Natural (God given) immunity is superior

[nett]

Well if there are people that had covid already and they're being told to get a vaccine for it, it's probably a LOT better for them NOT to get the vaccine.... the point is saving as many lives as possible...

I was really just thinking GOD is greater than any vaccine... because GOD is GREAT...

That is such illogical reasoning - think about it. You truly believe that adding vaccine immunity to natural immunity is bad? Where did you learn math. I'm sorry to say, you try my patience up there on your hobby horse and I am trying hard to not say something that would be construed as unkind. A certain Jethro Tull song come to mind...

Quotes corrected.

Wayne, I have bachelors degree in math with an emphasis on abstract algebra and applied statistics. I can privately DM you my diploma if you'd like to see it.

Long term effects of adding vaccination to natural immunity are currently unknown. What we do know is that vaccinated immunity wanes to 0% efficacy, and requires boosters. Natural immunity has been shown not to wane at all in terms of efficacy. Given that, adding vaccinated immunity to natural is an unknown risk that offers limited short term improvements (VERY limited), and could introdruce long term catastrophe. We need to wait for more data, fortunately natural immunity is proving to be very powerful, so those who have had COVID have plenty of time.

[nett]

Most probably will eventually be able to get COVID a second time – usually with similar symptoms to the first time around.

That's what they said in the beginning, but every large study so far has found the opposite to be true. Reinfection risk is statistically 0, even against the delta and other variants. In fact, previous infection is 27x times more protective than recent vaccination (vaccination > 6 mos ago provides no statistical protection against delta).

While I don't personally know this man, he should not repeating conjecture that we now know is untrue.

Post the source of "every large study" -- ah, I didn't think so.

While I cannot post every large study, I can prove my statement by asserting the following. No large scale study has found that natural immunity wanes to the point of reinfection risk rising to statistically significant levels.

Here's a few to get us started

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101 ... 21258176v2
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2112981
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101 ... 21262415v1
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2103825
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2032195
https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-res ... y-covid-19

[Wayne in Maine]

That's what they said in the beginning, but every large study so far has found the opposite to be true. Reinfection risk is statistically 0, even against the delta and other variants. In fact, previous infection is 27x times more protective than recent vaccination (vaccination > 6 mos ago provides no statistical protection against delta).

While I don't personally know this man, he should not repeating conjecture that we now know is untrue.

Post the source of "every large study" -- ah, I didn't think so.

While I cannot post every large study, I can prove my statement by asserting the following. No large scale study has found that natural immunity wanes to the point of reinfection risk rising to statistically significant levels.

Here's a few to get us started

Here is your conjecture over and against Dr. John Waldrons conclusions: "Reinfection risk is statistically 0, even against the delta and other variants."

You are cherry picking, and doing so very poorly.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101 ... 21258176v2
"Necessity of COVID-19 vaccination in previously infected individuals"
"The cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection remained almost zero among previously infected" unvaccinated subjects, previously infected subjects who were vaccinated, and previously uninfected subjects who were vaccinated, compared with a steady increase in cumulative incidence among previously uninfected subjects who remained unvaccinated.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2112981
"Resurgence of SARS-CoV-2 Infection in a Highly Vaccinated Health System Workforce"
The study used a small sample and their conclusions had nothing to do with your assertion "Reinfection risk is statistically 0". Did you read the article?

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101 ... 21262415v1
"Comparing SARS-CoV-2 natural immunity to vaccine-induced immunity: reinfections versus breakthrough infections"
"Results: SARS-CoV-2-naïve vaccinees had a 13.06-fold (95% CI, 8.08 to 21.11) increased risk for breakthrough infection with the Delta variant compared to those previously infected, when the first event (infection or vaccination) occurred during January and February of 2021. The increased risk was significant (P<0.001) for symptomatic disease as well. When allowing the infection to occur at any time before vaccination (from March 2020 to February 2021), evidence of waning natural immunity was demonstrated..."

This article completely contradicts the "natural immunity is better" argument.

I will not engage in this argument anymore or waste my precious time citing the articles you posted without obviously reading them in a hand waving gesture to give you argument the credibility they don't deserve.

You dishonor my Lord whom you claim as your when you spread these lies. That's all I'll say.

[nett]

Post the source of "every large study" -- ah, I didn't think so.

While I cannot post every large study, I can prove my statement by asserting the following. No large scale study has found that natural immunity wanes to the point of reinfection risk rising to statistically significant levels.

Here's a few to get us started

Here is your conjecture over and against Dr. John Waldrons conclusions: "Reinfection risk is statistically 0, even against the delta and other variants."

