Coronavirus

[Trell]

Good grief, what do you think I was "arguing"? I wasn't arguing anything. It seems you just have to reflexively assume the worst and take an oppositional attitude to anything I post. My last post was not political or intended to criticize the covid relief programs, but rather a general observation about the tendency of a good chunk of the US population to try to dishonestly capitalize on such programs. That's all.

That coming from a MAGA Republican…

 

[mtrot]

That coming from a MAGA Republican…

Yep, you just confirmed what I said about you, with your reflexive oppositional and insulting reply. Are you unable to control yourself, or is your comment supposed to prove something?

 

[GO-NAD!]

Years from now, people are gonna look back at this era and just shake their heads at the willful stupidity.
Idaho bill would criminalize administration of mRNA COVID vaccines (usatoday.com)

 

[Trell]

Years from now, people are gonna look back at this era and just shake their heads at the willful stupidity.
Idaho bill would criminalize administration of mRNA COVID vaccines (usatoday.com)

And the two lawmakers introducing this bill are, of course, Republicans.

 

[j_garcia]

Same camp in various states who are trying to ban EVs and ban "bans" of gas stoves Idiot politics intended only to preserve votes instead of bettering the lives of their voters.

 

[mtrot]

Natural immunity from past infection greater than that provided by two-dose mRNA vaccines? No, I am not against the vaccines. Yes, there are limitations to the study.

Past SARS-CoV-2 infection protection against re-infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Protection from past infection against re-infection from pre-omicron variants was very high and remained high even after 40 weeks. Protection was substantially lower for the omicron BA.1 variant and declined more rapidly over time than protection against previous variants. Protection from severe...

www.thelancet.com

 

[GO-NAD!]

Natural immunity from past infection greater than that provided by two-dose mRNA vaccines? No, I am not against the vaccines. Yes, there are limitations to the study.

Past SARS-CoV-2 infection protection against re-infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Protection from past infection against re-infection from pre-omicron variants was very high and remained high even after 40 weeks. Protection was substantially lower for the omicron BA.1 variant and declined more rapidly over time than protection against previous variants. Protection from severe...

www.thelancet.com

Interesting study. A couple of issues that immediately come to mind:

Protection from infection/illness depends on...becoming infected/ill. While that infection may indeed offer protection from later infection, one is rolling the dice and hoping that the initial infection doesn't have serious consequences. Meanwhile, during an initial infection, one is able to spread it to others.

As a public health protection strategy, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. That said, maybe PH authorities could throw anti-vaxxers a bone and provide an "equivalent to vaccinated" certification to those who have tested positive (presumably via PCR), enabling them to work and travel where vaccine mandates apply.

As you said, there are limitations to the study, so I don't think we'll see changes in PH policy soon anytime soon.

 

[Trell]

Interesting study. A couple of issues that immediately come to mind:

Protection from infection/illness depends on...becoming infected/ill. While that infection may indeed offer protection from later infection, one is rolling the dice and hoping that the initial infection doesn't have serious consequences. Meanwhile, during an initial infection, one is able to spread it to others.

As a public health protection strategy, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. That said, maybe PH authorities could throw anti-vaxxers a bone and provide an "equivalent to vaccinated" certification to those who have tested positive (presumably via PCR), enabling them to work and travel where vaccine mandates apply.

As you said, there are limitations to the study, so I don't think we'll see changes in PH policy soon anytime soon.

Aren't the anti-vaxxers the control group?

 

[mtrot]

Interesting study. A couple of issues that immediately come to mind:

Protection from infection/illness depends on...becoming infected/ill. While that infection may indeed offer protection from later infection, one is rolling the dice and hoping that the initial infection doesn't have serious consequences. Meanwhile, during an initial infection, one is able to spread it to others.

As a public health protection strategy, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. That said, maybe PH authorities could throw anti-vaxxers a bone and provide an "equivalent to vaccinated" certification to those who have tested positive (presumably via PCR), enabling them to work and travel where vaccine mandates apply.

As you said, there are limitations to the study, so I don't think we'll see changes in PH policy soon anytime soon.

