Natural Immunity

[Bootstrap]

What does the research tell us?

You tell me.

We've been unable to interpret the research the same way, making it difficult to have a conversation in other threads. That's why I made this poll, I want to see where everyone stands.

If we ask the people who do this for a living, what advice do they give us? They pretty much all tell us to get the vaccines. In interviews, even the people who conducted the Israel study say that. And their paper says that you get better protection with both:

Individuals who were both previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta variant.

Most of us are not researchers, most of us do not have experience looking at all the research in a field. MN is rarely a place where we can have the kind of focused discussion that is needed to discuss research intelligently. I have done plenty of work in a research environment, it requires a different kind of discussion than we have here.

[Bootstrap]

I think it's often hard to get accurate medical information on the Amish. This paper gives some useful information on effective death rate, though:

Closed but Not Protected: Excess Deaths Among the Amish and Mennonites During the COVID‑19 Pandemic

Assessing “excess death” in closed religious communities provides informa-tion on how COVID-19 impacted these communities. We use obituary information published in an Amish/Mennonite newspaper to examine excess death among the Amish/Mennonites in 2020. Our results indicate the Amish/Mennonite excess death rates are similar to the national trends in the USA. The excess death rate for Amish/Mennonites spiked with a 125% increase in November 2020. The impact of COVID-19 on this closed religious community highlights the need to consider religion to stop the spread of COVID-19.

[nett]

What does the research tell us?

You tell me.

We've been unable to interpret the research the same way, making it difficult to have a conversation in other threads. That's why I made this poll, I want to see where everyone stands.

If we ask the people who do this for a living, what advice do they give us? They pretty much all tell us to get the vaccines. In interviews, even the people who conducted the Israel study say that. And their paper says that you get better protection with both:

Individuals who were both previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta variant.

Most of us are not researchers, most of us do not have experience looking at all the research in a field. MN is rarely a place where we can have the kind of focused discussion that is needed to discuss research intelligently. I have done plenty of work in a research environment, it requires a different kind of discussion than we have here.

My wife is a professional, she does this for a living. She has a degree in clinical research. I think I'll listen to what she's saying about the research.

Why do you think you have such a monopoly on "what the experts are saying"? We've covered a lot of lies and misinformation from the mainstream narrative, but you don't see to mind that.

[Bootstrap]

Why do you think you have such a monopoly on "what the experts are saying"? We've covered a lot of lies and misinformation from the mainstream narrative, but you don't see to mind that.

Oh I hate lies and misinformation. And I hate the kinds of discussions we have where it's so difficult to focus on anything in a way that helps us get to the truth together. I hate the attacks on just about every reliable source of fact. But I don't think we have the kinds of conversations on MN that get to the truth of things.

Can you or your wife show me one medical society or research journal or longstanding body of scientific or medical researchers that tells people to avoid vaccines and trust their luck in a pandemic? Even one? Don't they all urge people to get vaccinated unless there's a medical reason not to? Please don't keep dodging questions like this, can you give me a straightforward answer?

I think it is deceptive to pretend that the scientific community is seriously divided on that question. And there's been a whole fog of lies and disinformation trying to cover that up. This medical disinformation costs lives.

There may be ethical reasons to avoid the vaccination, but that's not the same thing as medical reasons.

[Valerie]

You tell me.

We've been unable to interpret the research the same way, making it difficult to have a conversation in other threads. That's why I made this poll, I want to see where everyone stands.

If we ask the people who do this for a living, what advice do they give us? They pretty much all tell us to get the vaccines. In interviews, even the people who conducted the Israel study say that. And their paper says that you get better protection with both:

Individuals who were both previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta variant.

Most of us are not researchers, most of us do not have experience looking at all the research in a field. MN is rarely a place where we can have the kind of focused discussion that is needed to discuss research intelligently. I have done plenty of work in a research environment, it requires a different kind of discussion than we have here.

My wife is a professional, she does this for a living. She has a degree in clinical research. I think I'll listen to what she's saying about the research.

Why do you think you have such a monopoly on "what the experts are saying"? We've covered a lot of lies and misinformation from the mainstream narrative, but you don't see to mind that.

True. We talked to a lot of Amish face to face and hear what's going on.

We were in Holmes County today. Talked with an escavator where we're looking to possibly live. He told us him and his wife got tested for antibodies to see if they had covid. Their test revealed that both of them had had covid, they had suspected but hadn't had a real bad case of it. The man comes from Amish family-but he is not Amish. He lived in the development they're working on and pointed to one neighbor he said they were vaccinated and they got covid. Then he pointed to another house he said that neighbor also was vaccinated and they got covid .

I decided to go to the pharmacy that did the antibody test because I was sick for 2 weeks the end of July early August and I never get sick! My symptoms were achiness and fatigue but my job can do that to me sometimes so I wasn't sure. Then I got a fever of 101 so I went to get tested for covid and I got the most reliable test the PCR (2-3 day result) The test said i was negative. However I was so fatigued at that point and running a fever and achy I knew I couldn't go to work or anywhere actually I didn't want to pass whatever I had on.

My antibody test today show that I had it and he said looks pretty strong that I had it.

So then I had my husband tested since he was close to me for 2 weeks duration of the time I was down. He tested negative today for antibodies. My husband is type O blood which I had read a few places that it is the most resistant blood type to Covid. The pharmacist that performed our test today said we are the second couple where one spouse had the covid and the other didn't catch it from them, where the spouse that didn't catch it was type O blood. I thought that was interesting confirming what I had read.

I'm thankful that I have natural immunity now, and I have documentation that I have the antibodies if need be for the future.

[Laurell]

Most of us are not researchers, most of us do not have experience looking at all the research in a field. MN is rarely a place where we can have the kind of focused discussion that is needed to discuss research intelligently. I have done plenty of work in a research environment, it requires a different kind of discussion than we have here.

I am curious why you might suggest that things are not discussed intelligently here, or, more specifically, what you might suggest be done different. Citations of peer reviewed research, rather than news articles perhaps? I am unsure why you feel more qualified to discuss up & coming content more than any other person here, or what specifically you feel should be done differently.

[Laurell]

Why do you think you have such a monopoly on "what the experts are saying"? We've covered a lot of lies and misinformation from the mainstream narrative, but you don't see to mind that.

Oh I hate lies and misinformation. And I hate the kinds of discussions we have where it's so difficult to focus on anything in a way that helps us get to the truth together. I hate the attacks on just about every reliable source of fact. But I don't think we have the kinds of conversations on MN that get to the truth of things.

Can you or your wife show me one medical society or research journal or longstanding body of scientific or medical researchers that tells people to avoid vaccines and trust their luck in a pandemic? Even one? Don't they all urge people to get vaccinated unless there's a medical reason not to? Please don't keep dodging questions like this, can you give me a straightforward answer?

I think it is deceptive to pretend that the scientific community is seriously divided on that question. And there's been a whole fog of lies and disinformation trying to cover that up. This medical disinformation costs lives.

There may be ethical reasons to avoid the vaccination, but that's not the same thing as medical reasons.

I realize that you asked this question of Nett but I do want to toss in, that of course there are few, if any, societies that are not throwing their weight behind vaccinations. But I am guessing that what he is trying to say is that we need to be judicious in what we accept from these scientific bodies-- the same ones that supported eugenics, birth-defect causing medications, or a host of other recommendations that were prematurely endorsed. I mean, The American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology was standing behind the vaccination as being safe for pregnant women when the vaccine hadn't even been on the market for 9 months. Anyone with a brain in science or research would question such a decision, for more than obvious reasons.

[nett]

Why do you think you have such a monopoly on "what the experts are saying"? We've covered a lot of lies and misinformation from the mainstream narrative, but you don't see to mind that.

Oh I hate lies and misinformation. And I hate the kinds of discussions we have where it's so difficult to focus on anything in a way that helps us get to the truth together. I hate the attacks on just about every reliable source of fact. But I don't think we have the kinds of conversations on MN that get to the truth of things.

Can you or your wife show me one medical society or research journal or longstanding body of scientific or medical researchers that tells people to avoid vaccines and trust their luck in a pandemic? Even one? Don't they all urge people to get vaccinated unless there's a medical reason not to? Please don't keep dodging questions like this, can you give me a straightforward answer?

I think it is deceptive to pretend that the scientific community is seriously divided on that question. And there's been a whole fog of lies and disinformation trying to cover that up. This medical disinformation costs lives.

There may be ethical reasons to avoid the vaccination, but that's not the same thing as medical reasons.

Any institution that published something that clear that would instantly lose all their funding, and essentially be cancelled. it's pretty easy to put the pieces together, or at least it should be.

There are plenty of hints out that the "science" is not as settled as they want you to think, but you have to actually be open to new thoughts, not just swallowing whatever the mainstream narrative is.

Lancet study about booster not being scientifically justified, two FDA director was resigned named on the study

I feel like I've posted this 100 times, but here is it again.

Conclusions: Individuals who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection are unlikely to benefit from COVID-19 vaccination, and vaccines can be safely prioritized to those who have not been infected before.

You still won't even admit that natural immunity is vastly superior to vaccinated, which is now settled science. It doesn't appear you have any interest in the truth, instead you seem to have an interest in a narrative. i don't really care about narratives.

[Bootstrap]

Most of us are not researchers, most of us do not have experience looking at all the research in a field. MN is rarely a place where we can have the kind of focused discussion that is needed to discuss research intelligently. I have done plenty of work in a research environment, it requires a different kind of discussion than we have here.

I am curious why you might suggest that things are not discussed intelligently here, or, more specifically, what you might suggest be done different.

Good question.

To me, an intelligent discussion of anything this complicated needs a way to stay on one topic at a time, focusing on the evidence together wherever it leads, not committing to a given out come at the beginning, not approaching it as a contest between "sides". I think it's best to focus on what is true, not on labeling the people.

We have a lot of "I proved this to you but you didn't listen, you don't seem to mind misinformation, you're twisting this, you didn't prove anything" that isn't backed up by solid facts - the person speaking is acting like his own debate judge, but also attacking character. That's getting personal and ugly without adding light to the conversation. We have a lot of playing to the audience. That keeps changing the subject and making the discussion more heated. Sometimes it seems designed to do so, there's a grab bag of rhetorical tricks people use.

Citations of peer reviewed research, rather than news articles perhaps?

I would certainly prefer that. And even checking to see if a given article is peer-reviewed before saying it is. But also, whenever someone cites a study to support a conclusion that is the opposite of the author's conclusion, that should be at least stated up front.

At this stage, studies are still showing different results, a lot of papers are being published before they are peer-reviewed, and the whole topic has been politicized and polarized. For this kind of topic, literature reviews or overviews of the studies that have been done from scientific journals or experts is a really good starting point.

I am unsure why you feel more qualified to discuss up & coming content more than any other person here, or what specifically you feel should be done differently.

I don't think anyone here is an expert with adequate time to look at all the research and summarize it.

There are experts who do that for a living. Agencies like the CDC, FDA, and NIH have overviews, respected journals like Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, Science, Nature, BMJ, etc. have literature reviews, medical organizations have "standards of care" based on the latest research, etc.

But just about anything traditionally seen as a reliable source of medical information is being attacked. Things normally considered questionable sources of medical information are being exalted. During a pandemic, I find that concerning.

[Bootstrap]

There are plenty of hints out that the "science" is not as settled as they want you to think, but you have to actually be open to new thoughts, not just swallowing whatever the mainstream narrative is.

Lancet study about booster not being scientifically justified, two FDA director was resigned named on the study

Yes, that's a good study. Did you read it?

I have. It questions the need for booster shots, saying that vaccines are very effective at preventing hospitalization and death due to Covid-19, citing various studies to back that conclusion. It's a very good literature review done by two FDA officials who are resigning precisely because they think there is not sufficient evidence to question the effectiveness of vaccines and require booster shots for the general population. Here's one quote from it:

Although vaccines are less effective against asymptomatic disease or against transmission than against severe disease, even in populations with fairly high vaccination rates the unvaccinated are still the major drivers of transmission and are themselves at the highest risk of serious disease.