I think it is very likely that the majority of the hospitalizations are from non vaccinated. Is that not what we are discussing? I agree that the spread is from who knows where (vaccinated vs non-vaccinated).
Said plainly, it is a lie that unvaccinated are causing increased COVID cases right now...
- Thread starter BigDaddyDawgBreath
- Start date
No, vaxxed & unvaxxed are both driving up cases. The unvaxxed are the ones driving up admissions & ICU beds. That is the real problem.
vaxxed can get Covid (83-% delta in my area). I cannot tell you if they spread more than non vaxxed. I have no idea what main stream media is saying. I get my info from my hospital admin.
Literally just got this email:
“95% of those admitted are unvaccinated. This surge is different in that approximately 40% of patients admitted are under the age of 50 whereas in the first surge that was only 15%.”
Does your hospital admin get on The chat?
Fat people and the western diet are driving Covid rates, not vaccines or lack there of, ask the good doc how many of his critical patients are obese.
Can't talk about the simple and facts or you would be called a "weight-ist"...
That's what I wanted to hear. I now know I am not responsible, anymore than the vaxed for people getting infected. And the town I live in has never come close to a having a hospital admissions/ICU problem.
Thanks, I can sleep well tonight.
Glad to hear your town has not been affected. We are starting our 4th surge locally. Sleep well
I got a great solution for all of these hospitals worrying about running out of room for the dying and sick delta victims. There is probably an "open box" sale on circus tents that were set up for hospital overflows last year but were never used. The worried hospital administrators wont even have to disinfect them. They are like new.
Can you get from them how many are unvaccinated but prior covid sufferers? I'd love any numbers on that. I hate being lumped in with 'unvaccinated ' without an asterisk. I want to wear my asterisk loud and proud.
I am hoping we covid survivors (the chartreuse) are not spreading it. Please don't lump us in with the plain bagel unvaxxed, please.
Hard to tell. If they come in with active symptoms, a PCR test (test for active/recent) will be ordered not antibodies (test for remote). Waters are muddied in active state. I wish I had that info too
Sorry. No clue where the spread comes from (non vaccine, vaccinated). It likely does not come from survivors. My only point was saying that is reasonable that a very large % of current hospitalizations is from non vaccinated persons that have no prior immunity. (Don’t think I clarified that before.
Thanks. We chartreuse need protections. (I'm getting a hang of being a minority! ) [sarcasm font]
Are y'all getting any data on percentage who had a previous infection? ("Reinfection" percentage)
Some signs out there from what I have read that natural immunity is *beginning* to show indications of being clearly superior to vaccination. Not that vaccination is useless because no way to look at data and say that.
That Guina miner study has some powerful findings if they continue to hold true. 0% breakthrough infections in those with natural immunity vs 60% who were vaccinated. And none of them had a serious case / hospitalization.
Saw just a quick take on something new yesterday saying natural immunity may last longer and not fade like the vaccines may be doing because of T cell activity resulting from natural infection.
You seen anything on that?
I think you are probably right. However what is the actual number of hospitalized? High percentages of a small number are still a small number.
There are two issues used against us: 1. Increased number of raw cases. 2. Hospitalizations.
Hospitalizations appear to be clearly driven down by vaccines (and natural immunity). This is the metric that matters, although we need to make the government stop using this to metric to overreach. At this point if you don't get vaccinated it is on you and everyone else doesn't have to pay for it.
But the government/media use rising cases to meddle with us just as much as hospitalizations and there is no basis for claiming vaccinations prevent rising cases or that unvaccinated increase cases.
Government and media knowingly oversold the vaccines like so many other things in this. Yet like every other time before they blame us. Major elected officials threatening more lockdowns (which also haven't worked but have terrorized the masses) if we don't get vaccinated.
That is mass population psychological manipulation, not public health or crisis leadership.
Almost every one of them with the exception of DeSantis and a few others are ideologues or incompetents. Interestingly DeSantis is a former Naval intelligence officer. Funny how those with a background in critical thinking and institutional obstinacy against prevailing narratives can see through much of this quickly.
Hard to know the true number of prior infections given that many people had no symptoms. Natural immunity probably better than vaccine for future protection. Natural plus vaccine is best
What's the most extensive study you've seen on natural plus vaccine being best? I believe I saw a couple of reports around May suggesting that natural plus 1 shot was superior, but natural plus 2 shots went the wrong direction.
Also, how do the numbers look now with Delta more prevalent with all of the breakthrough cases emerging? The few indications I've see show natural immunity missing from the reports of current infections.
On a side note, we're still missing reports of widespread re-infection.
Just trying to understand how a vaccine targeting a specific spike protein manufactured in the host to then prompt antibodies by the same host adds anything to the antibodies and t-cell "memory" from direct exposure of the actual virus.
I'm not saying natural plus vaccine isn't better, but just trying to understand what mechanism makes it better. The host immune response is a constant. So how does a fading vaccine (booster talk from Fauci, CDC, and the manufacturers) add any benefit over natural immunity which is showing to be longer-term than previously suspected?
I am curious about how the current hospitalization rate compares to a typical flu season. I saw one report that the current hospitalizations are no worse than a typical flu season (which is what we could expect with endemic SARS2); however I could not confirm that information. Interestingly, influenza still has remained at almost zero cases since the beginning of this pandemic. And no, I am not one of those who thinks SARS2 is being mistaken for influenza - rather it’s a phenomenon called viral interference, which is well documented. Not to get completely off track, how does this year compare to past influenza hospitalizations? I think this is important because if they are comparable then it shows SARS2 is endemic.