You are cherry picking, and doing so very poorly.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101 ... 21258176v2
"Necessity of COVID-19 vaccination in previously infected individuals"
"The cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection remained almost zero among previously infected" unvaccinated subjects, previously infected subjects who were vaccinated, and previously uninfected subjects who were vaccinated, compared with a steady increase in cumulative incidence among previously uninfected subjects who remained unvaccinated.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2112981
"Resurgence of SARS-CoV-2 Infection in a Highly Vaccinated Health System Workforce"
The study used a small sample and their conclusions had nothing to do with your assertion "Reinfection risk is statistically 0". Did you read the article?

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101 ... 21262415v1
"Comparing SARS-CoV-2 natural immunity to vaccine-induced immunity: reinfections versus breakthrough infections"
"Results: SARS-CoV-2-naïve vaccinees had a 13.06-fold (95% CI, 8.08 to 21.11) increased risk for breakthrough infection with the Delta variant compared to those previously infected, when the first event (infection or vaccination) occurred during January and February of 2021. The increased risk was significant (P<0.001) for symptomatic disease as well. When allowing the infection to occur at any time before vaccination (from March 2020 to February 2021), evidence of waning natural immunity was demonstrated..."

This article completely contradicts the "natural immunity is better" argument.

I will not engage in this argument anymore or waste my precious time citing the articles you posted without obviously reading them in a hand waving gesture to give you argument the credibility they don't deserve.

You dishonor my Lord whom you claim as your when you spread these lies. That's all I'll say.

I'm trying to be kind here, but you denigrated someone by asking where they got their math degree, when you yourself clearly don't know how to read basic statistical verbiage. The things you posted and bolded contradict your conclusions.

For example:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101 ... 21262415v1
"Comparing SARS-CoV-2 natural immunity to vaccine-induced immunity: reinfections versus breakthrough infections"
"Results: SARS-CoV-2-naïve vaccinees had a 13.06-fold (95% CI, 8.08 to 21.11) increased risk for breakthrough infection with the Delta variant compared to those previously infected, when the first event (infection or vaccination) occurred during January and February of 2021. The increased risk was significant (P<0.001) for symptomatic disease as well. When allowing the infection to occur at any time before vaccination (from March 2020 to February 2021), evidence of waning natural immunity was demonstrated..."

But you conveniently left out the rest of what they found

evidence of waning natural immunity was demonstrated, though SARS-CoV-2 naïve vaccinees had a 5.96-fold (95% CI, 4.85 to 7.33) increased risk for breakthrough infection and a 7.13-fold (95% CI, 5.51 to 9.21) increased risk for symptomatic disease. SARS-CoV-2-naïve vaccinees were also at a greater risk for COVID-19-related-hospitalizations compared to those that were previously infected.

Did you intentionally leave that out? If so, you're lying, and you need to repent. If you made a mistake that's fine, but I would appreciate you retracting your statement about me dishonoring the Lord with my statements. Nothing I have said so far is untrue.

[nett]

It's very convenient to disengage when you've been shown to be completely wrong, To the point of posting something I would say is an outright lie of omission. Again, if it was unintentional, that's fine, but you should at least fess up, and admit you're wrong, and my statements are backed up by the evidence.

Specifically, saying

evidence of waning natural immunity was demonstrated

Is almost the exact opposite of the truth relative to the question of whether natural immunity is superior. And when the whole sentence is quoted, that becomes obvious.

evidence of waning natural immunity was demonstrated, though SARS-CoV-2 naïve vaccinees had a 5.96-fold (95% CI, 4.85 to 7.33) increased risk for breakthrough infection and a 7.13-fold (95% CI, 5.51 to 9.21) increased risk for symptomatic disease

Given the violent nature of this reaction, I assume there is some worldview of ideology that is crumbling here. I get that it's tough when things don't line up that you previously took for granted. However, I'm just the messenger, attacking my character and asking me to go elsewhere is uncalled for.

Ken and I have bitter disagreements regarding vaccination, but even he has conceded this point, and did so without personal attacks.

[mennonitemom1]

Well if there are people that had covid already and they're being told to get a vaccine for it, it's probably a LOT better for them NOT to get the vaccine.... the point is saving as many lives as possible...

I was really just thinking GOD is greater than any vaccine... because GOD is GREAT...

That is such illogical reasoning - think about it. You truly believe that adding vaccine immunity to natural immunity is bad? Where did you learn math. I'm sorry to say, you try my patience up there on your hobby horse and I am trying hard to not say something that would be construed as unkind. A certain Jethro Tull song come to mind...

Well yes, the studies SHOW that you’re 8 TIMES more likely TO DIE than with no vaccine, if you get covid and you’ve already had it…. So if you have had covid, you should not vet vaccinated….

[JohnHurt]

What does this have to do with general theology?

What category should it be in? It's about what GOD makes being BETTER than what man makes.... I think it Glorifies God....

