Contagion spreading among the vaccinated

[eikelbijter]

It is there in black and white. You did make that claim.

I said CAN wane rather quickly. Is this not the case? I didn't say WILL wane rather quickly. As a matter of fact, I've talked about some of my neighbors who have robust antibody titers a year after infection.

For the 8th time: is a T cell test NOT a more accurate way to determine if someone has been infected than a typical Antibody test? I never suggested it is, I ASKED you because so many have said for the last 14 months that antibody tests are not.

If not, what WOULD be the best way? I'm not trying to make any points here, seriously! You can't repeatedly accuse someone of being ignorant and then refuse to help him learn by answering his questions.

 

[abj13]

No, I listen to the CDC and WHO, they have some very valuable information I just know that sometimes even the experts are wrong. That's all. Look at what happened in regards to food in the 70ies. For the longest time "truth" was said to be that eating fat is unhealthy, that it makes you fat, that eating eggs increases your cholesterol. This was science, which turned out to be false and TO THIS DAY has damaged people's understanding of nutrition.

Well look at that. You cannot even provide anything to support your claims that were called out in the previous post. Why is that?

Ultimately, there is a massive difference between acknowledging experts could be wrong
vs
Telling everyone to ignore the CDC and WHO recommendations on who to be vaccinated.

You are not just saying they could be wrong, you are actively campaigning that they are wrong and everyone should ignore their guidance on who should be vaccinated.

All the studies I've read that discuss vaccination after natural infection describe an increase in S protein antibodies, and even some other clear effects. None even pretends to suggest this means a DEFINITIVE better protection against all future variants.

Most say there is a good CHANCE it'll be better against some or even many, it never says all. We now have more and more empirical evidence that previous infection DOES lead to a robust immunity for a long time.

Wow, you keep pretending that this paper doesn't exist. For someone who claims to want to be informed on a subject, you sure want to pretend papers that answer your questions do exist!

 

[abj13]

I said CAN wane rather quickly. Is this not the case? I didn't say WILL wane rather quickly. As a matter of fact, I've talked about some of my neighbors who have robust antibody titers a year after infection.

For the 8th time: is a T cell test NOT a more accurate way to determine if someone has been infected than a typical Antibody test? I never suggested it is, I ASKED you because so many have said for the last 14 months that antibody tests are not.

If not, what WOULD be the best way? I'm not trying to make any points here, seriously! You can't repeatedly accuse someone of being ignorant and then refuse to help him learn by answering his questions.

Creative editing at work again! Look at him/her purposely omitting the full quote.

In my original post about this I specifically asked if someone knew a BETTER way to estimate infections rates. Do you know one? From what I understand, and again, correct me if I'm wrong, a T cell response test is a better way than an Antibody test as the latter can wane rather quickly.

You said the antibodies wane so quickly that another test would be needed. Ali Ellebedy's work, which you quoted, contradicts that claim. He found the antibodies were still detectable long after infection using a simple assay.

 

[eikelbijter]

Well look at that. You cannot even provide anything to support your claims that were called out in the previous post. Why is that?

Ultimately, there is a massive difference between acknowledging experts could be wrong
vs
Telling everyone to ignore the CDC and WHO recommendations on who to be vaccinated.

You are not just saying they could be wrong, you are actively campaigning that they are wrong and everyone should ignore their guidance on who should be vaccinated.



Wow, you keep pretending that this paper doesn't exist. For someone who claims to want to be informed on a subject, you sure want to pretend papers that answer your questions do exist!

I'm not telling anyone to ignore anything.

As far as the paper goes: I've told you MANY times I'm aware of it, and that I know what there are increased titers etc. The funny thing is that the title there says: "
Boosterism could save lives

Sorry for the big font, but the operative word here is COULD. Like i said in thew post above, it's informed speculation, which is not to say it isn't valuable. When scientists say "could" it means they are not sure, but somehow you ARE.

One more thing:"Antibody neutralization experiments were performed with pseudoviruses " I'm not saying what they found is not valuable, it most certainly is, but it's not empirical evidence about actual infections. This is why they use the word "could". They don't draw the definite conclusions like you seem to be doing, because they know that reality might be different from the experiment.

Now, are you EVER going to answer my questions? It's getting quite suspicious that you won't.

 

[eikelbijter]

Creative editing at work again! Look at him/her purposely omitting the full quote.

You said the antibodies wane so quickly that another test would be needed. Ali Ellebedy's work, which you quoted, contradicts that claim. He found the antibodies were still detectable long after infection using a simple assay.

Honestly, don't you understand the difference between "will" and "can"? Again, are you saying that Ellebedy's work means that we WILL be able to test for previous infection through antibody testing?

