Valid Reasons To Not Get Vaccinated

[jive turkey]

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 in a discussion that revolves around LEARNING.  

I'll start:

The primary concerns I've shared with others have 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

[10GaugeNeedles, BSN]

Just now, toomuchbaloney said:

The "red side" should stop putting words in the mouths of the other side and mischaraterizing the overall vaccination messaging with the intention of creating anger and animosity. That alone would help considerably. 

The kettle is not black.

[jive turkey]

1 hour ago, 10GaugeNeedles said:

This was excellent. The research isn't what I would call valid, but it did lead me to think about the logic behind greater immunity via infection (not to say that's a strategy, but if you already had gotten infected, is it actually necessary to vaccinate?). I believe multiple antibodies targeting multiple proteins on the the viral envelope will be produced. So rather than strictly the spike protein being the only disease vector, multiple targets are present leading to a more diverse immune response. Not to mention protection from variants since, doubtful every protein on the envelope will change.I don't think we have enough data to conclusively say vaccination is or is not necessary after infection.

Ps, I've very little experience with Tor. Tried for a while with the dark web stuff but got bored. LOL

Aside from the peer review aspect of it, what makes it invalid?

3 minutes ago, 10GaugeNeedles said:

I feel like both sides are missing each other's point. Provaxx (I'll call them"BLUE") and hesitant (I'll call them "red") are firing shots at each other. They are both morons to the other side. Blue says "here's the data. If you reject my data your an idiot."

Red hears this and says "you are just following orders. Your data is tainted. I don't believe your sources because your sources are desperate to get everyone stuck with this stuff. What's the REAL motive here? I'm afraid of what I think you're sources are hiding. You're a shill. Heres MY DATA."

Blue says "your data isn't from a source I trust."

Red says "well your data isn't from a source IIIII trust! I don't want what you're selling! I don't want GBS, A BLOOD CLOT (I DO NOT CARE HOW RARE IT IS!), or something made from aborted fetal cells! Screw you!"

This is NOT how good decision making is done. Many many people AREN'T getting sick even with a positive test. Why? Some people just aren't effected by this virus. Do we know why? I've seen good data to suggest asymptomatic people are not spreading the disease. Is there a way we could mandate the highest risk people (obese and over weight, chronically ill, and those over 45, etc) to get the vaccine while not forcing those who may not even be at risk of any kind of illness? A focused approach may improve trust among red. But the current approach is not helping anyone.

Checking in for team purple here

I agree with what you're saying.  Ignorance comes from extreme POVs on either side.

What's particularly pathetic is the number of "team blue" people here who are weakening their arguments with insults and bullying.  I am concerned they project their biases in other areas of life causing more resistance.

I haven't seen much of team red.  Spreading unsubstantiated misinformation is just as detrimental and reprehensible.

 

 

[guest1163268]

1 hour ago, 10GaugeNeedles said:

This was excellent. The research isn't what I would call valid, but it did lead me to think about the logic behind greater immunity via infection (not to say that's a strategy, but if you already had gotten infected, is it actually necessary to vaccinate?). I believe multiple antibodies targeting multiple proteins on the the viral envelope will be produced. So rather than strictly the spike protein being the only disease vector, multiple targets are present leading to a more diverse immune response. Not to mention protection from variants since, doubtful every protein on the envelope will change.I don't think we have enough data to conclusively say vaccination is or is not necessary after infection.

Ps, I've very little experience with Tor. Tried for a while with the dark web stuff but got bored. LOL

Jesus, for once you make sense! Well done. My conclusions exactly! 

But, you can bet your *** that I'm not going out to deliberately catch Covid!! 

I'll wait for the vaccine, thanks! 

[10GaugeNeedles, BSN]

"Aside from the peer review aspect of it, what makes it invalid?" -JiveTurkey

"Individuals who were both previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta variant." -from the conclusion

It's a mixed bag in my view. While it CERTAINLY lends credibility to natural immunity being effective, it also suggests vaccination increases protection (something I've seen in previous studies).

So to me, I'd have to address separate questions:

1. Can we consider natural immunity effective and not assume vaccine is equally as necessary for those previously infected as the covid naive? Yes we can (something the narrative rejects).

2. Can we still accept vaccination for the previously infected as a valid recommendation? Yes we can, according to this study.

So to clarify, I'm saying the validity of the article itself isn't in question but, more what question are we trying to answer with it. 

I may have misinterpreted your point in sharing the article. I hope we get more articles like this.

[jive turkey]

18 minutes ago, 10GaugeNeedles said:

 

I may have misinterpreted your point in sharing the article. I hope we get more articles like this.

Gotcha.  In sharing the article I wasn't suggesting it was conclusive evidence to support any course of action if that's how it came across.

Many posters have argued vehemently that a previously infected person who talked to their doctor could not have any conceivable valid reason to defer vaccination.  

This is one of several studies I've shared showing how low (so far) reinfection is and therefore, should make it at least understandable if a PCR+ patient wanted to defer.  We still aren't hearing about the reinfected being admitted and dying.

[toomuchbaloney]

2 minutes ago, jive turkey said:

Many posters have argued vehemently that a previously infected person who talked to their doctor could not have any conceivable valid reason to defer vaccination.  

