Valid Reasons To Not Get Vaccinated

MunoRN, RN · Aug 20, 2021

9 hours ago, jive turkey said:

I presume you're newer to the discussion and may not have seen other posts where I clarified. So long as you keep it clean I can do it again.

My point isn't about negating the need rather, acknowledging there's conflicting data about the benefits of vaccination for previously infected. We have shared posts stating immunity is "2.34xs greater with vaccinating". There's studies showing less that 1% reinfection, CDC included. Another study where none of the participants were reinfected. There doesn't seem to be much data about how many reinfected people are being hospitalized and dying. All studies admit there's more to learn and all suggest vaccinating.

In consideration of conflicting and often inconclusive data, my personal opinion is if someone who had COVID, didn't get hospitalized, is not high risk, feels the risks of the vaccine outweigh the potential benefits, and has talked to their doctor and decide its not for them, that's a valid reason to decide not to have the drug.

People here seem to misinterpret my message and may receive it as me being against vaccination or on a crusade to advise people against it/encourage them not to. My position has more to do with being considered and compassionate towards those who are making an educated decision not to rather than taking a hard line stance for either decision. I have also spoken vehemently against bullying, shaming and pressuring people who have concerns or don't want to when their reasons aren't based on illegitimate information or conspiracy theories.

I didn't share any misinformation. all the links I provided are factual. Everything else is my opinion that I'm not claiming to be fact or medical advice

I've gone through the thread, and it's quite possible I missed it but I didn't see where you referenced the actual claim from the CDC that the rate of reinfection is currently less than 1 percent. Best I can tell, you're referring to a study done in Italy between February and July of 2020. This is of little to no relevance to the current risk since this looked at the risk of reinfection by the same variant within 6 months of infection. Being more than a year out from infection with a different variant circulating is a completely different situation.

The data we have now regarding whether people who were previously infected should get vaccinated is only inconsistent in that some data shows it's very important for the previously infected to get vaccinated and other days shows it's critically important. But there is no inconsistentcy on whether or not those previously infected with Covid should be vaccinated.

jive turkey · Aug 20, 2021

4 minutes ago, MunoRN said:

I've gone through the thread, and it's quite possible I missed it but I didn't see where you referenced the actual claim from the CDC that the rate of reinfection is currently less than 1 percent. Best I can tell, you're referring to a study done in Italy between February and July of 2020. This is of little to no relevance to the current risk since this looked at the risk of reinfection by the same variant within 6 months of infection. Being more than a year out from infection with a different variant circulating is a completely different situation.

The data we have now regarding whether people who were previously infected should get vaccinated is only inconsistent in that some data shows it's very important for the previously infected to get vaccinated and other days shows it's critically important. But there is no inconsistentcy on whether or not those previously infected with Covid should be vaccinated.

https://www.CDC.gov/library/covid19/06112021_covidupdate.html

What makes a study over the period of 1 year irrelevant from your POV? If it is because of the variants, I'm not seeing any data suggesting that previously infected are reinfected, hospitalized or dying in large numbers. The CDC study citing 2.34x increased chance for previously infected reifecting covered less than 300 people in Kentucky.

If the Italy study gets dismissed, why doesn't the Kentucky study get dismissed

I shared a link to the Cleveland clinic study about reinfection in the first post.

Here's another study:

https://medicine.missouri.edu/news/study-finds-covid-19-reinfection-rate-less-1-those-severe-illness

People mistakenly take my position to mean I'm against vaccination, giving false information, encouraging people not to vaccinate etc. Not at all. The information I shared should help people understand those with concerns aren't selfish antivaxxers. There's still more to learn.

toomuchbaloney · Aug 20, 2021

37 minutes ago, jive turkey said:

https://www.CDC.gov/library/covid19/06112021_covidupdate.html

What makes a study over the period of 1 year irrelevant from your POV? If it is because of the variants, I'm not seeing any data suggesting that previously infected are reinfected, hospitalized or dying in large numbers. The CDC study citing 2.34x increased chance for previously infected reifecting covered less than 300 people in Kentucky.

If the Italy study gets dismissed, why doesn't the Kentucky study get dismissed

I shared a link to the Cleveland clinic study about reinfection in the first post.

Here's another study:

https://medicine.missouri.edu/news/study-finds-covid-19-reinfection-rate-less-1-those-severe-illness

People mistakenly take my position to mean I'm against vaccination, giving false information, encouraging people not to vaccinate etc. Not at all. The information I shared should help people understand those with concerns aren't selfish antivaxxers. There's still more to learn.

You've provided no citation which concludes that is unnecessary to vaccinate after infection. Do you think that a .7% reinfection rate within 8 months of severe illness, with associated mortality, is a valid reason to go unvaccinated? That's the Missouri findings.

If you want us to discuss the CDC citation you might want to highlight which update you are referencing.

