Coronavirus: How dangerous a threat?

Page 311 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
It's a matter of proportions. Everything is dangerous, to some degree, but not everything is particularly dangerous.

Do you think vaccinated 30 y.o.s in a year from now should still be wearing masks? The virus will still be "dangerous" to them, and people will still die. Even hundreds.

I think the vaccine is all the action that needs to be taken at this point in time. As I wrote before, for kids as well.
If you would have asked me in June if any of us would still be wearing masks on October 7 I would have said no. I would have also said no if you would have asked if our highest numbers would happen in September of 2021. We don't know what will happen in a year. Do I hope that we can shed masks for 2022? @#$!##*! YES! We have to get to a point that the health care system can take a breath before we declare it 'not dangerous'. You are correct, for many years it will kill 50,000+ (USA). Remember that in an average influenza year 30,000 people die (USA)(82 per day). For reference, in the USA over 2,000 a day are dying from SC2 now. I'm not sure what an acceptable number is, but 2000 is too high IMO. 150-200 a day maybe, but not in the 1000s IMO.

*Obviously, 'picking' death numbers is a tough game because national numbers can only tell us some of the story.
 
More people than not have taken the Vax. 75% or a little more is where the USA is at right now.
The warp speed plan was put in place and then mocked by one political side. I can't change the fact for you.
Covid vax is still a personal choice the same as the flu shot.
Most kids recover just fine. In fact as of today here are the death numbers since the pandemic was tracked.

2020/2021 0-17 years 499 deaths involving covid-19 58,167 Deaths from all causes
2020/2021 18-29 years 3,739 deaths involving covid-19 110,769 Deaths from all causes

I think the USA in most places have moved on and are living with the virus around us. Get the Vax be cautious and clean up after yourself. No one is paying fauci and his mouth any attention. The man is so random that its become a joke.
The Warp Speed plan was indeed a plan to let industry what it could do with some assurances against financial loss. If there was criticism of anything related to "the plan" it was a single individual who sought to claim all credit for any positive momentum. That person attempted to circumvent tested medical protocols to maintain a timeline directly related to an election campaign. Once that tactic didn't work the next tact was to slam the "media" and then proclaim that the vaccine wasn't necessary even though the same person contracted Covid and required a medical rescue. From that point on there was not promotion of the vaccine from that source. Quite the contrary; the political pursuit to deride prevention measures became a serious focus and is to this day. The 25% unvaccinated population that continues to get infected, get treatment and drag on public health and is largely influenced by the same, exact source and followers. The economy is victimized by it as are all other citizens.
That person isn't Fauci so introducing him to your argument as a diversion is wasted.

Hey; at least kids don't smoke as much as they used to.
 
If you would have asked me in June if any of us would still be wearing masks on October 7 I would have said no. I would have also said no if you would have asked if our highest numbers would happen in September of 2021. We don't know what will happen in a year. Do I hope that we can shed masks for 2022? @#$!##*! YES! We have to get to a point that the health care system can take a breath before we declare it 'not dangerous'. You are correct, for many years it will kill 50,000+ (USA). Remember that in an average influenza year 30,000 people die (USA)(82 per day). For reference, in the USA over 2,000 a day are dying from SC2 now. I'm not sure what an acceptable number is, but 2000 is too high IMO. 150-200 a day maybe, but not in the 1000s IMO.

*Obviously, 'picking' death numbers is a tough game because national numbers can only tell us some of the story.
As I understand it, only very few of the deaths are unvaccinated children (under 12 y.o.) and fully vaccinated 30 y.o's. Those are the two groups I talked about.

That many unvaccinated adults are dying in the US now doesn't mean that it is particularly dangerous for small children. As I wrote before, the main danger they pose is spreading the virus to unvaccinated adults.

Unless one thinks that all kinds of social gatherings for fully vaccinated 30 y.o.'s should be restricted indefinitely (as long as the virus is endemic), then it makes no sense to treat it as a great danger for small children and have restrictions in place with very real costs on their welfare. School closures after everyone either is or could have been fully vaccinated are insane.
 
