Jump to content

Recommended Posts

 I’m not that smart I’m juswanderin... From everything I’ve looked into “top” scientists and health officials say “if you get covid, you are immune for 3 months”... mostly.  So that raises the question. If you get covid, then get 2 covid shots within the 3 month period what toll does that take on the body? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn’t take a toll per se. It makes house better protected overall. Your immune system will be better prepared to identify and dispatch future attacks. Also, the “immune for 3 months” thing is kinda crap, especially in context of variants. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Juswanderin said:

If you get covid, then get 2 covid shots within the 3 month period what toll does that take on the body? 

It is akin to adding a deadbolt to your front door after you've recently installed a chain door guard.

Makes things better, not worse.

Your title, "Covid overload", makes me think you might be under the impression that receiving the vaccination is the same as contracting COVID-19. It is not. The vaccination does not include injecting you with SARS-CoV-2 and it does not result in you contracting COVID-19.

Edited by zapatos
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Juswanderin said:

 I’m not that smart I’m juswanderin... From everything I’ve looked into “top” scientists and health officials say “if you get covid, you are immune for 3 months”... mostly.  So that raises the question. If you get covid, then get 2 covid shots within the 3 month period what toll does that take on the body? 

That is not recommended practice.

Here is the CDC policy

Quote

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/faq.html

Yes, you should be vaccinated regardless of whether you already had COVID-19. That’s because experts do not yet know how long you are protected from getting sick again after recovering from COVID-19. Even if you have already recovered from COVID-19, it is possible—although rare—that you could be infected with the virus that causes COVID-19 again. Learn more about why getting vaccinated is a safer way to build protection than getting infected.

If you were treated for COVID-19 with monoclonal antibodies or convalescent plasma, you should wait 90 days before getting a COVID-19 vaccine. Talk to your doctor if you are unsure what treatments you received or if you have more questions about getting a COVID-19 vaccine.

Experts are still learning more about how long vaccines protect against COVID-19 in real-world conditions. CDC will keep the public informed as new evidence becomes available.

So the policy is to wait 90 days after recovery.

The UK NHS mandates a shorter time

Quote

https://www.ouh.nhs.uk/working-for-us/staff/covid-staff-faqs-vaccine.aspx

Should people who have already had COVID-19 get vaccinated?

Yes, they should get vaccinated. There is no evidence of any safety concerns from vaccinating individuals with a past history of COVID-19 infection, or with detectable COVID-19 antibody so people who have had COVID-19 disease (whether confirmed or suspected) can still receive the COVID-19 vaccine.

You can have the vaccine 28 days after you had a positive test for COVID-19 or 28 days after your symptoms started, so you may need to wait.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
14 minutes ago, VenusPrincess said:

Completely unnecessary to get vaccinated if you aren't fat or an old geezer.

Ignorant lies. At least you’re consistent in your posting style, but it’s a shame you feel the need to spread such remedially false disinformation. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, iNow said:

Ignorant lies. At least you’re consistent in your posting style, but it’s a shame you feel the need to spread such remedially false disinformation. 

 

From Assessing the Age Specificity of Infection Fatality Rates for COVID-19: Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Public Policy Implications

Quote

Our analysis finds a exponential relationship between age and IFR for COVID-19. The estimated age-specific IFR is very low for children and younger adults (e.g., 0.002% at age 10 and 0.01% at age 25) but increases progressively to 0.4% at age 55, 1.4% at age 65, 4.6% at age 75, and 15% at age 85. Moreover, our results indicate that about 90% of the variation in population IFR across geographical locations reflects differences in the age composition of the population and the extent to which relatively vulnerable age groups were exposed to the virus.

 

From Certain Medical Conditions and Risk for Severe COVID-19 Illness | CDC

Quote

Overweight (defined as a body mass index (BMI) > 25 kg/m2 but < 30 kg/m2), obesity (BMI ≥30 kg/m2 but < 40 kg/m2), or severe obesity (BMI of ≥40 kg/m2), can make you more likely to get severely ill from COVID-19.  The risk of severe COVID-19 illness increases sharply with elevated BMI.

 

Edited by VenusPrincess
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, VenusPrincess said:

Completely unnecessary to get vaccinated if you aren't fat or an old geezer.

Vaccination doesn't just protect you.
It reduces the amount of viral shedding, when you are infected, such that you have less severe symptoms, and those exposed to you also experience milder symptoms.

I guess it isn't necessary to make sensible posts, if you aren't afraid of being called ignorant.

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, VenusPrincess said:

Completely unnecessary to get vaccinated if you aren't fat or an old geezer.

You should be vaccinated not only to protect yourself against viruses, but mostly to protect other people against you.

If you will become mildly ill, you might be unaware spreading viruses to other people.

Therefor entire pandemic..

The main path of transmission are not people with strong cough and severe state. They are easily detectable. Problem (regardless of disease) are "silent spreaders" who have no idea about being infected. HIV infected person can be spreading virus for 5-10-15 years without having symptoms and without having idea about being infected. 