MunoRN, RN · Aug 20, 2021

17 minutes ago, jive turkey said:

https://www.CDC.gov/library/covid19/06112021_covidupdate.html

What makes a study over the period of 1 year irrelevant from your POV? If it is because of the variants, I'm not seeing any data suggesting that previously infected are reinfected, hospitalized or dying in large numbers. The CDC study citing 2.34x increased chance for previously infected reifecting covered less than 300 people in Kentucky.

If the Italy study gets dismissed, why doesn't the Kentucky study get dismissed

I shared a link to the Cleveland clinic study about reinfection in the first post.

Here's another study:

https://medicine.missouri.edu/news/study-finds-covid-19-reinfection-rate-less-1-those-severe-illness

People mistakenly take my position to mean I'm against vaccination, giving false information, encouraging people not to vaccinate etc. Not at all. The information I shared should help people understand those with concerns aren't selfish antivaxxers. There's still more to learn.

The study from Italy looked at haw likely it was for someone to be reinfected shortly after (within 6 months) of their initial infection and to the same variant they were infected with. It's unlikely this applies equally to people who may be a year or more out from an infection and where that infection involved a strain other than the one currently circulating.

I found your second source actually fairly shocking in terms of how ineffective it showed natural immunity to be.

It showed a 0.7 percent chance of infection during a time period when the overall chance of infection was 0.8 percent and a median time to reinfection of only 3.5 months. That's even less effective than the data comparing natural immunity vs vaccination which finds natural immunity is not a substitute for vaccination.

jive turkey · Aug 20, 2021

1 hour ago, MunoRN said:

The study from Italy looked at haw likely it was for someone to be reinfected shortly after (within 6 months) of their initial infection and to the same variant they were infected with. It's unlikely this applies equally to people who may be a year or more out from an infection and where that infection involved a strain other than the one currently circulating.

I found your second source actually fairly shocking in terms of how ineffective it showed natural immunity to be.

It showed a 0.7 percent chance of infection during a time period when the overall chance of infection was 0.8 percent and a median time to reinfection of only 3.5 months. That's even less effective than the data comparing natural immunity vs vaccination which finds natural immunity is not a substitute for vaccination.

You didn't answer my question fully. You discount the validity of the Italy study but don't question the Kentucky study. Both were in the CDCs website. Most people here use the Kentucky study to argue the 2.34x risk of reinfection for the unvaccinated. I see double standards here.

So what can you show me in terms of the reinfected being hospitalized and dying?

Dacatster, ADN · Aug 20, 2021

On 8/14/2021 at 7:39 PM, jive turkey said:

Whether you're in support of the COVID vaccine, against it, or on the fence please use this particular thread to cite credible, evidence based sources to share with everyone so we can engage an a discussion that revolves around LEARNING.

I'll start:

The primary concerns I've shared with others has to do with how effective the vaccine is for those who have already been infected. I've reviewed studies and reports in that regard. There are medical professionals I've listened to that, in my personal opinion, don't offer a definitive answer.

Here are some links to 2 different, I'll start with just 2:

Cleveland Clinic Statement on Previous COVID-19 Infection Research

Reduced Risk of Reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 After COVID-19 Vaccination — Kentucky, May–June 2021

Not trying to be a snot. But why not post the valid reasons instead of just supplying links?

klone, MSN, RN · Aug 20, 2021

On 8/17/2021 at 9:08 AM, HJH50 said:

What do you mean by "the vaccine does not kill you, but Covid does?" Per VAERS reporting, in one year COVID vaccines have killed 6,506 people. Of ALL vaccine deaths since 1990 (of which there are 17,132 from 190 vaccine types), COVID vaccines account for 37.97% of all vaccine-related deaths. Moreover, the percent of permanent disability events from COVID vaccines accounts for 28.9% of ALL permanent disabilities from vaccinations. So, forgive me if I am concerned about putting something in my body that has a higher percentage of death and permanent disability than all other vaccinations combined.

You do realize that VAERS has no vetting process, and ANYONE can report to it, right?

MunoRN, RN · Aug 20, 2021

8 hours ago, jive turkey said:

You didn't answer my question fully. You discount the validity of the Italy study but don't question the Kentucky study. Both were in the CDCs website. Most people here use the Kentucky study to argue the 2.34x risk of reinfection for the unvaccinated. I see double standards here.

So what can you show me in terms of the reinfected being hospitalized and dying?

I didn't discount the validity of the Italy study, I questioned it's relevance to current conditions.

Natural immunity, particularly where natural immunity is largely B-cell mediated, is typically most effective shortly after an infection and where the circulating virus matches the initial infection.

The concern currently is that many of those who had natural immunity are more than 6 months and in many cases more than a year out from an infection to a virus that doesn't match well to the circulating virus. The Italy study looked at risk of reinfection within a few months of the initial infection, and not in the setting of a variant.