It's a matter of proportions. Everything is dangerous, to some degree, but not everything is particularly dangerous.

Do you think vaccinated 30 y.o.s in a year from now should still be wearing masks? The virus will still be "dangerous" to them, and people will still die. Even hundreds.

I think the vaccine is all the action that needs to be taken at this point in time. As I wrote before, for kids as well.
No. I don't think there will be restrictions next year.
Numbers from the USA CDC
2020/2021 0-17 years 499 deaths involving covid-19 58,167 Deaths from all causes
2020/2021 18-29 years 3,739 deaths involving covid-19 110,769 Deaths from all causes

Maybe we should lockdown car travel and swimming pools for kids since it looks from those numbers it is dangerous to them.
Those numbers are for the entire year of 2020 and up to the present of 2021.
I guess no one is going to answer my question. What level of danger is seen as significant enough to take action? Fortunately, kids can get really sick and still pull through. But, I would still rather not see legions of children in the icu for a largely preventable illness.
 
No. I don't think there will be restrictions next year.

I guess no one is going to answer my question. What level of danger is seen as significant enough to take action? Fortunately, kids can get really sick and still pull through. But, I would still rather not see legions of children in the icu for a largely preventable illness.
When the health care system is overwhelmed, we waited too long.
 
Mar 20, 2021
2
63
110
If you would have asked me in June if any of us would still be wearing masks on October 7 I would have said no. I would have also said no if you would have asked if our highest numbers would happen in September of 2021. We don't know what will happen in a year. Do I hope that we can shed masks for 2022? @#$!##*! YES! We have to get to a point that the health care system can take a breath before we declare it 'not dangerous'. You are correct, for many years it will kill 50,000+ (USA). Remember that in an average influenza year 30,000 people die (USA)(82 per day). For reference, in the USA over 2,000 a day are dying from SC2 now. I'm not sure what an acceptable number is, but 2000 is too high IMO. 150-200 a day maybe, but not in the 1000s IMO.

*Obviously, 'picking' death numbers is a tough game because national numbers can only tell us some of the story.
Highest numbers of what? Not cases as that was during the winter end of last year and beginning of this year, same with deaths.
https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#trends_dailycases|New_case|select
 
Mar 20, 2021
2
63
110
The Warp Speed plan was indeed a plan to let industry what it could do with some assurances against financial loss. If there was criticism of anything related to "the plan" it was a single individual who sought to claim all credit for any positive momentum. That person attempted to circumvent tested medical protocols to maintain a timeline directly related to an election campaign. Once that tactic didn't work the next tact was to slam the "media" and then proclaim that the vaccine wasn't necessary even though the same person contracted Covid and required a medical rescue. From that point on there was not promotion of the vaccine from that source. Quite the contrary; the political pursuit to deride prevention measures became a serious focus and is to this day. The 25% unvaccinated population that continues to get infected, get treatment and drag on public health and is largely influenced by the same, exact source and followers. The economy is victimized by it as are all other citizens.
That person isn't Fauci so introducing him to your argument as a diversion is wasted.

Hey; at least kids don't smoke as much as they used to.
Economy in parts of the country is just fine. Only the political fools game that is being played in places are doing poorly. Everyone played politics with the virus. Still going on today. Fauci is ignored now.
 
Mar 20, 2021
2
63
110
No. I don't think there will be restrictions next year.

I guess no one is going to answer my question. What level of danger is seen as significant enough to take action? Fortunately, kids can get really sick and still pull through. But, I would still rather not see legions of children in the icu for a largely preventable illness.
Legions of children in the icu where?
 
No. I don't think there will be restrictions next year.

