Contagion spreading among the vaccinated

[eikelbijter]

If you are not a medical Professional I would assume any conclusions from that paper because you have a high likelihood of misunderstanding the findings.

That sentence makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[abj13]

An article from MAY 7 2020? Are u kidding me?

There are "studies" and articles out there that claim ALL kinds of numbers. Bottom line is this: we now have some REAL empirical evidence. I'll give you an example.

By early January 2021 the accepted estimate of infections in LA (found in the LA Times and everywhere else) was about 1 in 3. The number of dead at that point was about 14000, in a county with a little more than 10 million people. If we divide 14000/3333333 we get 0.0042, or an IFR of 0.42%. This was before ANY significant vaccination.

Look at Czechia; there the virus ran its course, very low vaccination rates. Now it's over and they have lost 0.28% of their population. If we assume 80% got infected that's an IFR of 0.35.

As a matter of fact, the only place in the WORLD that has lost more than 0.32% of the population is Peru and that because their medial system broke down and people were dying in the street.

Why don't you read this:

Inferring the COVID-19 IFR with a simple Bayesian evidence synthesis of seroprevalence study data and imprecise mortality data

Estimating the COVID-19 infection fatality rate (IFR) has proven to be particularly challenging –and rather controversial– due to the fact that both the data on deaths and the data on the number of individuals infected are subject to many different biases. We consider a Bayesian evidence...

www.medrxiv.org

There are MANY articles and studies showing wildly different numbers, but quoting one from May 2020 is just silly.

COVID-19 IFR to be 0.38%, 95% prediction interval of (0.03%, 1.19%).

You do realize what a 95% confidence interval is, correct? Looks like you don't by posting that preprint paper. Hmmm.

 

[eikelbijter]

I already said 1 to 2%. You meanwhile have yet you provide a link for your ultra low number.

US COVID-19 Infection Fatality Rate: 1.3 Percent | Health Affairs Blog

A new study, released as a Fast Track Ahead Of Print article by Health Affairs, selected 116 counties, spanning 33 states, with a total of 40,835 confirmed cases and 1,620 confirmed deaths through April 20, 2020, to calculate that the IFR in the US is 1.3 percent, with significant variations...

www.healthaffairs.org

Even more hilarious, the study you cited confuses CFR with the IFR! Details matter "Zorba"!

 

[Fanatical Meat]

That sentence makes no sense whatsoever.

Thanks I fixed it see below:

That is a study for medical professionals written by medical professionals using language that medical professionals use.
If you are not a medical Professional any conclusions taken from that paper could easily be incorrect.

 

[eikelbijter]

COVID-19 IFR to be 0.38%, 95% prediction interval of (0.03%, 1.19%).

You do realize what a 95% confidence interval is, correct? Looks like you don't by posting that preprint paper. Hmmm.

Of course I know what a confidence interval is. Any sources that show that number to be inaccurate?

 

[desy]

FFS death is not the only issue getting covid, not to mention the percentage of HOSPITALIZATIONS, most of them survive however we sink all kinds of resources into saving them
long Haulers, brain damage.
Just like getting chicken pox most all survive some die, oh right then there's the shingles etc
the concept of natural herd immunity is stupid but we will get there due to covidiots, they will catch it eventually

 

[eikelbijter]

FFS death is not the only issue getting covid, not to mention the percentage of HOSPITALIZATIONS, most of them survive however we sink all kinds of resources into saving them
long Haulers, brain damage.
Just like getting chicken pox most all survive some die, oh right then there's the shingles etc
the concept of natural herd immunity is stupid but we will get there due to covidiots, they will catch it eventually

Again with the name calling.

OBVIOUSLY deaths are not the only thing that counts; what they ARE is perhaps the best way, short of testing everybody for T cell immunity, to find out how many people have been infected.

Bottom line is, this is almost over. Calling others names, instituting vaccine passports, MANDATING vaccinations are all foolish at this point. Those who wanted it have been vaccinated, 2/3 of American have been infected with many, if not most of those immune for the forseeable future. Vaccinating kids is silly AT THIS POINT in the US.

 

[VW MAN]

@eikelbijter is just another tap dancing clown...he wont change, he wont learn. He will double down with arms flailing about and in the end thinks he achieves something. Fuck this clown and his clown show!

 

[eikelbijter]

@eikelbijter is just another tap dancing clown...he wont change, he wont learn. He will double down with arms flailing about and in the end thinks he achieves something. Fuck this clown and his clown show!

Another GOLDEN response to a serious thread. Boy this is one classy forum, huh?

 

[eikelbijter]

So this is interesting. "Zorba" posts this:

Zorba said:


I already said 1 to 2%. You meanwhile have yet you provide a link for your ultra low number.

https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20200506.159053/full/

He throws out a number, links to a blog that "proves" it, which turns out to confuse the CFR and the IFR! This is as "fake news: as it gets, but NOBODY, NOBODY calls him on it! It's almost as if anything that fits your collective narrative gets a pass......

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Another GOLDEN response to a serious thread. Boy this is one classy forum, huh?

The thread is about anger spreading among the vaccinated about those who choose to stay unvaccinated.

 

[fskimospy]

Again with the name calling.

OBVIOUSLY deaths are not the only thing that counts; what they ARE is perhaps the best way, short of testing everybody for T cell immunity, to find out how many people have been infected.

Bottom line is, this is almost over. Calling others names, instituting vaccine passports, MANDATING vaccinations are all foolish at this point. Those who wanted it have been vaccinated, 2/3 of American have been infected with many, if not most of those immune for the forseeable future. Vaccinating kids is silly AT THIS POINT in the US.

It’s interesting that you’ve argued against vaccination by saying it’s not effective against variants but then ignored evidence that vaccination is more effective than natural infection at preventing future illness from those same variants. Vaccinating literally everyone in the US is the correct answer.

It is long past time you admitted you don’t know what you’re talking about.

 

[VW MAN]

Another GOLDEN response to a serious thread. Boy this is one classy forum, huh?

Fuck off clown! Take your classy ass somewhere else...perhaps the circus. They might appreciate you there.

 

[eikelbijter]

Yup, you did. Anybody who intended to write about SARS-CoV-2 would have specified as such. Even more telling is how you refuse to answer a simple question that extends your idiotic premise. Would you rather have rabies and HPV or the vaccines for each? It is a simple question. Please answer, your refusal demonstrates how you cannot even support your initial premise about vaccines vs natural infection.




Oh look at that. You don't think antibody immunity tells the whole story, then why did you bring up your ignorant statement regarding nucleocapsid antibodies? You cannot even keep your arguments straight.

Neutralizing antibody production is the the most important component for neutralization of a viral pathogen. This is why so many viral vaccines focus on neutralizing immunity, and in many cases also induces important aspects of the other arms of the immune response.




Did you actually read your link? What do you think this means? "Alternatively, however, some antibodies can mask viral antigens on the surface of infected cells, thereby removing or covering antigens on the surfaces of these infected cells. " Seems like you didn't even read what you posted.

Better yet, please show us experimental evidence of the efficacy of antibodies to the SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid. Furthermore, explain to us, when they looked at people who died versus those who lived after COVID-19, those who died had enrichment of anti-nucleocapsid antibodies, while those who lived were enriched for the spike protein. If the nucleocapsid antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 are so important, why did the patients who died fail to make anti-spike antibodies and instead made nucleocapsid antibodies? If nucleocapsid antibodies matter so much that you had to post about it, why didn't they save all the patients who died from COVID-19?



You read this paper correct? What does the following mean?

"In a Cox proportional hazards regression model, after adjusting for the phase of the epidemic, vaccination was associated with a significantly lower risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection among those not previously infected (HR 0.031, 95% CI 0.015 – 0.061) but not among those previously infected (HR 0.313, 95% CI 0 – Infinity). The absence of events among those who were previously infected, whether they received the vaccine or not, precluded accurate or precise estimates for the latter effect size."

If you understand it, you'll realize why it is a preprint publication and why it would fail in peer review. So please explain, what does a HR 0.313, 95% CI 0 – Infinity mean? You read it, correct?

Again, I'm not a doctor, never pretended to fully understand this material, but your complete dismissal of Nucleocapsid antibodies is quite suspicious. I never said they were "important", you literally put that word in my mouth (or my fingers I guess), but some serious publications and some of my friends who are ACTUAL doctors say WE DON'T KNOW! Here's a serious article that says, and I quote:

"Although human antibodies elicited by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) nucleocapsid (N) protein are profoundly boosted upon infection, little is known about the function of N-reactive antibodies "

Who exactly are YOU, some anonymous guy on a COMPUTER forum, that you KNOW for a fact they are useless? In my other post, when I say we don't know the end of it, I mean that we don't KNOW all the specifics about the immune system at large and to pretend we do is quite arrogant.

 

[abj13]

Of course I know what a confidence interval is. Any sources that show that number to be inaccurate?

Hahaha! Wait, you claim to understand what a confidence interval is, then why would you claim a preprint paper with a confidence interval from 0 to infinity is some "empiric evidence" for something?

One would think that seeing a confidence interval spanning from 0.03 to 1.19 you would try to find a more precise measurement from something beyond a preprint. But apparently crappy confidence intervals from non peer-reviewed papers is your jam.

 

[desy]

Again with the name calling.

OBVIOUSLY deaths are not the only thing that counts; what they ARE is perhaps the best way, short of testing everybody for T cell immunity, to find out how many people have been infected.

Bottom line is, this is almost over. Calling others names, instituting vaccine passports, MANDATING vaccinations are all foolish at this point. Those who wanted it have been vaccinated, 2/3 of American have been infected with many, if not most of those immune for the forseeable future. Vaccinating kids is silly AT THIS POINT in the US.
[

I don't have a problem with vaccine passports for travel, certain jobs, lets leave that to the legislators to figure out
I disagree about vaccinating kids as they get sick and can infect others, they are part of the herd. However I'd agree while the other vaccines were authorized for emergency use in adults we should run through more rigorous science before approvals in kids.

Which is why I said we will get there with her immunity due to those "who ignores the warnings regarding public health or safety"
When the shoe fits
What is a covidiot, exactly?
Macmillian Dictionary defines “covidiot” as “an insulting term for someone who ignores health advice about COVID-19." Urban Dictionary takes a pretty similar approach, defining “covidiot” as “someone who ignores the warnings regarding public health or safety. A person who hoards goods, denying them from their neighbors.”

Yes I insult them because of their stupidity and ignorance my personal freedoms have been curtailed, you can throw inadequate government responses in there too however lets pick one fight at a time

 

[eikelbijter]

It’s interesting that you’ve argued against vaccination by saying it’s not effective against variants but then ignored evidence that vaccination is more effective than natural infection at preventing future illness from those same variants. Vaccinating literally everyone in the US is the correct answer.

It is long past time you admitted you don’t know what you’re talking about.

I'm NOT arguing against vaccination! What are you talking about? I'm arguing against FORCED vaccination because I don't believe it'll make a substantial difference in the outcome at this point. Again with putting words in my mouth. Details MATTER guys!

There IS NO evidence that vaccination is more effective at preventing from 'those same" variants. We don't even know which variants are in the pipeline so we DON'T know. All we know is that vaccines increase the titer of some antibodies. YOU don't know what you're talking about.

 

[eikelbijter]

Fuck off clown! Take your classy ass somewhere else...perhaps the circus. They might appreciate you there.

Do you talk to your mom with that mouth? WOW!

 

[Zorba]

Nm

 

[abj13]

OBVIOUSLY deaths are not the only thing that counts; what they ARE is perhaps the best way, short of testing everybody for T cell immunity, to find out how many people have been infected.

Why should we test people for T cell immunity when neutralizing antibody responses are very strongly predictive of immunity to severe disease from SARS-CoV-2?

Better yet, why should we measure T cell immunity when T cells are not critical for "immunoglobulin class switching, the development of immunological memory, or protection from a second infection."

Can you explain that paper with you vast knowledge of immunology?

 

[eikelbijter]

Hahaha! Wait, you claim to understand what a confidence interval is, then why would you claim a preprint paper with a confidence interval from 0 to infinity is some "empiric evidence" for something?

One would think that seeing a confidence interval spanning from 0.03 to 1.19 you would try to find a more precise measurement from something beyond a preprint. But apparently crappy confidence intervals from non peer-reviewed papers is your jam.

The empirical evidence, in the study is that:

"In addition, we found that none of the previously infected employees who remained unvaccinated were re-infected over the duration of the study. "

These were employees of a healthcare system, almost certainly exposed to higher amounts of infected people on average than the typical person. Not a SINGLE ONE got Covid again. I'm not drawing any NUMERICAL conclusions from that, but with a group that large, it does show that natural immunity by and large is quite robust. That's it, nothing more nothing less. To me, that's at least as valuable as hypothetical immunity levels based on simple metrics like antibody titers.

 

[abj13]

Again, I'm not a doctor, never pretended to fully understand this material, but your complete dismissal of Nucleocapsid antibodies is quite suspicious. I never said they were "important", you literally put that word in my mouth (or my fingers I guess), but some serious publications and some of my friends who are ACTUAL doctors say WE DON'T KNOW! Here's a serious article that says, and I quote:

"Although human antibodies elicited by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) nucleocapsid (N) protein are profoundly boosted upon infection, little is known about the function of N-reactive antibodies "

Who exactly are YOU, some anonymous guy on a COMPUTER forum, that you KNOW for a fact they are useless? In my other post, when I say we don't know the end of it, I mean that we don't KNOW all the specifics about the immune system at large and to pretend we do is quite arrogant.

Hahaha. This already has been posted. Can you explain why production of nucleocapsid antibodies are associated with death from COVID-19 while production of spike antibodies is associated with survival? Can you explain why cross-reactive nucleocapsid antibodies from seasonal coronaviruses offered no protection against COVID-19? These questions have already been posed, and all you can do is try to google quotes to sound informed.

Perhaps you should read papers and POSTS before making replies in this thread.

 

[eikelbijter]

Why should we test people for T cell immunity when neutralizing antibody responses are very strongly predictive of immunity to severe disease from SARS-CoV-2?

Better yet, why should we measure T cell immunity when T cells are not critical for "immunoglobulin class switching, the development of immunological memory, or protection from a second infection."

Can you explain that paper with you vast knowledge of immunology?

I wasn't talking about estimating people's immunity. You really need to read what I wrote again. As far as I know, and correct me if I'm wrong, the best way to tell if someone has been infected is not through measuring s-protein antibodies as we do often, but through those new T-cell tests which show a positive result long after antibodies have gone down to undetectable levels. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I was merely talking about estimating the true infection rate in a population. You guys are SO easily triggered....

 

[abj13]

The empirical evidence, in the study is that:

"In addition, we found that none of the previously infected employees who remained unvaccinated were re-infected over the duration of the study. "

These were employees of a healthcare system, almost certainly exposed to higher amounts of infected people on average than the typical person. Not a SINGLE ONE got Covid again. I'm not drawing any NUMERICAL conclusions from that, but with a group that large, it does show that natural immunity by and large is quite robust. That's it, nothing more nothing less. To me, that's at least as valuable as hypothetical immunity levels based on simple metrics like antibody titers.

Hahaha. This only further demostrates how little you actually read your preprint paper. Can you explain why the authors said:

"The absence of events among those who were previously infected, whether they received the vaccine or not, precluded accurate or precise estimates for the latter effect size. "

Perhaps you don't understand the importance of other confounding variables to that conclusion. Care to offer some? They are readily obvious, but please, demonstrate your knowledge of the subject.

 

[abj13]

I wasn't talking about estimating people's immunity. You really need to read what I wrote again. As far as I know, and correct me if I'm wrong, the best way to tell if someone has been infected is not through measuring s-protein antibodies as we do often, but through those new T-cell tests which show a positive result long after antibodies have gone down to undetectable levels. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I was merely talking about estimating the true infection rate in a population. You guys are SO easily triggered....

Why don't you provide some evidence of such a claim. You made the statement. Please provide evidence. And please explain to all of us, why the T cell response is not critical for protection from a second infection. Certainly you've read that paper, given your knowledge about measuring T cell responses, correct?