Contagion spreading among the vaccinated

[eikelbijter]

This is another reason why I really dislike information being conveyed in videos rather than text (though that particular youtube doc I believe is quite a sensible one), because it's hard to extract or cite individual parts of what is said. But in that video he does mention that of "total infections" 22% are part-vaccinated and 18% fully so. Not sure how that relates to the 24,000 figure...I mean one could work it out but it means shuffling back-and-forth in the video to see the figures.

Point is that being vaccinated doesn't completely stop you getting the infection, it just greatly reduces the chances of needing hospitalisation or of dying from it. What I keep seeing is that they don't entirely know yet whether the vaccinated are less likely to infect others.

Thank you! Finally a reasonable response without name-calling. Dr. Campbell has been quite wrong a few times too, as we all have, but he is reasonable and in my opinion scientific in his methods.

The stuff he discusses in the video is also in the description of the video. Also, here's the source:

ZOE — Feel healthier. In weeks.

ZOE helps you improve your health with at-home tests, personalized food scores, and expert nutrition advice. Thrive with ZOE’s science-backed program!

covid.joinzoe.com

 

[dank69]

I never said vaccines hurt, or even that masks hurt, although I do believe they have done more psychological damage than we are willing to admit.

Even MORE stimulus huh? I wonder if you're still gonna say that when the effects of that much borrowing are gonna start really kicking in. At some point the Fed WILL have to raise rates and the fallout of that is quite possibly going to be biblical in its proportions.

Say you consume right-wing FUD without saying you consume right-wing FUD.

 

[abj13]

So you still haven't explained how what I said, which is that antibody titers go down in time after infection, but that immunity could last a lifetime because your body has learned how to make more when needed.

Instead of just repeatedly saying I'm wrong, why don't you tell me what would be correct in this regard?

Hahaha. It is amazing just how disingenuous you can be. You quoted a story talking about ANTIBODIES lasting a lifetime and that antibodies wane so much that "a T cell response test is a better way." But magically, you retitle the new story, revise what the entire story is about "antibodies" and want to talk about "immunity" and omit anything about how the waning antibody titer necessitates another test.

Most reasonable people would have said, oops, I made a mistake and I am misinformed about this topic and stopped posting idiotic statements long ago. But it is clear you want to keep up the façade of pretending to be informed on a topic when your posts demonstrate sheer ignorance.

 

[pmv]

As for the situation in the UK, case counts started dropping over the last week, then stopped dropping over the last couple of days. For some time now cases have largely been in the unvaccinated young.

The government (at least some ministers in it - they all say different things to different audiences, that's how this government rolls) hailed the fall in cases as a sign that the pandemic was now 'over'. I don't believe them, I think it's too early still to see the results of ending lockdown restrictions on the 19th, that won't become apparent for a few more days yet. Personally I suspect what we are seeing is the end of a EUFA-driven spike in cases (meaning people have died for football).

On the other hand, the Imperial College modellers - who could never be accused of having been on the over-optimistic side of things - are saying they think we'll reach herd-immunity by October. I'm far more inclined to trust them than this government.

Personally I suspect there will be one more 'wave' of cases, as the effect of ending all lockdown restrictions becomes apparent, but, just maybe, that will be it, and maybe it will be over in the UK by this winter.

But it's still raging out-of-control in countries in the 'global South' that don't have enough vaccines, and as long as that is the case its possible a vaccine-evading variant could appear and then go global, putting us back where we started.

 

[nakedfrog]

Here ya go:

ZOE — Feel healthier. In weeks.

ZOE helps you improve your health with at-home tests, personalized food scores, and expert nutrition advice. Thrive with ZOE’s science-backed program!

covid.joinzoe.com

Again, I'm not saying this is 100% accurate, I don't KNOW and nobody does; NO numbers are perfect, all models are wrong, some are useful. But this is a legit project.