Mask on face is not to protect you from catching viruses but mostly to protect other from your viruses. Aerosols in your breath and cough will end up on your mask instead of being shoot at 5-10 meters and remaining there for dozen of minutes flying in the room. If you walk in to the cloud with aerosols from somebody who cough, viruses can get to you through eyes, scratches, dirty hands (fast food eating outside of apartment without enough care) etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Incidentally, I'm one week into my two week quarantine period, and still feeling very tired.
But I will do my best to keep my 1st vaccination appointment on May 3rd.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, MigL said:

Vaccination doesn't just protect you.
It reduces the amount of viral shedding, when you are infected, such that you have less severe symptoms, and those exposed to you also experience milder symptoms.

 

3 minutes ago, Sensei said:

You should be vaccinated not only to protect yourself against viruses, but mostly to protect other people against you.

This is a prime example of being just smart enough to have an infantile grasp of a complex topic but not smart enough to truly understand it.

Imperfect Vaccination Can Enhance the Transmission of Highly Virulent Pathogens (plos.org)

Quote

Could some vaccines drive the evolution of more virulent pathogens? Conventional wisdom is that natural selection will remove highly lethal pathogens if host death greatly reduces transmission. Vaccines that keep hosts alive but still allow transmission could thus allow very virulent strains to circulate in a population. Here we show experimentally that immunization of chickens against Marek's disease virus enhances the fitness of more virulent strains, making it possible for hyperpathogenic strains to transmit. Immunity elicited by direct vaccination or by maternal vaccination prolongs host survival but does not prevent infection, viral replication or transmission, thus extending the infectious periods of strains otherwise too lethal to persist. Our data show that anti-disease vaccines that do not prevent transmission can create conditions that promote the emergence of pathogen strains that cause more severe disease in unvaccinated hosts.

 

This chicken vaccine makes its virus more dangerous | PBS NewsHour

Quote

The deadliest strains of viruses often take care of themselves — they flare up and then die out. This is because they are so good at destroying cells and causing illness that they ultimately kill their host before they have time to spread.

But a chicken virus that represents one of the deadliest germs in history breaks from this conventional wisdom, thanks to an inadvertent effect from a vaccine. Chickens vaccinated against Marek’s disease rarely get sick. But the vaccine does not prevent them from spreading Marek’s to unvaccinated birds.

“With the hottest strains, every unvaccinated bird dies within 10 days. There is no human virus that is that hot. Ebola, for example, doesn’t kill everything in 10 days.”

In fact, rather than stop fowl from spreading the virus, the vaccine allows the disease to spread faster and longer than it normally would, a new study finds. The scientists now believe that this vaccine has helped this chicken virus become uniquely virulent. (Note: it only harms fowl). The study was published on Monday in the journal PLOS Biology.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The most laughable part is that your citations don’t even support your claims. The second most laughable part is that your bad faith argumentation means we won’t have you here wasting our time much longer. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

When pathogens have hosts they mutate, evolve, spread, transfer genetic material between themselves and with other viruses and pathogens. From mixture of two or more mild pathogens there can be created a new more dangerous specie. The more vaccinated is population the less hosts for pathogens and smaller probability of creation of new pathogens. That is why true danger lies in zoonotic viruses, which are completely novel to human organism and its immune system. Horizontal transfer of genes between zoonotic virus and mild harmless human pathogen can result in creation of a real lethal disase. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that you linked that article shows the limited understanding on the subject and/or highly selective reading without making an effort to understand the concepts. First of all, the subject of the paper are highly deadly viruses. I.e. those that have a limited spread due to high lethality. Here, the risk is that vaccines can suppress symptoms but may still allow spread, which otherwise would not happened as the host would die beforehand.

However, neither is true for SARS-CoV-2. This virus is highly capable of spreading and its lethality is not high enough to kill the host before they are able to infect more people. This is why we ultimately have so many more deaths compared to SARS or MERS outbreaks (and also while the 2009 swine flu pandemic also killed more than either of those more lethal diseases). 

In addition emerging data, especially in Israel has shown that a national vaccination plan not only reduces hospitalizations (i.e. severe symptoms) but apparently also reduces spread among the unvaccinated population. As MigL pointed out, this indicates that the titer is reduced sufficiently to also reduce the risk of spread. 

In other words, none of the requirements for the effects indicated in the articles are met SARS-CoV-2 and vaccination is the best way forward to keep folks alive (as apparently we are largely uncapable of restricting spread via behavioural measures). Your continuous spread of misinformation, on the other hand, could cost live. And as we have seen in broader context, such insistent spread of inane falsehoods regarding this pandemic actually has cost us at least hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths.

 

Edit: cross-posted with iNow and Sensei.

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Here, the risk is that vaccines can suppress symptoms but may still allow spread, which otherwise would not happened as the host would die beforehand.

This demonstrates a profound inability to understand the subject material. The problem is that leaky vaccines could allow more virulent versions of a virus to survive, not that nonsense you just spouted.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, VenusPrincess said:

This demonstrates a profound inability to understand the subject material. The problem is that leaky vaccines could allow more virulent versions of a virus to survive, not that nonsense you just spouted.

