patchythepirate

spice-boy said:

patchythepirate said:

How are people just blindly accepting these vaccine passports? How is it that so few even question something that is so obviously absurd? The fact that they don't accommodate for natural immunity, which is *superior* to the vaccine 'immunity,' should be a clear indication that we're being manipulated. Not to mention the fact that they make no sense, since people 'vaccinated' with these gene modifying agents can still catch and spread covid. It's shocking how many people are accepting these 'passports' as somehow justifiable.

I recall the former President who had all the kings horses and all the kings doctors working to save his life also gave him the vaccine just before he left office. People I know who got ill with Covid all got vaccinated as well. Why? Variants. Apparently those "gene modifying agents" have not made the population any more intelligent so on that count it failed. 

jslove said:

patchythepirate said:

charlesatlas said:

patchythepirate said:

How are people just blindly accepting these vaccine passports? How is it that so few even question something that is so obviously absurd? The fact that they don't accommodate for natural immunity, which is *superior* to the vaccine 'immunity,' should be a clear indication that we're being manipulated. Not to mention the fact that they make no sense, since people 'vaccinated' with these gene modifying agents can still catch and spread covid. It's shocking how many people are accepting these 'passports' as somehow justifiable.

https://www.jhsph.edu/covid-19/articles/why-covid-19-vaccines-offer-better-protection-than-infection.html

Wow, thank you for sharing that, but that is beyond absurd. I can't believe that's published on Johns Hopkins site. Extremely poorly written, lacks context, and even contradicts itself. You don't even need any outside information or knowledge to see how ridiculous this is, and conveniently, they don't reference any actual studies, just framing it as this one person's opinion.

For example, they claim that natural immunity is worse, but don't say how they came to this conclusion (antibodies? B or T cell activation?). They say they don't know how it is better, it just is, then diminish their own point by noting that the vaccines only focus on one set of antigens, the spike proteins, unlike natural immunity that can address all of the antigens on the virus. They also don't mention that focusing on spike proteins also reduces the immune response to B and T cell activation, whereas natural immunity also involves natural killer cells, macrophages, etc. They also don't mention the context of a *much* higher rate of reinfection with those who have been vaccinated vs those who have natural immunity, which shows that this limited gene therapy vaccine immunity is clearly not superior to natural immunity (which is obvious and expected).

https://showme.missouri.edu/2021/study-finds-covid-19-reinfection-rate-less-than-1-for-those-with-severe-illness/

https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/309762

https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciab234/6170939

It's disturbing that an article like the one you linked is being disseminated as 'reliable' information. People need to wake up and realize that science has been politicized. 

First, I wrote this (before using forum):

patchythepirate is an appropriate name for a troll.  Here are two examples:

"...they don't accommodate for natural immunity, which is *superior* to the vaccine 'immunity'"

We do not know how to detect superior natural immunity.  Some of us may indeed be naturally immune, but we won't know about that for years.  If patchytheprirate means innate immunity, the first line of defense, that is clearly not superior, or none of us would get sick.  If the writer means acquired immunity from having had an infection, that's still not quite right.  In infection provides some immunity, vaccination is better, and the combination of having had an infection and then been vaccinated appears to be the best.  There are multiple sources for this, but I recommend the podcast, "This Week in Virology".  Chances are there are many relevant links in the notes for some of the episodes.  I'd rather listen to experts; they are available there.  "Natural immunity" in this context is sleight-of-hand; meaningless as used.

"gene modifying agents".

The vaccines are different, but we know that the ones authorized (not yet licensed) in the USA do not modify the DNA of a vaccinated person.  That is, they do not insert, delete, or change the DNA base pairs.  We may someday discover that changes in gene expression occur, but those are still the genes the cell started with, given that mutations in cell reproduction do occur, some of which lead to cancer.  How gene expression changes is another topic, but it's somewhat like changes in the state of a computer program, and expected and desirable in many contexts.  Without it, there would not be different types of cells in our bodies.

Not clear how valid the passports are or how long they should last, but manipulation via false statements is perfectly evident in their post here.
----
But then we have their response, quoted above.  It's sort of impressive in a "dropping technical terms suggests you know what you are talking about" kind of way.  So to falsify a few of the claims:

The reinfection rate for vaccinated persons is lower than for unvaccinated persons.  That's the case for vaccination.  The reinfection rate for persons who had the disease versus the reinfection rate for vaccinated persons is less analyzed, but we know there are reinfections and "breakthrough" infections among the vaccinated.  We know that the post-vaccine infections are milder and hospitalization and/or death is very unlikely; we have no such observation for post-infection reinfection.  I regard the statement that post-vaccination infections are have a much higher rate than post-infection reinfection as misleading and probably false.

