26 ms·

I really wish people would read their sources, and specifically with the CDC, read the sources the CDC is using. The CDC page you referenced uses https://www.c

by tdfx 4y ago

I really wish people would read their sources, and specifically with the CDC, read the sources the CDC is using. The CDC page you referenced uses https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm as its only source for this recommendation. The study monitors outcomes for a group that were all infected at some point in 2020. The vaccine was released at the end of 2020. The study monitors the infection status of these people in May-June 2021. It's purposefully selecting people who had no recent exposure via natural infection and comparing them to people that recently had the vaccine. I don't know how they can use this to support their recommendation with a straight face.

civilized 4y ago
I don't understand your point. People who say "I don't need the vaccine because I already had COVID" never qualify that with how recent their natural infection was. Many of them assume that having it once is forever enough, like with chickenpox. The study shows that this common belief is wrong.
- tdfx 4y ago
  Neither the vaccine or infection will protect against reinfection indefinitely. That much I believe everyone is in agreement with. If you had natural infection or the vaccine a year ago or more, you will likely be reinfected with the most recent strain, typically with mild or no symptoms. My point about the study was that it specifically selecting people who were recently vaccinated vs. people whose natural exposure was the prior year. Of course the vaccinated people whose immune systems were recently exposed to the spike protein had lower reinfection rates.
  - civilized 4y ago
    That's why taking the vaccine is valuable! It provides protection, even to those who have had COVID before! Even if you had it last year, you can protect yourself by taking the vaccine! That's what the study shows! Just because you think it's obvious doesn't mean the study isn't valuable!
    - xenonite 4y ago
      On the other hand, the job did not require that a recent vaccination is required, just some. So it’s still comparing apples to oranges. On top of that: A recently recovered infection provides probably even more protection than a recent vaccination. It’s difficult to reason about all cases, in my opinion.
      - civilized 4y ago
        The post that started this chain said there were significant benefits to vaccine after infection. That post was correct. Since then, tdfx and others have been launching a barrage of red herrings to somehow undermine and misdirect away from this correct point, rather than simply acknowledging it and moving on to whatever they actually want to say. If you don't want to be required to take the vaccine, we can have that conversation, but enough spouting nonsense to cast doubt on a correct point.
        tdfx 4y ago
        > Since then, tdfx and others have been launching a barrage of red herrings to somehow undermine and misdirect away from this correct point The original point is an interesting example of being correct, but also misleading in that it paints getting the vaccine after natural infection as the best course of action. It has benefits, but probably not as many immune benefits as having a second asymptomatic infection after the original one. I'm not anti-vaccine at all, but the CDC presents the vaccine to everyone in every circumstance as the optimal course of action and it's very clear the science on that is not settled. Blanket statements and their inability to acknowledge edge cases are the reason their credibility has been so badly eroded in the past few years. In their quest not to give anti-vax people a thread to pull on, they've treated the public as too stupid to understand nuance and created an even larger distrust than they would've had to begin with.
        civilized 4y ago
        > The original point is an interesting example of being correct, but also misleading in that it paints getting the vaccine after natural infection as the best course of action. It has benefits, but probably not as many immune benefits as having a second asymptomatic infection after the original one. It makes no sense to compare getting the vaccine to getting a second asymptomatic infection. It is impossible to control the level of symptoms you get from a natural infection.

by tdfx 4y ago

civilized 4y ago

I don't understand your point. People who say "I don't need the vaccine because I already had COVID" never qualify that with how recent their natural infection was. Many of them assume that having it once is forever enough, like with chickenpox. The study shows that this common belief is wrong.

tdfx 4y ago
Neither the vaccine or infection will protect against reinfection indefinitely. That much I believe everyone is in agreement with. If you had natural infection or the vaccine a year ago or more, you will likely be reinfected with the most recent strain, typically with mild or no symptoms. My point about the study was that it specifically selecting people who were recently vaccinated vs. people whose natural exposure was the prior year. Of course the vaccinated people whose immune systems were recently exposed to the spike protein had lower reinfection rates.
- civilized 4y ago
  That's why taking the vaccine is valuable! It provides protection, even to those who have had COVID before! Even if you had it last year, you can protect yourself by taking the vaccine! That's what the study shows! Just because you think it's obvious doesn't mean the study isn't valuable!
  - xenonite 4y ago
    On the other hand, the job did not require that a recent vaccination is required, just some. So it’s still comparing apples to oranges. On top of that: A recently recovered infection provides probably even more protection than a recent vaccination. It’s difficult to reason about all cases, in my opinion.
    - civilized 4y ago
      The post that started this chain said there were significant benefits to vaccine after infection. That post was correct. Since then, tdfx and others have been launching a barrage of red herrings to somehow undermine and misdirect away from this correct point, rather than simply acknowledging it and moving on to whatever they actually want to say. If you don't want to be required to take the vaccine, we can have that conversation, but enough spouting nonsense to cast doubt on a correct point.
      - tdfx 4y ago
        > Since then, tdfx and others have been launching a barrage of red herrings to somehow undermine and misdirect away from this correct point The original point is an interesting example of being correct, but also misleading in that it paints getting the vaccine after natural infection as the best course of action. It has benefits, but probably not as many immune benefits as having a second asymptomatic infection after the original one. I'm not anti-vaccine at all, but the CDC presents the vaccine to everyone in every circumstance as the optimal course of action and it's very clear the science on that is not settled. Blanket statements and their inability to acknowledge edge cases are the reason their credibility has been so badly eroded in the past few years. In their quest not to give anti-vax people a thread to pull on, they've treated the public as too stupid to understand nuance and created an even larger distrust than they would've had to begin with.
        civilized 4y ago
        > The original point is an interesting example of being correct, but also misleading in that it paints getting the vaccine after natural infection as the best course of action. It has benefits, but probably not as many immune benefits as having a second asymptomatic infection after the original one. It makes no sense to compare getting the vaccine to getting a second asymptomatic infection. It is impossible to control the level of symptoms you get from a natural infection.