CR: COVID-19 --Political Talk

[shakahorn 1645]

48 minutes ago, PassiveAggressiveCoach said:

Horse paste. LOL you're like a MSNBC talking head. That is one of the most commonly prescribed drugs in the world and led to a Nobel Peace prize. Does it work for COVID? Who knows? Maybe not. You are clearly showing the media you consume. 

It's referred to as horse paste because that's what the rubes are making a run on at their veterinary supply shops.

[Sawbonz 27542]

1 hour ago, PassiveAggressiveCoach said:

You're talking all around it. Are people with previous covid infections not getting vaccinated the issue with the pandemic? 

There is no one issue with the pandemic. 700k and (and counting) people with previous covid infections are dead. Before dying they spread the virus to others to a much greater degree than have the vaccinated. That is a major issue. Of those who recovered, many of them taxed the healthcare delivery system to (and in some places past) the breaking point. That is a major issue. But if you want to focus on the narrow point of whether an unvaccinated person who recovered from a mild case of covid is more of a risk than a vaccinated person, there probably isn’t a clinically significant difference. The unvaccinated who are yet to be infected are a huge issue, in fact the biggest reason we can’t get control of the spread

[wildcat09 29347]

As an aside, I love people touting the fact that two researchers who discovered it won a Nobel prize, like that's somehow relevant to whether it's an effective treatment for covid. Just the absolute dumbest arguments from some of our absolute dumbest people, who because they're so dumb think they're brilliant.

[Captainant 27639]

Just now, wildcat09 said:

As an aside, I love people touting the fact that two researchers who discovered it won a Nobel prize, like that's somehow relevant to whether it's an effective treatment for covid. Just the absolute dumbest arguments from some of our absolute dumbest people, who because they're so dumb think they're brilliant.

Ivermectin won a Nobel prize because it cured the common ailment of blindness from drinking parasite-infested river water. It's an anti-parasitic drug that is a miracle and has improved the quality of life for many untold millions of people. 

Doesn't mean it'll cure COVID lol. 

[wildcat09 29347]

1 minute ago, Captainant said:

Ivermectin won a Nobel prize because it cured the common ailment of blindness from drinking parasite-infested river water. It's an anti-parasitic drug that is a miracle and has improved the quality of life for many untold millions of people. 

Doesn't mean it'll cure COVID lol. 

Right. It's useful for something completely different, so of course it will be useful for curing covid! In other news, gunpowder is useful for ammunition, so I bet it makes great lube too. Coach should try that out and report back.

[bad_teammate 13192]

1 hour ago, PassiveAggressiveCoach said:

Liberals for choice for their bodies until they're not. 

I notice you skipped the post that had logical points for you to argue with and instead chose to focus on a bullshit distraction.

It's almost like your entire purpose is to troll. STRANGE!

1 hour ago, PassiveAggressiveCoach said:

When you threaten someone's livelihood that's forcing the vaccine. People have to have jobs for their families. Don't be obtuse. 

A labor-protection argument? I like it! If only you weren't a disingenuous troll, we could probably have an interesting discussion.

A company as a duty to protect its employees and customers from transmissible disease. Because of this, they require vaccination records of employees. It is the choice of business owners and managers to do this, and the tension between worker rights and business needs is ever-present. Do you actually, sincerely believe that businesses should not be able to demand vaccination records as a factor in employment decisions? Try to have a sincere belief and express it without concern from posturing and trolling.

Try to take intellectual steps beyond the ripostes you have copied from elsewhere on the Internet.

[PassiveAggressiveCoach 118]

23 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

As an aside, I love people touting the fact that two researchers who discovered it won a Nobel prize, like that's somehow relevant to whether it's an effective treatment for covid. Just the absolute dumbest arguments from some of our absolute dumbest people, who because they're so dumb think they're brilliant.

Boy you missed the point. Calling a human medication that has been life changing a "horse dewoermer or paste" is intellectual dishonesty but I understand why it's done in CR. Probably doesn't work or has a minor effect but to call it a horse dewormer is ridiculous. It's meant to discredit the people taking it as being insane and most just consume left media actually think people like Rogan were sucking on a tube of horse paste not knowing it was Rx'd by a doc in the human dosed form taken safely by millions for a long time. 

Are people taking certain antibiotics taking dog meds? It's so stupid. 

