Printable View
That quote says being vaccinated is at LEAST as good as infection antibodies. It also says getting a mRNA vaccine after having Covid gives greater protection. So at least as good probably means as good or better. I’m not sure what your point is, the article still says being vaccinated after having Covid is recommended.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Yep, seems like just more evidence that vaccines make sense for everyone, not just for those who haven't had Covid.
Skidog's article dates back to August. The article links to the much discussed REACT-1 study conducted by Imperial College London so it's a mystery why he would suggest it's being ignored. It's anybody's guess if he's purposely searching out healthline.com or medicalnewstoday.com articles to stir shit up or just to troll but if anyone wants to see for themselves the study in skidog's article is the same as the one linked below:
In an ongoing randomized trial with over 300K people involving regular testing to determine both vaccine immunity and natural immunity during Delta, mRNA vaccine immunity performs better than natural immunity.
The blue column contains mRNA vaccinated numbers, the yellow AZ, the green column contains unvaccinated but tested positive in the past:
Attachment 386886
The chart shows mRNA > previous infection > AZ against a low viral burden. Whereas against a high viral burden all vaccinated people had fewer symptoms when a breakthrough infection occurred compared with previous infection.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1...237v1.full.pdf
Austrians being sooper compliant, eh? Ya don't say?.....Quote:
Originally Posted by nordekette
https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/...04/461/86e.png
but we should ignore prior infection altogether? Thats my point...address that...Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnificentUnicorn
you can't, i believe honestly, say that prior infection isnt "enough". We all still can get sick vaxxed or not, we still seem to shed same viral loads (close depending on study). Still unknown, or I havent seen, data on viral loads with prior+vax are any different.
Never sick = get vaccinated no question your odds are better
Vaccinated = safe, but still can get sick and make others sick, even if they are vaccinated
Prior Covid = studies seem to point to it being = to or maybe possibly better than 2x vaccine in protection terms. Still can get sick and get other sick
Prior Covid + Vax = Studies seem to point to lesser symptoms/little to no hospitalization. Can still get sick, can still make others sick.
Drop unvaccinated/never sick, and tell me how any of those are vastly different?
We simply need a test that proves you have the necessary protection, its not immunity for any of us.
Wow yeah...refute it with a later study please???? its a fucking MONTH old....Or just keep slinging shit and ignoring other sides.Quote:
Originally Posted by MultiVerse
you believe prior covid infection is useless? many would disagree, not just REACT-1
Mofro and others have posted many times evidence that this is false.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidog
Aside from this, not sure what your point is? The evidence shows that previously infected individuals who are then vaccinated are better protected. I don't think anyone thinks that prior infection is useless.
Thanks. It's really good to recognize the subtlety required for a genuine quality troll.Quote:
Originally Posted by ::: :::
huh yeah...that ONE part of the article used REACT-1...but the beginning of the article, which you so easily skimmed over...which is the OVERALL basis is from hereQuote:
Originally Posted by MultiVerse
The researchers drew on data from the COVID-19 Infection Survey, a study led by the Office for National Statistics, the Department for Health and Social Care, and the University of Oxford in the United Kingdom.
The study says getting an mRNA vaccine after having Covid cuts the risk of infection in half.Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnificentUnicorn
Try clicking on the link in your article. Then click on the link in my post. Then compare the two. If you do that, you'll find I didn't skim over anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidog
yes, BETTER, not UNPROTECTED ....Quote:
Originally Posted by The AD
Define Better now...if the difference ENOUGH?
y'all just dont want to admit that prior infections can actually be enough protection...never argued prior + vax was worse/better, never argued against vaccines...
I argue mandates that don't take all information into account. Simple as that...you all think its well and good..I dont...
but it might be close to being useless if the prior infection resulted in virtually no immune response. That's what others have been posting here, that there is a large amount of variability between one natural infection and another...ranging from asymptomatic to recovering after being on a vent, for example. As others have said and we keep on telling the contrarians, we know what happens when you vaccinate people, so it provides a baseline of protection for those who were naturally infected or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by The AD
What some here are saying is that if you had a positive COVID-19 test and are not vaccinated, that merely showing that they at some point had a positive COVID-19 test that they shouldn't need to get vaccinated because they're already protected. The problem is that we don't know how much protection a really mild reaction to COVID-19 gives people...and the idea is to vaccinate so we all have a similar baseline level of protection which helps the immunocompromised by reducing the likelihood of it festering.
The key word here is "can." The problem is they often are not. That's why it makes sense to mandate vaccines for everyone. There has been data posted in this thread that makes that conclusion very clear.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidog
why is this such a difficult thing for some people to understand?Quote:
Originally Posted by The AD
so I see...your non peer reviewed study that shows different data is better than the other study cause it fits your argument...Quote:
Originally Posted by MultiVerse
Seems we are doing the same thing...and seems we have been here before and thats my point..you refuse to see any side but the one you wish to see...
What I see is data that shows, in reality, that prior infection does provide some, if not possibly as good as vaccination, but yes, those people should get "EXTRA" protection just cause the government mandates it. They can still get sick, they can still get other sick, but they should jump in for the extra or they are vile slime... Oh the hypocrisy.
For fuck's sake... :rolleyes:
Define ENOUGH vs. delta and/or delta+.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidog
what conclusion? its still not been addressed at all that vaccinated or prior infection can still get sick, and can still get others sick...unvaccinated arent even in the discussion in my mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by The AD
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidog
It's the same study. Why is this so hard for you? Why do you keep lying about people not addressing these issues when it's been discussed everyday for months? Nobody is ignoring anything, your questions are answered every, single, day....Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidog
yes for fucks sake you all ignore anything you dont want to answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by The AD
Because people don't want to be told what to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adolf Allerbush
Also because a little bit of knowledge is dangerous.. ever heard that expression? Well the internet is proving that over and over.
That was an entertaining trip down memory lane. What a fucking douche.Quote:
Originally Posted by jono
and it’s been shown that some people who get the vaccine don’t even develop antibodies! But we don’t need to test those people too! They’re immune because they got the vaccine!! Fuck testing everyone equally; we just want to be right!Quote:
Originally Posted by Adolf Allerbush
We've been trying to answer you over and over. You won't listen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidog