COVID-19 Vaccine Talk, 2nd Dose

[Wastedyouth]

Originally Posted by Darkknight

Would getting vaccinated now help me with that recovery? The answer, in case are unaware, is no.

Will being infected earlier provide a similar level of protection as the current vaccines. Studies show that is likely.

It seems to me there are no real benefits to the vaccines at this point in time for someone in my situation. That is where my risk/reward matrix falls.

Please share?

Because I do not believe this is the case. Or at least, you may be working off of studies that were not completed or have been found to be incorrect at this point.

[Barnes]

So then pay for Covid tests until you are vaccinated.

People like Darkknight aren't the problem but they also aint part of the solution.

[Ryan Coke]

Darkknight, I appreciate the tone and asking the questions, even though some take it as an opportunity to berate.

As has been said, the risks of vaccination are still way, way, way lower than risks from Covid infection. So if you aren’t worried about possible issues from reinfection, then you shouldn’t have a second thought about the remote risks of the vaccine.

I also hear from some “vaccine sceptical” about how they know of a number of people that had serious side effects after vaccination. I have to admit to being very sceptical of those claims. I know of absolutely nobody that had any significant side effects from the vaccine, many people of all ages. And the actual data reflects this. And if strokes were widespread after vaccination, our hospitals would be filling with vaccine side effect patients, and there is no word of that occurring.

So either the scientific data is correct, or there is a widespread cover up involving all the front line health workers. If a person decides they believe in the cover up theory, then none of the other information really matters.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Darkknight

As expected looking at most of the responses, it's just a demand for vaccination without actually looking at what has been said. .

That is your honest takeaway of the last page???

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by Plett25

Perfect is the enemy of good.

People like Dark knight aren't the problem.

I don't think you understand what that saying means. At all. Because unvaccinated people are 100% the problem. Full stop.

[Ryan Coke]

The data I’ve seen indicates natural infection isn’t as good as double dosed, but infection plus vaccine is better then double dosed.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

That is your honest takeaway of the last page???

Like most anti vaxxers it seems clear that DK is just faking being legitimately vaccine hesitant for real health related reasons, has already made up their mind and has no intention of engaging in an honest discussion to try and have their mind changed.

It's a common tactic amongst the selfish/unvaccinated. They want to validate their selfish decision and by making the vaccinated out to be villains who are big ole meanies, it allows them to rationalize being the cause of so many unnecessary deaths and serious health outcomes for the vulnerable.

You think the unvaccinated are blind to all the deaths they are responsible for causing? Of course not. They know their decisions are killing both the unvaccinated and the vaccinated but vulnerable. But they need a way to skirt taking responsibility for their actions. This is how they do it. Otherwise they might have to admit their selfishness is literally killing people and we know they aren't big on even the simplest of personal responsibility, let alone coming to terms with their own selfishness directly causing the deaths of other people's loved ones.

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by photon

To add it seems that it isn't quite as simple as "I had it so I'm immune". It does seem to vary significantly from person to person, one factor being the severity of the sickness. If it's not severe enough or if it's too severe then the immunity can be less. I don't think this area is understood enough to be confident in natural immunity alone.

Plus as mentioned natural immunity + vaccine seems to be more effective (twice as effective in a recent CDC study)

I also hate the argument that "I'm young, fit and healthy, so I don't feel I have to worry about COVID affecting me badly."

It drives me nuts every time I read something along those lines. That and people thinking since they didn't have a bad case of covid the first time, it probably won't be bad the second time.

just seems that most seemingly rational non vaxxed people misjudge the level of risk they're taking by not getting vaccinated, and vastly overstating the very small risks of the vaccine.

I had a talk yesterday with an older family member who has refused to get vaccinated so far. I was pretty blunt about my feelings on their continued decision not to get a shot, especially with health care breaking down.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Darkknight

Would getting vaccinated now help me with that recovery? The answer, in case are unaware, is no.

Will being infected earlier provide a similar level of protection as the current vaccines. Studies show that is likely.

It seems to me there are no real benefits to the vaccines at this point in time for someone in my situation. That is where my risk/reward matrix falls.

You don't seem open to feedback or communication.

The responses to you have been polite and to the point.

Honestly, I don't think you even came here to discuss vaccinations.

I think you came here to "Make a Point".

I'm not sure what your masters degree is in, but I'm not sure a fine arts degree sets your wife up with all the scientific skills needed.

I too have a degree, but I can still listen and learn.

You don't seem willing to do that.'

Also your three stroke friends. I hope they recover from their strokes with no or minimal side affects.

My father in law and my aunt that died from COVID won't recover.

[peter12]

You’re choosing to believe what you want to believe. Every single expert has said hybrid immunity is the best possible place to be for someone in your situation.

Also “risks” like 1 in 250,000 are basically incalculable by your brain. You undertake a dozen things more dangerous every single day.

[Jay's Beagle]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

I also hate the argument that "I'm young, fit and healthy, so I don't feel I have to worry about COVID affecting me badly."

It drives me nuts every time I read something along those lines. That and people thinking since they didn't have a bad case of covid the first time, it probably won't be bad the second time.

just seems that most seemingly rational non vaxxed people misjudge the level of risk they're taking by not getting vaccinated, and vastly overstating the very small risks of the vaccine.

I had a talk yesterday with an older family member who has refused to get vaccinated so far. I was pretty blunt about my feelings on their continued decision not to get a shot, especially with health care breaking down.

BuT JoE RoGaN SaYs take your vitamins, horse dewormer and you’ll be fine.

I couldn’t agree more with you.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by Darkknight

It seems to me there are no real benefits to the vaccines at this point in time for someone in my situation. That is where my risk/reward matrix falls.

You mentioned you still cant smell or taste 100%.

Did you happen to do lung function tests before and after your illness? There is a very real chance you could have some minor lung damage. Anecdotally, my mom had pneumonia a few times, and now has some light lung damage that makes her very sensitive to respiratory illnesses, and susceptible to recurring pneumonia. This will be a big problem as she ages.

We know for a fact you're at risk of reinfection and adding to any lung damage that may or may not be there, as well as a host of other issues.

How many people have died from the mRNA vaccines? How many have died from a second case of COVID?

You mentioned your kids are vaccinated. The safety profile of all those vaccines is not much different than COVID.

Why not just let your kids get measles etc and hope that they come out of it ok?

Even the AZ vaccine, which had the scariest safety profile with the blood clots, was safer to take than deciding on going for a drive to Banff and back.

It's natural that knowing someone who suffered side effects makes them more real and scarier than when it's just a number on the internet, but when doing a risk reward calculation here, the safest thing you can do for yourselves is get the vaccine.

Now you need to look at our full hospitals. If you get the vaccine, you are definitely less likely to contract COVID again. We have people currently missing their cancer treatments. ICUs are full. The community spread of COVID is absolutely shortening the lives of people who are essentially innocent bystanders. Do you want to be a vector for COVID that is going to be part of that problem? Or a relatively safe vaccine to be part of the solution and help save lives?

[Darkknight]

Originally Posted by Wastedyouth

Please share?

Because I do not believe this is the case. Or at least, you may be working off of studies that were not completed or have been found to be incorrect at this point.

https://science.thewire.in/health/na...-israel-study/

Is an excerpt from the study that's been referenced. I don't believe this study has been refuted, but if it has I would be interested in seeing that. I've seen it referenced in the Washington Post as well for whatever that's worth.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Darkknight

https://science.thewire.in/health/na...-israel-study/

Is an excerpt from the study that's been referenced. I don't believe this study has been refuted, but if it has I would be interested in seeing that. I've seen it referenced in the Washington Post as well for whatever that's worth.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Darkknight

https://science.thewire.in/health/na...-israel-study/

Is an excerpt from the study that's been referenced. I don't believe this study has been refuted, but if it has I would be interested in seeing that. I've seen it referenced in the Washington Post as well for whatever that's worth.

