vaccination side effects

Daveogg

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2003
Messages
1,972
Agreed. Each case is different and people should be allowed to take advice and make a risk judgment call.
I can understand boosters every few months if you can't afford to take a few days off as risk of infection is apparently somewhat reduced. However you are likely adding other risks too.
In your case everyone else on the whole planet might have to vaccines every 3 months to reduce risks to minimum so you might not have to take boosters to avoid infection.
Its not reasonable to expect everyone to take boosters every few months to avoid isolation while the background antibodies get to 99% or whatever.
Lastly it should not be critical to have a vaccine whether you have antibodies or not in order to maintain a livelihood especially when so many are already protected against severe outcomes.
We are literally a few percent away from having 90% antibodies and protection against severe outcomes but some people are saying force everyone to vaccinate or take their jobs, houses, cars, lives....its insane.
As is forcing everyone to have vaccine passports to travel which will probably mean bi-annual boosters.
I hope as the antibody levels rise the general panic, knee jerk reactions, insane virtue signalling and vaccine zealotry subsides.
Right now to me the vaccine zealots are slightly more insane and damaging than the 5g anti-vaxxers as they are willing to give up everyone's freedoms for absolutely nothing.
Once those freedoms are gone its going to be much harder to get them back...ask google about your right to privacy for example.
It's a long post I'll try reply.
The problem we have with Covid is no prior immunity to SARS CoV2. Once we have been fully vaccinated or infected we will have prior immunity and the potential for serious illness is not zero but quite low. I mentioned coronavirus OC43, there is evidence emerging that it caused a similar epidemic when it emerged around 1890. We all have been infected by it initially in childhood, then occasionally repeatedly in adulthood causing the common cold.
So I repeat I am not advocating repeated booster except for a small subset of people for whom it will be advantageous.
All that is required is people have prior immunity, then when you get your booster infection you will not develop a viral pneumonia, rather just a snotty nose.

You asked in your original question if vaccine passports are supported. Yes in the manner imposed in Europe, where vaccination, prior infection or within 48hrs of a negative test are equally accepted.

I know you have put a lot of faith in discovery numbers of infected at 80% I hope you are correct, but have you looked at how they arrived at that number and what faith discovery has in that number. My understanding is it was one of a number of scenarios in a scenario planning meeting but was jumped upon by the press.
Doing a quick calculation of my close family and friends I would put infection at no more than 50% What is your number.
 

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
25,438
I know you have put a lot of faith in discovery numbers of infected at 80% I hope you are correct, but have you looked at how they arrived at that number and what faith discovery has in that number. My understanding is it was one of a number of scenarios in a scenario planning meeting but was jumped upon by the press.
Doing a quick calculation of my close family and friends I would put infection at no more than 50% What is your number.
This! The Discovery exercise is an exercise "reverse mathematics" at best, based on so many assumptions as to make the whole statement ludicrous rubbish!

We are all damn lucky IF the whole of SA is at 40% "herd Immunity" with a few pockets that might be slightly higher.

PS: I was wondering how long you would leave the Coronavirus OC43 hanging out there to see if anyone worked out what it was.
 
Last edited:

access

Honorary Master
Joined
Mar 17, 2009
Messages
13,366
I know you have put a lot of faith in discovery numbers of infected at 80% I hope you are correct, but have you looked at how they arrived at that number and what faith discovery has in that number. My understanding is it was one of a number of scenarios in a scenario planning meeting but was jumped upon by the press.
Doing a quick calculation of my close family and friends I would put infection at no more than 50% What is your number.

but if its not correct, then they dont know what they are doing. which then relates to other stuff they do..

gore said in feb they recon 50%,

august over 80%
 

Daveogg

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2003
Messages
1,972
but if its not correct, then they dont know what they are doing. which then relates to other stuff they do..

gore said in feb they recon 50%,

august over 80%
Ok so you accept 90% of excess mortality is Covid infection ( not Covid related ) and a case fatality rate derived from data in Europe and USA is applicable to SA.

As I said I hope they are right, just my gut says otherwise. Anecdotal but when patients ask me to check antibodies because " doc I must have had it " most often they are negative. But then again I am only seeing a small slice of SA population not representative.
 

flytek

Expert Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
1,245
The bloid bank data backs up the Discovery claim in my opiniin. They could of ciurse both be wrong. The blood bank said 47% of their samples had antibodies and this was before delta which was the largest wave. Crudely alpha hit 20%, beta a further 30% and then delta another 30%. Reinfections are low and not climbing fast. Then 30% of the remainder are vaccinated out of which the at higher risk are vaccinated to an even higher percentage.

