FCS Football | Message Board | News
https://www.championshipsubdivision.com/forums/
https://www.championshipsubdivision.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=51325
I think this one is due to Boris and Team getting caught multiple times holding drinking parties at Downing street while they required everyone else to lockdown.BDKJMU wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 9:09 pm UK ending mask and vaccine mandate restrictions.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-60147766
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-high-c ... os1&page=1For most of last year, many of us called for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to release its data on reinfection rates, but the agency refused. Finally last week, the CDC released data from New York and California, which demonstrated natural immunity was 2.8 times as effective in preventing hospitalization and 3.3 to 4.7 times as effective in preventing Covid infection compared with vaccination.
Yet the CDC spun the report to fit its narrative, bannering the conclusion “vaccination remains the safest strategy.” It based this conclusion on the finding that hybrid immunity—the combination of prior infection and vaccination—was associated with a slightly lower risk of testing positive for Covid. But those with hybrid immunity had a similar low rate of hospitalization (3 per 10,000) to those with natural immunity alone. In other words, vaccinating people who had already had Covid didn’t significantly reduce the risk of hospitalization.
Similarly, the National Institutes of Health repeatedly has dismissed natural immunity by arguing that its duration is unknown—then failing to conduct studies to answer the question. Because of the NIH’s inaction, my Johns Hopkins colleagues and I conducted the study. We found that among 295 unvaccinated people who previously had Covid, antibodies were present in 99% of them up to nearly two years after infection. We also found that natural immunity developed from prior variants reduced the risk of infection with the Omicron variant. Meanwhile, the effectiveness of the two-dose Moderna vaccine against infection (not severe disease) declines to 61% against Delta and 16% against Omicron at six months, according to a recent Kaiser Southern California study. In general, Pfizer’s Covid vaccines have been less effective than Moderna’s.
The CDC study and ours confirm what more than 100 other studies on natural immunity have found: The immune system works. The largest of these studies, from Israel, found that natural immunity was 27 times as effective as vaccinated immunity in preventing symptomatic illness.
.Let me end by noting that all of this insanity is simply in response to an attempt to obtain some basic transparency. This should again bring into sharp focus why the government should never coerce or mandate anyone to get an unwanted medical product or procedure. Just look at this circus – the government mandates Pfizer’s product, gives it immunity for any safety or efficacy issues, promotes its product using taxpayer money, gives Pfizer over $17 billion and then uses taxpayers’ money to fight to avoid providing even the most basic level of transparency to the public.
Yup, it just points to prior infections leading to natural immunity, and an immunity that has been substantially better than the immunity that vaccinated people get who had not been previously infected. But it does point to the reality that this data has been donwplayed, even going as far as saying it doesn't exist, in the drive to get vaccinations as high as possible. I understand that public health officials wouldn't want to give people even more reason to shy away from vaccinations, but the problem is that by doing so people lose trust in public health officials for the deception andare even less likely to believe them going forward. It's the fatal flaw with Fauci and his unprofessional, if not unethical, behind the scenes maneuvering to discredit the virus source argument in order to hide the involvement of money he was in charge of being used at the Wuhan lab for things that would never be allowed in the US. Again, it just breeds skepticism of public health officials and diminishes their impact.CAA Flagship wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 9:00 am Regarding the WSJ article:
The results don't point to avoiding vaccination for those that were never infected. It does, however, point to rules about the need for vaccination after you were infected. This is where the "lose your job if not vaccinated" thing is wrong. Couple that with the fact that you can still become infected, and contagious, despite being vaccinated.
You said it better than I did.GannonFan wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 9:33 amYup, it just points to prior infections leading to natural immunity, and an immunity that has been substantially better than the immunity that vaccinated people get who had not been previously infected. But it does point to the reality that this data has been donwplayed, even going as far as saying it doesn't exist, in the drive to get vaccinations as high as possible. I understand that public health officials wouldn't want to give people even more reason to shy away from vaccinations, but the problem is that by doing so people lose trust in public health officials for the deception andare even less likely to believe them going forward. It's the fatal flaw with Fauci and his unprofessional, if not unethical, behind the scenes maneuvering to discredit the virus source argument in order to hide the involvement of money he was in charge of being used at the Wuhan lab for things that would never be allowed in the US. Again, it just breeds skepticism of public health officials and diminishes their impact.CAA Flagship wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 9:00 am Regarding the WSJ article:
The results don't point to avoiding vaccination for those that were never infected. It does, however, point to rules about the need for vaccination after you were infected. This is where the "lose your job if not vaccinated" thing is wrong. Couple that with the fact that you can still become infected, and contagious, despite being vaccinated.
How many times did we see that ‘do as I say and not as I do’ hypocrisy in the US with big city mayors, blue state govs, and donk member of Congress the last going on 2 years? I lost count..SeattleGriz wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 6:33 amI think this one is due to Boris and Team getting caught multiple times holding drinking parties at Downing street while they required everyone else to lockdown.BDKJMU wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 9:09 pm UK ending mask and vaccine mandate restrictions.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-60147766
Too many.BDKJMU wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 2:04 pmHow many times did we see that ‘do as I say and not as I do’ hypocrisy in the US with big city mayors, blue state govs, and donk member of Congress the last going on 2 years? I lost count..SeattleGriz wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 6:33 am
I think this one is due to Boris and Team getting caught multiple times holding drinking parties at Downing street while they required everyone else to lockdown.
I've said it before. As much as I don't like Inslee, he's stuck with his plan and hasn't been all over the board.
The author has a history of writing misleading editorials in the Wall Street Journal. See https://healthfeedback.org/evaluation/m ... pril-2021/.Winterborn wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 8:41 am Good article in the WSJ this morning on Natural Immunity. It is behind the pay wall but I copied the parts I thought were interesting below.
In my opinion this applies to those that are not at high risk but also goes to show how wrong a one path policy (vaccine is the only way that we get out of this) is. For those younger or not at risk, the vaccine is not the only choice. Playing politics with the data is never a good deal. All this raises the question on why certain individuals, now in charge at the CDC and elsewhere, signed the John Snow memo trying to push the no lasting effect from natural immunity.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-high-c ... os1&page=1For most of last year, many of us called for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to release its data on reinfection rates, but the agency refused. Finally last week, the CDC released data from New York and California, which demonstrated natural immunity was 2.8 times as effective in preventing hospitalization and 3.3 to 4.7 times as effective in preventing Covid infection compared with vaccination.
Yet the CDC spun the report to fit its narrative, bannering the conclusion “vaccination remains the safest strategy.” It based this conclusion on the finding that hybrid immunity—the combination of prior infection and vaccination—was associated with a slightly lower risk of testing positive for Covid. But those with hybrid immunity had a similar low rate of hospitalization (3 per 10,000) to those with natural immunity alone. In other words, vaccinating people who had already had Covid didn’t significantly reduce the risk of hospitalization.
Similarly, the National Institutes of Health repeatedly has dismissed natural immunity by arguing that its duration is unknown—then failing to conduct studies to answer the question. Because of the NIH’s inaction, my Johns Hopkins colleagues and I conducted the study. We found that among 295 unvaccinated people who previously had Covid, antibodies were present in 99% of them up to nearly two years after infection. We also found that natural immunity developed from prior variants reduced the risk of infection with the Omicron variant. Meanwhile, the effectiveness of the two-dose Moderna vaccine against infection (not severe disease) declines to 61% against Delta and 16% against Omicron at six months, according to a recent Kaiser Southern California study. In general, Pfizer’s Covid vaccines have been less effective than Moderna’s.
The CDC study and ours confirm what more than 100 other studies on natural immunity have found: The immune system works. The largest of these studies, from Israel, found that natural immunity was 27 times as effective as vaccinated immunity in preventing symptomatic illness.
Ok. I think I found the report he was talking about. It's at https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/ ... 04e1-H.pdf.Winterborn wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 8:41 am Good article in the WSJ this morning on Natural Immunity. It is behind the pay wall but I copied the parts I thought were interesting below.
In my opinion this applies to those that are not at high risk but also goes to show how wrong a one path policy (vaccine is the only way that we get out of this) is. For those younger or not at risk, the vaccine is not the only choice. Playing politics with the data is never a good deal. All this raises the question on why certain individuals, now in charge at the CDC and elsewhere, signed the John Snow memo trying to push the no lasting effect from natural immunity.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-high-c ... os1&page=1For most of last year, many of us called for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to release its data on reinfection rates, but the agency refused. Finally last week, the CDC released data from New York and California, which demonstrated natural immunity was 2.8 times as effective in preventing hospitalization and 3.3 to 4.7 times as effective in preventing Covid infection compared with vaccination.
Yet the CDC spun the report to fit its narrative, bannering the conclusion “vaccination remains the safest strategy.” It based this conclusion on the finding that hybrid immunity—the combination of prior infection and vaccination—was associated with a slightly lower risk of testing positive for Covid. But those with hybrid immunity had a similar low rate of hospitalization (3 per 10,000) to those with natural immunity alone. In other words, vaccinating people who had already had Covid didn’t significantly reduce the risk of hospitalization.
Similarly, the National Institutes of Health repeatedly has dismissed natural immunity by arguing that its duration is unknown—then failing to conduct studies to answer the question. Because of the NIH’s inaction, my Johns Hopkins colleagues and I conducted the study. We found that among 295 unvaccinated people who previously had Covid, antibodies were present in 99% of them up to nearly two years after infection. We also found that natural immunity developed from prior variants reduced the risk of infection with the Omicron variant. Meanwhile, the effectiveness of the two-dose Moderna vaccine against infection (not severe disease) declines to 61% against Delta and 16% against Omicron at six months, according to a recent Kaiser Southern California study. In general, Pfizer’s Covid vaccines have been less effective than Moderna’s.
The CDC study and ours confirm what more than 100 other studies on natural immunity have found: The immune system works. The largest of these studies, from Israel, found that natural immunity was 27 times as effective as vaccinated immunity in preventing symptomatic illness.
The reason for saying vaccination is the safest strategy is stated this way:What is added by this report?
During May–November 2021, case and hospitalization rates were highest among persons who were unvaccinated without a previous diagnosis. Before Delta became the predominant variant in June, case rates were higher among persons who survived a previous infection than persons who were vaccinated alone. By early October, persons who survived a previous infection had lower case rates than persons who were vaccinated alone.
What are the implications for public health practice?
Although the epidemiology of COVID-19 might change as new variants emerge, vaccination remains the safest strategy for averting future SARS-CoV-2 infections, hospitalizations, long-term sequelae, and death. Primary vaccination, additional doses, and booster doses are recommended for all eligible persons. Additional future recommendations for vaccine doses might be warranted as the virus and immunity levels change.
In other words, when you look at the entire picture, vaccination remains the safest strategy. Another thing is that, as the authors noted, their data did not allow them to assess the impact of boosters.Initial infection among unvaccinated persons increases risk for serious illness, hospitalization, long-term sequelae, and death; by November 30, 2021, approximately 130,781 residents of California and New York had died from COVID-19. Thus, vaccination remains the safest and primary strategy to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infections, associated complications, and onward transmission.
I think where public health officials have opened themselves up for criticism (among other things) isn't that many people are arguing to just letting people get sick, but rather, that people are saying that past infections offer protection at least as equal to protection given by vaccinations, but that they could have even more protection because of that past infection. And, based on what the CDC has released now, it would appear the science proves that out. That doesn't mean that we should encourage unvaccinated people to just catch COVID, but it does mean that things like vaccine mandates and vaccine passports should incorporate the scientific reality that past infections, if provable, should also be included in those measures. Pretty much, at this point, they are pointedly excluded or ignored. You can't preach "follow the science" and then ignore the science when it doesn't agree with your position. That's what breeds skepticism of public health announcements and we've allowed that time and time again during the pandemic because politics have led the way in terms of our response.JohnStOnge wrote: ↑Sat Jan 29, 2022 6:29 pm
In other words, when you look at the entire picture, vaccination remains the safest strategy. Another thing is that, as the authors noted, their data did not allow them to assess the impact of boosters.
Nobody disagrees with the suggestion that natural immunity works. What the overwhelming majority of public health professionals in the field disagree with is the idea that we should rely on natural immunity to keep people from getting sick. Getting sick is not the best way to avoid getting sick.
JohnStOnge wrote: ↑Sat Jan 29, 2022 5:40 pmThe author has a history of writing misleading editorials in the Wall Street Journal. See https://healthfeedback.org/evaluation/m ... pril-2021/.Winterborn wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 8:41 am Good article in the WSJ this morning on Natural Immunity. It is behind the pay wall but I copied the parts I thought were interesting below.
In my opinion this applies to those that are not at high risk but also goes to show how wrong a one path policy (vaccine is the only way that we get out of this) is. For those younger or not at risk, the vaccine is not the only choice. Playing politics with the data is never a good deal. All this raises the question on why certain individuals, now in charge at the CDC and elsewhere, signed the John Snow memo trying to push the no lasting effect from natural immunity.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-high-c ... os1&page=1
He is a cancer surgeon. He is not a virologist, immunologist, are epidemiologist. Doesn't mean he HAS to be wrong. But he's made unsubstantiated statements before. He's one of those "Herd Immunity" guys. If I were you, I would take the opinion of the CDC over this guy. Since I can't tell what he's referencing in his article because he's not specific, it'll be hard to check.
But, to me, this is yet another example of a conservative media entity, the Wall Street Journal Editorial section, finding an outlier person who appears to have some credentials to try to validate an outlier point of view.
BTW his institution, Johns Hopkins, does not appear to share his point of view. See https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/ ... ed-to-know.
https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracke ... accination46x Higher
in Unvaccinated Adults
Ages 50-64 years
52x Higher
in Unvaccinated Adults
Ages 65 Years and Older
That’s good news, Gil.Gil Dobie wrote: ↑Sun Jan 30, 2022 8:21 am My friend in Iowa is off the vent and recovering. Been in the hospital 5 weeks. Talking one word at a time thru a tube. Will be in PT while getting his strength back. Also may have permanent hearing loss. Been following his caring bridge, great to see him get thru the worst.
In the category of "we'll never know", I've heard the rebuttal to these stats is that there are still plenty of people with conditions bad enough they cannot take the vaccine. Like I said. Never really know, because no one is keeping that data...or probably really even cares!kalm wrote: ↑Sun Jan 30, 2022 7:07 am Community spread - hospitalizations - deaths are what have driven the pandemic and as a byproduct have led to mandates. Still a pandemic of the unvaccinated. If you are opposed to lockdowns and business social distancing requirements you should be pro-vaccine.
https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracke ... accination46x Higher
in Unvaccinated Adults
Ages 50-64 years
52x Higher
in Unvaccinated Adults
Ages 65 Years and Older
SeattleGriz wrote: ↑Sun Jan 30, 2022 9:42 amIn the category of "we'll never know", I've heard the rebuttal to these stats is that there are still plenty of people with conditions bad enough they cannot take the vaccine. Like I said. Never really know, because no one is keeping that data...or probably really even cares!kalm wrote: ↑Sun Jan 30, 2022 7:07 am Community spread - hospitalizations - deaths are what have driven the pandemic and as a byproduct have led to mandates. Still a pandemic of the unvaccinated. If you are opposed to lockdowns and business social distancing requirements you should be pro-vaccine.
https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracke ... accination
Regardless, if you get sent to the hospital for COVID, I'd agree you should have been considering vaccination.
I've said it before. The general public vastly overstates their health and wellness levels. I'm sure a good amount of that attitude carried over into not needing to be vaccinated.