Well, this is what it says:

Comparatively there are currently 10,268 new daily cases in partly vaccinated (1 dose) people and 14,110 new daily cases in fully vaccinated people (2 doses). The overall number of estimated daily new symptomatic cases is 60,480. This figure has remained stable over the past six days, suggesting that new cases of COVID have stopped rising in the UK (Graph 1).

So you did include partially vaccinated people, and it certainly is an interesting data point. Now, let's see how many of them die. Data seems to show that the vaccinated folks most likely won't. That's why not getting vaccinated is foolish and reckless, if you're able.

Well, part of why, there are more reasons.

 

[abj13]

Not if you've been infected with Covid it isn't! If you haven't, depending on your risk level, it certainly can be considered reckless, but foolish is not for you to say. If you're healthy and under 40 it's not anymore foolish than mountain biking or parachuting.

Look at this, another statement proven false in this thread already, but this person keeps repeating it. This person didn't like the data and the implications of the results provided to him/her, so he/she chose to ignore it.

 

[eikelbijter]

Hahaha. It is amazing just how disingenuous you can be. You quoted a story talking about ANTIBODIES lasting a lifetime and that antibodies wane so much that "a T cell response test is a better way." But magically, you retitle the new story, revise what the entire story is about "antibodies" and want to talk about "immunity" and omit anything about how the waning antibody titer necessitates another test.

Most reasonable people would have said, oops, I made a mistake and I am misinformed about this topic and stopped posting idiotic statements long ago. But it is clear you want to keep up the façade of pretending to be informed on a topic when your posts demonstrate sheer ignorance.

Sorry but that first sentence makes NO sense whatsoever.

Can you please just answer my very simple questions: does the amount of antibodies after an infection go down in time? Can the amount go so low that commonly used antibody tests give a negative result even after an infection?

 

[eikelbijter]

Look at this, another statement proven false in this thread already, but this person keeps repeating it. This person didn't like the data and the implications of the results provided to him/her, so he/she chose to ignore it.

So how many people with measurable antibodies after an infection have died after reinfection? How does that compare to how many fully vaccinated have died after re-infection?

 

[eikelbijter]

As for the situation in the UK, case counts started dropping over the last week, then stopped dropping over the last couple of days. For some time now cases have largely been in the unvaccinated young.

The government (at least some ministers in it - they all say different things to different audiences, that's how this government rolls) hailed the fall in cases as a sign that the pandemic was now 'over'. I don't believe them, I think it's too early still to see the results of ending lockdown restrictions on the 19th, that won't become apparent for a few more days yet. Personally I suspect what we are seeing is the end of a EUFA-driven spike in cases (meaning people have died for football).

On the other hand, the Imperial College modellers - who could never be accused of having been on the over-optimistic side of things - are saying they think we'll reach herd-immunity by October. I'm far more inclined to trust them than this government.

Personally I suspect there will be one more 'wave' of cases, as the effect of ending all lockdown restrictions becomes apparent, but, just maybe, that will be it, and maybe it will be over in the UK by this winter.

But it's still raging out-of-control in countries in the 'global South' that don't have enough vaccines, and as long as that is the case its possible a vaccine-evading variant could appear and then go global, putting us back where we started.

All reasonable points, except perhaps the implied insinuation that there's no chance for a "vaccine-evading" variant if only everybody got vaccinated. That's purely wishful thinking.

I've said many times in this thread that most of my points are NOT general but specifically about the US or whatever place mentioned. By October it'll be over here in the US too.

 

[abj13]

Sorry but that first sentence makes NO sense whatsoever.

Can you please just answer my very simple questions: does the amount of antibodies after an infection go down in time? Can the amount go so low that commonly used antibody tests give a negative result even after an infection?

Do you realize how dumb you look? The answer was provided in your link. I already mentioned Ali Ellebedy's work in previous posts.

 

[ch33zw1z]

So would you agree with me that the world "stopped" for at least some people? Because that notion was ridiculed by others a few posts up.