In the majority medical aid population these estimates would be optomistic as that population just has more space. Space to live in, work in, travel in and entertain in. Space reduces their chance of infection.

Yes there is therefor space for a significant wave in this sector of the population but they will be harder to infect due to their natural social distancing and the fact of the rest of the population being difficult to reinfect. In this wealthier sector those that have not been infected and are at risk should seriously consider vaccination.
 
Last edited:

Daveogg

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2003
Messages
1,972
The bloid bank data backs up the Discovery claim in my opiniin. They could of ciurse both be wrong. The blood bank said 47% of their samples had antibodies and this was before delta which was the largest wave. Crudely alpha hit 20%, beta a further 30% and then delta another 30%. Reinfections are low and not climbing fast. Then 30% of the remainder are vaccinated out of which the at higher risk are vaccinated to an even higher percentage.

In the majority medical aid population these estimates would be optomistic as that population just has more space. Space to live in, work in, travel in and entertain in. Space reduces their chance of infection.

Yes there is therefor space for a significant wave in this sector of the population but they will be harder to infect due to their natural social distancing and the fact of the rest of the population being difficult to reinfect. In this wealthier sector those that have not been infected and are at risk should seriously consider vaccination.
Time will tell, at the moment the evidence certainly is pointing to your side of the argument. I hope that continues.
 

access

Honorary Master
Joined
Mar 17, 2009
Messages
13,366
Ok so you accept 90% of excess mortality is Covid infection ( not Covid related ) and a case fatality rate derived from data in Europe and USA is applicable to SA.

As I said I hope they are right, just my gut says otherwise. Anecdotal but when patients ask me to check antibodies because " doc I must have had it " most often they are negative. But then again I am only seeing a small slice of SA population not representative.

i was not having a go at you, i just listed where the info came from. that dude in the vid seemed rather confident.

i think the excess mortality rate that is shown on those graphs look a bit cooked. its just a "flat" line for deaths throughout the year. why no seasonal deaths, disease or holiday related? thats not right. its difficult to find certain information around this to compare for yourself instead of just accepting what someone else says. annoyingly, information on previous years is easy to come by.

yes you are right in a way, good for the goose and all that. not everything covid related is marked as such, but in that same breath things not covid related are being marked as covid. i have no idea if one is as much as the other. how would guestimates cancel each other out.

global influenza numbers are guessed every year, stated on cdc or fda or who, one of them. simply because its not always tested for or even noticed they said. i assume this practice took a bit of a back seat last year.

imo, if this this is so contagious as they make it out to be, it should have spread through us all by now, unless you live like a hermit, which not a lot of people do. i feel sorry for some people so petrified about their medical conditions and covid that they live like hermits. stress must be taking lives too come to think of it.


so many "measures" in day to day life that just do not make sense and when you look at the practical application it actually makes things worse, not better.


i am leaning towards it has spread farther/more and yes the true death rate can be added to, but i also think deducted from.
 

Grant

Honorary Master
Joined
Mar 27, 2007
Messages
57,163
In this wealthier sector those that have not been infected and are at risk should seriously consider vaccination.
I live in what is described as an affluent area. I'm finding many of the more wealthy folk suffer delusions of entitlement & much that's going on is beneath them.
Many are the very same who have been vaccinated now tend to ignore the usual precautions, thinking of themselves only - and possibly little concerned they can pass on this virus to the next person.
 

MoHaG

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2005
Messages
352
The bloid bank data backs up the Discovery claim in my opiniin. They could of ciurse both be wrong. The blood bank said 47% of their samples had antibodies and this was before delta which was the largest wave. Crudely alpha hit 20%, beta a further 30% and then delta another 30%. Reinfections are low and not climbing fast. Then 30% of the remainder are vaccinated out of which the at higher risk are vaccinated to an even higher percentage.

Depending on where... It would be interesting to see how it looks now. (And how much overlap there is with vaccinations)

The data on how well previous infection works and how long it lasts is mixed, It seems to be highly variable, some data shows better results. (there also seems to be an effect with the severity of disease (at least less immunity for the asymptomatic)) (There is data that vaccination (even one dose) after infection hugely increase immunity) (Many of the arguments against recognising previous infection (which the EU does) for immunity passports is logistics (it is easier and cheaper to vaccinate everyone than figure out who was previously infected), It is also not know what levels of immune markers correspond to how much protection (there seems to be indications that certain antibody levels correlate with protection against infection, severe disease seems less clear))
 

MoHaG

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2005
Messages
352
i think the excess mortality rate that is shown on those graphs look a bit cooked. its just a "flat" line for deaths throughout the year. why no seasonal deaths, disease or holiday related? thats not right. its difficult to find certain information around this to compare for yourself instead of just accepting what someone else says. annoyingly, information on previous years is easy to come by.
The flat line is the average (it already incorporates the seasonal variations) (the flat base is the average deaths for the equivalent week between 2014 and 2019)

The SAMRC's baseline is in here
 

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
25,438
global influenza numbers are guessed every year,
Not everywhere. The figures are based on surveillance measures, as done for example by the NICD, and the statistically applied to the entire population precisely because it is not possible or justified to "test" everyone. This silly idea of testing and testing and testing has only taken root because of this epidemic.