Edited October 19, 2021 by PassiveAggressiveCoach

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19100]

1 minute ago, PassiveAggressiveCoach said:

Boy you missed the point. Calling a human medication that has been life changing a "horse dewoermer or paste" is intellectual dishonest but I understand why it's done in CR. Probably doesn't work or has a minor effect but to call it a horse dewormer is ridiculous. It's meant to discredit the people taking it as being insane and most just consume left media actually think people like Rogan were sucking on a tube of horse paste not knowing it was Rx'd by a doc in the human dosed form. 

No, jackass. You have completely missed the point.  It has fucking COMPLETELY sailed over your small, pea-brained head.  Get fucked, you moronic cunt.

[wildcat09 29347]

1 minute ago, PassiveAggressiveCoach said:

Boy you missed the point. Calling a human medication that has been life changing a "horse dewoermer or paste" is intellectual dishonest but I understand why it's done in CR. Probably doesn't work or has a minor effect but to call it a horse dewormer is ridiculous. It's meant to discredit the people taking it as being insane and most just consume left media actually think people like Rogan were sucking on a tube of horse paste not knowing it was Rx'd by a doc in the human dosed form. 

Seems like someone hit a nerve with the horse paste talk. Poor PassiveAggressiveCoach, you're just too high strung.

[Captainant 27639]

2 minutes ago, PassiveAggressiveCoach said:

Boy you missed the point. Calling a human medication that has been life changing a "horse dewoermer or paste" is intellectual dishonest but I understand why it's done in CR. Probably doesn't work or has a minor effect but to call it a horse dewormer is ridiculous. It's meant to discredit the people taking it as being insane and most just consume left media actually think people like Rogan were sucking on a tube of horse paste not knowing it was Rx'd by a doc in the human dosed form taken safely by millions for a long time. 

awww poor widdle victim boi - all these mean old fact checking CENSORSHIP(!!!!) peeple make your fee fees fall down go boom?

[aggie08 21492]

1 minute ago, PassiveAggressiveCoach said:

Boy you missed the point. Calling a human medication that has been life changing a "horse dewoermer or paste" is intellectual dishonest but I understand why it's done in CR. Probably doesn't work or has a minor effect but to call it a horse dewormer is ridiculous. It's meant to discredit the people taking it as being insane and most just consume left media actually think people like Rogan were sucking on a tube of horse paste not knowing it was Rx'd by a doc in the human dosed form. 

Yes, we all created the horse paste association. We're so dastardly. It wasn't the empty livestock supply shelves with signs begging their customers to stop consuming their products meant for horses. Or the FDA telling people to knock that shit off. Nope, we created it.

[PassiveAggressiveCoach 118]

9 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

No, jackass. You have completely missed the point.  It has fucking COMPLETELY sailed over your small, pea-brained head.  Get fucked, you moronic cunt.

Name calling. Very high level debate here. Although slightly higher level than the few wishing death upon me. So much anger and triggering. 

Edited October 19, 2021 by PassiveAggressiveCoach

[bad_teammate 13192]

7 minutes ago, PassiveAggressiveCoach said:

Name calling. Very high level debate here. Although slightly higher level than the few wishing death upon me. So much anger and triggering. 

You don't really have credibility to complain about people trolling you when your entire schtick is trolling.

Do you actually believe that businesses should be disallowed by the government from making vaccination records a factor in employment decisions? Yes/No

[Captainant 27639]

very good timing - Channel 5 with Andrew Callaghan (formerly All Gas No Brakes) just put out a video on his trip to an antivax rally. Let's count all of PAC's talking points that make an appearance!
 

 

[jimmyjazz 45893]

3 hours ago, PassiveAggressiveCoach said:

Why should I be forced to take it? 

Who's forcing you to take the vaccine?  Are you military?  Even the military can't truly "force" you to take it, although I'd like to see the fuck around and find out consequences of a soldier refusing the vaccine.  I'd assume some sort of less than honorable discharge would be involved.

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19100]

8 minutes ago, PassiveAggressiveCoach said:

Name calling. Very high level debate here. Although slightly higher level than the few wishing death upon me. So much anger and triggering. 

You are disingenuous.  We have repeatedly showed you that you are wrong.  We have brought study after study.  I brought one from Denmark that looked at 12k people. You refuse to listen to any reason, which means, that you do not care for actual debate.  You deserve no respect, and honestly, should have your ass thrown off this board for peddling misinformation.  

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19100]

2 minutes ago, Captainant said:

very good timing - Channel 5 with Andrew Callaghan (formerly All Gas No Brakes) just put out a video on his trip to an antivax rally. Let's count all of PAC's talking points that make an appearance!
 