“The study also found that individuals who were previously infected with the novel coronavirus and had received a single dose of the Pfizer vaccine appeared to have gained additional protection against the delta variant.“

Go get your shot now.

[getbak]

Nearly 3 million Albertans have received at least one dose of the vaccine. Fewer than 1,500 have had any kind of reported adverse reaction to the vaccine. That is approximately 1 adverse reaction for every 2,000 vaccinated people.

https://www.alberta.ca/stats/covid-1...m#vaccinations




There have been 52,447 Albertans between the ages of 30 and 39 who have been diagnosed with COVID since this began. 1,155 have required hospitalization -- about 1 in every 45 cases. 181 have spent time in the ICU -- about 1 in every 290 cases.

https://www.alberta.ca/stats/covid-1...evere-outcomes




With Delta, those outcomes are even worse. In the last 120 days, 10,651 Albertans in their 30s have tested positive for COVID. 428 of those have required hospitalization -- about 1 in every 25 cases. 85 have spent time in the ICU -- about 1 in every 125 cases.

https://www.alberta.ca/stats/covid-1...ccine-outcomes

[Wastedyouth]

By the way Darkknight, my very good friend who is very vaccine hesitant had Covid in the winter of 2020. He did not get the shot because he thinks like you, he is now in the hospital being monitored to see if he will have to go into the ICU.

Having the virus once is no protection. That is VERY clear through the data as well as anecdotally.

[Darkknight]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

You mentioned you still cant smell or taste 100%.

Did you happen to do lung function tests before and after your illness? There is a very real chance you could have some minor lung damage. Anecdotally, my mom had pneumonia a few times, and now has some light lung damage that makes her very sensitive to respiratory illnesses, and susceptible to recurring pneumonia. This will be a big problem as she ages.

We know for a fact you're at risk of reinfection and adding to any lung damage that may or may not be there, as well as a host of other issues.

How many people have died from the mRNA vaccines? How many have died from a second case of COVID?

You mentioned your kids are vaccinated. The safety profile of all those vaccines is not much different than COVID.

Why not just let your kids get measles etc and hope that they come out of it ok?

Even the AZ vaccine, which had the scariest safety profile with the blood clots, was safer to take than deciding on going for a drive to Banff and back.

It's natural that knowing someone who suffered side effects makes them more real and scarier than when it's just a number on the internet, but when doing a risk reward calculation here, the safest thing you can do for yourselves is get the vaccine.

Now you need to look at our full hospitals. If you get the vaccine, you are definitely less likely to contract COVID again. We have people currently missing their cancer treatments. ICUs are full. The community spread of COVID is absolutely shortening the lives of people who are essentially innocent bystanders. Do you want to be a vector for COVID that is going to be part of that problem? Or a relatively safe vaccine to be part of the solution and help save lives?

I appreciate the informative post you've made. In regards to the lung function tests I've never had anything officially tested, but my performance in the gym seems pretty similar before and after.

The study I cited seems to indicate previous infection has lower rate of reinfection than even the vaccines, and as I said if that study is not accurate I would be curious to see that as well.

I know this is hyperbole but I currently look at my situation as essentially, I could get a heart transplant and it has slightly lower resting heart rate. Is it worth the risk of complications for what could be considered a minimal improvement?

Like I said I know its hyperbole, but it's essentially where I'm coming from.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Darkknight

https://science.thewire.in/health/na...-israel-study/

Is an excerpt from the study that's been referenced. I don't believe this study has been refuted, but if it has I would be interested in seeing that. I've seen it referenced in the Washington Post as well for whatever that's worth.

That study hasn't been peer reviewed, which may or may not make a difference, but there are also some flaws in the study. You can read this comment from the study page:

Dear colleagues,

With interest did we read this manuscript which fueled a lively discussion during our journal club of the department of infectious diseases epidemiology at the University Medical Center Utrecht. The authors address a relevant research question. If there is a substantial difference in the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infections between previously infected and vaccinated individuals – as suggested - this may have consequences for social distancing, testing recommendations, and for projections of the impact of vaccination on future COVID-19 trends. However, we have several concerns regarding generalizability, selection bias, information bias, and confounding that we would like to address. We focus our discussion on model 1: the comparison of the fully vaccinated non-infected group (group 1) to the infected non-vaccinated group (group 2).

In regard to generalizability:
- Due to the matching process, only 4% of the available data is used (i.e. for model 1 only 32430/736559) and as a consequence the study population is fairly younger (with expectedly less comorbidity) than the source population (i.e. vaccinated individuals, infected individuals). Therefore, the study population may not be representative of this source population which severely limits the external validity of results for all vaccinated/infected people.
- Naturally, subjects who died due to previous SARS-CoV-2 infection were not included in the study. Yet, without information on morbidity and mortality and contribution to the spread of SARS-CoV-2 from the primary infection, the results of the study are not informative for the question whether people without previous SARS-CoV-2 infection should be vaccinated or await natural infection.
- All three study groups – vaccinated or infected at baseline (28th of February) – were established upon future information (no infection, no additional vaccination after June 1, 2021), which severely limits the use of the results for today’s decision making.

In regard to selection bias:
- People with a SARS-CoV-2 infection between February 28, 2021 and June 1, 2021, or those who received a first (infected group) or third vaccine (vaccinated group) between February 28, 2021 and August 14, 2021 were excluded from this study. Thus the study population of group 2 consists of previously infected people that do not take the opportunity to receive a booster vaccine, which may well be the less vulnerable people with a lower baseline risk of getting infected/hospitalized. This would bias the estimate in favor of the infected group.
- Similarly, though at a smaller scale, people who died from COVID were not included in the analysis. This decreases the vulnerability of the infected group for secondary infections and/or hospitalization. This too would bias the estimate in favor of the infected group.

In regard to information bias:
- A difference in willingness to test between the vaccinated and previously infected group can result in biased estimates. Vaccinated people may be more on guard in regard to COVID-19 symptoms (especially if they adhere less to regulations because they are vaccinated) and will be tested more frequently. This can bias the estimate, again in favor of the infected group. However, this form of bias should not have affected the outcome hospitalization due to COVID-19, for which differences had the same direction. Yet, the number of those endpoints was low, limiting statistical power.

In regard to confounding:
- The authors acknowledge absence of information about health behavior, such as social distancing and masking. If the vaccinated group would adhere less to these preventive measures due to a sense of safety, this would also bias the estimates in favor of the infected group.
- A potential important aspect is the young average age (36 years) of the study population. As they were all fully vaccinated before February 28th, we thought that a large proportion may have been health care workers, who have a higher chance of exposure to SARS-CoV-2, and thus infection after vaccination. This would also bias the estimate in favor of the infected group.

We have scrutinized the paper in search of the fatal flaw; the one major methodological limitation that could explain the extreme effect in favor of the infected group, as reported. We conclude that it is not there, as we don’t think that any of the above biases can explain all of the effect. However, we did found several weaknesses that each have the potential to yield a modest bias, all in the same direction. Five modest biases may yield a large effect estimate. We, therefore, consider the question whether natural immunity provides better protection than full vaccination with Pfizer/BioNTech’s COVID vaccine remains unanswered.

The authors (Annemarijn de Boer, Valentijn Schweitzer, Marc Bonten and Henri van Werkhoven, all at University Medical Center Utrecht) acknowledge all other journal club participants for their time dedicated to discussing the paper.

Basically, common sense suggests that a layman does not make decisions about their own health against the advice of medical professionals based on one study which has not yet been peer-reviewed.

You're free to do what you want, but I suppose you'll spend the next month paying $100 for a test each time you and your family want to participate with the rest of society in non-essential activities, which is fine. I don't necessarily see the value or logic in any of your decision making, but you're confident, so enjoy.

[DFO]

Originally Posted by Darkknight

We've also had three close contacts who have had strokes since being vaccinated.

That statement seems unlikely. And even if it were true wouldn't it be near statistically impossible they were all attributable to covid vaccine?