That's your characterization of the argument.  I would disagree.  

[subee, MSN, CRNA]

15 hours ago, jive turkey said:

Just curious:

If someone didn't take the vaccine and died what would you say?

If someone had to content with a mandate, and became one of the 3/100k or 11/100k what do you say to them/their survivors?

I know I would rather say I'm sorry to the families of those groups than to have to say I'm sorry to the families of the other 640,000 in the US who have died from Covid.  

[10GaugeNeedles, BSN]

9 minutes ago, jive turkey said:

Gotcha.  In sharing the article I wasn't suggesting it was conclusive evidence to support any course of action if that's how it came across.

Many posters have argued vehemently that a previously infected person who talked to their doctor could not have any conceivable valid reason to defer vaccination.  

This is one of several studies I've shared showing how low (so far) reinfection is and therefore, should make it at least understandable if a PCR+ patient wanted to defer.  We still aren't hearing about the reinfected being admitted and dying.

Go team purple! ???

[macawake, MSN]

1 hour ago, 10GaugeNeedles said:

I feel like both sides are missing each other's point. Provaxx (I'll call them"BLUE") and hesitant (I'll call them "red") are firing shots at each other. 

 

I actually wrote a long response and managed to time out due to fixing dinner at the same time, and now it’s gone. So this version will be much shorter. 

I’m neither blue nor red. I’m Swedish. If you know anything about Sweden and Covid, you knowing that I don’t fit either color mold or stereotype. 

When it comes to infectious diseases politics have no bearing. (Or they shouldn’t have). I am simply pro-science.

I agree that there is a lot of unproductive back and forth between the two camps, but I think that you might have misunderstood what the ”blue” guys are saying in response to some of ”red’s” claims. They’re not really saying that they feel that ”your data isn’t from a source I trust”, they’re saying ”your data is inaccurate” and that is oftentimes followed by a ”and here’s why…” 

I often think it’s not just a battle between verifiable facts and unsupported claims, but ultimately a battle between logic and emotion. And it’s difficult to argue with emotion.

[10GaugeNeedles, BSN]

5 minutes ago, subee said:

I know I would rather say I'm sorry to the families of those groups than to have to say I'm sorry to the families of the other 640,000 in the US who have died from Covid.  

Those 640,000 people aren't uniform. Almost all of them were chronically ill, overweight, and or 45 yo or older. I think it would be helpful if the narrative machine acknowledged that risk from severe illness was not uniform. All in the high risk categories should be vaccinated for their own protection. But, that is not what we hear. We hear all people should be vaccinated with equal consideration. This is not the case.

We haven't gotten rid of the flu with vaccination. So why do we think a valid strategy is to get rid of covid altogether through vaccination? Shouldn't we focus on the protection of the highest risk? That seems more reasonable. It would certainly lend credibility to the vaccination argument as a whole.

[subee, MSN, CRNA]

10 hours ago, jive turkey said:

https://clinicalnews.org/2021/08/26/comparing-sars-cov-2-natural-immunity-to-vaccine-induced-immunity-reinfections-versus-breakthrough-infections/

 

Here's another article for those of you throwing natural immunity to the wind and insist it's "not a valid reason?" for someone to consider deferring on the vaccine after a previous infection (and talking to their doctor)

A case can be made for natural immunity, naive vaccination, and vaccination following a previous infection. 

Side note:  I had to use an anonymous browser called Tor and change the region of search to get this for you ??.  A typical Google search via common browsers like chrome and Firefox display vaccine biased results.

 

Liar, liar.  No one here ever said that natural immunity doesn't exist.  The fact that you have to use Tor for your nefarious activities makes me believe that you really are a Russian bot!  It's creepy you would even admit to it.  You spread disinformation just to spread discontent.  Isn't that exactly how the Russians interfere with American societal norms?  Creepy, creepy.

[10GaugeNeedles, BSN]

5 minutes ago, macawake said:

 

I actually wrote a long response and managed to time out due to fixing dinner at the same time, and now it’s gone. So this version will be much shorter. 

I’m neither blue nor red. I’m Swedish. If you know anything about Sweden and Covid, you knowing that I don’t fit either color mold or stereotype. 

When it comes to infectious diseases politics have no bearing. (Or they shouldn’t have). I am simply pro-science.

I agree that there is a lot of unproductive back and forth between the two camps, but I think that you might have misunderstood what the ”blue” guys are saying in response to some of ”red’s” claims. They’re not really saying that they feel that ”your data isn’t from a source I trust”, they’re saying ”your data is inaccurate” and that is oftentimes followed by a ”and here’s why…” 

I often think it’s not just a battle between verifiable facts and unsupported claims, but ultimately a battle between logic and emotion. And it’s difficult to argue with emotion.

Well I've seen allot of dismissals with no "here's why"follow-up. There's allot of distrust on the red side. Waving information they don't trust in their face to invalidate their concerns is not helpful. I agree politics has no place in this. But it certainly IS a big part unfortunately. Government mandates are creating more distrust and inappropriately vaccinating people will cause harm to some people that may not even be at risk of severe illness in the first place.