didjathinkmess

I hear Myocarditis is absolutely huge in the 4 and under age group!

Just trying to get out in front of this.

Natural immunity followed by a single dose is the strongest immunity available supposedly. Many of us likely have cross reactive immunity from a previous Coronavirus infection from before the pandemic.

Regarding "better antibodies", that doesn't make any sense to me. More in number perhaps, but better? It's the exact same formula being given as boosters.

>So, yes, vaccination may not prevent being infected, but for sure it helps immensely in avoiding being hospitalized and shortening the infection, which does actually translate in less people being infected.

On the flip side, infections in the vaccinated who are asymptomatic are more likely to leave the house, simply because they have no idea that they're sick. Perhaps they end up at a restaurant with their mask off and turn into a literal super spreaders (if we're to believe Omicron is 4X more transmissable). This was always a potential problem with vaccines that only reduce symptoms and don't prevent transmission. If Omicron is indeed mild and highly contagious as officials in South Africa claim, this could be a huge issue with anyone vaccinated.

Good comment, also: the vaccinated are a fertile ground for mutations that eventually evade the vaccine.

Unless you have a study that backs up the claim that this mutation phenomenon only happens in people not vaccinated for Covid-19, you should probably stop singling them out. The phenomenon occurs in both.

You're comparing mRNA vaccines to traditional vaccines.

Unlikely outcome sure. So is getting autism from a traditional vaccine but the warning still appears on the MMR vaccine insert.

>Vaccines rapidly lose efficacy when the virus they target has free real estate (vectors) in which to mutate.

The finger pointing game really has to stop considering anyone vaccinated can contract, get sick from, act as a vector/petri dish, and consequently spread the mutated virus. Unvaccinated as well.

>The laughably slow vaccine uptake in the US (while the rest of the world couldn't secure doses) is to blame there, not anything else.

Instead of attempting to blame unvaccinated vectors for the poor vaccine performance, why not blame the actual culprit - the barely tested (with only ~200 clinical trial participants), rushed (sorry, expedited) vaccines?

I believe the word slip is 100% intentional. It's the same kind of people that conflate, on purpose, "the vaccines are 95% effective!" with the wishful notion that they stop the spread of the virus.

The author refers to getting innoculated as "immunized" which is about as scientific as flat earth. The rest of the article isn't much better.

If everyone was actually immunized, we would have hit Fauci's early number of 65% herd immunity months ago. What's the herd immunity threshold at these days.. 85%? 90%? Utter quackery.

I haven't heard of a shorter duration with vaccination. Could you please post the source for this?

He's talking about transmission, you are talking about reduction of symptoms.

The vaccines don't prevent transmission. Now follow that to its logical conclusion: "we forcefully vaccinated everyone on Earth, why are we still having outbreaks?" Because... Well, you get it

After you sit down and mull over this concept for a while, vaccine mandates make absolutely no sense. Vaccine passports make absolutely no sense. Unless your goal is a slight reduction in ICU patients, forcing people to get it is a straight up violation of human rights.

"Pandemic of the unvaccinated" yeah, right. Blame the leaky vaccine, not the people who already have natural immunity.

Interesting how this peer review argument comes out selectively and not when something like Surgisphere happens and their bogus findings are immediately passed off as the ultimate truth.

I see that towards the end of your comment that you're inferring the page has issues with the statistical calculations. Here's the easy solution to get past that and get us talking about what matters: disregard whatever problems you have with the page and look at the actual studies. I think it's absolutely preposterous that people are disregarding life saving research based on which web site serves as a vehicle to get them to it. Read through a few of the studies as I have, and let's have a conversation around the most promising.

That's up to the reader to judge. I always advise doing your own research. For example look at the history of the Atlantic, which political side do they align with, have they ever said anything unbiased about Ivermectin, etc.

Another thing to consider: one is an article and one is a site which points to medical studies so it's difficult to compare the two. You can weave a biased narrative easily with one article. It's a lot more difficult to do that across 60+ studies.

Trust nothing, do your own research always.