 

That woman cannot even apply lipstick.  What a dumb cunt.

[jimmyjazz 45893]

34 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

As an aside, I love people touting the fact that two researchers who discovered it won a Nobel prize, like that's somehow relevant to whether it's an effective treatment for covid. Just the absolute dumbest arguments from some of our absolute dumbest people, who because they're so dumb think they're brilliant.

Oh, let's not ignore the fact that Coach claims they won a Nobel PEACE Prize.  I've seen this stated many times by anti-vaxxers -- they aren't even smart enough to consider the meaning of the words they are RE:RE:RE:REpeating.

[Leeroy Jenkins 2402]

Exactly. You should get it if you hadn't had covid. Hell, if you want get it if you had covid. It will add a little protection but the study showed natural immunity was much stronger than vaccine immunity. That's the point. 

The real point is that you are fucking wrong. Read what had been posted from the studies. Your. Shit. Is. Wrong. Mother. Fucker.

[wildcat09 29347]

14 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

You don't really have credibility to complain about people trolling you when your entire schtick is trolling.

Do you actually believe that businesses should be disallowed by the government from making vaccination records a factor in employment decisions? Yes/No

It depends on if coach is the employer or employee in this scenario. That's it. He just thinks he's special and that his feelings should be the law.

[bad_teammate 13192]

Outside the context of a society or job, if I've got great antibody numbers from natural immunity it doesn't make sense to get a vaccine. If I'm on a ranch with my family and my cattle, why would I get a vaccine?

As soon as I want to enter society, however, it's no longer just about me. My behaviors necessarily change to confrom to social necessity.

It's very simple.

[wildcat09 29347]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

Outside the context of a society or job, if I've got great antibody numbers from natural immunity it doesn't make sense to get a vaccine. If I'm on a ranch with my family and my cattle, why would I get a vaccine?

As soon as I want to enter society, however, it's no longer just about me. My behaviors necessarily change to confrom to social necessity.

It's very simple.

That's communiss talk.

[bad_teammate 13192]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

It depends on if coach is the employer or employee in this scenario. That's it. He just thinks he's special and that his feelings should be the law.

very snowflakey IMO

[Anastasis 23463]

33 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

But if you want to focus on the narrow point of whether an unvaccinated person who recovered from a mild case of covid is more of a risk than a vaccinated person, there probably isn’t a clinically significant difference. The unvaccinated who are yet to be infected are a huge issue, in fact the biggest reason we can’t get control of the spread

My take away as well, based on the Israeli data as well as the Cleveland Clinic data. I think it's relevant to the discussion of mandates in the context of the mechanisms that Biden has proposed, i.e. OSHA. Seems like to the extent that a compelling argument re: grave danger can be made, it would largely be targeted at non-vaccinated, previously uninfected. 

[jimmyjazz 45893]

What if you're on a ranch with your family and your horses?

[jimmyjazz 45893]

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

My take away as well, based on the Israeli data as well as the Cleveland Clinic data. I think it's relevant to the discussion of mandates in the context of the mechanisms that Biden has proposed, i.e. OSHA. Seems like to the extent that a compelling argument re: grave danger can be made, it would largely be targeted at non-vaccinated, previously uninfected. 

Unless something has changed, aren't the current guidelines "get vaxxed or get regularly tested"?  Seems like the previously infected would be happy to prove their antibody status in order to keep their jobs.

And, as was pointed out above, an employer has a greater duty to protect his entire employee base than to acquiesce to the whims of a few rogue anti-vaxxers.  Don't want the shot?  Prove your immunity to a reasonable standard.

[workswithseed 2094]

4 hours ago, aggie08 said:

What's your current antibody level?

Antibodies naturally go down. All that matters is your T cells remembering the infection.

[wildcat09 29347]

1 minute ago, workswithseed said:

Antibodies naturally go down. All that matters is your T cells remembering the infection.

This here is a good science knower and we should listen to him.

[kevwun 15766]

Wrong thread.

Edited October 19, 2021 by kevwun

[workswithseed 2094]

Just now, wildcat09 said:

This here is a good science knower and we should listen to him.

Hey, look! An idiot. Don't believe me? You should go do your own research.

[Anastasis 23463]

3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Unless something has changed, aren't the current guidelines "get vaxxed or get regularly tested"?  Seems like the previously infected would be happy to prove their antibody status in order to keep their jobs.

And, as was pointed out above, an employer has a greater duty to protect his entire employee base than to acquiesce to the whims of a few rogue anti-vaxxers.  Don't want the shot?  Prove your immunity to a reasonable standard.