I guess no one is going to answer my question. What level of danger is seen as significant enough to take action? Fortunately, kids can get really sick and still pull through. But, I would still rather not see legions of children in the icu for a largely preventable illness.
For me it needs to exceed that of other dangers and illnesses that we do not tackle. When it's within the average limits what children have to get through to grow up in our times - and it is, statistically - then it's something that is very, very sad for the individual child, but something that belongs to human life.
Like I said the risk of a hospital infection by MSR (is it called that in the US??) for instance is higher for children here and people don't do much against it here, although it can be tackled by specific testing and hygene measures.
Also we are seeing a rise of bad respiratory infections in small children, other than covid, because the children are not used to the small amounts of viruses and bacteria they usually experience and which help to build up the immune system. A way higher percentage of these children than usual actually have to go to the hospital because of those. Situation in my state:

google translate:
The Robert Koch Institute (RKI) reports a sharp increase in hospital admissions for infections with the respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) in one to four year olds. In Lower Saxony, the Christian Children's Clinic Osnabrück and the Euregio Clinic Nordhorn confirm this trend. According to the SANA Clinic in Hameln, 15 RSV cases have had to be treated there since August. In the previous season it was only one case. In the St. Bernward Hospital in Hildesheim, according to the clinic, around a third of the patients cared for there currently have an RSV infection. That was not an unusual amount, but the cases had also occurred much earlier this year than usual, said a spokeswoman. The infection usually affects children under one year of age, according to the Euregio Clinic - but older children up to four years of age are currently also being treated. According to the chief physician of the children's ward at the Wolfsburg Clinic, Jacqueline Bauer, almost all beds there are currently occupied. Very young children who are infected through siblings are particularly susceptible. Half of the children's ward in Gifhorn is occupied by children with respiratory diseases.

Ruth Lehbrink, Head of Pediatrics at Bonifatius Hospital Lingen, said: "Compared to previous years, we are already treating a large number of children with respiratory infections at this time of year, which usually do not occur until later in autumn and winter." These are typical cold viruses that sometimes require inpatient hospital treatment in infants and toddlers - but usually not with severe courses. Such an infection of the upper respiratory tract can be dangerous, especially for premature babies and previously ill children in the first year of life.

Before the corona pandemic, according to the RKI, around 60 to 70 one to four-year-olds with severe respiratory infections were admitted to clinics every week, currently there are twice as many. A further increase is to be expected. Patients would have had to move to clinics around 40 kilometers away.
 
No. I don't think there will be restrictions next year.

I guess no one is going to answer my question. What level of danger is seen as significant enough to take action? Fortunately, kids can get really sick and still pull through. But, I would still rather not see legions of children in the icu for a largely preventable illness.
Vaccination (of surrounding adults) is action.

Any level of danger is significant enough to take action, just not any action. So it's gradual, and the benefits have to outweigh the costs. Mandating kids to wear masks in school strikes me as action theatre (as we don't think the same benefits there will lead to permanent mask mandates for vaccinated adults).
 
Mar 20, 2021
2
63
110
NYT are becoming more like the guardian for fraudulent claims. Earlier they release a story and then have to issue a major correction because they are not doing their own research and diligence.

"An earlier version of this article incorrectly described actions taken by regulators in Sweden and Denmark. They have halted use of the Moderna vaccine in children; they have not begun offering single doses. The article also misstated the number of Covid hospitalizations in U.S. children. It is more than 63,000 from August 2020 to October 2021, not 900,000 since the beginning of the pandemic. In addition, the article misstated the timing of an F.D.A. meeting on authorization of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine for children. It is later this month, not next week,"
 
Reactions: FrankB
Vaccination (of surrounding adults) is action.

Any level of danger is significant enough to take action, just not any action. So it's gradual, and the benefits have to outweigh the costs. Mandating kids to wear masks in school strikes me as action theatre (as we don't think the same benefits there will lead to permanent mask mandates for vaccinated adults).
To expand on this, I just came across David Zweig's testimony to the HoR: https://edlabor.house.gov/imo/media/doc/ZweigDavidTestimony092921.pdf

"The World Health Organization and UNICEF have repeatedly advised against masking children under age
6, and recommend masks on kids aged 6 to 11 only under certain circumstances. The European Centre
for Disease Prevention and Control does not recommend masks for primary students.7 Some European
countries have limited mask requirements for older students as well. Yet the CDC recommends that all
American children aged 2 and up wear masks in school.

