Naturally acquired immunity? I really do not understand that. The immunity you naturally acquire from a virulent infection is no different in the means you acquire the immunity from a non virulent acquired vaccination. The means and the ends are the same, an immune response to an introduced "pathogen". It is no more natural, imo, to be infected by a virulent virus than it is to be vaccinated. The big difference is that one causes alot of death and the other............no so much.Peter Brown wrote: ↑Sun Nov 07, 2021 11:22 amwgdsr wrote: ↑Sun Nov 07, 2021 10:37 amall the good stuff. 3rd time? 4th? exactly what i said. because in my mind, the author is lazy or duplicitous.. me... i... am out on the takes as a result. where you go tossing all the other crap around is on you.Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Sun Nov 07, 2021 10:26 amWhat was the point in the post about stopping reading. That I was wasting everyone’s time putting it up there because you choose to not try to take value from it based on your approach? (”I don’t intend…). That everyone should adopt your approach and avoid opening the link? I don’t really care but would think that this post reply I’m referencing is either somebody wanting to be heard for no reason of value or they intend to confer some other meaning.wgdsr wrote: ↑Sun Nov 07, 2021 10:11 amwhoa, didn't see this one. at least this one isn't passive aggressive, so there's that.Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Sat Nov 06, 2021 8:14 pmIt was a silly response. Childish even. I can acknowledge the weaknesses sin the ringer but when we’re talking about social relevance they can add value.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 06, 2021 7:08 pmI must be missing something. What was so egregiously unreasonable or wrong about the study that makes it inappropriate to cite as a refutation of Rodgers' insistence on “This idea that it’s the pandemic of the unvaccinated, it’s just a total lie,” ?wgdsr wrote: ↑Sat Nov 06, 2021 6:57 pmya, i never said i was trying to learn something technical in the piece. but if someone is attempting to write a persuasive argument for x, y or z, and decides to lazily or (probably) purposefully put out... let's be charitable and call it dated material in defense of said arguments... i'm not obligated to attempt to "listen to what they have to say" any longer. they've got plenty of good data they can use. i don't misunderstand anything, thanks. i choose to not listen to that messenger.Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Sat Nov 06, 2021 6:38 pmThe point wasn’t to learn anything technical simply to illustrate that a website that is closer to people under 40 sees the guys lying and duplicitous nature and soft weakness for what it is. To dismiss it because they used some old study completely misunderstands the value of the piece. This thread is titled “all things coronavirus” not “technical scientific inquiry of the disease”wgdsr wrote: ↑Sat Nov 06, 2021 6:33 pmif any of this relates to me, you'll have to reword so i understand what you're saying.Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Sat Nov 06, 2021 6:26 pmThe ringer is a bunch of 20 somethings under Bill Simmons but they have their finger on the pulse of pop culture a lot better than anyone on these boards and I think are correct. The guy is lying like crazy, being deceitful and apparently as big a jerkoff and tool as Brett Farve and just about every other athlete we think we know. That’s the real point. Nobody reads the technical information I put up on numerous topics and no one wants to listen to what anyone else has to say. They’ve all got it figured out even when they claim they’re trying to learn or understand. So it goes.wgdsr wrote: ↑Sat Nov 06, 2021 4:41 pmi stopped reading after they quoted a study from end date july 17 on vaccine effectiveness. on november 5.Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Sat Nov 06, 2021 4:32 pmhttps://www.theringer.com/nfl/2021/11/5 ... cafee-showwgdsr wrote: ↑Sat Nov 06, 2021 4:06 pmit's pervasive. what's next, state farm?Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Sat Nov 06, 2021 3:44 pm https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/325 ... artnership
Cancel culture!!
Did you simply want a study with a later date attached?
If you say, 'hey, it's just that it's not the very best study to challenge Rodgers' assertions', well ok. Probably so.
Seems to me that we know that the vaccine reduces both spread and that it dramatically reduces harmful outcomes among those infected. If more people were vaccinated, sooner, fewer would have died.
Doesn't mean there's zero transmission or harmful impact upon the vaccinated, but it's much greater likelihood among the unvaccinated.
So, what the big deal with not finding the even better, more recent proof that Rodgers' decision...yes, back in July, not to get vaccinated was all wet?
Nothing else they say is relevant??
The dismissiveness is absurd unless somebody thinks they’ve gotten it all figured out. If I wasn’t going to finish a piece I wouldn’t bother responding to the post either. That’s kind of a dbag approach.
Let’s defend a guy who tried to invoke MLK as a defense for being duplicitous and wanting it both ways and special treatment in life. What a joke.
i'll spell it out again... if i think an author/commenter (not a main storyline participant) is not trustworthy, i don't intend to try to discern which parts might be truthful, which need corroboration, which i can take at face value. there are probably 100s of thousands of takes on this subject already from twitter to publications that i can wade thru. don't need this guy or gal's. something happened around july to change the game a bit, did it not?
at no time did i defend mr. rodgers' take on the situation. where you get that, i have no idea.
You’d don’t spell it out in your first reply, quoting the link. And as you’ve state before you are sometimes (often?) intentionally unclear.
what was the point of posting the link, that we should all agree with everything in it? this is fun.
methinks you're a little hypersensitive here.
Hit them with facts WGDSR. You have them, they don’t.
https://www.newsweek.com/how-fauci-fool ... on-1643839
“Natural immunity. By pushing vaccine mandates, Dr. Fauci ignores naturally acquired immunity among the COVID-recovered, of which there are more than 45 million in the United States. Mounting evidence indicates that natural immunity is stronger and longer lasting than vaccine-induced immunity. [Eds.: Long-term trends are still unclear. A recent study reached the opposite conclusion, but was criticized by an author of this op-ed.] In a study from Israel, the vaccinated were 27 times more likely to get symptomatic COVID than the unvaccinated who had recovered from a prior infection.”
Rodgers is more protected now than anyone on this board who has had two or wants eighteen jabs.
That explains the hypersensitivity, btw.
Want unnaturally acquired immunity? Sign up for the mono-clonal antibody treatments. Introducing immunity with out any host immune response. That is unnaturally acquired immunity, imo.
He is an alternative view: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7044e1.htm
Does this study have some issues? Certainly but so does the Israeli study. What it truly suggests is that at this point, we really do not know about reinfection. What we do know is that vaccinations seems to be pretty darn good at 1)keeping people out of the hospital 2)keeping people out of the morgue.