Look at the NICD surveillance reports over a number of years to get a feel for the prevalence of flu in SA.
 

access

Honorary Master
Joined
Mar 17, 2009
Messages
13,366
The flat line is the average (it already incorporates the seasonal variations) (the flat base is the average deaths for the equivalent week between 2014 and 2019)

The SAMRC's baseline is in here

yes i know this, which is what i am wondering about.

covid death is as is, but excess death is averaged. i would think you compare averages with averages etc.

thanks for the link i have not seen that one yet. similar to others ive read a bit.

i see this one explains them changing their methodology of excess deaths in 2020

Not everywhere. The figures are based on surveillance measures, as done for example by the NICD, and the statistically applied to the entire population precisely because it is not possible or justified to "test" everyone. This silly idea of testing and testing and testing has only taken root because of this epidemic.

Look at the NICD surveillance reports over a number of years to get a feel for the prevalence of flu in SA.

yes im just mentioning what i read on one of those sites. i think it was the who.

ive read various reports to try and get an idea of whats going on. burden of disease reports is what got me looking at these things.
 
Last edited:

flytek

Expert Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
1,245

Depending on where... It would be interesting to see how it looks now. (And how much overlap there is with vaccinations)

The data on how well previous infection works and how long it lasts is mixed, It seems to be highly variable, some data shows better results. (there also seems to be an effect with the severity of disease (at least less immunity for the asymptomatic)) (There is data that vaccination (even one dose) after infection hugely increase immunity) (Many of the arguments against recognising previous infection (which the EU does) for immunity passports is logistics (it is easier and cheaper to vaccinate everyone than figure out who was previously infected), It is also not know what levels of immune markers correspond to how much protection (there seems to be indications that certain antibody levels correlate with protection against infection, severe disease seems less clear))
Agreed it would be interesting to have some more current blood bank data.
However releasing such data is counterproductive to the current narrative which is to try jab everyone and everything that moves every 6 months.
If one looks at the cases graph carefully even with a 'skat met die oog' approach even 80% previously infected could be conservative.
Vaccine overlap is fairly simple...30% vaccinated in total should hold true for the previously infected and never infected populations although it seems likely that the never infected on average wealthier are also the more highly vaccinated.
30% vaccinated in the never infected group is therefor likely also conservative.

If one looks at the western cape dashboard one can see 523500 infections of which 6738 were reinfections.
However we can estimate the real infection rate with detectable antibodies at more like 80% of the 7million total population ie 5 600 000 infections.
Detection rate of an infection vs the reality is then 523 500/5 600 000 ie 9.3%. of infections got detected.
Again crudely we could apply the detection rate to the reinfection rate to determine a more accurate reinfection rate. (6738/523 500)/0.093 = 13.8% reinfection rate.
Obviously all very rough and skewed this way or that by how reinfection data was collected etc.
Funny how numbers like these are so hard to find and barely mentioned in the public discourse.

If the reinfection rate is so low that gives hope that a previous infection is pretty good at preventing reinfection...seemingly much more so than vaccination.
How good previous infections are at preventing death is not clear but if they are so good at preventing reinfection that seems encouraging.
I guess if antibodies fall far enough in natural and vaccine acquired populations a reinfection will top you up as would a vaccine.
The truths will only come out in the future and by then mutations will have made historical data outdated...so as daveogg accurately said only time will tell.
 
Last edited:

lumeer

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2018
Messages
2,933
I live in what is described as an affluent area. I'm finding many of the more wealthy folk suffer delusions of entitlement & much that's going on is beneath them.
Many are the very same who have been vaccinated now tend to ignore the usual precautions, thinking of themselves only - and possibly little concerned they can pass on this virus to the next person.
Can it not be argued that by now, everybody who wants to have gotten vaccinated, could have been, and the rest must accept the risks of not being vaccinated?
 

notayoba

Expert Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2010
Messages
1,153
Can it not be argued that by now, everybody who wants to have gotten vaccinated, could have been, and the rest must accept the risks of not being vaccinated?
That's my feeling. Stop government sponsored vaccines. If you haven't gotten it by now, you can pay for it yourself later.
 
Top