Yes, the world changed, positive for some,.negative for others.

Unlike Republicans, I thought the feds should have provided MORE relief instead of bootstraps.

Maybe if the country took it seriously, masked and social distanced, and got vaccinated more / faster, we wouldn't have to drag this shit out. But dummies gonna be dummies it seems.

 

[abj13]

So how many people with measurable antibodies after an infection have died after reinfection? How does that compare to how many fully vaccinated have died after re-infection?

Oh look at that, moving the goal posts. Instead of addressing the published literature contradicting your statement, now you want something else.

Why don't you show us that outcomes are equivalent in each group? Clearly you think you have enough knowledge to contradict major public health and medical organizations recommendations about who should get the vaccine. Where is it?

 

[eikelbijter]

Do you realize how dumb you look? The answer was provided in your link. I already mentioned Ali Ellebedy's work in previous posts.

OK, so here's what it says:
"SARS-CoV-2 antibodies plummeted in the four months after infection "

How is this not "waning"?

It says:
"Some early COVID-19 immunity studies also stoked worries, when they found that antibody levels plunged not long after recovery "

It says:
"So suggest researchers who have identified long-lived antibody-producing cells in the bone marrow of people who have recovered from COVID-19 "

Are you saying that commonly use antibody test will be able to detect a previous Covid infection for life? I just don't see how what I said in this regard is incorrect....

 

[eikelbijter]

Oh look at that, moving the goal posts. Instead of addressing the published literature contradicting your statement, now you want something else.

Why don't you show us that outcomes are equivalent in each group? Clearly you think you have enough knowledge to contradict major public health and medical organizations recommendations about who should get the vaccine. Where is it?

I'm not suggesting they are equivalent. I'm ASKING if they are. Show me they're not.

 

[abj13]

OK, so here's what it says:
"SARS-CoV-2 antibodies plummeted in the four months after infection "

How is this not "waning"?

It says:
"Some early COVID-19 immunity studies also stoked worries, when they found that antibody levels plunged not long after recovery "

It says:
"So suggest researchers who have identified long-lived antibody-producing cells in the bone marrow of people who have recovered from COVID-19 "

Are you saying that commonly use antibody test will be able to detect a previous Covid infection for life? I just don't see how what I said in this regard is incorrect....

LMAO. Look at Mr/Mrs Disingenuous over here. Selectively quoting news articles now.

"Ellebedy’s team tracked antibody production in 77 people who had recovered from mostly mild cases of COVID-19. As expected, SARS-CoV-2 antibodies plummeted in the four months after infection. But this decline slowed, and up to 11 months after infection, the researchers could still detect antibodies that recognized the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein."

Note how this person like to quote how "SARS-CoV-2 antibodies plummeted in the four months after infection" but then purposely omits the sentence that follows.

 

[abj13]

I'm not suggesting they are equivalent. I'm ASKING if they are. Show me they're not.

The burden of proof is on you. I've already demonstrated the response between natural infection and the vaccine is not the same. It is up to you to demonstrate to all of us why you think it is appropriate to tell people to disobey the CDC and WHO's recommendations on who should be vaccinated.

 

[eikelbijter]

LMAO. Look at Mr/Mrs Disingenuous over here. Selectively quoting news articles now.

"Ellebedy’s team tracked antibody production in 77 people who had recovered from mostly mild cases of COVID-19. As expected, SARS-CoV-2 antibodies plummeted in the four months after infection. But this decline slowed, and up to 11 months after infection, the researchers could still detect antibodies that recognized the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein."

Note how this person like to quote how "SARS-CoV-2 antibodies plummeted in the four months after infection" but then purposely omits the sentence that follows.

Again with the name calling. Your responses are the disingenuous ones. You refuse to answer some very simple questions, instead just call me stupid and god knows what. You said that my statement that Antibodies wane but we might have lifelong immunity because our bodies have developed the ability to make more" was ridiculous. I've gone back multiple times to read it again now, and even YOU now quote the article stating there's a decline! The whole point of the article and the study is to suggest we have found that Covid 19 does result in that ability.