Exodus 15:(26) And said, If thou wilt diligently hearken to the voice of the LORD thy God, and wilt do that which is right in his sight, and wilt give ear to his commandments, and keep all his statutes, I will put none of these diseases upon thee, which I have brought upon the Egyptians: for I am the LORD that healeth thee.

I understand the COVID shot uses the DNA from a child that was murdered in the womb. It is wrong for a Christian to benefit in any way from the murder of the innocent.

2 Cor 6:(17) Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,

Thank you for your stand, and for your faith.
John

[Josh]

What does this have to do with general theology?

What category should it be in? It's about what GOD makes being BETTER than what man makes.... I think it Glorifies God....

Exodus 15:(26) And said, If thou wilt diligently hearken to the voice of the LORD thy God, and wilt do that which is right in his sight, and wilt give ear to his commandments, and keep all his statutes, I will put none of these diseases upon thee, which I have brought upon the Egyptians: for I am the LORD that healeth thee.

I understand the COVID shot uses the DNA from a child that was murdered in the womb. It is wrong for a Christian to benefit in any way from the murder of the innocent.

2 Cor 6:(17) Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,

Thank you for your stand, and for your faith.
John

More accurately, it was tested on fetal stem cells.
Many modern medicines are starting to have this problem, including many monoclonal antibodies (Humira being a notable exception).

[JohnHurt]

What category should it be in? It's about what GOD makes being BETTER than what man makes.... I think it Glorifies God....

Exodus 15:(26) And said, If thou wilt diligently hearken to the voice of the LORD thy God, and wilt do that which is right in his sight, and wilt give ear to his commandments, and keep all his statutes, I will put none of these diseases upon thee, which I have brought upon the Egyptians: for I am the LORD that healeth thee.

I understand the COVID shot uses the DNA from a child that was murdered in the womb. It is wrong for a Christian to benefit in any way from the murder of the innocent.

2 Cor 6:(17) Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,

Thank you for your stand, and for your faith.
John

More accurately, it was tested on fetal stem cells.
Many modern medicines are starting to have this problem, including many monoclonal antibodies (Humira being a notable exception).

Even with a "test", they are still trying to benefit from the murder of a child. And so are we.

Rev 21:(8) But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

We take these injections because we are fearful of dying, so yes we are "fearful"...
We don't believe that God can really heal us, and so yes we are unbelieving...
And the unclean things we put inside us - they make us stink in God's eyes, so yes, we are "abominable"...
Like the parts of children that we murder and grind up to put into our injections or test our medicines, so yes, we are murderers and profit from murder...
And sorcery is "pharamkeus", or the mixing of drugs that we take, so yes, we really are sorcerers, or use the products of sorcery...
And man's "Science" and man's "Medicine" are the idols of this age that have replaced God Providence, so yes, we are idolaters too...
And then we lie to ourselves and others and say this medicine really works, when it doesn't work, so I guess you could say we are all liars too..

Well, at least we are not whoremongers. Or some of us, anyway.

But 7 wrong answers, and one "maybe", that is not really a passing grade.

[nett]

Exodus 15:(26) And said, If thou wilt diligently hearken to the voice of the LORD thy God, and wilt do that which is right in his sight, and wilt give ear to his commandments, and keep all his statutes, I will put none of these diseases upon thee, which I have brought upon the Egyptians: for I am the LORD that healeth thee.

I understand the COVID shot uses the DNA from a child that was murdered in the womb. It is wrong for a Christian to benefit in any way from the murder of the innocent.

2 Cor 6:(17) Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,

Thank you for your stand, and for your faith.
John

More accurately, it was tested on fetal stem cells.
Many modern medicines are starting to have this problem, including many monoclonal antibodies (Humira being a notable exception).

Even with a "test", they are still trying to benefit from the murder of a child. And so are we.

Rev 21:(8) But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

We take these injections because we are fearful of dying, so yes we are "fearful"...
We don't believe that God can really heal us, and so yes we are unbelieving...
And the unclean things we put inside us - they make us stink in God's eyes, so yes, we are "abominable"...
Like the parts of children that we murder and grind up to put into our injections or test our medicines, so yes, we are murderers and profit from murder...
And sorcery is "pharamkeus", or the mixing of drugs that we take, so yes, we really are sorcerers, or use the products of sorcery...
And man's "Science" and man's "Medicine" are the idols of this age that have replaced God Providence, so yes, we are idolaters too...
And then we lie to ourselves and others and say this medicine really works, when it doesn't work, so I guess you could say we are all liars too..

Well, at least we are not whoremongers. Or some of us, anyway.

But 7 wrong answers, and one "maybe", that is not really a passing grade.

Would you advocate for no use of modern medicine?