I think that asking previously infected to prove up that they have seroconverted is reasonable.  There are a lot of people that will swear that they previously had COVID but never had a test confirmation.  Likewise, there are a lot of people that have seroconverted that were asymptomatic.  

[PassiveAggressiveCoach 118]

 

11 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

My take away as well, based on the Israeli data as well as the Cleveland Clinic data. I think it's relevant to the discussion of mandates in the context of the mechanisms that Biden has proposed, i.e. OSHA. Seems like to the extent that a compelling argument re: grave danger can be made, it would largely be targeted at non-vaccinated, previously uninfected. 

Uh oh, that's what I've been saying. Guard your cornhole. 

[PassiveAggressiveCoach 118]

8 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

Antibodies naturally go down. All that matters is your T cells remembering the infection.

That's also correct. Also, previous SARS infections have shown natural immunity conferred out several yrs likely due to this exact reason. It doesn't matter though to many here.

Edited October 19, 2021 by PassiveAggressiveCoach

[Captainant 27639]

3 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I think that asking previously infected to prove up that they have seroconverted is reasonable.  There are a lot of people that will swear that they previously had COVID but never had a test confirmation.  Likewise, there are a lot of people that have seroconverted that were asymptomatic.  

I think this is the root of the prior infection vs vaccination discussion - while prior infection IF you seroconverted is good protection against COVID, there's no way to know without testing each and every person IF they actually are protected. Much easier (and cheaper!) to just mandate vaccination, which is virtually risk-free - especially relative to contracting COVID.

[aggie08 21492]

4 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I think that asking previously infected to prove up that they have seroconverted is reasonable.  There are a lot of people that will swear that they previously had COVID but never had a test confirmation.  Likewise, there are a lot of people that have seroconverted that were asymptomatic.  

Exactly. I wouldn't have issue with people getting vaccine exemptions if they can prove their current status. Taking people's word for it is shitty public health policy.

[PassiveAggressiveCoach 118]

Just now, Captainant said:

I think this is the root of the prior infection vs vaccination discussion - while prior infection IF you seroconverted is good protection against COVID, there's no way to know without testing each and every person IF they actually are protected. Much easier (and cheaper!) to just mandate vaccination, which is virtually risk-free - especially relative to contracting COVID.

Is it cheaper? We haven't even seen the worst of supply chain issues if truckers and railroad workers start getting fired, strike or sick out when the mandate is forced upon them. 

[PassiveAggressiveCoach 118]

1 minute ago, aggie08 said:

Exactly. I wouldn't have issue with people getting vaccine exemptions if they can prove their current status. Taking people's word for it is shitty public health policy.

I'd be on board with that but that's commonsense and according to many here actually doesn't follow the science.

[DDD Dad 14327]

1 hour ago, Captainant said:

Yes, please post the SAME FUCKING ISRAELI study again. Eat my ass, you antivaxxer. I don't know why the mods tolerate their platform being used to spread disinformation to let grifters grift. 

Have you even read the abstract and analysis from that study? They had a total of NINE data points to study. I know numbers aren't your strength, but nine does happen to be less than 72. 

From your article that you keep posting:

“The differences are huge,” says Thålin, although she cautions that the numbers for infections and other events analyzed for the comparisons were “small.” For instance, the higher hospitalization rate in the 32,000-person analysis was based on just eight hospitalizations in a vaccinated group and one in a previously infected group. And the 13-fold increased risk of infection in the same analysis was based on just 238 infections in the vaccinated population, less than 1.5% of the more than 16,000 people, versus 19 reinfections among a similar number of people who once had SARS-CoV-2.

...

In another analysis, the researchers compared more than 14,000 people who had a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and were still unvaccinated with an equivalent number of previously infected people who received one dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. The team found that the unvaccinated group was twice as likely to be reinfected as the singly vaccinated.

[Captainant 27639]

Just now, PassiveAggressiveCoach said:

Is it cheaper? We haven't even seen the worst of supply chain issues if truckers and railroad workers start getting fired, strike or sick out when the mandate is forced upon them. 

well, all the more reason to automate their jobs out of existence I suppose.

And once again, they should really consider the 7-2 precedent of Jacobson v Massachusetts. Tough titties - their right to be a dumbass is not superior to the rights of everyone else to public safety.

That >100yr old case is funny too because it even directly speaks to today's antivaxxers who are scared of getting their shots:

Quote

14

Did the offers of proof made by the defendant present a case which entitled him, while remaining in Cambridge, to claim exemption from the operation of the statute and of the regulation adopted by the board of health? We have already said that his rejected offers, in the main, only set forth the theory of those who had no faith in vaccination as a means of preventing the spread of smallpox, or who thought that vaccination, without benefiting the public, put in peril the health of the person vaccinated. But there were some offers which it is contended embodied distinct facts that might properly have been considered. Let us see how this is.

15

The defendant offered to prove that vaccination 'quite often' caused serious and permanent injury to the health of the person vaccinated; that the operation 'occasionally' resulted in death; that it was 'impossible' to tell 'in any particular case' what the results of vaccination would be, or whether it would injure the health or result in death; that 'quite often' one's blood is in a certain condition of impurity when it is not prudent or safe to vaccinate him; that there is no practical test by which to determine 'with any degree of certainty' whether one's blood is in such condition of impurity as to render vaccination necessarily unsafe or dangerous; that vaccine matter is 'quite often' impure and dangerous to be used, but whether impure or not cannot be ascertained by any known practical test; that the defendant refused to submit to vaccination for the reason that he had, 'when a child,' been caused great and extreme suffering for a long period by a disease produced by vaccination; and that he had witnessed a similar result of vaccination, not only in the case of his son, but in the cases of others.

16

These offers, in effect, invited the court and jury to go over the whole ground gone over by the legislature when it enacted the statute in question. The legislature assumed that some children, by reason of their condition at the time, might not be fit subjects of vaccination; and it is suggested—and we will not say without reason—that such is the case with some adults. But the defendant did not offer to prove that, by reason of his then condition, he was in fact not a fit subject of vaccination at the time he was informed of the requirement of the regulation adopted by the board of health. It is entirely consistent with his offer of proof that, after reaching full age, he had become, so far as medical skill could discover, and when informed of the regulation of the board of health was, a fit subject of vaccination, and that the vaccine matter to be used in his case was such as any medical practitioner of good standing would regard as proper to be used. The matured opinions of medical men everywhere, and the experience of mankind, as all must know, negative the suggestion that it is not possible in any case to determine whether vaccination is safe. Was defendant exempted from the operation of the statute simply because of his dread of the same evil results experienced by him when a child, and which he had observed in the cases of his son and other children? Could he reasonably claim such an exemption because 'quite often,' or 'occasionally,' injury had resulted from vaccination, or because it was impossible, in the opinion of some, by any practical test, to determine with absolute certainty whether a particular person could be safely vaccinated?

17

It seems to the court that an affirmative answer to these questions would practically strip the legislative department of its function to care for the public health and the public safety when endangered by epidemics of disease. Such an answer would mean that compulsory vaccination could not, in any conceivable case, be legally enforced in a community, even at the command of the legislature, however widespread the epidemic of smallpox, and however deep and universal was the belief of the community and of its medical advisers that a system of general vaccination was vital to the safety of all.

18

We are not prepared to hold that a minority, residing or remaining in any city or town where smallpox is prevalent, and enjoying the general protection afforded by an organized local government, may thus defy the will of its constituted authorities, acting in good faith for all, under the legislative sanction of the state. If such be the privilege of a minority, then a like privilege would belong to each individual of the community, and the spectacle would be presented of the welfare and safety of an entire population being subordinated to the notions of a single individual who chooses to remain a part of that population. We are unwilling to hold it to be an element in the liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States that one person, or a minority of persons, residing in any community and enjoying the benefits of its local government, should have the power thus to dominate the majority when supported in their action by the authority of the state. While this court should guard with firmness every right appertaining to life, liberty, or property as secured to the individual by the supreme law of the land, it is of the last importance that it should not invade the domain of local authority except when it is plainly necessary to do so in order to enforce that law. The safety and the health of the people of Massachusetts are, in the first instance, for that commonwealth to guard and protect. They are matters that do not ordinarily concern the national government. So far as they can be reached by any government, they depend, primarily, upon such action as the state, in its wisdom, may take; and we do not perceive that this legislation has invaded any right secured by the Federal Constitution.

Paragraph 18 in particular is the meat of the matter - that the minority has no privilege or right to subordinate the health and safety of an entire population.

[jimmyjazz 45893]

9 minutes ago, PassiveAggressiveCoach said:

That's also correct. Also, previous SARS infections have shown natural immunity conferred out several yrs likely due to this exact reason. It doesn't matter though to many here.

