Coronavirus Vaccine Discussion

I’m not sure how many times it needs to be explained that the ultimate purpose of the vaccines isn’t to 100% stop transmission, but to make sure those who do get infected have far greater antibody protection and are much less likely to be hospitalized or die.

5 Likes

It’s the worst of both worlds. It creates an environment in which vaccine-resistant variants will thrive, thus destroying the protection of those who actually needed vaccine protection in the first place (eg., the elderly).

As above, it will do exactly the opposite if you vaccinate too many people. The correct target should have been the smallest number possible (that’s true of virtually all medical interventions, come to think of it). People who are not at risk should be discouraged from using it, and people who are at risk because they are (for example) diabetic should be encouraged to stop being diabetic in the first instance.

2 Likes

The thing with this theory is that you need to survive the first time, getting vaccinated increases that somewhat.

2 Likes

That was DrewC’s point, not mine. And it only works if you vaccinate people who are at the extreme end of the risk curve; vaccinating people who do not need it undermines the protection for those who do need it.

2 Likes

Yes that’s what I read. Vaxxed then infected is best

1 Like

If “best” means “more likely to end up in hospital”, then yes, maybe. Look up “antibody dependent enhancement” as it relates to the COVID vaccines.

2 Likes

Please correct me if I’m wrong, but my recollection is that this only became the ultimate purpose when it was realized that the vaccines didn’t 100% stop transmission. IIRC, up until late 2020, the governments and media were talking about how the virus would go away as soon as the vaccines had been rolled out and enough people had taken them for “herd immunity”.

I’m not sure exactly when the narrative was changed, but it does seem to have been changed. (Like the shift from two doses to never-ending booster shots, and a few other things.)

7 Likes

The narrative indeed changed (I think around early 2021, when talk of boosters started increasing), but people will now just reply, “science is always changing.”

Keep in mind, that is said with a straight face while supporting the censorship and erasure of any data that opposes that ever-changing “science.”

Data that, after 6 months of being ridiculed as conspiracy, magically becomes mainstream. You see this now with MSM reporting that natural immunity is indeed better than the vaccine.

This unique branch of “science” is somehow always in a state of both “settled” and “changing.”

5 Likes

That’s always been a question mark.
The science isn’t settled one way or another I think.
This epidemic is a steep learning curve for all.

Because biology is complex. It’s not something you can know in advance without doing the science and having a lot of data to work with. Viruses are also very diverse and the human immune system itself is not fully understood .

2 Likes

Natural immunity is better?
First of all, unvaccinated you don’t have any immunity, which is as I understand it, the problem to begin with.
If you survive a covid infection, you are more immune, but your selection of people are the survivors, not the general population.
But hey, go and get your immunity however suits your fancy!

4 Likes

That’s the narrative, yes. That’s how they scare the crap out of everyone.

But if you “didn’t have any immunity”, you’d be dead at birth. You are immune to pretty much everything, in the sense that your immune system can deal with 99.99999% of the pathogens you encounter day-to-day. Only occasionally can something break through and cause disease.

No. You develop immunity by exposure, not infection. Sure, infection will result in a lot of antibodies being produced, but it’s not necessary for that to happen. Immunity is a sliding scale, not an either-or thing.

2 Likes

Exactly the point of vaccines.

That suggests that people would occasionally fall victim to random and varied pathogens, but instead we see that certain stronger or more unfamiliar pathogens have a higher chance of breaking through causing various pandemics and epidemics.

Yes, obviously. But even in the worst cases that humanity has ever encountered, a majority either did not fall sick, or recovered.

In this case, almost the entirety of humanity has either survived COVID, or did not get it at all. The proportion who fell sick - their immune system was overwhelmed - is exceedingly small. Your immune system works.

1 Like

I don’t think that necessarily follows. It certainly works for humanity on the whole.

You mean your own immune system doesn’t work? You personally? That’s possible. There are many ways to compromise your immune function and your health generally. Most governments have encouraged people to do precisely that by locking themselves in their houses, not doing any exercise or getting any sunshine, and watching TV all day with a bucket of KFC, thereby enhancing the rate at which people end up sick and in hospital.

But of course, they did that for our own good. It can’t possibly have been intentional.

4 Likes

So of course it must have been intentional.

I wasn’t arguing against science being able to change. Read what you quoted again.

I was referring to a particular branch of science that has infested this forum—in which any and every point against the narrative (including the work and data you mention—the very data being censored) is outright ignored or irrationally explained away.

This branch of science allows one to not consider any data supporting alternative narratives, while at the same time—when that alternative narrative is later proven true—being able to proclaim, “See! Science always changes!”

And then this illogical cycle continues—ignoring the data and not allowing proper debate. Then refusing to acknowledge the mistake in ignoring such data when it’s proven relevant.

Science doesn’t equal labeling all data that disproves your hypothesis as “disinformation.”

Though, unfortunately, this is the modern day science that we have all been mandated to trust.

5 Likes

On that subject, I was just watching this guy again. He does a very restrained (British) rant about the censorship of science, followed by a brief discussion of the latest vaxed-vs-unvaxed statistics in Israel and Ireland. He also makes a good point that endless rounds of vaccinations for people who do not need them takes resources away from that very small segment of the population who could legitimately benefit from them.

Apologies if this has been posted elsewhere - I find it hard to keep up with the multiple threads.

3 Likes