If the data pans out that post-infection immunity is equivalent or stronger than that of mRNA vaccines, then it wouldn't be "throwing them a bone". It would be a reasonable response to the data.

 

[Trell]

If the data pans out that post-infection immunity is equivalent or stronger than that of mRNA vaccines, then it wouldn't be "throwing them a bone". It would be a reasonable response to the data.

If, if , if, and totally ignore history and context, and the hundred(s) of thousands preventable deaths. Just because you want to "own the libs".

 

[mtrot]

If, if , if, and totally ignore history and context, and the hundred(s) of thousands preventable deaths. Just because you want to "own the libs".

Absurd comment. It seems like you are the person here with out of control hostility towards others. Every time I post, you immediately attack me and take it upon yourself to assume my thoughts and intentions. I have no interest in "owning" anyone. But "if" is the relevant question here. Natural immunity either is or isn't equal or stronger than vaccine immunity.

As I've stated multiple times, I am certainly not anti-vax, having received multiple mRNA shots, as has my wife and most of my family. And I do not say people should have eschewed the vaccine with the idea that, after contracting covid-19, they would have natural immunity, because, first, you don't know that you will survive an initial covid infection, especially if you are in a more vulnerable group, and secondly, you may require costly medical care, possibly including hospitalization. And, also, whether at home or in the hospital, you may acquire a secondary bacterial infection that will put you under. I am aware of multiple people in our circles whose health status made them most in need of covid vaccination but opted not to get the vaccine and ended up dying after contracting covid. Yes, it's sad.

 

[Swerd]

That paper in The Lancet is a meta-analysis – a systematic review of multiple other already published clinical studies & review articles about immunity to COVID-19 acquired from previous infection. Meta-analyses or meta-reviews aren't new data. But they’re meant as a broad comparison of the results of many other studies. Even if those various studies can’t be directly compared because of different specific conditions (such as different patient populations or different strains of virus), meta-analyses can be useful as an overview of the initial years of COVID-19 over the first 2 years since it became a widespread pandemic.

This paper estimates the reduction in risk of COVID-19 among individuals with a past SARS-CoV-2 infection in comparison to those without a previous infection. The paper’s authors ran a meta-analysis of how effective past infection was by outcome (infection, symptomatic disease, and severe disease), virus variant, and time since infection. The authors identified a total of 65 studies from 19 different countries. They used a statistical method known as Bayesian meta-regression to estimate the pooled estimates of protection. Their meta-analysis found:

• Protection from past infection and any symptomatic disease was high for reinfection with ancestral, alpha, beta, and delta variants, but was substantially lower for the omicron BA.1 variant.
• Protection from past infection against re-infection from pre-omicron variants was very high and remained high even after 40 weeks.
• Protection was substantially lower for reinfection by the omicron BA.1 variant and declined more rapidly over time than protection against previous variants.
• Protection from severe disease was high for all variants.

These results aren't too surprising considering what we've all witnessed over the last 2 years. The political right-wing as well as their sympathizers in the anti-vaccine community, who all opposed the public health emergency, jumped on this paper, saying "We told you so!" They had naively assumed that a world-wide epidemic, caused by a highly infectious new virus never previously exposed to humans, would be no big deal. Their reaction exposes their ignorance of the dreadful history of human viral diseases.

This Lancet paper is the first to document what we have learned about the immunity caused by previous infection to the disease, over the first two years of the pandemic. The authors had little to say about vaccinations, but did say this:

The immunity conferred by past infection should be weighed alongside protection from vaccination when assessing future disease burden from COVID-19, providing guidance on when individuals should be vaccinated, and designing policies that mandate vaccination for workers or restrict access, on the basis of immune status, to settings where the risk of transmission is high, such as travel and high-occupancy indoor settings.

In my opinion, their last comment is far more realistic and responsible than blindly dismissing any drastic public health measures for the initial years of the viral pandemic.