I'm sorry, what?  You know of studies that show acquired immunity of prior SARS viruses is more long-lasting . . . "years" . . . than vaccine immunity?  Do tell.  Then show how that is a slam-dunk fact regarding Covid-19.

[jimmyjazz 45893]

14 minutes ago, PassiveAggressiveCoach said:

 

Uh oh, that's what I've been saying. Guard your cornhole. 

That's not what you've been saying at all.  You have been using a single study with an incredibly small # of relevant patients to conclude some vastly superior immunity for those who have had Covid relative to those who haven't but who have been vaccinated.  You still haven't acknowledged the fact that in Israel the % vaccinated is extremely high, so a large % of Covid patients are . . . wait for it . . . vaccinated.

[PassiveAggressiveCoach 118]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'm sorry, what?  You know of studies that show acquired immunity of prior SARS viruses is more long-lasting . . . "years" . . . than vaccine immunity?  Do tell.  Then show how that is a slam-dunk fact regarding Covid-19.

It's not a slam dunk fact. It just adds to the case. Previous similar SARS infection and the longevity of natural immunity. 

[C-Man 27196]

I'm all for morons like you not getting it.  The more of you who die, the better off we are.
Die motherfuckers, die.

I support this — as long as@PassiveAggressiveCoach agrees not to burden the hospital system when he gets COVID and just stays home to convalesce at home. Let’s get some papers drawn up, notarize that shit. You can have all the Ivermectin, hydrocychloroquine and Vitamin D that you want! But stay the fuck home. (Have somebody let us know if you require a hearse.)

[Anastasis 23463]

13 minutes ago, Captainant said:

I think this is the root of the prior infection vs vaccination discussion - while prior infection IF you seroconverted is good protection against COVID, there's no way to know without testing each and every person IF they actually are protected. Much easier (and cheaper!) to just mandate vaccination, which is virtually risk-free - especially relative to contracting COVID.

For a self-insured employer, the cost of reimbursing for the two shot series is greater than the cost of an antibody test. 

[workswithseed 2094]

5 minutes ago, Captainant said:

well, all the more reason to automate their jobs out of existence I suppose.

And once again, they should really consider the 7-2 precedent of Jacobson v Massachusetts. Tough titties - their right to be a dumbass is not superior to the rights of everyone else to public safety.

That >100yr old case is funny too because it even directly speaks to today's antivaxxers who are scared of getting their shots:

Paragraph 18 in particular is the meat of the matter - that the minority has no privilege or right to subordinate the health and safety of an entire population.

I hear that that lovely decision was also used to set up good precrdent too... What were those laws again? 

Edited October 19, 2021 by workswithseed
Damn double damm

[jimmyjazz 45893]

Just now, PassiveAggressiveCoach said:

It's not a slam dunk fact. It just adds to the case. Previous similar SARS infection and the longevity of natural immunity. 

No, I want you to show that with previous SARS viruses, acquired immunity lasts longer than vaccine immunity.  I don't care if it's "years".  I care if it's "years" for acquired immunity but only "months" (for instance) for vaccine immunity.  Come on, bring it.  Otherwise, it's a red herring.

[aggie08 21492]

8 minutes ago, PassiveAggressiveCoach said:

I'd be on board with that but that's commonsense and according to many here actually doesn't follow the science.

That makes one of you. The rest of your dumbfuck brethren would fight tooth and nail to not get tested because, if their results aren't what they're hoping, there goes their dumbass excuse/talking point.

[jimmyjazz 45893]

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

For a self-insured employer, the cost of reimbursing for the two shot series is greater than the cost of an antibody test. 

. . . but that's probably not true for weekly antibody tests, compared to a (say) an 8-month vaccine cycle.

[Anastasis 23463]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

That's not what you've been saying at all.  You have been using a single study with an incredibly small # of relevant patients to conclude some vastly superior immunity for those who have had Covid relative to those who haven't but who have been vaccinated.  You still haven't acknowledged the fact that in Israel the % vaccinated is extremely high, so a large % of Covid patients are . . . wait for it . . . vaccinated.

The analysis carried out with the Israeli data accounts for that issue.  Bigger problem with that analysis imo is the observational nature of the data, differences in testing patterns among vaxxed vs unvaxxed, and potential confounding of the results by other factors. 

[Anastasis 23463]

2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

. . . but that's probably not true for weekly antibody tests, compared to a (say) an 8-month vaccine cycle.

Not sure why they would need weekly antibody tests.  Seems like a single test demonstrating past infection and immune response should suffice.