 

[cytg111]

Found this

How Immunity Generated from COVID-19 Vaccines Differs from an Infection

A key issue as we move closer to ending the pandemic is determining more precisely how long people exposed to SARS-CoV-2, the COVID-19 virus, will make neutralizing antibodies against this dangerou…

directorsblog.nih.gov

"
A key issue as we move closer to ending the pandemic is determining more precisely how long people exposed to SARS-CoV-2, the COVID-19 virus, will make neutralizing antibodies against this dangerous coronavirus. Finding the answer is also potentially complicated with new SARS-CoV-2 “variants of concern” appearing around the world that could find ways to evade acquired immunity, increasing the chances of new outbreaks.

Now, a new NIH-supported study shows that the answer to this question will vary based on how an individual’s antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 were generated: over the course of a naturally acquired infection or from a COVID-19 vaccine. The new evidence shows that protective antibodies generated in response to an mRNA vaccine will target a broader range of SARS-CoV-2 variants carrying “single letter” changes in a key portion of their spike protein compared to antibodies acquired from an infection.

These results add to evidence that people with acquired immunity may have differing levels of protection to emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants. More importantly, the data provide further documentation that those who’ve had and recovered from a COVID-19 infection still stand to benefit from getting vaccinated.
"

 

[nakedfrog]

I'm no longer following this thread
Someone brings nothing to the conversation other than circular arguments and can't appreciate risk vs benefit analysis

Go get vaccinated its the best protection you can get all things considered

Yeah, I know it's just self-flagellation at this point, but sometimes that's what I'm in the mood for.

 

[nakedfrog]

No, I listen to the CDC and WHO, they have some very valuable information I just know that sometimes even the experts are wrong. That's all. Look at what happened in regards to food in the 70ies. For the longest time "truth" was said to be that eating fat is unhealthy, that it makes you fat, that eating eggs increases your cholesterol. This was science, which turned out to be false and TO THIS DAY has damaged people's understanding of nutrition.

That wasn't really science being wrong per se, that was the sugar industry greasing palms.

 

[abj13]

I'm not telling anyone to ignore anything.

Not if you've been infected with Covid it isn't! If you haven't, depending on your risk level, it certainly can be considered reckless, but foolish is not for you to say. If you're healthy and under 40 it's not anymore foolish than mountain biking or parachuting.

There you are telling previously infected people to ignore CDC guidance on who should be vaccinated and telling them it isn't foolish.

As far as the paper goes: I've told you MANY times I'm aware of it, and that I know what there are increased titers etc. The funny thing is that the title there says: "
Boosterism could save lives

Sorry for the big font, but the operative word here is COULD. Like i said in thew post above, it's informed speculation, which is not to say it isn't valuable. When scientists say "could" it means they are not sure, but somehow you ARE.

Now, are you EVER going to answer my questions? It's getting quite suspicious that you won't.

Neutralizing antibody titers are highly predictive of who is protected from COVID-19. Neutralizing antibody titers are the mainstay of protective immunity from most viral pathogens and is widely accepted in immunology. Looks like someone doesn't like a result, and is willing to pretend a broadly accepted topic in immunology isn't true. Why is that?

One more thing:"Antibody neutralization experiments were performed with pseudoviruses " I'm not saying what they found is not valuable, it most certainly is, but it's not empirical evidence about actual infections. This is why they use the word "could". They don't draw the definite conclusions like you seem to be doing, because they know that reality might be different from the experiment.

Exhibit 24(?) of your ignorance on display. Pseudotyped viruses are a broadly accepted method for testing neutralizing immunity. The fact you are trying to act like there's something unique or different about them shows you don't know anything about them, neutralizing immunity, or how they work.

Honestly, don't you understand the difference between "will" and "can"? Again, are you saying that Ellebedy's work means that we WILL be able to test for previous infection through antibody testing?

You said the antibodies wane so quickly that another test would be needed. Ali Ellebedy's work, which you quoted, contradicts that claim. He found the antibodies were still detectable long after infection using a simple assay. Yet another claim, by you, contradicted by the science at large.

 

[eikelbijter]

That wasn't really science being wrong per se, that was the sugar industry greasing palms.

How many doctors said it? How about government guidelines? I think it's not an unfair comparison. And no, before y'all jump on me, I'm not saying the current CDC guidelines are dangerous to our health like that.

 

[pmv]

Yeah, I know it's just self-flagellation at this point, but sometimes that's what I'm in the mood for.

Well that's a traditional approach to pandemics, after all.

(That, and blaming the Jews. Slightly surprised Trump didn't suggest either of those in his press briefings.)

The Flagellants Attempt to Repel the Black Death, 1349

An Eyewitness account of a religious cult during the Middle Ages

www.eyewitnesstohistory.com

 

[cytg111]

How many doctors said it? How about government guidelines? I think it's not an unfair comparison. And no, before y'all jump on me, I'm not saying the current CDC guidelines are dangerous to our health like that.