 

[Danzilla31]

That paper in The Lancet is a meta-analysis – a systematic review of multiple other already published clinical studies & review articles about immunity to COVID-19 acquired from previous infection. Meta-analyses or meta-reviews aren't new data. But they’re meant as a broad comparison of the results of many other studies. Even if those various studies can’t be directly compared because of different specific conditions (such as different patient populations or different strains of virus), meta-analyses can be useful as an overview of the initial years of COVID-19 over the first 2 years since it became a widespread pandemic.

This paper estimates the reduction in risk of COVID-19 among individuals with a past SARS-CoV-2 infection in comparison to those without a previous infection. The paper’s authors ran a meta-analysis of how effective past infection was by outcome (infection, symptomatic disease, and severe disease), virus variant, and time since infection. The authors identified a total of 65 studies from 19 different countries. They used a statistical method known as Bayesian meta-regression to estimate the pooled estimates of protection. Their meta-analysis found:

• Protection from past infection and any symptomatic disease was high for reinfection with ancestral, alpha, beta, and delta variants, but was substantially lower for the omicron BA.1 variant.
• Protection from past infection against re-infection from pre-omicron variants was very high and remained high even after 40 weeks.
• Protection was substantially lower for reinfection by the omicron BA.1 variant and declined more rapidly over time than protection against previous variants.
• Protection from severe disease was high for all variants.

These results aren't too surprising considering what we've all witnessed over the last 2 years. The political right-wing as well as their sympathizers in the anti-vaccine community, who all opposed the public health emergency, jumped on this paper, saying "We told you so!" They had naively assumed that a world-wide epidemic, caused by a highly infectious new virus never previously exposed to humans, would be no big deal.

Their reaction exposes their ignorance of the dreadful history of human viral diseases. This Lancet paper is the first to document what we have learned about the immunity caused by previous infection to the disease, over the first two years of the pandemic. The authors went on to say this:

In my opinion, their last comment is far more realistic and responsible than blindly assuming that any drastic public health measures for the initial years of the viral pandemic would not be needed.

@Swerd do you know if they're is any work being done on finding new vaccines that are an improvement to the ones we have? That address some of they're limitations. Or are the pharmaceutical companies going to just rely on the original vaccines indefinitely. I understand that's an extremely difficult feat to do with these types of viruses but it would be nice to see vaccines developed that reduce spread or stop infection. I'm grateful that the originals stop severe illness but it would be nice to have new ones that are effective in those 2 areas as well

 

[Swerd]

@Swerd do you know if they're is any work being done on finding new vaccines that are an improvement to the ones we have? That address some of they're limitations. Or are the pharmaceutical companies going to just rely on the original vaccines indefinitely. I understand that's an extremely difficult feat to do with these types of viruses but it would be nice to see vaccines developed that reduce spread or stop infection. I'm grateful that the originals stop severe illness but it would be nice to have new ones that are effective in those 2 areas as well.

It does seem like the initial emergency has passed – at least we all hope it has. It still is a marvel of modern science that we developed any vaccine at all just one year after the epidemic emerged. But, it was simply our first response to a genuine emergency. And they worked! Not perfect, but they really did work. No one should be surprised that future vaccines will change & develop now that we have time to catch our collective breath and assess the initial results.

It's useful to compare the development of the COVID-19 vaccines to the past histories of developing vaccines against polio and measles. Look them up in Wikipedia. It took years and years of work, and the initial vaccines took more years of development before they were considered done.

I do know that there is a lot of work on new COVID-19 vaccines going on right now, but I don't know any details. Most likely, any new vaccines will build on what vaccines we now have, and what we've learned about human immunity developed after virus exposure or after prior vaccination. I don't know for certain, but I believe that these vaccines will be mRNA based but are likely to be against a variety of different virus proteins, including the various mutations of the Spike protein, but possibly also of other SARS-CoV-2 viral proteins. None of that rules out other non-mRNA vaccines. We now have more time to rationally compare a number of options.

