GAC06 said:

---

Jabin said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

Another Doug said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

With nothing to corroborate it

---

Just logic

Group 1 - Anyone can join, and old/unhealthy people really want to
Group 2 - old/unhealthy people try to avoid this group, and being somewhat healthy greatly increases your chances of joining.

Which one is going to have a higher percentage of old/unhealthy people

---

Claiming something as fact because you want it to be true isn't logic. Back up your claims with facts or stop posting.

---

That's rich coming from you.

---

Nice use of facts to make an argument. Oops that's not what you did is it?

---

Oh, sorry, my bad. Here's a couple of facts - you never post facts and, apparently, never look in a mirror.

And, here's another fact - the poster was making an argument from or an interpretation from the data. Are you suggesting that you have never posted your interpretation of the data?

GAC06 said:

---

Here's a pat on the head for your little emotional outburst. Since you apparently don't know how to make an argument, perhaps you should just run along and let the adults talk.

---

ROFL

88planoAg said:

---

Fitch said:

---

No dog in the hunt at this point, but I've never really understood what the purpose of these studies are if not just scientific curiosity or (occasionally) arguments against vaccination. Any way you slice it, vaccination is a safer and/or less risky course to developing antibodies than through infection…especially so when dealing with whole national and global populations.

Whether a natural infection course yields a more multi-pronged immune response than a vaccine becomes a moot point at the large population scale if you have to actually contract the bug to get that benefit, especially as you look at the demographics that would be essentially rolling a dice cube on severe issues.

So it's neat and all I guess if someone got sick and recovered, but that really doesn't mean jack squat for the overall looking back a year or so ago.

---

Because there is a segment of the population who caught and recovered from the virus before vaccines were available.

Because there is a segment of the population who even after the vaccines were available caught and recovered from the virus.

Because those people listed above should be exempt from all the stupid government rules that apply erroneously to them, as science is continuing to show.

It is not to encourage no vaccine/roll the dice/immunity is better so screw the shot.

It is to prove that durable immunity should be must be considered in government policy.

I should not have to have a negative test to participate in society. I should not be excluded from all of NYC. I should not have to worry about producing a negative test to go to a concert in summer of 2022.

hope this helps.

---

I really just don't care.

NicosMachine said:

---

planoaggie123 said:

---

I appreciate these studies.

I am unvaccinated. I have had COVID and have Spike Protein provable through antibody tests....the same protein that vaccinated have....YET....

1) My insurance will be $3K higher than someone who is vaccinated;

2) I would be unable to go to restaurants / stores in some states;

3) I could potentially have issues finding employment in the future due to federal vaccine mandates which do not recognize natural immunity....



so that is why these studies are important.

---

The studies, in conjunction with the political decision to ignore natural immunity, proves that this is not "about the science". If it were about the science, natural immunity would be given as much or more credence than the vaccination and there would be no push to vaccinate young, healthy, people.

---

Fitch said:

---

88planoAg said:

---

Fitch said:

---

No dog in the hunt at this point, but I've never really understood what the purpose of these studies are if not just scientific curiosity or (occasionally) arguments against vaccination. Any way you slice it, vaccination is a safer and/or less risky course to developing antibodies than through infection…especially so when dealing with whole national and global populations.

Whether a natural infection course yields a more multi-pronged immune response than a vaccine becomes a moot point at the large population scale if you have to actually contract the bug to get that benefit, especially as you look at the demographics that would be essentially rolling a dice cube on severe issues.

So it's neat and all I guess if someone got sick and recovered, but that really doesn't mean jack squat for the overall looking back a year or so ago.

---

Because there is a segment of the population who caught and recovered from the virus before vaccines were available.

Because there is a segment of the population who even after the vaccines were available caught and recovered from the virus.

Because those people listed above should be exempt from all the stupid government rules that apply erroneously to them, as science is continuing to show.

It is not to encourage no vaccine/roll the dice/immunity is better so screw the shot.

It is to prove that durable immunity should be must be considered in government policy.

I should not have to have a negative test to participate in society. I should not be excluded from all of NYC. I should not have to worry about producing a negative test to go to a concert in summer of 2022.

hope this helps.

---

I really just don't care.

---

then WTF are you on this board reading and responding about Covid? If you don't care, then you wouldn't be responding acknowledging your lack of understanding.

This is par for the course lately when debating the mandate proponents. You point out the facts about natural immunity, and they just want to change the subject.

Since you ask, it doesn't affect me and my give a darn ran out months ago, but an interest in current events is a pesky habit to kick.

Wasn't exactly the thrust of my original point regarding the breakdown in logic re: acquiring immunity but fair enough observation on the unintended slight to the (?)% of the population that had covid, adamantly doesn't want the vax and is grumpy the government de jour isn't fair.

I humbly repent.

ttha_aggie_09 said:

---

Fitch said:

---

Wasn't exactly the thrust of my original point regarding the breakdown in logic re: acquiring immunity but fair enough observation on the unintended slight to the (?)% of the population that had covid, adamantly doesn't want the vax and is grumpy the government de jour isn't fair.

I humbly repent.

---

6% of your posts are on this board, so I am not surprised in the condescending part in bold... You do realize that people got Covid PRIOR to the availability of the vaccine, right? You do realize that the majority of those, myself included, had very mild cases, right?

If you want to assume everyone that has had Covid and that wants to know more about natural immunity before getting vaccinated is an idiot, go for it. I'll continue to follow the data until it indicates that my approach is flawed.

Meanwhile you do whatever you see fit and maybe try avoiding the assumption that everyone that is interested in natural immunity is anti-vaxx and/or some partisan hack...

---

Not being argumentative, but I think we're talking around two separate things.

I've never espoused that immunity acquired through a disease course is anything other than equal to (maybe even better than) vaccine-derived immunity after the fact. The point I probably could have made better on page 1 is that holding the two avenues equal when one has not already had covid is illogical...



The sardonic point in the above quoted text really was just meant to highlight that the percent of the population that has (1) recovered from 'rona, (2) is subject to public policy measures like "no entry without vax card" and (3) feels strongly enough to not get a booster vaccine is (I'm guessing) not a lot.

Not that it's a perfect representation of the broad range across the US, but in my own family, social and professional circles I know maybe 4-5? people that have vocalized a hard-no resistance to getting vaccinated, maybe 30-40+ who have had covid and all subsequently got vaccinated and the balance are all vaccinated without ever getting sick. I can honestly say other than on TexAgs I've heard of no one who got covid and subsequently decided to not get a booster vaccine.

Something like 60-75% of the country is either single or double vaccinated, representing a majority and supermajority that in most other subjects you can pretty safely plan public policy around. Ignoring for a moment the propriety of the aforementioned "no entry without vax card" policies, if there were a simple way to evidence natural immunity a la a vaccine card would that dispel the consternation, or is it more a question over the perceived double standards in public health measures?