Also, right now SARS2 is the 4th most common virus in circulation right now. I worry about all the children who haven’t been exposed to other more common respiratory viruses that are a major risk to kids. Lockdowns and keeping kids out of school may end up being one of the worst public health policies of this pandemic.
syndromictrends.com
Also, right now SARS2 is the 4th most common virus in circulation right now. I worry about all the children who haven’t been exposed to other more common respiratory viruses that are a major risk to kids. Lockdowns and keeping kids out of school may end up being one of the worst public health policies of this pandemic.
BIOFIRE® Syndromic Trends
This.
Another myth of this situation, believed in a religious way, is that masks stopped flu.
Which is easily decimated with 10 minutes in the data.
I've been doing some antibody discovery for the last year or so and I just received some new, unpublished data from the immunologists and computational biologists in my group. We identified a few antibodies that have never been discovered and we used them to "immunize" mice. Granted this is in mice but we have shown that most of these are as strong or stronger at preventing infection than most available vaccines. I hesitate to share this bc I don't want to come off as anti-vaccine but it's an important piece of the puzzle. Assuming survivors are producing strong antibodies that last, natural immunity is definitely possible.
A
anon_03j5dr7l9qs90
Guest
Probably more complicated than this but here is the theory:
Natural immunity generates antibodies to multiple parts of the virus, not necessarily the spike (most important)
Vaccine generates antibodies to the spike
Natural + vaccine generates antibodies to multiple parts of the virus and the spike
Why wouldn't natural immunity generate antibodies for the spike though? Our immune system is capable of responding to multiple threats by design.
What evidence has been seen that natural immunity ignores the spike protein of this specific virus yet does just fine when the spike protein is created from mRNA instructions?
Also, what happens if the person receiving the 1st shot encounters any other foreign body including common causes of allergies before becoming "fully vaccinated"? If the immune system is less capable of dealing with multiple bodies seen as a threat, wouldn’t other bodies mask the response to the spike protein just the same as if the virus itself was present?
It just doesn't make any logical sense to suggest that our immune system is less capable of reacting to the spike as part of the virus, but fully capable when the spike is produced by the host.
The spike protein is the largest and most exposed protein protruding from the lipid wall of the virus. I can guarantee natural immunity generates Ab against the spike protein. More specifically, Ab against multiple spike protein epitopes are generated.
The problem with the vaccines is they generate immunity targeted to a single protein (spike). Natural immunity targets almost every protein of the virus (and each protein has multiple epitopes). So natural immunity provides Ab, T-cells, and B-cells against more viral epitopes compared to vaccine immunity. Significantly more.
The paper that demonstrated a larger population of T-cells in convalescents that received one vaccine dose vs those who did not reaches a conclusion I don't agree with (that those with natural immunity should get one dose). It is not surprising those subjects would have a higher level of T-cells - that's what the immune system is programmed to do when faced with a reinfection (or vaccine which mimics infection). To me all the paper is proving is immune memory works.
I posted this in another, but it specifically outlines what you said here, for any doubters because many on here trust Emory...
What he said, from Emory
My wording is not clear. Yes, naturally immunity can generate spike antibodies
The biggest advantage I see comparing:
1. Natural Immunity
2. Natural Immunity plus mRNA injection
Is:
1. has a history of about 6,000 years to look at.
2. has a history of about 6 months to look at.
No one knows the long term issues of having our immune systems genetically modified by mRNA induced spiked proteins.
1. Natural Immunity
2. Natural Immunity plus mRNA injection
Is:
1. has a history of about 6,000 years to look at.
2. has a history of about 6 months to look at.
No one knows the long term issues of having our immune systems genetically modified by mRNA induced spiked proteins.
More to this from the best journal around. VERY heavy on science but take away is natural immunity leads to upwards of 100% of antibodies a year post infection. Those who had COVID and got the vaccine saw ~30% increase of those antibodies. Like @BDawg64 says, natural + vaccinated is likely the best but natural immunity should provide plenty of protection
Naturally enhanced neutralizing breadth against SARS-CoV-2 one year after infection - Nature
Antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 continue to evolve 6 to 12 months after infection in patients who have recovered from COVID-19, increasing in potency and breadth with time.
www.nature.com
So ... you're saying a democRAT would lie ... I can't believe that. If I did then I might come to the conclusion that this whole thing is about ... CONTROL ... and that can't possibly be true ... can it?
Last edited:
This is a good look at reality
boriquagato.substack.com
NPR: national propaganda readers
assessing federal claims about an "unvaccinated pandemic" and just who is spreading disinformation
boriquagato.substack.com
mRNA from the Covid vaccines do not become incorporated into the host DNA. It is, effectively, the blueprint for the spike. These vaccines were specifically modified to not have the insertion sequences present in most viruses. The mRNA is used to make spike proteins and then degrades into base nucleic acids.
Viruses typically can, and normally do, modify the host DNA. When I was going through school, I was taught anywhere from 5-10% of our DNA are remnants of prior viral infections. 8% in this study
So if you are worried about your DNA being genetically modified, I would get the vaccine.
Why would getting the vaccine prevent DNA modification if vaccinated people still get infected?
My point was, if you were really concerned about your DNA getting modified by this virus, the best way to prevent that was to get the vaccine. Best way does not mean 100%.
I didn't say the DNA was modified by the mRNA. It has been 50 years since my last masters level genetic's course, so maybe I am confused/senior moment. But I thought RNA was the messenger system for DNA, thus when introduce into our systems, is modifying the "genetic process".
And when a natural virus modifies our DNA, that is a natural process. Do you know what the long range results will be to your body?
Not sure what you mean by genetic process but messenger RNA does not interfere with host DNA replication. Therefore, cell division would not be impacted by an introduced mRNA that only encoded for a single protein. Future cells derived from that lineage would have no genetic memory that it even existed. I would look at mRNA as the endpoint of the transcription process.