 

[abj13]

Again with the name calling. Your responses are the disingenuous ones. You refuse to answer some very simple questions, instead just call me stupid and god knows what. You said that my statement that Antibodies wane but we might have lifelong immunity because our bodies have developed the ability to make more" was ridiculous. I've gone back multiple times to read it again now, and even YOU now quote the article stating there's a decline! The whole point of the article and the study is to suggest we have found that Covid 19 does result in that ability.

In my original post about this I specifically asked if someone knew a BETTER way to estimate infections rates. Do you know one? From what I understand, and again, correct me if I'm wrong, a T cell response test is a better way than an Antibody test as the latter can wane rather quickly.

What a feeble attempt to rectify your obvious contradiction. You made it a point that the wane in antibodies were so "quickly" another test would be needed.

Ali Ellebedy's work, which you quoted, contradicts that claim. He found the antibodies were still detectable long after infection using a simple assay. Which is even more hilarious when one considers how you avoid quoting the title of the news article: "Had COVID? You’ll probably make antibodies for a lifetime."

 

[eikelbijter]

The burden of proof is on you. I've already demonstrated the response between natural infection and the vaccine is not the same. It is up to you to demonstrate to all of us why you think it is appropriate to tell people to disobey the CDC and WHO's recommendations on who should be vaccinated.

I said the response is not the same, from the beginning!

This entire discussion is exactly about why, in this case, and I have defended the CDC MANY times in the past, for MANY hours in discussion with my anti-vax nutjob neighbors who believe the vaccine is a conspiracy involving Bill Gates etc., in this case I believe the CDC and WHO recommendations are not appropriate and that the science they're "based on" is shaky at best. The oversimplification that higher levels of antibodies automatically and 1-1 correspond to the strength of the the possible immunity is not enough. Of course a person who had Covid and then gets a vaccine shows an increase in Antibodies. That it makes him or her substantially better protected is an extrapolation and speculation.

Time will tell I guess, and that's also what I've been saying from the beginning. Doctors like to think they know everything, but the CDC has been wrong too and so has the WHO.

 

[desy]

I'm no longer following this thread
Someone brings nothing to the conversation other than circular arguments and can't appreciate risk vs benefit analysis

Go get vaccinated its the best protection you can get all things considered

 

[eikelbijter]

What a feeble attempt to rectify your obvious contradiction. You made it a point that the wane in antibodies were so "quickly" another test would be needed.

Ali Ellebedy's work, which you quoted, contradicts that claim. He found the antibodies were still detectable long after infection using a simple assay. Which is even more hilarious when one considers how you avoid quoting the title of the news article: "Had COVID? You’ll probably make antibodies for a lifetime."

I never made that claim. As a matter of fact, I asked MULTIPLE times what would be a more accurate way, only because we've been told MANY times that antibody testing is NOT a good way to estimate previous infection. I also ASKED you many times about commonly used antibody tests, don't know if a simple assay is what's used. You never answer any questions, you just throw out allegations.

So you are saying antibody testing IS the best way to estimate an attack rate for Covid 19 in a population? More accurate than T Cell testing?

What kind of antibody test would for instance Kaiser Permanente typically use? Assay or something else?

Now as far as the headline goes, the article says your body develops the ability to make new ones when needed. Is it not correct that at SOME later point in time, the levels of actual antibodies present in your body would get to such low levels a typical test would give a negative result?

 

[abj13]

I said the response is not the same, from the beginning!

