Covid-19

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
31,582
32,641
1,743
oklahoma city
I never once suggested that anyone should forgo the vaccine and wait to get their immunity from the virus. Nice stretch even for you. Is natural immunity from having contracted Covid at least equal to the immunity from the vaccine in those that haven’t had Covid? St. Luke’s and a lot of other folks seem to think so. You won’t answer that simple question why?
Why do people want "at least equal" when they can have clearly better?
 

Rack

Legendary Cowboy
Oct 13, 2004
25,209
10,447
1,743
Earth
How are you not getting this? My question is not should you get vaccinated whether or not you have had the virus. My question is....Is the medical community at least in agreement that natural immunity is superior to the immunity from the vaccine? To put it another way. Bob has never had covid but is fully vaccinated. George is not vaccinated but has had a confirmed case of covid and has tested positive for the antibodies. Is George's immunity as good as Bob's?
As far as "the medical community," you have all types in it....some are staunch anti vax, most of the time these are the sorts that also work MOSTLY for economic benefit in holistic fields like chiropractic care or vision care or wellness (I'm thinking of a specific "person" in Tulsa). The extremely successful financially of these types are typically very independent and cocky persons who think they know everything and seldom trust ANY research if it's not their own or from their community. This attitude serves them to believe in their own science over "accepted" science. These guys and gals are a very American type of counter culture and very rarely "agree" with the rest of the medical community on much of anything, vaccines are just a part of that disbelief.

Here's the deal, in your work example, both as a requirement for George's work, AND because it provides additional immunity, George needs to get the vaccine. This way, George is not only doing the right thing for his family and friends, George is also doing the right thing for his employer and his financial situation. EVEN then, a provision has been made that if George STILL, after all the evidence, doesn't want to take it, he can choose to take a test every day. Employees are required to do things everyday, we have to pay taxes, we have to do drug testing, we have to be kind to others, we have to work with people whom we don't agree with, we have to keep moving forward...part of that is taking a simple vaccine.
 

Rack

Legendary Cowboy
Oct 13, 2004
25,209
10,447
1,743
Earth
This mandate is not even close to being litigated yet and you admittedly don’t know that George’s immunity isn’t as good as Bob’s. Now you’re being ridiculous. Margret has problems.
No, people who won't comply with simple instructions have problems...the best way to end the virus is the vaccine...the worst way is to argue about it over and over and over and look for political outrage and confirmation bias...it's a vaccine we all NEED to take, they just need to comply. Simple, done.
 

osupsycho

MAXIMUM EFFORT!!!
A/V Subscriber
Apr 20, 2005
5,984
3,105
1,743
Valhalla
I never once suggested that anyone should forgo the vaccine and wait to get their immunity from the virus. Nice stretch even for you. Is natural immunity from having contracted Covid at least equal to the immunity from the vaccine in those that haven’t had Covid? St. Luke’s and a lot of other folks seem to think so. You won’t answer that simple question why?
Did you even read the article you posted yourself??? Here is a direct quote from the article answering your very question:

Available research appears to show that those who have natural immunity and get their shots are better off than those who rely on natural immunity alone. A study released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in August found that subjects who had natural immunity but were unvaccinated were more than twice as likely to be reinfected with COVID-19 as those who had natural immunity and those who got their shots.
 
Sep 3, 2010
634
163
1,593
Why do people want "at least equal" when they can have clearly better?
Read my original question. Please point me to the place where I stated that George shouldn't get vaccinated. I simply asked if his immunity is as good as someone who hasn't been infected but has been vaccinated. The next thing you know I'm an antivaxxer and probably responsible for many of the 650k deaths including RX's sister-in-law. I should have just done a quick google search and skipped this absolute crap show. I actually thought someone might respond with something like "Yes, it's good immunity like we've always thought." or "No, we're thinking now that natural immunity is not good" or even (I know I'm dreaming here) "We just don't really know at this point". I should have known better.
 