 

[mtrot]

@Swerd do you know if they're is any work being done on finding new vaccines that are an improvement to the ones we have? That address some of they're limitations. Or are the pharmaceutical companies going to just rely on the original vaccines indefinitely. I understand that's an extremely difficult feat to do with these types of viruses but it would be nice to see vaccines developed that reduce spread or stop infection. I'm grateful that the originals stop severe illness but it would be nice to have new ones that are effective in those 2 areas as well

Swerd may be able to find out more, but I think Pfizer is working on that. I think a month or so ago, they were accused of essentially doing gain of function type of research. IOW, the claim was that they were trying to alter the virus(s) in order to see what vaccines might work against a new version of the virus. I think some people suspected they would, for monetary purposes, actually intentionally or accidentally release a new virus or variant that would require a whole new round of vaccinations with a new vaccine.

 

[Mr._Clark]

I think some people suspected they would, for monetary purposes, actually intentionally or accidentally release a new virus or variant that would require a whole new round of vaccinations with a new vaccine.

I'm not sure who these people are, but I'm not one of them.

 

[Danzilla31]

I'm not sure who these people are, but I'm not one of them.

I am no conspiracy advocate. But Big Pharma is not exactly our friend. After seeing some of the lawsuits placed against them that they have been forced to settle Zyprexa being just one of a long list. I would say the scenario above is unlikely but with they're history keeping them under scrutiny with Covid vaccines is definetly not something that hurts any of us

 

[mtrot]

I'm not sure who these people are, but I'm not one of them.

Well, one would hope not, but I worked in that industry for 30 years and there have been plenty of bad episodes. You can look up the fines that J&J paid out over their off label promotion of Risperdal for children. They would pay doctors to be speakers and conduct seminars during which they are allowed to present data on research in off-label illnesses. If an attending physician asks a specific question, the speaker is allowed to answer the question. Next thing you know, huge numbers of children are being prescribed Risperdal off label. And there was the Purdue Pharma debacle with Oxycontin.

As for these respiratory viruses, I can see how and why a company would want to be ready for the next covid-like virus, but it seems you'd want to be extremely careful doing research that modifies a bug like covid-19. Didn't anybody watch Outbreak?

 

[wafflesstorm]

Interesting study. A couple of issues that immediately come to mind:

Protection from infection/illness depends on...becoming infected/ill. While that infection may indeed offer protection from later infection, one is rolling the dice and hoping that the initial infection doesn't have serious consequences. Meanwhile, during an initial infection, one is able to spread it to others.

As a public health protection strategy, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. That said, maybe PH authorities could throw anti-vaxxers a bone and provide an "equivalent to vaccinated" certification to those who have tested positive (presumably via PCR), enabling them to work and travel where vaccine mandates apply.

As you said, there are limitations to the study, so I don't think we'll see changes in PH policy soon anytime soon.
I really enjoy this discussion on coronavirus on the Audioholics forums. It's great to see a discourse community come together to share thoughts, ideas, and perspectives on such an important topic. In fact, I recently wrote an article for https://samploon.com/free-essays/discourse-community/ on the importance of discourse communities and how they can bring people together to promote dialogue and understanding. I`m not a student, but I`m helping them with their writing tasks. Audioholics is a great example of this type of community and I'm glad to be a part of it.

An excellent proposal for a public health strategy. It's a pity that this is unlikely to be supported.

 

[Mr._Clark]

Well, one would hope not, but I worked in that industry for 30 years and there have been plenty of bad episodes. You can look up the fines that J&J paid out over their off label promotion of Risperdal for children. They would pay doctors to be speakers and conduct seminars during which they are allowed to present data on research in off-label illnesses. If an attending physician asks a specific question, the speaker is allowed to answer the question. Next thing you know, huge numbers of children are being prescribed Risperdal off label. And there was the Purdue Pharma debacle with Oxycontin.

As for these respiratory viruses, I can see how and why a company would want to be ready for the next covid-like virus, but it seems you'd want to be extremely careful doing research that modifies a bug like covid-19. Didn't anybody watch Outbreak?

I'm still not one of the people who suspect they would, for monetary purposes, actually intentionally or accidentally release a new virus or variant that would require a whole new round of vaccinations with a new vaccine.

But you are free to be one if it suits your fancy.