This entire discussion is exactly about why, in this case, and I have defended the CDC MANY times in the past, for MANY hours in discussion with my anti-vax nutjob neighbors who believe the vaccine is a conspiracy involving Bill Gates etc., in this case I believe the CDC and WHO recommendations are not appropriate and that the science they're "based on" is shaky at best. The oversimplification that higher levels of antibodies automatically and 1-1 correspond to the strength of the the possible immunity is not enough. Of course a person who had Covid and then gets a vaccine shows an increase in Antibodies. That it makes him or her substantially better protected is an extrapolation and speculation.

Time will tell I guess, and that's also what I've been saying from the beginning. Doctors like to think they know everything, but the CDC has been wrong too and so has the WHO.

So the CDC, WHO, and doctors were wrong in the past. Therefore, we should listen to someone on some internet forum who claims:

"science they're "based on" is shaky at best" without any evidence that they are shaky.
"the oversimplification that higher levels of antibodies automatically" without any evidence of an oversimplification.
"1-1 correspond to the strength of the the possible immunity is not enough." you guessed, no evidence here either.
"That it makes him or her substantially better protected is an extrapolation and speculation." He claims this despite the fact the opposite was shown to be true already in this thread here.

Looks like you haven't shown anything as to why people should not follow the vaccination recommendations. I'm sorry, your posts have proven exactly why nobody takes your recommendations seriously.

 

[VW MAN]

I said the response is not the same, from the beginning!

This entire discussion is exactly about why, in this case, and I have defended the CDC MANY times in the past, for MANY hours in discussion with my anti-vax nutjob neighbors who believe the vaccine is a conspiracy involving Bill Gates etc., in this case I believe the CDC and WHO recommendations are not appropriate and that the science they're "based on" is shaky at best. The oversimplification that higher levels of antibodies automatically and 1-1 correspond to the strength of the the possible immunity is not enough. Of course a person who had Covid and then gets a vaccine shows an increase in Antibodies. That it makes him or her substantially better protected is an extrapolation and speculation.

Time will tell I guess, and that's also what I've been saying from the beginning. Doctors like to think they know everything, but the CDC has been wrong too and so has the WHO.

Generally speaking whnn Drs, WHO, CDC get something incorrect they admit it, and correct it. When the clown above is wrong he triples down in his clown show.....its better to listen to Drs who may have made an error then it is to listen to moron clowns...every time!

(Now watch the clown 100% handwave this away instead of recognizing his errors and admitting them)

 

[abj13]

I never made that claim.

In my original post about this I specifically asked if someone knew a BETTER way to estimate infections rates. Do you know one? From what I understand, and again, correct me if I'm wrong, a T cell response test is a better way than an Antibody test as the latter can wane rather quickly.

It is there in black and white. You did make that claim.

 

[eikelbijter]

So the CDC, WHO, and doctors were wrong in the past. Therefore, we should listen to someone on some internet forum who claims:

"science they're "based on" is shaky at best" without any evidence that they are shaky.
"the oversimplification that higher levels of antibodies automatically" without any evidence of an oversimplification.
"1-1 correspond to the strength of the the possible immunity is not enough." you guessed, no evidence here either.
"That it makes him or her substantially better protected is an extrapolation and speculation." He claims this despite the fact the opposite was shown to be true already in this thread here.

Looks like you haven't shown anything as to why people should not follow the vaccination recommendations. I'm sorry, your posts have proven exactly why nobody takes your recommendations seriously.

No, I listen to the CDC and WHO, they have some very valuable information I just know that sometimes even the experts are wrong. That's all. Look at what happened in regards to food in the 70ies. For the longest time "truth" was said to be that eating fat is unhealthy, that it makes you fat, that eating eggs increases your cholesterol. This was science, which turned out to be false and TO THIS DAY has damaged people's understanding of nutrition.

All the studies I've read that discuss vaccination after natural infection describe an increase in S protein antibodies, and even some other clear effects. None even pretends to suggest this means a DEFINITIVE better protection against all future variants. Most say there is a good CHANCE it'll be better against some or even many, it never says all. We now have more and more empirical evidence that previous infection DOES lead to a robust immunity for a long time.