Why am I feeling that you are mixing vaccines with antibiotics.. ? Indeed unfinished, interrupted, or overused by medics and agricultural industry, antibiotics treatments, can lead to creation of antibiotics-resistant species..

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, VenusPrincess said:

Completely unnecessary to get vaccinated if you aren't fat or an old geezer.

I probably align with both those conditions, thankfully I don't align with your condition.

Edited by beecee
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, VenusPrincess said:

Completely unnecessary to get vaccinated if you aren't fat or an old geezer.

So immunosuppressed people who've been subject to an organ transplant and loaded with cyclosporine have nothing to fear. Thank you!!! That's a relief. It's good to have experts like you telling us all what's right and wrong. After all, you can link to a paper!!!

Edited by joigus
minor addition
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Sensei said:

Why am I feeling that you are mixing vaccines with antibiotics.. ? Indeed unfinished, interrupted, or overused by medics and agricultural industry, antibiotics treatments, can lead to creation of antibiotics-resistant species..

 

stupid

 

2 minutes ago, joigus said:

So immunosuppressed people who've had an organ transplant and loaded with cyclosporine have nothing to fear. Thank you!!! That's a relief. It's good to have experts like you telling us all what's right and wrong. After all, you can link to a paper!!!

Special cases should be treated specially, did you expect me to enumerate all of them? Don't be obtuse. Being a fattie or a geezer are the most common risk factors.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, VenusPrincess said:

Special cases should be treated specially, [...]

Let me get the full import of that... OK, special requires special. OK. (I'm a little obtuse, you know.) I don't know, but it just so happens that whenever you don't quote a paper, you sound pretty dumb.

5 minutes ago, VenusPrincess said:

[...] did you expect me to enumerate all of them?

No, I just expected you not to make such sweeping statements as,

3 hours ago, VenusPrincess said:

Completely unnecessary to get vaccinated if you aren't fat or an old geezer.

That, if taken seriously, can put people's lives at risk. You've just crossed the line between being just dumb and being dumb and dangerous. Some people may even think that you know what you're talking about.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, VenusPrincess said:

Completely unnecessary to get vaccinated if you aren't fat or an old geezer.

That's a totally ignorant statement, more akin to the nonsense that the previous Idiot the US had for a President would babble on about.

Had my first Astro jab...had my flu shot...wife has had her first...Son completed both jabs as he is in the catagory of "front line workers"

7 minutes ago, joigus said:

That, if taken seriously, can put people's lives at risk. You've just crossed the line between being just dumb and being dumb and dangerous. Some people may even think that you know what you're talking about.

Dumb and Dangerous as per Trump.

 

Edited by beecee
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, VenusPrincess said:

This demonstrates a profound inability to understand the subject material. The problem is that leaky vaccines could allow more virulent versions of a virus to survive, not that nonsense you just spouted.

And of course you are missing the point again. All evidence indicates that the available COVID-19 vaccines protect against both, disease as well as infection. I.e. it is not leaky. And of course you missed entirely the point that in case of potential of high circulation as with SARS-CoV-2 the point is moot as we are already selecting for higher spread as you can see with the variant B.1.1.7 which is becoming dominant in many areas. Since the only examples you can come up with being a scenario that clearly does not apply to the current pandemic seems to be a very good case to urge folks to get vaccinated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Worth noting that Australia and New Zealand have now opened up a "travel bubble" and are looking to extend that to other countries where the virus has been reasonably controlled. eg: Fiji, Tonga.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, beecee said:

Worth noting that Australia and New Zealand have now opened up a "travel bubble" and are looking to extend that to other countries where the virus has been reasonably controlled. eg: Fiji, Tonga.

I wish I were in Tonga now. I'm waiting for the mods to say "nothing to see here, go to Tonga." ;) 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, CharonY said:

And of course you are missing the point again. All evidence indicates that the available COVID-19 vaccines protect against both, disease as well as infection. I.e. it is not leaky. And of course you missed entirely the point that in case of potential of high circulation as with SARS-CoV-2 the point is moot as we are already selecting for higher spread as you can see with the variant B.1.1.7 which is becoming dominant in many areas. Since the only examples you can come up with being a scenario that clearly does not apply to the current pandemic seems to be a very good case to urge folks to get vaccinated.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.02.25.21252415v1

"Applying this approach to published data from the RCT of the Moderna vaccine, we estimate that one dose of vaccine reduces the potential for transmission by at least 61%, possibly considerably more."

It would appear that the assumption that at least the Moderna/Pfizer vaccines are likely to provide some level of sterilizing immunity, although data on whether these vaccines are indeed "leaky" and to what extent they prevent transmission is an open question. Furthermore, the heterogeneity of vaccines, and the mechanisms of these vaccines being concurrently distributed has significant implications for the likelihood of the evolution of widespread escape and virulence mutants - insofar as the likelihood is drastically reduced by the implementation of a diversity of vaccines. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00202-4/fulltext

It would seem that an assumption that COVID vaccines do not prevent transmission and therefore are only indicated for high risk individuals would be, at best, premature.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.