corporate-wage-slave

I really don't think I need to explain the difference between "not knowing" and "a consensus of informed scientists". But just in case, given we don't know certain details, and yet have to come up with a way forward, then those who have background in this area come up with their best recommendation based on their understanding of the science. I can think of many politicians and indeed anti-vaxxers who think natural infection is great policy. I can't point to a single respected scientist working actively in this field who goes along with it. Indeed every single one of my colleagues - without needing a mandate - has been vaccinated, regardless of previous infection status. That speaks for itself - it is science led. Where past infection gives a Covid pass then it may come with a time day limit (e.g. Switzerland).

But in a sense it hardly matters - most countries I can think of in Europe have high levels of vaccination and have relatively few restrictions for those vaccinated. Public health policy is going to focus on the 90% plus of adults vaccinated rather than the ramshackle minority of those who have niche agendas.

exp

Why because the information didn't conform to your opinion?

Reality is so inconvenient to some people.

JNelson113

Why do things have to be so polarizing? I'm pro vaccine, vaccinated myself. At the same time, why not seriously consider whether cheap, available medications such as Ivermectin can help, or whether natural immunity confers good protection? You don't have to be an anti-vaxxer to take a measured, nuanced view of what might help bring us out of this situation.

stan1162

Had chicken pox at 6 and again at 12.

Diplomatico

One doesn't. If you read what CWS posts - one of the people posting here who has actual work experience and professional knowledge regarding COVID - he basically says (and I'm oversimplifying, probably) that one should get the vaccine, take additional precautions in high risk situations (like indoor gatherings with poor ventilation)....and otherwise trust the vaccines, get on with your life. CWS, if I've misrepresented your views, please correct me.

The rest of what you're hearing is a vocal minority who insists that if you don't do exactly what they do, you're an "anti-vaxxer" or "anti-science"....even if you've been vaccinated, lol. It's a false binary - "if you don't agree with me, then you're anti....whatever." The people who think everyone should bleach their groceries and wear masks in an outdoor swimming pool just because they do are....ugh. To those people, I say - I'm not anti-vax, not anti-science, I'm "anti-YOU".

FlitBen

The data is in and the reporting is more than hopeful. Studies on cellular response and clinical outcomes have been confirming the lasting richness of natural immunity.

[moderator edit]

freed0m

is it "if not better" or "at most equivalent"?

fransknorge

Ivermectin is part of a couple of trials, so it is taken seriously to see if it can help. However there are currently no evidence whatsoever it helps, the trials are not done yet. So claiming it does work is false. For natural immunity there are research by scientist to know its strenght, lenght, cells and cytokines involved, etc .... So it is taken seriously. But it is in research. No professionals in the field will look at you and say "Natural immunity is better, do not get vaccine". We have suspicions but no proof ranked Strong on the GRADE scale of evidence. Until then, the advice is to do what you can rely on to have minimal risk: get vaccinated.

Every people that brings ivermectin or natural immunity usually have an agenda behind, so far. Both are classic anti vaxxer props, they present them as certainty instead of possibility with no clear evidence (yet) and use them as arguments for not getting the vaccines and other NPIs. Sometimes their agenda is another.
Case in point the post from FlitBen above me, who is linking to a neo-nazi and white supremacist website under the disguise of providing facts, since this piece is heavily biased by the anti-vaxx view of the White Supremacist owning the biased website.

Sometimes the agenda is that natural immunity is not recognized. It usually involves a US poster who thinks US is the world. In most if not all of Europe, a green pass (or COVID passport, or whatever name used) is usually proof of vaccination or proof of recovery. It is taken into account, better than a test actually since in Germany for example some places are moving to a system where you must be vaccinated or must had COVID; negative tests are not valud anymore.

nk15

Good point about the natural immunity recognized in the Green pass in Europe, although many countries say "had positive test within the last 6 months", so there is a 6 month limit. I think it reflects the ongoing research uncertainty in the field, and some of these timelines are under revision (same for vaccines).

Both the CDC and the WHO clearly advocate vaccination for those infected, and rationales explained:

Frequently Asked Questions about COVID-19 Vaccination | CDC

Episode #50 - Do I still need the vaccine if I have COVID-19? (who.int)

Covid vaccine: The Who's Roger Daltrey sets an example for his generation and the rest – Scotsman comment | The Scotsman

Most European countries also support it, I believe.

Here is a good summary article on the issue in the Atlantic.

Should You Get a Vaccine If You Had COVID-19? - The Atlantic

FlitBen

To be clear, more protective in Israel and likely worldwide.

This is a long-emerging trend which the brain trusts at various PHA and university research centers as well as vaccine firms accept as worthy of consideration.

corporate-wage-slave

You have put it very well, probably better than I could have done, it sometimes needs an external view to cut to the point. And yes I do want people who have had both vaccines to go out and enjoy the planet. I've shocked some of my colleagues by making a number of trips to Portugal and a short weekend break to Montréal in recent months - but I too want my life back, hence my activties with the vaccine rollout in the UK.

But this too is a good point, and it would be wise to keep that in mind. It can be very toxic, which isn't something I enjoy. So I don't support mandates (with a few exceptions - I think it odd that I'm not required to be vaccinated against COVID but I am required to vaccinated against Hepatitis). What I greatly prefer is putting the evidence to the public - namely that vaccines are safe, effective and the best barrier we know of against COVID - in the hope that any fair minded individual would do their bit for themselves, their family, their community and their healthcare professionals, and get the vaccine. We need to keep an open mind about other areas, and dexamethasone is an example of a cheap and fairly effective steroid treatment which came through research and has saved a huge number of lives. I think there will be a few others like that, plus the more expensive monoclonal options being worked on at top speed at the moment. But nothing yet as good as vaccines, the numbers in the USA speak for themselves, where there is a clear and avoidable division between those vaccinated and those not vaccinated.