Motive. In those cases there has always been a clear cut motive. Money. What is the motive now?

 

[eikelbijter]

Found this

How Immunity Generated from COVID-19 Vaccines Differs from an Infection

A key issue as we move closer to ending the pandemic is determining more precisely how long people exposed to SARS-CoV-2, the COVID-19 virus, will make neutralizing antibodies against this dangerou…

directorsblog.nih.gov

"
A key issue as we move closer to ending the pandemic is determining more precisely how long people exposed to SARS-CoV-2, the COVID-19 virus, will make neutralizing antibodies against this dangerous coronavirus. Finding the answer is also potentially complicated with new SARS-CoV-2 “variants of concern” appearing around the world that could find ways to evade acquired immunity, increasing the chances of new outbreaks.

Now, a new NIH-supported study shows that the answer to this question will vary based on how an individual’s antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 were generated: over the course of a naturally acquired infection or from a COVID-19 vaccine. The new evidence shows that protective antibodies generated in response to an mRNA vaccine will target a broader range of SARS-CoV-2 variants carrying “single letter” changes in a key portion of their spike protein compared to antibodies acquired from an infection.

These results add to evidence that people with acquired immunity may have differing levels of protection to emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants. More importantly, the data provide further documentation that those who’ve had and recovered from a COVID-19 infection still stand to benefit from getting vaccinated.
"

I'm familiar with that one and others. You do realize that antibodies are only a part of the immune system, correct me if I'm wrong, and that this increased efficacy is in "a broader range of SARS-CoV-2 variants carrying “single letter” changes in a key portion of their spike protein".

That is a quite specific type of variant, however common; it says nothing about other mutations that could or will happen. This is why I find the conclusion that vaccine immunity is categorically superior premature at best, and foolish at worst. Just from a pure scientific viewpoint.

Edit: I believe now that I should have said: this does not say better immunity against ALL possible mutations that might come to be in the future.

 

[eikelbijter]

Motive. In those cases there has always been a clear cut motive. Money. What is the motive now?

How much money did Moderna make? Have you seen their stock price?

Mind you, it's a free market, if you want to buy ANY product that doesn't harm others, you damn well should. But when we find out natural infection might protect us for life, implementing vaccine passports and such to at least nudge previously infected into getting an unnecessary vaccine seems like a money grab, doesn't it?

 

[abj13]

That is a quite specific type of variant, however common; it says nothing about other mutations that could or will happen. This is why I find the conclusion that vaccine immunity is categorically superior premature at best, and foolish at worst. Just from a pure scientific viewpoint.

If anyone needs any further proof of someone pretending to be informed on a subject when she/he isn't, this is yet another example. The authors did the very thing you claim they didn't do. Anyone curious should read the section about "RBD deep mutational scanning library" (and the NIH news story on it) that is presented in the manuscript and the other methods regarding all the RBD mutants they tested.

What this poster claims is clearly false.

 

[VW MAN]

How much money did Moderna make? Have you seen their stock price?

Mind you, it's a free market, if you want to buy ANY product that doesn't harm others, you damn well should. But when we find out natural infection might protect us for life, implementing vaccine passports and such to at least nudge previously infected into getting an unnecessary vaccine seems like a money grab, doesn't it?

Holy shit! Irrefutable proof you are an anti-vaxxer propagandist. Fuck off clown and shove your clown show right up your clown ass! Don't forget to tell Vlad you failed in your mission while you are at it.

 

[Pohemi]

SO angry, it's incredible.

Not really all that incredible when you deal with moronic brick walls that pretend to act intelligent and argue pointlessly because of their ignorant feels. It's an irritation like a gnat that keeps buzzing in your ear and won't go away.

I keep asking questions which nobody answers, instead it's nothing but insults and name calling.

You are a liar. You've had numerous people answer your questions, disprove your bullshit clown statements, and every time, you simply handwave it away or ignore it entirely like you conveniently didn't see. Why? Because it was typically disproving your own bullshit assertions.

What a disingenuous and crazy thing to say...

Enjoying that mirror, clown?

Life is full of risks my friend. There are a few things far more dangerous to kids than Covid19, ESPECIALLY healthy kids, that most don't even seem to think about twice. How many kids die in sporting accidents every year? How many in car crashes? At some point we have to live without irrational fear, we have to be realistic or we stop "living" in an effort to "live" longer.

Sometimes it takes someone outside of a bubble to have a more unbiased look on things. Some kids are not gonna make it, that's life. We can't stop the world to protect each and every one, no matter how special your kids are. We can't deny that every action has other unintended consequences. The true damage of economic effects of the pandemic aren't even know yet. Suicides are way up among young kids, especially girls.