To be clear: millions of children in Europe are not wearing masks in schools. Yet there is no evidence that
kids in Europe are at greater risk of severe illness or bad outcomes, or that their surrounding
communities are at greater risk than their counterparts in the U.S.

We should ask ourselves why so many nations in Europe and elsewhere have already settled this issue
from a policy perspective: They don’t make kids wear masks. So why do we?

Masks are not a benign intervention. They interfere with language acquisition, reading comprehension,
and socioemotional development. Quite simply, seeing faces is a fundamental part of how humans, and
especially children, connect and communicate with each other. Children are now entering their third
year of interrupted schooling. A child who was in kindergarten in 2020 is now in second grade, and has
yet to experience a normal full year of school. None of us know what the impact will be nor what it is like
as a child to wear a mask all day every day for years on end.

The claim that some kids “don’t mind” wearing masks may be true insofar as children have been
repeatedly told that masks are needed for their safety and that wearing them is a virtuous act. There is a
reason adults remove their masks when they need to communicate clearly, such as at press conferences
or in interviews, and we don’t wear masks at home. Whether masks are a necessary intervention on
children is a separate topic from whether they impose a burden. Let’s not pretend about the latter.

More broadly, to what end are we implementing these interventions in schools? COVID, as has been
known since the very beginning, thankfully poses very limited risk of severe disease to almost all
children. The CDC has estimated that up to fifty percent of pediatric COVID cases are asymptomatic.

More children die of the flu in many seasons than have died of COVID over a much longer time frame.
Two separate peer reviewed studies, published by the American Academy of Pediatrics, found that 40%
or more of pediatric COVID hospitalizations are for incidental cases, where a child was in the hospital
with COVID but not from COVID.89 While concerns about pediatric long COVID are real, multiple studies
with control arms have shown that the prevalence of symptoms of long COVID, many of which are vague
and common, such as headache and fatigue, are similar in children with and without a history of
COVID1011. This isn’t to say that COVID poses no risk to children, only that much of the public’s perception
of its risk to kids is considerably misaligned with its actual risk to them. Data from the UK shows that an
unvaccinated child is at lower risk than a vaccinated adult.12"
 
Not surprising that there are governments that are actively manipulating data of course:
if they manipulate unemployment figures then the Covid figures can hardly be trusted 100% but I guess Covid is more problematic with underlying health conditions etc............some people die but it may not have been caused by Covid only if at all. And then some governments like the UK were not including nursing home deaths for some strange reason then I think they later started including them and the countries that have only rudimentary medical systems are probably not even worried too much about the stats when they have so many other issues to worry about.
 
To expand on this, I just came across David Zweig's testimony to the HoR: https://edlabor.house.gov/imo/media/doc/ZweigDavidTestimony092921.pdf

"The World Health Organization and UNICEF have repeatedly advised against masking children under age
6, and recommend masks on kids aged 6 to 11 only under certain circumstances. The European Centre
for Disease Prevention and Control does not recommend masks for primary students.7 Some European
countries have limited mask requirements for older students as well. Yet the CDC recommends that all
American children aged 2 and up wear masks in school.

To be clear: millions of children in Europe are not wearing masks in schools. Yet there is no evidence that
kids in Europe are at greater risk of severe illness or bad outcomes, or that their surrounding
communities are at greater risk than their counterparts in the U.S.

We should ask ourselves why so many nations in Europe and elsewhere have already settled this issue
from a policy perspective: They don’t make kids wear masks. So why do we?

Masks are not a benign intervention. They interfere with language acquisition, reading comprehension,
and socioemotional development. Quite simply, seeing faces is a fundamental part of how humans, and
especially children, connect and communicate with each other. Children are now entering their third
year of interrupted schooling. A child who was in kindergarten in 2020 is now in second grade, and has
yet to experience a normal full year of school. None of us know what the impact will be nor what it is like
as a child to wear a mask all day every day for years on end.

The claim that some kids “don’t mind” wearing masks may be true insofar as children have been
repeatedly told that masks are needed for their safety and that wearing them is a virtuous act. There is a
reason adults remove their masks when they need to communicate clearly, such as at press conferences
or in interviews, and we don’t wear masks at home. Whether masks are a necessary intervention on
children is a separate topic from whether they impose a burden. Let’s not pretend about the latter.

More broadly, to what end are we implementing these interventions in schools? COVID, as has been
known since the very beginning, thankfully poses very limited risk of severe disease to almost all
children. The CDC has estimated that up to fifty percent of pediatric COVID cases are asymptomatic.

More children die of the flu in many seasons than have died of COVID over a much longer time frame.
Two separate peer reviewed studies, published by the American Academy of Pediatrics, found that 40%
or more of pediatric COVID hospitalizations are for incidental cases, where a child was in the hospital
with COVID but not from COVID.89 While concerns about pediatric long COVID are real, multiple studies
with control arms have shown that the prevalence of symptoms of long COVID, many of which are vague
and common, such as headache and fatigue, are similar in children with and without a history of
COVID1011. This isn’t to say that COVID poses no risk to children, only that much of the public’s perception
of its risk to kids is considerably misaligned with its actual risk to them. Data from the UK shows that an
unvaccinated child is at lower risk than a vaccinated adult.12"
I can't quite tell what is the quote and what is your addition but:

Children under six aren't a majority of school populations so should they be the focus of "kids not wearing masks"? If my memory is correct, age five is Kindergarten and age six is first grade (ID, USA).

Prior to Delta and vaccines, the main reason kids wore masks was to keep them in school, followed closely by keeping enough teachers in school. Since Delta affects kids more than previous SC2 ,masks might be more important than before (I do want to see the Euro data though). Teachers have had an opportunity to get a shot so I'm not sure that making kids wear masks because teachers won't get the shot is a good argument (granted the shot isn't 100%, but...). The last number I saw for Boise was around 80% of school employees got a shot.

I don't have the knowledge to discuss the assertion that "millions of kids in Europe are not wearing masks in schools...low risk...", but I hope that we can get to that point soon because even if some kids 'don't mind them' no one, kids or adults, like them. I do think that in the fall of 2020 there was a novelty aspect to mask wearing for some kids, but that has been gone for a year now. Boise school district requires masks inside, but not outside so the kids do socialize without masks at recess. The elementary school that is a block from my house created several outdoor classrooms so that teachers can provide more mask free instruction time. The school across the road from my work didn't build anything, but teachers have their kids out on the grass frequently. That also comes with its own distractions obviously, and the weather will start to impact that as we move into winter.

All that being said, I can see wearing a mask during bad flu/SC2 years at work because I don't even like having the 24 hour crud that comes with working at a large company that has people traveling all over the world. I'm thinking about retiring early so that might not be necessary.
 
Reactions: Koronin
Vaccination (of surrounding adults) is action.

Any level of danger is significant enough to take action, just not any action. So it's gradual, and the benefits have to outweigh the costs. Mandating kids to wear masks in school strikes me as action theatre (as we don't think the same benefits there will lead to permanent mask mandates for vaccinated adults).
I disagree (but would love to be proven wrong).
 
"Johns Hopkins physician criticizes "backwards" vaccine mandates, pushes natural immunity."


"Dr. Marty Makary of Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine says blanket COVID-19 vaccine mandates are ruining people's lives, and says that natural immunity against the coronavirus is far more effective than vaccinated immunity."

“The data on natural immunity are now overwhelming," Makary insisted. “It turns out the hypothesis that our public health leaders had that vaccinated immunity is better and stronger than natural immunity was wrong. They got it backwards. And now we've got data from Israel showing that natural immunity is 27 times more effective than vaccinated immunity. And that supports 15 other studies."

Perhaps Makary should sit down with Fauci and have a nice discussion over this. For some reason Fauci is obsessed with vaccine-induced immunity and doesn't seem to recognize natural immunity nor believe in it. I find this very surprising with an MD of his credentials, experience & keen knowledge of immunology. The President & governors are following his recommendations on setting policies on the mandates. These mandates should recognize positive antibody tests as being fully vaccinated.
 
"Johns Hopkins physician criticizes "backwards" vaccine mandates, pushes natural immunity."


"Dr. Marty Makary of Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine says blanket COVID-19 vaccine mandates are ruining people's lives, and says that natural immunity against the coronavirus is far more effective than vaccinated immunity."

“The data on natural immunity are now overwhelming," Makary insisted. “It turns out the hypothesis that our public health leaders had that vaccinated immunity is better and stronger than natural immunity was wrong. They got it backwards. And now we've got data from Israel showing that natural immunity is 27 times more effective than vaccinated immunity. And that supports 15 other studies."

Perhaps Makary should sit down with Fauci and have a nice discussion over this. For some reason Fauci is obsessed with vaccine-induced immunity and doesn't seem to recognize natural immunity nor believe in it. I find this very surprising with an MD of his credentials, experience & keen knowledge of immunology. The President & governors are following his recommendations on setting policies on the mandates. These mandates should recognize positive antibody tests as being fully vaccinated.
First, I hope that disease acquired immunity is solid protection (for many reasons). Second though, the quote that "the data on natural immunity is now overwhelming..." is hyperbole. Again though, I hope that becomes a true statement through research.

My understanding is that there is a huge range in protection among people who had SC2. Some of the research is trying to figure out 'how much is enough' protection.

As far as AF is concerned, I just read a quote (I'll try to find again) where he indicated that people who had SC2 are protected, but is waiting for more data.

EDIT: Here's AF's quote: "When Dr. Anthony Fauci, the top federal expert on infectious diseases, was asked during a CNN interview last month whether infected people were as well protected as those who’ve been vaccinated, he hedged. “There could be an argument” that they are, he said. "

Makary uses the data from Israel because it supports his assertion, but there is data out of Brazil that is nearly opposite that he doesn't include. Its interesting that he is taking this approach because while it could end up making him look really good, it also has the potential to make him look really bad. As I pointed out last time that he was quoted on here, while he is respected in his field, he is an oncologist not a virologist. I wonder how he would view virologists who push their advice about cancer surgery?
 
Last edited:
Reactions: Ultrairon
First, I hope that disease acquired immunity is solid protection (for many reasons). Second though, the quote that "the data on natural immunity is now overwhelming..." is hyperbole. Again though, I hope that becomes a true statement through research.

My understanding is that there is a huge range in protection among people who had SC2. Some of the research is trying to figure out 'how much is enough' protection.

As far as AF is concerned, I just read a quote (I'll try to find again) where he expressed hope that people who had SC2 are protected, but is waiting for more data.

EDIT: Here's AF's quote: "When Dr. Anthony Fauci, the top federal expert on infectious diseases, was asked during a CNN interview last month whether infected people were as well protected as those who’ve been vaccinated, he hedged. “There could be an argument” that they are, he said. "

Makary uses the data from Israel because it supports his assertion, but there is data out of Brazil that is nearly opposite that he doesn't include. Its interesting that he is taking this approach because while it could end up making him look really good, it also has the potential to make him look really bad. As I pointed out last time that he was quoted on here, while he is respected in his field, he is an oncologist not a virologist. I wonder how he would view virologists who push their advice about cancer surgery?
C'mon now...I'm shaking my head here as you also want to dismiss natural immunity in favor of only vaccine-induced immunity. Fauci shouldn't be the only authority on Covid recommending policy to the POTUS. Makary points out there are 15 other studies supporting the Israel study. I'm currently looking them up & getting them into my data base (I'm aware of several of them but I didn't think there were that many - like the Cleveland Clinic study for example). I know Makary is an oncologist but he also has a MPH and has papers published on a wide variety of issues concerning public health - plus he's with Johns Hopkins, one of top research universities in the country.

I'm aware of the CNN interview you referenced (I think it was with Sanjay Gupta?). So, Fauci says there could be an argument made for natural immunity but is he going to follow up on this or just move on hoping no one will bring up the subject again? As I said previously, all of these federal, state & local mandates are basically recommendations from him. What Fauci says pretty much goes. He could come out tomorrow and publicly announce that natural immunity is on par with vaccine immunity and I guarantee you these mandates would immediately be amended. This tells me he's being obtuse & is obsessed with vaccine-induced immunity. He's too smart not to know the power of natural immunity & viral infections.

Here's an interesting study just published last month:

"A Systematic Review of the Protective Effect of Prior SARS-CoV-2 Infection on Repeat Infection."


"Protection against SARS-CoV-2 reinfection was observed for up to 10 months ."

"This protective effect of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection on re-infection is high and similar to the protective effect of vaccination."
 
Last edited:
Even if post infection immunity is good (which as far as I can tell it is), why not have both? To get the former you need to be infected, and the vaccine greatly helps to protect from the adverse effects of that.

I think it's ridiculous to be sceptical of the drawbacks of the vaccines without comparing it to the drawbacks of getting infected (when not vaccinated). We're talking an order of magnitude difference in risks.
 
C'mon now...I'm shaking my head here as you also want to dismiss natural immunity in favor of only vaccine-induced immunity. Fauci shouldn't be the only authority on Covid recommending policy to the POTUS. Makary points out there are 15 other studies supporting the Israel study. I'm currently looking them up & getting them into my data base (I'm aware of several of them but I didn't think there were that many - like the Cleveland Clinic study for example). I know Makary is an oncologist but he also has a MPH and has papers published on a wide variety of issues concerning public health - plus he's with Johns Hopkins, one of top research universities in the country.

I'm aware of the CNN interview you referenced (I think it was with Sanjay Gupta?). So, Fauci says there could be an argument made for natural immunity but is he going to follow up on this or just move on hoping no one will bring up the subject again? As I said previously, all of these federal, state & local mandates are basically recommendations from him. What Fauci says pretty much goes. He could come out tomorrow and publicly announce that natural immunity is on par with vaccine immunity and I guarantee you these mandates would immediately be amended. This tells me he's being obtuse & is obsessed with vaccine-induced immunity. He's too smart not to know the power of natural immunity & viral infections.

Here's an interesting study just published last month:

"A Systematic Review of the Protective Effect of Prior SARS-CoV-2 Infection on Repeat Infection."


"Protection against SARS-CoV-2 reinfection was observed for up to 10 months ."

"This protective effect of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection on re-infection is high and similar to the protective effect of vaccination."
-I clearly said that I hope disease acquired immunity protects people (that's 40+ million more people in the USA who are protected and dead ends for SC2). I already read the 10 month study that you shared and that's promising news. We already discussed the CC study here too. If you still follow Dr. Crotty et al you should read their research and the papers from other researchers that they share.
--I agreed with you several weeks ago that if there are 'passports', they should include all immunity as soon as they can decide on a level of protection that is scientifically supported (they are getting closer to determining that). EDIT: This will be tough internationally for a few years because every country might have their own number until international consensus can be reached.

-Fauci isn't the only voice (even when he's the one talking, there are other scientist behind him). Fauci isn't one of my sources of info very often because he has to make his comments public friendly. You spend a lot of time searching for one offs, but good science is when more and more scientist agree. When 95% (100s-1000s) of virologists agree on something, the musings of an ophthalmologist don't mean 'opinions are split'. Even if the general statement that 'disease acquired immunity is solid protection' (+/- to vaccine), do you really think that its 27% better than vaccine? That's absurd. Sure it could happen in isolated cases with lesser vaccines, but is DAI really 27% better than Moderna?

- Makary is at JH because he was in on (he may have been the lead?) the development of a cancer surgery technique that now saves 1000s of lives. He isn't there because of his research into pathogens. He could probably be a brilliant virologist (he might have one of those minds that would make him a brilliant whatever he wants to be) if that was his focus, but its not. Also if you read more of his opinions you will read that he got vaccinated and encourages others to do the same.

EDIT: I didn't actually watch the CNN interview, I read the quote from someone else who read the interview transcript, but Gupta and other docs like him are also too public friendly to use as 'sources'. I just thought that Fauci saying that its possible is interesting and encouraging.
 
Last edited:
C'mon now...I'm shaking my head here as you also want to dismiss natural immunity in favor of only vaccine-induced immunity. Fauci shouldn't be the only authority on Covid recommending policy to the POTUS. Makary points out there are 15 other studies supporting the Israel study. I'm currently looking them up & getting them into my data base (I'm aware of several of them but I didn't think there were that many - like the Cleveland Clinic study for example). I know Makary is an oncologist but he also has a MPH and has papers published on a wide variety of issues concerning public health - plus he's with Johns Hopkins, one of top research universities in the country.

I'm aware of the CNN interview you referenced (I think it was with Sanjay Gupta?). So, Fauci says there could be an argument made for natural immunity but is he going to follow up on this or just move on hoping no one will bring up the subject again? As I said previously, all of these federal, state & local mandates are basically recommendations from him. What Fauci says pretty much goes. He could come out tomorrow and publicly announce that natural immunity is on par with vaccine immunity and I guarantee you these mandates would immediately be amended. This tells me he's being obtuse & is obsessed with vaccine-induced immunity. He's too smart not to know the power of natural immunity & viral infections.

Here's an interesting study just published last month:

"A Systematic Review of the Protective Effect of Prior SARS-CoV-2 Infection on Repeat Infection."


"Protection against SARS-CoV-2 reinfection was observed for up to 10 months ."

"This protective effect of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection on re-infection is high and similar to the protective effect of vaccination."
I to am shaking my head at a complete misunderstanding of immunology, herd immunity and virus variants. Doing nothing was always an option. The virus is world wide, westerners,especially Americans in my opinion,need to consider the world wide response and consider what the US did previously and in the future. As data has grown,the messaging has not expanded proportionally. Is everyone at risk yes,but not equally. Race,sex,and health problems like obesity and diabetes look to be important precursors,and advanced age.
I wonder if you really,really have closed your eyes and imagined what a thinning of the herd immunity would look like in the United States, western Europe or Japan, China,ect. Historical photos of holocaust victims stacked like cord wood were hard for most to grasp without doing it on a world wide scale.
Dirt and others post about hospital capacity and staff being overwhelmed. In person interviews by the thousands,w doctors,nurses and staffers speaking often through tears about exhaustion,frustration,helplessness and failure, why are they not being listened to? Worse yet why are they considered liars and co conspirator participants? That is one facet disgusting on every level..Doctors saying this is what I need,for your survival and mind and reality show hosts telling a doctor or nurse in the trenches that they are whimps or are lying about the death,suffering and severity they are witnessing in person, and at immeasurable personal and professional costs.
We know what herd immunity looks like for ebola, AIDS, cancer, polio and other horrific things..why would anyone volunteer to re live that?
But the main point of everything, is a person's life who is at risk worth the rest of us taking actions to protect them? We see that many amongst us say absolutely not..their death and the pain of those left behind is the cost of doing business.
Listen to our doctors and nurses..believe them. Respect them.
Or the option to wait, 7-15 years for the herd to naturally thin,
700,000+ dead Americans and the ethics,the morality of intentionally not giving a f-ck is not discussed on scale.
 
Even if post infection immunity is good (which as far as I can tell it is), why not have both? To get the former you need to be infected, and the vaccine greatly helps to protect from the adverse effects of that.

I think it's ridiculous to be sceptical of the drawbacks of the vaccines without comparing it to the drawbacks of getting infected (when not vaccinated). We're talking an order of magnitude difference in risks.
I agree and that's why people took smallpox and measles vaccines regardless of current exposures.
As a personal notation: just took my 65+ booster of Pfizer. The first two shots I had some soreness but aside from taking a planned lazier-than usual day; no other ill effects. This dose was fine day one, with a sleepless night. Day two started out fine so I did outdoor work but ended up with a sleepless night due to low oxygen uptake. I had to concentrate to breath and that restriction is not reassuring. Walking the dog today we had to stop several times and the light-headedness led to the pukey feeling. Very tough to get benefit from even a deep breath, yet no congestion or typical lung obstructions. I can only conclude that a full blown Covid infection would be a horrible way for a fitness trainee to suffer through, even a mild one.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS