Having SARS-CoV-2 once confers much greater immunity than a vaccine but no infection parties, please

robertjan007

Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2020
Messages
15
Younger population. Less testing can be an issue because people can die undiagnosed. Later COVID doesn't always show up on nasal swab.

Natural antibodies may or may not work. It's not that everyone who has had previous COVID doesn't get it again. You can see there are reinfections on the WC dashboard.

However, you can get natural immunity AFTER you vaccinate too. If the prevalence rate in the community is high, you will have constant exposure.

It is exceptionally irrational to want to avoid vaccine because of a very low risk of side effects when even a handful of covid hospitalisations and there are right now people from Langa, Kaya, Gugs etc in WC hospitals, so even one or two days of this will cancel out your fears of annual vaccine related deaths.
My opinion is that there is very little attempt to show risk/reward of vaccine vs risk/reward of virus by age. Not to mention risk/reward of treatment, which I feel is non-existent in SA. I don’t think there is any serious attempt to calculate risk of adverse events versus risk of virus by age. I imagine as you get younger the risk of vaccine exceeds the risk of vaccine, most especially in children, not so?
 

flytek

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
743
ALso good luck selling to tourists and foreign governments that your population does not need vaccines. Real good luck. Enjoy continuous unemployment, starvation and crime because someone could have a rare side effect to a vaccine, meanwhile you don't enforce basic traffic laws (workers on back of bakkies) or ensure no stock outs of basic meds in your clinics. Just show them those graphs and I'm sure the UK, EU and US will open up and send thousands of tourists to Cape Town. I'm sure that will happen.

People really need to think this through.
Yes don't worry we've heard it all before...vaccines as often as necessary or murder, mayhem and death.

I however suspect that in SA the vaccine roll out won't go so smoothly or deeply into the population as natural antibodies will.
The combination will give us enough immunity to let go of all these restrictions at some point.
There will still be cases and deaths but they will be managed sensibly without screwing the economy.
Eventually the whole planet will also have enough immunity to get back to normal with a new coronavirus floating around.
 
Last edited:

Mirai

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2017
Messages
1,414
My opinion is that there is very little attempt to show risk/reward of vaccine vs risk/reward of virus by age. Not to mention risk/reward of treatment, which I feel is non-existent in SA. I don’t think there is any serious attempt to calculate risk of adverse events versus risk of virus by age. I imagine as you get younger the risk of vaccine exceeds the risk of vaccine, most especially in children, not so?

This has been looked at:
 

vatie

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2013
Messages
284
I heard that it would cost a bit. So what would you do with it? Would you resample people again? When? And then again, when? SO every 6 months? Do you know how hard it is to recall healthy people for painful blood sampling? Even dry blood spot. Is still sore and wait in line whole day.

And since natural immunity + vaccine is superior, why discriminate against people?

Besides some people don't produce IgG.

How would you determine sero status? Would you have sero status passports?

I am not attacking you, I'm just asking.
Sero status passports would be a horrible idea, I was not alluding to that at all. I also did not suggest any sort of discrimination at any point in time ? But rather to acknowledge the protective role of previous natural infection as a compliment to protection from vaccination. At the very least we should be considering giving the previously confirmed infected(not sero positive) a single shot instead of two and freeing up vaccine supply that way. We have made far worse decisions in this pandemic, for example doing away with Astrazeneca doses based on one really tiny poorly designed study early this year.

Seroprevalence studies absolutely have benefit. We are largely flying blind through all this and we don't really know where we are at as a population in terms of protection. High levels of protection in one region and low levels in another also means you know where to expect hospital pressure and you can plan appropriately. Surely that data would be beneficial ? Are you saying it would be useless data?
 

Mirai

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2017
Messages
1,414
Sero status passports would be a horrible idea, I was not alluding to that at all. I also did not suggest any sort of discrimination at any point in time ? But rather to acknowledge the protective role of previous natural infection as a compliment to protection from vaccination. At the very least we should be considering giving the previously confirmed infected(not sero positive) a single shot instead of two and freeing up vaccine supply that way. We have made far worse decisions in this pandemic, for example doing away with Astrazeneca doses based on one really tiny poorly designed study early this year.

Seroprevalence studies absolutely have benefit. We are largely flying blind through all this and we don't really know where we are at as a population in terms of protection. High levels of protection in one region and low levels in another also means you know where to expect hospital pressure and you can plan appropriately. Surely that data would be beneficial ? Are you saying it would be useless data?

Why bother then. Then you have to test each individual first. Then the cost of that test probably covers the cost of the vaccine dose. So you may end up having to vaccinate again. Also you will have two pools, so a non standardised approach which will mess up delivery.

Yes it would be useless because at best you only have a thumbsuck and no hard verified data and no idea if you can trust these figures.

Remember you have to hire staff to do these tests. You have to take the blood, transport it. You have to bring people in and follow them up. Incentivize them even.

Healthy young people don't want to do that.

And as said you can get natural immunity AFTER vaccine too.
 

vatie

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2013
Messages
284
Why bother then. Then you have to test each individual first. Then the cost of that test probably covers the cost of the vaccine dose. So you may end up having to vaccinate again. Also you will have two pools, so a non standardised approach which will mess up delivery.

Yes it would be useless because at best you only have a thumbsuck and no hard verified data and no idea if you can trust these figures.

Remember you have to hire staff to do these tests. You have to take the blood, transport it. You have to bring people in and follow them up. Incentivize them even.

Healthy young people don't want to do that.

And as said you can get natural immunity AFTER vaccine too.
No, no new tests. Previously confirmed covid positive individuals only.

Natural infection after vaccination may very well be most people's "booster shots".
 

Mirai

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2017
Messages
1,414
No, no new tests. Previously confirmed covid positive individuals only.

Natural infection after vaccination may very well be most people's "booster shots".

I'm not sure if the data is not anonymized. Besides it's only a small fraction what the blood bank did.

So you'd have to do mass scale testing, maybe with first dose of vaccine?

Then recall only the negatives.

But that would be hard to do and would cost a lot.

And it's not proven how long that would work for. We don't know how long this immunity lasts for.

Then you'd have to still issue them with some ID. Or keep a database of sero status online?

And then if that was breached ... whoooa.. big trouble.

You'd still have to do a lot of convincing to get tourists in to say, oh our people are naturally immune and we just took a vaccine booster.

I think someone must first model this and publish this with enough data.

But public health departments don't like stratification. They want one size fits all because less mistakes and consistency.
 

robertjan007

Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2020
Messages
15
I find a lot to be desired in this opinion article. The data is based on under 30yo, says the article. But children were no vaccinated in any large numbers. Are they really trying to sneak children under the umbrella of under 30s? Generalising data from adults to children is highly unethical.

I also cannot believe the alarmist talk about lasting Covid symptoms in young people, “affecting every organ in the body”, but I would have to look into the sources.
 

Mirai

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2017
Messages
1,414
I find a lot to be desired in this opinion article. The data is based on under 30yo, says the article. But children were no vaccinated in any large numbers. Are they really trying to sneak children under the umbrella of under 30s? Generalising data from adults to children is highly unethical.

I also cannot believe the alarmist talk about lasting Covid symptoms in young people, “affecting every organ in the body”, but I would have to look into the sources.
Did you click on this:
 

chrisc

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2008
Messages
9,760
A friend of mine is a doctor who got Covid last year AND got the J&J vaccine earlier this year. Well, she just had Covid again and passed it on to another couple I know, one of who is vaccinated. Their kids had a sleepover and now 3 kids have Covid and another parent tested positive resulting in 2 classes of kids in different schools all staying home for 2 weeks because it's already spread to other family members. The vaccine is doing F'all to stop transmission.
Precisely the same with doctor friend’s wife. Almost word for word in fact
However, the folk who had 2 vaccinations had milder symptoms
 

Mirai

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2017
Messages
1,414
A friend of mine is a doctor who got Covid last year AND got the J&J vaccine earlier this year. Well, she just had Covid again and passed it on to another couple I know, one of who is vaccinated. Their kids had a sleepover and now 3 kids have Covid and another parent tested positive resulting in 2 classes of kids in different schools all staying home for 2 weeks because it's already spread to other family members. The vaccine is doing F'all to stop transmission.

So how do you know who gave what to whom? I have a similar story. I know a family who were vaccinated. Their kids weren't. The parents never got COVID, they tested just in case.
 

Mirai

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2017
Messages
1,414
I was hoping to avoid sifting through that. One hopes the CDC did a better job that the article. That “affects every organ system” shocker is based on a veteran’s database. Veterans.
Some of those veterans are young. You don't need to serve in conflict to be a vet.
 