So...because *some* kids are going to die from *some* cause anyway, then trying to minimize risk of catching and dying from COVID is just not even worth any effort at all, and those families should "just deal with it" if/when their kids die. Do I have that correct? Because that's exactly what your opinion sounds like, aka an inconsiderate, self-absorbed piece of trash.

So you still haven't explained how what I said, which is that antibody titers go down in time after infection, but that immunity could last a lifetime because your body has learned how to make more when needed.
Instead of just repeatedly saying I'm wrong, why don't you tell me what would be correct in this regard?

He did, more than once. You ignoring it like the stupid c*nt who doesn't like being told he's wrong, doesn't mean he didn't correct you on it.

Not if you've been infected with Covid it isn't! If you haven't, depending on your risk level, it certainly can be considered reckless, but foolish is not for you to say. If you're healthy and under 40 it's not anymore foolish than mountain biking or parachuting.

False, dishonest, and disingenuous. Shocker!

I'm not trying to make any points here, seriously! You can't repeatedly accuse someone of being ignorant and then refuse to help him learn by answering his questions.

You can't repeatedly ask to be corrected if and when wrong/mistaken, and then completely ignore those responses. But here we are, because you are a clown.

I'm not telling anyone to ignore anything.
When scientists say "could" it means they are not sure, but somehow you ARE.
This is why they use the word "could". They don't draw the definite conclusions like you seem to be doing, because they know that reality might be different from the experiment.
Now, are you EVER going to answer my questions? It's getting quite suspicious that you won't.

How's that mirror, clown?
Go fuck yourself.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

BTW the thread topic is vaccinated people are angry at the unvaccinated.
This thread delivers.

 

[eikelbijter]

BTW the thread topic is vaccinated people are angry at the unvaccinated.
This thread delivers.

Sure does!

 

[Jaskalas]

Anger level rising.
CDC recommends mask wearing for indoor activities for all including the vaccinated for about 2/3rds the country.
Thanks Assholes!

I am all for this once my 7 year old can get vaccinated. Until then, we need do what we can to protect those that can't get vaccinated yet.

Fox News, told the world on Tuesday night that masks are far more dangerous for children than COVID.

@Everyone
Please let that sink in..... I think we know what the problem is here. Right wing media is pure propaganda and fiction and now they are causing this.

 

[nakedfrog]

Sure does!

Yeah, so get vaccinated, surely a prick your size won't notice such a little prick in your arm

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Fox News, told the world on Tuesday night that masks are far more dangerous for children than COVID.

@Everyone
Please let that sink in..... I think we know what the problem is here. Right wing media is pure propaganda and fiction and now they are causing this.

yeah I am still waiting for a deplorable I see a few times a month to point me to someone we or he directly knows who had a lung or respiratory infection caused by a mask. Rule was it cannot be someone your read about on the internet had to be relative, coworker or someone you know who knows them.
I have been waiting since end April 2020.

 

[Paratus]

Sometimes it takes someone outside of a bubble to have a more unbiased look on things. Some kids are not gonna make it, that's life. We can't stop the world to protect each and every one, no matter how special your kids are. We can't deny that every action has other unintended consequences. The true damage of economic effects of the pandemic aren't even know yet. Suicides are way up among young kids, especially girls.

Sometimes it takes someone outside of a bubble to have a more unbiased look on things. Some businesses are not gonna make it, that's life. We can't sacrifice a bunch of people to protect each and every one, no matter how much that business means or how much they might lose in a quarter. We can't deny that every action has other unintended consequences. The true damage of from the human effects of the pandemic aren't even know yet. Cognitive damage is found in even slight cases, along with increases in heart damage and other long term health problems even for the one who do survive.

 

[himkhan]

I'm shocked you guys are still arguing with a clear and obvious disinformation spreading agenda alt.

 

[pmv]

Sometimes it takes someone outside of a bubble to have a more unbiased look on things. Some kids are not gonna make it, that's life. We can't stop the world to protect each and every one, no matter how special your kids are. We can't deny that every action has other unintended consequences. The true damage of economic effects of the pandemic aren't even know yet. Suicides are way up among young kids, especially girls.

This is something that particularly annoys me. The way anti-lockdown people will invoke 'mental health' to try and pretend they aren't really primarily-concerned with keeping the dividends, profits, and rents flowing in for those who don't have to go out and mix with others to get an income.

Yet we just had several years of 'austerity', with massive cuts to health and social services, in the name of 'balancing the books' and avoiding tax rises, all pushed by the very same people who now insist they are so concerned about people's mental health.

They also, in practice, show far more concern about opening up things like resteaurants and nightclubs and other profit-making businesses than with getting the health-care system working again, including mental heatlh-care.