Eggsactly
It never will. Endemic. Forever.
Eggsactly
Sudden onset.
And I'm assuming you are not his doctor.
you said its what fuels all debates. all would include this one. yet you cant even provide an argument for the other side of the "debate"
doesnt sound like much of a debate
as for the bolded, why is that unreasonable? hence the second part of my question, what's the burden on somebody to get the vaccine, even if they've already been infected? why is it unreasonable to ask that everybody take reasonable steps to get the most protection (for themselves, and by extension, the public)? and if you dont think vaccination is a reasonable step, explain why not
AMAZING, the first 56 year old man to have zero joint issues, until that darn vaccine!
Do you think maybe there should be certain exemptions? Like health care workers who went into the belly of the beast every day while everyone was ordering amazon groceries and hiding under their beds? I mean the odds of these people having not already being infected by the virus are very low.
I still say talk to your doctor. Whether you have hang ups or not, talk to your doctor - not Joe Biden, Don Lemon or anyone else unqualified to advise you on medicine and your body.
I think mostly everybody here has been vaxxed. We all think we did the right thing, but hey, maybe we are wrong and we all grow a tail next year and the unvaxxed turn out to be the smart ones.![]()
Could be coincidental. But if you got the vax and starting having acute, lingering issues the very next day then I think you would likely have your su ions as well.
no. health care workers should be held to the highest standard of being as protected as possible (short of intentionally getting themselves infected)
sure. but anti-vaxxers dont. they treat facebook as their doctor.I still say talk to your doctor. Whether you have hang ups or not, talk to your doctor - not Joe Biden, Don Lemon or anyone else unqualified to advise you on medicine and your body.
no. our vaccination rate sucksI think mostly everybody here has been vaxxed. We all think we did the right thing, but hey, maybe we are wrong and we all grow a tail next year and the unvaxxed turn out to be the smart ones.![]()
If they already had covid, they are protected. More so than vaccinated people.
we've been over this. like, today. why do you have to keep pretending that this is a contested point?
they can get even more protection by getting the jabs
darrin is just recycling discussions from 3 weeks ago
"Individuals who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection are unlikely to benefit from COVID-19 vaccination, and vaccines can be safely prioritized to those who have not been infected before."
-Cleveland Clinic
OH COULD IT?????!?!?! COULD IT BE???!!!!
Yup
Follow da science
When did that study end?
So your claim is CC should not have gotten vaccinated.
True?
What's your goal? If you just want this nebulous "as protected as you can be" then that's not your business. If it's to "avoid carrying it to others" then you're more likely to do that since your protection is lower than theirs. You're asking a faster runner to get even faster even though he's the fastest person in the race. So would it be unreasonable to ask you to stay home and not visit anyone? If not, why not? Don't you want the most protection for others? Sure you can be careful, but you could be even more careful by not going out around people.
Well, let's put it in numbers. US population: 330 million, 1% of that: 3.3 million. That's a lot of people.
Especially since the vaccine brings down that number considerably, at much, much less than 1% risk to you.
If you're following the science, then you're vaccinated. I am too.
It doesn't matter if it's not been peer reviewed for sake of discussion.
There's a difference between "prioritized" and "bypassed". The CC isn't saying vaccines can be ignored, they are saying give the most vulnerable the vaccine first. This is why I think people who have 92% efficacy protection should not be pressured to go to 95% as if there's no risk involved, by people who are 87% protected. I think the main thrust on this vaccine push is to have a record of everyone being vaccinated, without concern for natural immunity because of the logistics of tracking the latter. I don't think it has anything to do with actually protecting that individual per se, nor the public, but in putting forth a control scheme that they can say they have actually controlled instead of just hoped about.
Personally I would get vaccinated even if I had the virus however I don't see the danger.
Would people be OK with natural immunity folks having never gotten COVID but gotten vaccinated, and having a lower protection? Seems so.
it's everybody's business
if there is a way to collectively make us more protected in a way that doesnt require people to risk their health by intentionally getting infected, we should do thatIf it's to "avoid carrying it to others" then you're more likely to do that since your protection is lower than theirs.
its not a zero sum game. the more collective protection we have, the better. if there are people not doing all they can (within reason), then them, honestlyYou're asking a faster runner to get even faster even though he's the fastest person in the race. So would it be unreasonable to ask you to stay home and not visit anyone? If not, why not? Don't you want the most protection for others? Sure you can be careful, but you could be even more careful by not going out around people.
Exactly, which makes Darrin's point moot as well. Doctors are not recommending against vaccinating previously infected individuals. The reality is that outside the US vaccines are still hard to come by, and should be prioritized to those that have no protection at all.
great so you agree with my position in all this
And peer review is an integral part of giving research any credibility, tbh... anybody can publish, not everybody can get past the peer review...
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)