Mirai

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2017
Messages
1,414
Precisely the same with doctor friend’s wife. Almost word for word in fact
However, the folk who had 2 vaccinations had milder symptoms

According to some people on this thread that doctor should be super immune. He had natural infection and then he had the shot. And then he got covid again? But hold on, natural immunity is supposed to be so good, right? And with a vaccine on top of it, of all things? Seriously?

We can't use anecdotes you say, especially if we don't know who gave what to whom?
 

robertjan007

Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2020
Messages
15
Some of those veterans are young. You don't need to serve in conflict to be a vet.
Some. It doesn’t matter if its some if the data comes from all. This is the same logic as speaking children in with under 30s — now we’re sneaking in under 30s with under 80s or whatever. It‘s the entire VHA database. Also, you don’t think being in a war will be a confounding variable in damaged organ systems?

Now, besides all this, let’s say I look more in the CDCs presentation, which I have, superficially. The average person, is not helped by this in assessing their own risk — even people skilled in reading data are not really helped by it. Would it be difficult to present someone with a risk benefit calculation that they could understand and verify? No, I don’t think so. This might be useful for the CDC. I hope it all checks out, but to make that assessment, you’ve go to dig into the references, which no one is really going to do.

I think it is a basic ethical obligation of the medical community to provide people with calculations of their risk which they can verify themselves, as far as this is possible. This is what is missing. And if all we can’t provide South African, or anyone with in assessing their risk, ten we are failing in the ethics of conformed consent. tl;dr godamn typos
 

Mirai

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2017
Messages
1,414
Some. It doesn’t matter if its some if the data comes from all. This is the same logic as speaking children in with under 30s — now we’re sneaking in under 30s with under 80s or whatever. It‘s the entire VHA database. Also, you don’t think being in a war will be a confounding variable in damaged organ systems?

Now, besides all this, let’s say I look more in the CDCs presentation, which I have, superficially. The average person, is not helped by this in assessing their own risk — even people skilled in reading data are not really helped by it. Would it be difficult to present someone with a risk benefit calculation that they could understand and verify? No, I don’t think so. This might be useful for the CDC. I hope it all checks out, but to make that assessment, you’ve go to dig into the references, which no one is really going to do.

I think it is a basic ethical obligation of the medical community to provide people with calculations of their risk which they can verify themselves, as far as this is possible. This is what is missing. And if all we can’t provide South African, or anyone with in assessing their risk, ten we are failing in the ethics of conformed consent. tl;dr godamn typos

The thing is that such does not exist for most things out there. Go to any doctor and ask what is my risk of treatment a vs treatment b? Well you won't get an answer containing numbers.

A relative of mine has a hiatus hernia. He was told that surgery would not work out well, as it's likely going to be complicated, will leave complications and will probably not be successful. It's PPIs all the way. No percentage chances of well if we do surgery it's 15% chance of failure vs 12% chance of failure of oral meds.... nope.

You're asking for a much higher standard that is available in routine medicine.
 

Insint

Expert Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2010
Messages
1,427
If that's the case, then why are people so desperate to shove the "get vaxxed" down people's throats, with vax passports and barring entry to shops?

It just doesn't make any sense.

If someone chooses to take their chances without the vaccine, then they're only putting themselves in danger.

The vaccinated are still spreading covid, and with the new strain that was reported: https://mybroadband.co.za/forum/thr...-covid-19-variant-of-interest-to-who.1152274/ - the vaccine is likely not so effective anymore either, as we've seen with other variants.

That's an easy question. Hospitals are getting overwhelmed by people not vaccinated. I know the delta is also putting people in the hospital but the numbers are far less than they would have been if nobody was already vaccinated.

Hospitals are required for many other things than covid so we need to decrease the number of serious cases as soon as possible. It's selfish to not get vaccinated. It's a proven method to reduce risk.

It just does not make any sense for me to not get vaccinated even if you will require a shot every six months. Help keep the hospitals open and easily accessible for other things than covid.

People just do not want to be told what to do even if it's solid good advice.

It's like people complaining about wearing helmets during a race because it was proven to reduce the risk of death. People did the same they did not want to wear helmets.

I can't find it now, but I believe there was a Nascar driver that refused to wear a helmet and died because he did not wear a helmet. He was told to wear a helmet but he believed the helmet did not do anything. At least helmets are required now. It was something about his head going so much forward that his skull and neck bone would break. Anyway, it was a documentary that I watch years ago and the details are fuzzy.
 
Top