Post-vaccination reinfection is really a red herring; being vaccinated is not being infected, the writer refers to people vaccinated and infected twice, which is a very small group indeed, and unlikely to be able to produce a statistically significant high rate.  These are people whose immune systems are not working well enough to protect them; they are not typical.

This is a serious disease.  You don't want to have an infection at all.  Having an infection followed by vaccination produces far more antibodies than either alone; this has been measured.  We don't know whether antibodies or T-cells are more important, but both are stimulated by vaccination.  An immunoassay can distinguish people infected from people merely vaccinated because only people previously infected have antibodies for the non-spike parts of the virus, which is useful, but may not be relevant to effective immune response.

Also, some symptoms of long covid have been reported to be reduced by post-infection vaccination, especially two shots.  Those reports are anecdotes, not data, but interesting and will likely result in data collection later as part of understanding long covid better.  It's too soon for that now, but better understanding could be good news for sufferers from other diseases with long post-infection sequelae.

lkrupp said:

patchythepirate said:

How are people just blindly accepting these vaccine passports? How is it that so few even question something that is so obviously absurd? The fact that they don't accommodate for natural immunity, which is *superior* to the vaccine 'immunity,' should be a clear indication that we're being manipulated. Not to mention the fact that they make no sense, since people 'vaccinated' with these gene modifying agents can still catch and spread covid. It's shocking how many people are accepting these 'passports' as somehow justifiable.

Because society has to protect the public from the lies, misinformation, disinformation, and anti-science conspiracy theories from people like, well, YOU. 

And you’ll be very interested when vaccine mandates are finally implemented. The Supreme Court, in a 1905 case regarding mandatory vaccination during a small pox epidemic,  ruled 7-2 that the government does have the right to mandate vaccinations when the public health is endangered. The precedent is already established, ready to go.

urahara said:

patchythepirate said:

How are people just blindly accepting these vaccine passports? How is it that so few even question something that is so obviously absurd? The fact that they don't accommodate for natural immunity, which is *superior* to the vaccine 'immunity,' should be a clear indication that we're being manipulated. Not to mention the fact that they make no sense, since people 'vaccinated' with these gene modifying agents can still catch and spread covid. It's shocking how many people are accepting these 'passports' as somehow justifiable.

It seems you are a person type who gets shocked easily by trivial things. Or are you just belonging to anti-vax camp. And maybe you haven’t realized it yet. That you are in denial of the human progress in medicine. 

Firstly, As some one have already pointed out - the vaccination does not modify your genes, contrary to what you are thinking. It’s a fact. And you got your facts WRONG.

Secondly, the society needs to function, what other measures than ‘passports’ do you suggest for mitigating the risk of spreading COVID-19, when the society tries to get to new normal? Or you just criticize the solution without offering any alternatives? Sounds like a grumpy asshole.

Thirdly, the provided to you link https://www.jhsph.edu/covid-19/articles/why-covid-19-vaccines-offer-better-protection-than-infection.html Is an interview with Virologist Sabra Klein, PhD ‘98, MS, MA, who says an immense amount of data collected in a short time have made clear the safety and effectiveness of vaccines and the limited immunity that comes from being infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
It is funny how easily you dismiss the information coming from a virologist. 

Fourthly, you have provide in a later comment 3 links, basically claiming that it is the prove (for you) that natural immunity is better than vaccine. But your claim is wrong. Let’s look into the links you have provided.
In the 1st link: there is no such information about what is better
In the 2nd link: there is no control group / initial testing. It doesn’t consider that all vaccinated people are documented, but only a part of the infected people are making the test and are diagnosed being sick with COVID-19. Thus the number of people who were newly infected and were already sick with COVID-19 some time in the past isn’t known. This means that the statistics in the article and the conclusion that vacinated people 6 times are more likely to get sick than people with the natural immunity is NOT CORECT AND MISLEADING. 
In the 3d link: there is finally a control group initial testing done. And the numbers tell us that 4,85% percent of people get reinfected (=62/1278), and only 3,85% vacinated people got infected (=5449/141480). So even in the link you have provided, you proved your own statement is WRONG. You got your facts wrong AGAIN.

You are not simply getting the facts wrong. You are spreading LIES or your own ASSUMPTIONS. 

PLEASE STOP IT!!!