this in terms of "negative test for" travel situations. Had a group of teenagers going to DC for a trip and one was positive with a CT value of 41. Probably had it a few months ago and a little residual viral particles in the nasopharynx. Luckily was negative on repeat, but I think asymptomatic testing guidelines are, um, "misguided" at this point in the pandemic.
    HFrog1999 likes this.
  18. Oh I use that all the time! Especially around the house!

Share This Page