As for studies showing current risk of death we're only now approaching the phase of the current Delta wave where deaths will occur. Hospitalizations tend to lag behind new cases by 1 to 2 weeks and deaths lag behind hospitalizations by 2 weeks or more.

subee, MSN, CRNA · Aug 20, 2021

9 hours ago, jive turkey said:

You didn't answer my question fully. You discount the validity of the Italy study but don't question the Kentucky study. Both were in the CDCs website. Most people here use the Kentucky study to argue the 2.34x risk of reinfection for the unvaccinated. I see double standards here.

So what can you show me in terms of the reinfected being hospitalized and dying?

Well, since we aren't reading about re-infected people dying, I'm assuming that this means that they aren't. Just proves the worth of vaccination. But I am not getting what you are trying to prove. People who aren't hospitalized can still spread the virus after re-infections. Isn't the Kentucky study referring to the Delta variant (which would make it different from the Italy study).?

macawake, MSN · Aug 20, 2021

4 hours ago, klone said:

You do realize that VAERS has no vetting process, and ANYONE can report to it, right?

Klone, I think it’s likely that this poster didn’t fully understand how VAERS reports should be interpreted when they first came here and started posting. But I think they now have a better understanding and the poster actually posted again (on page 7 of this thread), saying they appreciated the replies they got from members here and that they now feel less concerned about the Covid vaccines. I think that’s great ??

macawake, MSN · Aug 20, 2021

On 8/17/2021 at 9:53 PM, jive turkey said:

First, thank you for engaging this discussion offering a differing viewpoint civilly. There's been those unable to refrain from personal attacks, making presumptions, and being overall argumentative with no constructive feedback.

You’re welcome but really, there is no need to comment on the way I reply. I’m not trying to be a **** here. I’m just explaining that thanking me isn’t necessary. I am always nice to posters who are engaging in something resembling normal conversation. I am pretty much always not-so-nice when I sense that posters are either trolling, if I believe they are being deliberately obtuse, or if they lie or aggressively try to spread disinformation.

On 8/17/2021 at 9:53 PM, jive turkey said:

#2 I don't consider it guesswork. Speaking in terms of likelihood leaves room to question but not necessarily refuse.

I’m still not clear on why we are using the term ”likelihood” here? The result of the study we are discussing, wasn’t a likelihood. It was an actual result and an actual number they arrived at.

If this had been an apple-counting study designed to find out many apples was in a specific grocery bag someone just carried home from the supermarket, then the result of the study was that the bag contained: ??? and ???????. They didn’t say that there was a certain likelihood that the bag contained three green apples and seven red apples. They physically counted the apples in the bag. The question that remains is will every other randomly chosen grocery bag contain the same ? mix of apples and will things look the same in the future? By the way, the red apples are the unvaccinated ones who got sick again (3x2.34).

macawake, MSN · Aug 20, 2021

On 8/17/2021 at 9:53 PM, jive turkey said:

#4 that is a good and smart question. I would compare hospitalizations and deaths of previously infected to the vaccinated, what percentage of reinfected are admitted/dying with consideration of the demographics of those affected, personal health history, and the advice of a physician that is familiar with the PCR+ patient.

To loosely answer your question without being fully committed to any one number, because it's not that simple as described in the previous paragraph, hypothetically 10 to 20% reinfected with admissions/deaths might sway me.

I read your reply and I’ve read your other posts in this thread. I still don’t understand your thinking process. As you yourself have posted, there is evidence that individuals with a previous Covid infection, actually benefit from getting vaccinated. The scientific consensus at this time is that all eligible individuals ought to get vaccinated, barring those with medical contraindications.

The following is how your decision making process appears to me.

You just bought a house or an apartment. There is a really good insurance company in town that offers homeowner’s insurance for free. They advertise on TV and you do your due diligence and research them, and confirm that they really do have a solid reputation for paying out claims.

As I’ve already mentioned, they don’t even charge you any ? for the insurance. All you have to do, is say yes.

Instead you start looking around your appartment or house and pound a bit on your front door… You’re happy to notice that it feels quite sturdy. Then you get on the phone and call your local police station and get hold of the desk sergeant and ask him/her if burglaries are common in your neighborhood. The desk sergeant replies, so-so. You ask the desk sergeant to please keep you posted if any bands of robbers start taking an interest in your new zip code. The cop says he will if he has the time, but suggests that it’s better that you call every two weeks for an update on the local current thieving activity level.

Not sure what to do with the information you got from the police, you then decide to do a little more research regarding your sturdy front door that has impressed you so far and provides a sense of security. Burglars be damned! But when you read more about the door, you discover that it’s made out of a novel composite material that may actually degrade and lose some, or most of its reassuring fortress-like qualities... The real problem is that the door manufacturer isn’t really sure when this might occur. What to do?

I chose getting homeowner’s insurance ?

(Or you could buy a new ? I guess ?)