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
31,582
32,641
1,743
oklahoma city
Read my original question. Please point me to the place where I stated that George shouldn't get vaccinated. I simply asked if his immunity is as good as someone who hasn't been infected but has been vaccinated. The next thing you know I'm an antivaxxer and probably responsible for many of the 650k deaths including RX's sister-in-law. I should have just done a quick google search and skipped this absolute crap show. I actually thought someone might respond with something like "Yes, it's good immunity like we've always thought." or "No, we're thinking now that natural immunity is not good" or even (I know I'm dreaming here) "We just don't really know at this point". I should have known better.
Whoa, chill. Don’t put on me other things discussed. I just wonder why people want ok when there is much better. It is very unAmerican. We typically want the best.
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
73,329
41,548
1,743
Closer to Stillwater today than I was last year

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
73,329
41,548
1,743
Closer to Stillwater today than I was last year
Why do people want "at least equal" when they can have clearly better?
Read my original question. Please point me to the place where I stated that George shouldn't get vaccinated. I simply asked if his immunity is as good as someone who hasn't been infected but has been vaccinated. The next thing you know I'm an antivaxxer and probably responsible for many of the 650k deaths including RX's sister-in-law. I should have just done a quick google search and skipped this absolute crap show. I actually thought someone might respond with something like "Yes, it's good immunity like we've always thought." or "No, we're thinking now that natural immunity is not good" or even (I know I'm dreaming here) "We just don't really know at this point". I should have known better.
I've answered your questions in great detail, but you have ignored those messages in favor of repeating the same premise. This likely means that you know the premise is false, but you simply cannot change your mind.

sent from Tapatalk penalized by wearing a mask
 
Sep 3, 2010
634
163
1,593
From the article:

"... can defer their shots for up to 12 months from the date tested positive."

Why wait 12 months when they can have superior immunity now?

sent from Tapatalk penalized by wearing a mask
They are obviously leaving a window open to allow them to change the policy if new studies show that natural immunity is somehow inferior. I watched an interview with the St. Lukes representative and he said as much.
 
Dec 9, 2013
1,018
319
713
51
Read my original question. Please point me to the place where I stated that George shouldn't get vaccinated. I simply asked if his immunity is as good as someone who hasn't been infected but has been vaccinated. The next thing you know I'm an antivaxxer and probably responsible for many of the 650k deaths including RX's sister-in-law. I should have just done a quick google search and skipped this absolute crap show. I actually thought someone might respond with something like "Yes, it's good immunity like we've always thought." or "No, we're thinking now that natural immunity is not good" or even (I know I'm dreaming here) "We just don't really know at this point". I should have known better.
Then if you really were after a science based reason why bring up the hypothetical about George and Bob and the mandate?
 
Sep 3, 2010
634
163
1,593
I've answered your questions in great detail, but you have ignored those messages in favor of repeating the same premise. This likely means that you know the premise is false, but you simply cannot change your mind.

sent from Tapatalk penalized by wearing a mask
No, you have continually missed the point as usual. I have been under the impression that you are just dumb but now I'm starting to think you may be dangerous. Get help.
 
Sep 3, 2010
634
163
1,593
Then if you really were after a science based reason why bring up the hypothetical about George and Bob and the mandate?
Because if natural immunity is at least as good George shouldn't be forced to do anything that Bob isn't forced to do. There seems to be differing opinions on which is best all of a sudden and I wondered where that was coming from. That's it . No hidden agenda. No argument from me on whether or not George should get vaccinated or not rather should he be forced to if the immunity is the same. You better call Margret and tell her to handle her problems the way St. Lukes is.
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
73,329
41,548
1,743
Closer to Stillwater today than I was last year
Then if you really were after a science based reason why bring up the hypothetical about George and Bob and the mandate?
Because if natural immunity is at least as good George shouldn't be forced to do anything that Bob isn't forced to do. There seems to be differing opinions on which is best all of a sudden and I wondered where that was coming from. That's it . No hidden agenda. No argument from me on whether or not George should get vaccinated or not rather should he be forced to if the immunity is the same. You better call Margret and tell her to handle her problems the way St. Lukes is.
St. Luke's is only giving a year and then they still have to be vaccinated. It's like you only read the part of the article that confirms your premise and ignore the rest.

sent from Tapatalk penalized by wearing a mask
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
73,329
41,548
1,743
Closer to Stillwater today than I was last year
From the article:

"... can defer their shots for up to 12 months from the date tested positive."

Why wait 12 months when they can have superior immunity now?

sent from Tapatalk penalized by wearing a mask
They are obviously leaving a window open to allow them to change the policy if new studies show that natural immunity is somehow inferior. I watched an interview with the St. Lukes representative and he said as much.
Why leave a window open to allow for an inferior immunity to spread the contagion. Non sequitur.

sent from Tapatalk penalized by wearing a mask
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
73,329
41,548
1,743
Closer to Stillwater today than I was last year
I've answered your questions in great detail, but you have ignored those messages in favor of repeating the same premise. This likely means that you know the premise is false, but you simply cannot change your mind.

sent from Tapatalk penalized by wearing a mask
No, you have continually missed the point as usual. I have been under the impression that you are just dumb but now I'm starting to think you may be dangerous. Get help.
You are projecting.

sent from Tapatalk penalized by wearing a mask
 

UrbanCowboy1

Some cowboys gots smarts real good like me.
Aug 8, 2006
3,829
1,936
1,743
Phoenix, AZ
Not a political question for our med experts. Why does immunity wane from the vaccine/natural infection for COVID? The only other vaccine I can think of that requires multiple injections throughout your life is TB (not counting the flu which I've always been told isn't because immunity wanes but because the flu virus mutates).
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
73,329
41,548
1,743
Closer to Stillwater today than I was last year
Not a political question for our med experts. Why does immunity wane from the vaccine/natural infection for COVID? The only other vaccine I can think of that requires multiple injections throughout your life is TB (not counting the flu which I've always been told isn't because immunity wanes but because the flu virus mutates).
1. There isn't a TB vaccine. What you get annually is a skin test to see if you have been exposed or infected.
2. Immunity from flu vaccines wanes over time. This can happen with other vaccines. That's why we give boosters for tetanus and measles.
3. The experience of waning hasn't been duplicated in other surveys, including in Israel. We don't know why they saw that in their early vaccinations.

sent from Tapatalk penalized by wearing a mask
 

oks10

Federal Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Sep 9, 2007
10,094
6,585
1,743
Piedmont, OK
Because if natural immunity is at least as good George shouldn't be forced to do anything that Bob isn't forced to do. There seems to be differing opinions on which is best all of a sudden and I wondered where that was coming from. That's it . No hidden agenda. No argument from me on whether or not George should get vaccinated or not rather should he be forced to if the immunity is the same. You better call Margret and tell her to handle her problems the way St. Lukes is.
I do see that this highlighted part is what trying to answer. The problem is that we have no idea what people's individual immunities are so I think it would be irresponsible to just say "if you've tested positive in the last X months, you're exempt from vaccine requirements". It's not just a simple "is natural immunity equivalent to vaccinated" question because that assumes that all positive cases result in equal immunity, from asymptomatic to almost dying. I don't think there's any data out there claiming that natural immunity from asymptomatic infection is equivalent to sever near-death infection is there? So then are you going to disqualify people from the exemptions because they had covid but weren't sick enough?
 
Oct 30, 2007
4,967
4,009
1,743
Is the medical community at least in agreement that natural immunity is superior to the immunity from the vaccine?
The science on this is far from settled. Here is a summary of what I've seen:

1. The Pfizer vaccine had an estimated efficacy rate of 95% against the original strain.
2. The Moderna vaccine had an estimated efficacy rate of 94.1% against the original strain.
3. The WHO estimates natural immunity from infection provides 80-90% protection against reinfection.
4. The JnJ vaccine had an estimated efficacy rate of of 74.4% against the original strain.

The delta variant is a different animal than the original strain. The CDC estimated that the overall efficacy rate of the vaccinated population was 91% against the original strain, but they dropped that estimate to 66% with the delta variant. The vaccines still provide good protection against hospitalization and death, but they aren't as effective at preventing infection.

The study from Israel shows that natural immunity from infection provides better protection from the delta variant than the vaccine, but it also shows that those with natural immunity that received 1 shot of the vaccine had the highest level of protection overall. Based off this data, we might be better off giving the previously infected one "booster shot" as opposed to a full vaccination. As I said earlier, the science is far from settled.

The vast majority of medical professionals encourage everyone to get vaccinated, regardless of whether or not they've been infected, because that's been shown to provide the highest level of protection. Only time will tell whether or not that was actually necessary.
 
Last edited:
Sep 3, 2010
634
163
1,593
I do see that this highlighted part is what trying to answer. The problem is that we have no idea what people's individual immunities are so I think it would be irresponsible to just say "if you've tested positive in the last X months, you're exempt from vaccine requirements". It's not just a simple "is natural immunity equivalent to vaccinated" question because that assumes that all positive cases result in equal immunity, from asymptomatic to almost dying. I don't think there's any data out there claiming that natural immunity from asymptomatic infection is equivalent to sever near-death infection is there? So then are you going to disqualify people from the exemptions because they had covid but weren't sick enough?
Very good points. I was thinking yesterday that maybe the solution to the mandate would just be to have the antibodies checked and we would know everyone's immunity from that. Now I'm reading that the antibody tests aren't reliable. Thanks for the response.