The underlying and somewhat unspoken aspect to this particular debate is that travel restrictions on those unvaccinated are closing in. So for the UK, for example, if you are vaccinated then you can enter the UK without tests now, no self isolation, you do have to take a test on or before day 2 but that's basically it - very few restrictions are in place now. I think JNelson113 has first hand experience of this. If unvaccinated you have to do a minimum of 2 and maybe 4 sets of test, and self isolate for between 5 and 10 days. If you are previously infected and therefore elected not to get the vaccine then is that fair or right? I would say - on balance - yes, since while there are some impediments it isn't a block on travel, and after 5 days you're able to get on with most activities. Moreover we know that those who didn't get PCRs often get their previous exposure to COVID hopelessly wrong, plus we know of some unvaccinated people getting both Alpha and Delta. It's not unreasonable to encourage people to get vaccinated, but it is unreasonable not to get the vaccine, particularly if travelling, given the current state of evidence. If the evidence changes, I reserve the right to change my mind.

invisible

The same.

What I see, including in this forum from people claiming from the standpoint/argument of 'science' that basically 'there are only two opinions in the the world - mine and wrong'.

Anything opposite/different opinion is automatically labeled as xxx/yyy/zzz meaning 'I don't need to read/listen to this'.

Well, let me tell you - I was born in the country which had such stance as an official ideology. This did not end well for that country...

What this pandemic has shown to world is how many people are around who are willing to put others in jail so they 'can feel safe'.

shorthauldad

Nuance seems to have left the building long ago, and at an abstract level, I mind that quite a lot. Further down that path lie torches and pitchforks.

Back to Covid - policymaking is being done along the lines of letting the librarian decide to keep a school library permanently locked to make sure none of the books get damaged, stolen, or out of order on the shelves. Immunologists and those on the front line want to see more medical interventions? Great, but perhaps it's a case of "if all you have is a syringe, everything looks like an arm" ?

Remember all those doom-laden articles about Sweden because Anders Tegnell didn't follow the herd? ( https://www.newyorker.com/news/dispa...mic-experiment )

I miss the nuance that would let politicians and public health officials be honest about policy choices in the grey areas. Some of these areas appear really quite grey when people are allowed to speak freely (see https://www.bbc.com/news/health-58438669 "The UK's vaccine advisory body has refused to give the green light to vaccinating healthy children aged 12-15 years on health grounds alone") yet that stuff gets quickly "corrected" as it was obviously off-message and is deemed to muddy the waters when policymakers want a clear, consistent message. Sometimes data isn't clear or consistent, we need to grow up and deal with that.

I was in a meeting last week where four of us sat in a small room with no ventilation for a couple of hours, I happened to have done a negative PCR test but that was for travel not because of the meeting, no-one else was tested. No masks were worn, no hand sanitizer was used, hands were shaken at the start of the meeting(!) That last bit did surprise me.

At one point a fifth person joined us by video call even though they were sitting in an office approximately one minute's walk away. Fully vaxxed, but wears a mask in the workplace and tries quite hard to avoid groups. On the other hand, rides a motorbike to work (despite also owning a car) and previously used to work as a fast-jet fighter pilot.

Everyone's entitled to make their own choices, but I'm not sure I understand what appear to be extremely inconsistent attitudes to risk. This stuff is starting to divide more and more - what's the plan for removing the divides? Insulting the other side and dismissing lines of questioning as "tropes" or mentioning "Darwin" fixing the problem appear to be a poor way to address that.

I think the jury is still out on how just long the vaccinated will have after their most recent vaccine jab to be considered "fully vaccinated", at least in some jurisdictions (see https://www.reuters.com/world/middle...ss-2021-10-03/ )

As an aside, I have a friend who has now had four vaccine shots this year, and is going to have his fifth (booster) in the next month or so. He's one of those frequent travellers who moves between jurisdictions, and currently two of the jurisdictions he moves between aren't (or weren't) able to recognise the other's vaccination protocols. He ended up going the path of least resistance and simply did his vaccinations twice over.

FlitBen

You frame it as the eligible seeking initial immunity via naïve exposure in place of safer vaccination. No one here relies on such fringe scenario much except you, it seems. Experts in the field would not consider the swap as involving comparable courses of benefit.

Here is one the papers cited to which you are seemingly immune, that you neglect its content for lesser context in what could have been your ‘general fact-based’ reply.

Much research supports the consensus forming on the rich immunity which develops from prior infection, especially that among young adults recovered from severe Covid.


Your “every people” who you see as bringing “Ivermectin or natural immunity agendas” to their hard work and clear evidence.

Perhaps to you it is mainly about “classic anti vaxxer props”, or “arguments for not getting vaccines” (which are not NPIs). I think the topic and its varied concerns is much bigger than what you construe of it in angst.

FlitBen

Your alleged “X Nazi Y supremacist” target is cited by other major press as a key partner in the industry's IFCN screening coalition.
I would not let personal bias or partisan exercise prompt a resort to pejorative in the guise of factual discussion.


Any agenda-driven presumption on that “US is world“ thing you might tag me with would soon run into my take on pandemic planet. Including this cite portion hived off from the relevant private post:

So, how much do immunity mechanisms differ in description before and after effective vaccines were developed at Warp Speed?