deirdre
Senior Member.
which is what i said.I'm 4 for 4 on the countries I checked; I don't believe any country in the world bans its own citizens from coming home.
which is what i said.I'm 4 for 4 on the countries I checked; I don't believe any country in the world bans its own citizens from coming home.
it says San Francisco. your link.Of course, we all knew Omicron would hit the U.S. eventually,
but--as a Californian--I'm especially unhappy about it being here.
Unless I'm reading this wrong, they aren't yet specifying where, precisely,
in the state this traveller from South Africa lives...but all the references about the
confirmation science are in the Bay Area (far from me near the Mexican border).
https://www.latimes.com/california/...-confirms-first-omicron-variant-covid-19-case
Yes...I first read it on AP...and didn't notice that LA Times did add that...it says San Francisco. your link.
you wrote "most travel bans dont refer to people coming home" which I understood as meaning that they don't make exceptions for them. (The bans refer to residents when they specify the exceptions.)which is what i said.
or you could just assume i am not spreading misinformation, because i never do.you wrote "most travel bans dont refer to people coming home" which I understood as meaning that they don't make exceptions for them. (The bans refer to residents when they specify the exceptions.)
It would've been clearer to write, "most travel bans dont apply to people coming home."
I understood what Deirdre meant. If there was confusion a request for clarification would be appropriate.you wrote "most travel bans dont refer to people coming home" which I understood as meaning that they don't make exceptions for them. (The bans refer to residents when they specify the exceptions.)
It would've been clearer to write, "most travel bans dont apply to people coming home."
But you can't because you need trade, and you need to allow your citizens to come home, so testing and quarantine seems like superior strategy.
(Kinda like "abstinence education" in schools is correlated with higher teen pregnancy rates than teaching teens to use condoms.)
At some point in time someone had to make a policy decision on the law for it to come into effect.Edit: "political policy decision" sound somewhat arbitrary; a law that's been in effect for decades isn't arbitrary, so I personally feel it shouldn't be called that.
Policy decisions are those that determine how we will act in the future. How will we do this? What will guide our actions? A policy decision tells us how to make choices in order to act in alignment with our purposes and goals.
Article: Two cases were found in people based in Queens, one was in Brooklyn, and another was in Long Island’s Suffolk County, Hochul said at a briefing with New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio. The last case is suspected as a traveler who was in New York City.
“We know we now have cases here in New York City, we have to assume that means there’s community spread, we have to assume that means we’re going to see a lot more cases,” de Blasio said.
At least five U.S. states have reported omicron cases, with Hawaii joining New York late Thursday in saying the variant had been detected. It also has been found in California, Colorado and Minnesota, which said that a resident who had traveled to an anime convention at Manhattan’s Javits Center tested positive.
New study on "boosters" shows high immunity against very minor side effects.
https://thehill.com/changing-americ...-study-reveals-exactly-how-much-booster-shots
Article: The study, published this week in the scientific journal the Lancet, looked at the immune response of nearly 3,000 people in the UK who received either one of seven COVID-19 boosters or a control booster two to three months after getting their second shot of either the Pfizer or AstraZeneca vaccine.
Article: NEW YORK, Dec 1 (Reuters) - Moderna Inc (MRNA.O) could have a COVID-19 booster shot targeting the Omicron variant tested and ready to file for U.S. authorization as soon as March, the company's president said on Wednesday.
Herd immunity (also called herd effect, community immunity, population immunity, or mass immunity) is a form of indirect protection from infectious disease that can occur with some diseases when a sufficient percentage of a population has become immune to an infection, whether through previous infections or vaccination,
[/QUOTE]herd immunity, also called community immunity, state in which a large proportion of a population is able to repel an infectious disease, thereby limiting the extent to which the disease can spread from person to person. [b{Herd immunity can be conferred through natural immunity, previous exposure to the disease, or vaccination. [/b]An entire population does not need to be immune to attain herd immunity. Rather, herd immunity can occur when the population densit of persons who are susceptible to infection is sufficiently low so as to minimize the likelihood of an infected individual coming in contact with a susceptible individual. Herd immunity can prevent sustained disease spread in populations, thereby protecting susceptible individuals from infection. It is applicable, however, only to infectious diseases that can be spread by human contact.
Since herd immunity can be achieved via vaccination with a whole lot lessA big problem I have vaccine mandates. Is that the administration refuses to even discussed in depth natural immunity.
That science is ignored in the push to force everyone to get vaccinations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity
can they get more stubborn then they are now?Wouldn't that just make getting the vaccine-resistant
more stubborn?
and older people who had covid should get at least one dose right after recovery. older people often dont make anti bodie like young people do, even from the disease itself. that is science we all know from previous diseases.In order to avoid misdirection I want to emphasize that anybody who hasn’t developed natural antibodies should get a vaccination.
I’m not advocating for people that haven’t had it to get it. Hence my point about if you haven’t been exposed get a vaccination.Since herd immunity can be achieved via vaccination with a whole lot less
dead
“ A whole lot less dead“
If natural antibodies are effective who cares if a new mutation is vaccine resistant.Wouldn't that just make getting the vaccine-resistant
more stubborn?
Natural antibodies (a misnomer) are not as effective. https://www.nebraskamed.com/COVID/covid-19-studies-natural-immunity-versus-vaccinationIf natural antibodies are effective who cares if a new mutation is vaccine resistant.
All that does is prove the point that natural immunity working.
Natural immunity alone is weak
One study compared natural immunity alone to natural immunity plus vaccination. They found that, after infection, unvaccinated people are 2.34 times likelier to get COVID-19 again, compared to fully vaccinated people. So vaccinated people (after infection) have half the risk of reinfection than people relying on natural immunity alone.
Sounds reasonable but I’d have yet to see a study. Can you provide a link?and older people who had covid should get at least one dose right after recovery. older people often dont make anti bodie like young people do, even from the disease itself. that is science we all know from previous diseases.
I don’t understand that point. Are you saying natural immunity‘s don’t work or last.also the more times you are exposed to a germ, the better your resistance becomes from severe symptoms. this is also science we all know from previous diseases.
A Michigan Medicine study found that most patients with mild COVID-19 infections produce antibodies that persist and protect them from reinfection for up to six months.
Researchers analyzed nearly 130 subjects with PCR-confirmed COVID-19 illness between three and six months after initial infection. Three patients were hospitalized while the rest were treated as outpatients and experienced mild infection, with symptoms including headaches, chills and loss of taste or smell.
Long-lived bone marrow plasma cells (BMPCs) are a persistent and essential source of protective antibodies1,2,3,4,5,6,7. Individuals who have recovered from COVID-19 have a substantially lower risk of reinfection with SARS-CoV-28,9,10. Nonetheless, it has been reported that levels of anti-SARS-CoV-2 serum antibodies decrease rapidly in the first few months after infection, raising concerns that long-lived BMPCs may not be generated and humoral immunity against SARS-CoV-2 may be short-lived11,12,13. Here we show that in convalescent individuals who had experienced mild SARS-CoV-2 infections (n = 77), levels of serum anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike protein (S) antibodies declined rapidly in the first 4 months after infection and then more gradually over the following 7 months, remaining detectable at least 11 months after infection. Anti-S antibody titres correlated with the frequency of S-specific plasma cells in bone marrow aspirates from 18 individuals who had recovered from COVID-19 at 7 to 8 months after infection. S-specific BMPCs were not detected in aspirates from 11 healthy individuals with no history of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We show that S-binding BMPCs are quiescent, which suggests that they are part of a stable compartment. Consistently, circulating resting memory B cells directed against SARS-CoV-2 S were detected in the convalescent individuals. Overall, our results indicate that mild infection with SARS-CoV-2 induces robust antigen-specific, long-lived humoral immune memory in humans.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03647-4
At last count I have 62 studies backing my
position that natural antibodies are superior.
I’m sure you have many studies to counter mine . Which bring brings me back to my statement. There’s obviously a discussion to be had and it’s not settled science. So why won’t the administration even entertain that discussion?
That in itself speaks of the of disingenuous position and an ulterior motive.
I’m not posting on this thread to convince everyone they are wrong. I understand the flutility of attempting that.
The main point I’m trying to get across is people should be questioning the administration’s stance not parroting it
There are a lot of holes in Fauci and Biden stances.
But when you bring them up here the reception reminds me of the legend of the rhinoceros arbitrarily stamping out fires.
The CDC estimate of the flu burden is 146 million.
Article: To estimate the number of flu illnesses that occur in the United States each year, CDC uses mathematical modeling in combination with data from traditional flu surveillance systems. CDC estimates that from 2010 to 2020, flu has resulted in between 9 million and 41 million illnesses annually in the United States.
yes. but why dont you just google it, since it is well established science.Can you provide a link?
i'm saying the more often you are exposed to a specific germ, the better your body is able to fight the next time you get the germ. because covid is "new", one infection is only 1 exposure.I don’t understand that point. Are you saying natural immunity‘s don’t work or last.
you are cherry picking your own sourceThe study only lasted six months and produce antibodies that persist and protect them from reinfection. If they lasted the entire six-month study you can be sure they continued lasting after the six month deadline.
https://labblog.uofmhealth.org/lab-...fection-risk-for-up-to-six-months-study-finds
Article: Meanwhile, they concluded that individuals with COVID-19 can delay vaccination for 90 days after infection ends. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends those treated with monoclonal antibodies or convalescent plasma wait 90 days after receiving treatment before getting vaccinated, and others should wait until they have recovered from COVID-19 and "have met the criteria to discontinue isolation."
A study conducted in Kentucky that found that unvaccinated people who already had COVID-19 were 2.34 times more likely than fully vaccinated people to be infected again, suggesting “vaccination provides additional protection against reinfection.”
Additionally, the research was conducted between March 2020 and Feb. 2021, months before the highly transmissible Delta variant became the dominant strain of COVID in the United States.
I just posted two studies that refute your position.Natural antibodies (a misnomer) are not as effective. https://www.nebraskamed.com/COVID/covid-19-studies-natural-immunity-versus-vaccination
"There’s obviously a discussion to be had and it’s not settled science. So why won’t the administration even entertain that discussion?
That in itself speaks of the of disingenuous position and an ulterior motive."
no you did not. you posted 2 studies that show natural infection produce antibodies. everyone already knows that.I just posted two studies that refute your position.
You cherry picked your quotes as Deirdre pointed out. The study I linked is refered to by your study. You also add covid infected people to the total number of immunized people which is not correct. There are people who have had covid and have received a vaccine.I just posted two studies that refute your position.
And like I said I’ve got about 60 more.
We can do this all night.
I wanna ask you a question. It’s been proven that natural immunity works in the past and it should be added into the herd immunity count.
There was no large scale vaccination project for the 1918 Spanish flu. What do you think rained in that monster?
So are you claiming it’s different this go around? Every rule and procedure we followed prior to 2020 is wrong .
Even before all the studies are done which will take years. You can unequivocally say that this infection is different than any other infection in history?
And the preponderance of evidence for natural immunity‘s doesn’t stand up to this fear mongering one year of data collection?
I didn’t read her post. I decided to concentrate on one person in at a time.You cherry picked your quotes as Deirdre pointed out. The study I linked is refered to by your study. You also add covid infected people to the total number of immunized people which is not correct. There are people who have had covid and have received a vaccine.
No that is not what I said. Do not paraphrase. The study I posted (and referred to by the study you posted) saidI didn’t read her post. I decided to concentrate on one person in at a time.
So you’re telling me you’re study proves absolutely that natural antibodies are useless. End of discussion?
Correct?
... people who already had COVID-19 were 2.34 times more likely than fully vaccinated people to be infected again, suggesting “vaccination provides additional protection against reinfection.”
he did not say that. you should read all comments if you dont want to embarrass yourself.So you’re telling me you’re study proves absolutely that natural antibodies are useless. End of discussion?
Which brings me back to my point. if it’s not the end of discussion . Why isn’t everyone involved in this discussion nationally right now?No that is not what I said.
It's safer to just get the disease rather than the vaccine.” Claims that building natural immunity is safer than vaccine-acquired immunity are barred.
This is just a silly claim. to the extreme.This is from an article naming things you’re not allowed to post on Twitter.
It's safer to just get the disease rather than the vaccine.” Claims that building natural immunity is safer than vaccine-acquired immunity are barred.
The reason that is not allowed on many social media sites because it is flat out wrong. Over 786,000 people have died from covid in the US.This is from an article naming things you’re not allowed to post on Twitter.
It's safer to just get the disease rather than the vaccine.” Claims that building natural immunity is safer than vaccine-acquired immunity are barred
The recommendation I hear is that cross-boosting gives slightly better results (i.e. combining Pfizer primary with Moderna booster, or vice versa), but I don't believe the benefits justify deferring the booster shot.im still looking for moderna booster numbers after 2 doses of moderna.
i only heard that for the vaccines that had lower efficacy, like johnson and johnson or astra-zeneca. but that still doesn't answer my question.The recommendation I hear is that cross-boosting gives slightly better results (i.e. combining Pfizer primary with Moderna booster, or vice versa), but I don't believe the benefits justify deferring the booster shot.
There was no large scale vaccination project for the 1918 Spanish flu. What do you think rained in that monster?
As Spanish flu is estimated to have resulted in 50 million deaths at a time that the world population was only 1.8 billion (23% of currrent 7.9 billion), I'd hardly describe that as reigning it in.
At currently population, that rate have resulted in 219 million deaths.
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/1918-pandemic-h1n1.html
https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/world-population-by-year/
Obviously other factors are at play, such as improvements in medical science and care generally, but with studies clearly identifying vaccination as superior to herd immmunity, then you go with vaccincation, as that is our best method of defense.
There was no large scale vaccination project for the 1918 Spanish flu. What do you think rained in that monster?
As Spanish flu is estimated to have resulted in 50 million deaths I'd hardly describe that as reigning it in.