• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • Hey Guest. Check out the NeoGAF 2.2 Update Thread for details on our new Giphy integration and other new features.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

Coronavirus Global Pandemic |OT| Wuhan!! Got You All In Check

Jezbollah

Member
Jun 14, 2010
12,337
2,352
1,070
Call me crazy, but this seems to me like WW-III is brewing. And I hope that I can't be more wrong.

I wouldn't call you crazy for thinking that. If there's undeniable evidence that this pandemic was a result of lack of control at a lab, then there will be calls for compensation to be paid, China will have major reputational damage and any association with them on a business level could be toxic. Being pushed into isolation could see some military rhetoric come into play.
 

BadBurger

Gold Member
Nov 6, 2019
2,681
4,346
545
How does it do that when none of the vaccines in active distribution use anything from this specific virus?

It seems absolutely absurd to me that anyone would claim a vaccine which uses nothing from the actual virus could provide superior immunity to the natural immunity one gains from being infected and recovering from the disease caused by the virus (not that I'm recommending people go out of there way to do that...).

If it comes back next year in a mutated form or as COVID-21, then sure, it makes sense for someone who recovered from COVID-19 to consider the vaccine, but otherwise... I'm not getting the argument at all.

This is how the vaccines work. They train your immune system. There's plenty of literature and even mini documentaries out there on it. Just because you can't wrap your head around them doesn't mean they don't work.
 

Ascend

Member
Jul 23, 2018
3,463
5,016
585
This is how the vaccines work. They train your immune system. There's plenty of literature and even mini documentaries out there on it. Just because you can't wrap your head around them doesn't mean they don't work.
Vaccines offer superior immunity compared to someone that never got sick. But once you get sick and you manage to recover, your immune system will be as strong or (highly likely) stronger than if it was through a vaccine. This is well-known in the medical community. Only now are the media touting the idea that the vaccines can give superior protection for those that were already infected. People are conflating the relatively high risk of not recovering and therefore it being preferable to get the vaccine, with the vaccine still having use after already having recovered from a natural infection.

And you know what else supports this? The fact that you need these vaccines twice to build a strong enough immunity, while generally you only need to be infected once and recover on your own for you to have a strong enough immunity. See here;

"Is natural infection better than immunization?
It is true that natural infection almost always causes better immunity than vaccines. Whereas immunity from disease often follows a single natural infection, immunity from vaccines usually occurs only after several doses. However, the difference between vaccination and natural infection is the price paid for immunity:

  • The price paid for immunity after natural infection might be pneumonia from chickenpox, intellectual disability from Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib), pneumonia from pneumococcus, birth defects from rubella, liver cancer from hepatitis B virus, or death from measles.
  • Immunization with vaccines, like natural infections, typically induces long-lived immunity. But unlike natural infection, immunization does not extract such a high price for immunity; that is, immunization does not cause pneumonia, intellectual disability, birth defects, cancer or death."

Could things have changed with the mRNA vaccines? Maybe. But the fact that you need to have them twice just like many other vaccines suggests otherwise. If these claims are to be made that even after infection the vaccines have use, they need to be scientifically supported. And right now, the science and the propaganda are being blended together.

And no, the amount of anti-bodies is not an indication of strength of immunity. Why? Because you might not have chickenpox antibodies floating around in you all the time, but generally, people get it only once in their life and never again. The antibodies are created only when necessary.

That is why to me, the argument that people that got only mild symptoms from the infection might have a weaker immunity is weird. It's possible if they got a low concentration of the virus (i.e. low dose), but afterwards got a much higher dose and the body didn't expect it. It's more likely that in those people their immune system is quicker to respond and develop antibodies, to the point of not allowing the virus to spread rapidly in their bodies. It is also known that people that recovered, if they are re-infected, the symptoms are generally more mild than the first time. Additionally, the vaccines do not guarantee that you won't get infected.

They talk about reinfection, but in reality, they don't know if it's a true reinfection with another exposure of the virus, or simply the same infection that the immune system ultimately failed to fight of. It's not that easy to make that distinction. See here;

So in short. I'm not saying these vaccines don't work. I am saying that it does not make sense to me that you should get the vaccine, if you already got infected with COVID and naturally fought it off. If you haven't gotten the virus, it seems better to simply get the vaccine, because the physical risk you expose yourself to by getting the vaccine first is lower than the risk of getting the actual virus first. Not accounting for the risks related to of loss of freedoms by being compliant if vaccine passports are implemented.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sakura and prag16

Ascend

Member
Jul 23, 2018
3,463
5,016
585
This just in, not yet peer-reviewed though;

Researchers at Tel Aviv University and Clalit, the largest health-care organization in Israel, examined nearly 400 people who had tested positive for Covid-19 after receiving at least one dose of the vaccine. They compared them to the same number of people who were infected and unvaccinated.

The researchers found the prevalence of the variant from South Africa, known as B.1.351, among patients who received two doses of the vaccine was about eight times higher than those who were unvaccinated. The data, published online over the weekend, suggest the B.1.351 is better able to “break through” the protection of the vaccine than the original strain, the researchers wrote in the study.

 
Last edited:

MisterFalcon

Member
Mar 12, 2013
3,430
578
665
Vaccines offer superior immunity compared to someone that never got sick. But once you get sick and you manage to recover, your immune system will be as strong or (highly likely) stronger than if it was through a vaccine.
Well, since everyone with a weak immune system does not recover it's obvious that the dataset 'people who recovered' will have relatively more people with such a strong immune system. The others are dead or never recover.
In the vaccinated set those people are still alive. Maybe that is a problem from a the point of view that the weak should die.
 
Last edited:

Zefah

Gold Member
Jan 7, 2007
44,583
25,657
1,805
This is how the vaccines work. They train your immune system. There's plenty of literature and even mini documentaries out there on it. Just because you can't wrap your head around them doesn't mean they don't work.

I never said vaccines do not work. You claimed that the current vaccines inform your body to fight this virus specifically while naturally induced immunity via infection and recovery does not, implying that the vaccines are *more* effective than natural immunity and thus everyone should get them even if they already had COVID, which is the part I am highly skeptical about and have not seen compelling evidence for.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NeoIkaruGAF

Zefah

Gold Member
Jan 7, 2007
44,583
25,657
1,805
This just in, not yet peer-reviewed though;

Researchers at Tel Aviv University and Clalit, the largest health-care organization in Israel, examined nearly 400 people who had tested positive for Covid-19 after receiving at least one dose of the vaccine. They compared them to the same number of people who were infected and unvaccinated.

The researchers found the prevalence of the variant from South Africa, known as B.1.351, among patients who received two doses of the vaccine was about eight times higher than those who were unvaccinated. The data, published online over the weekend, suggest the B.1.351 is better able to “break through” the protection of the vaccine than the original strain, the researchers wrote in the study.


Only 400 people and not yet peer reviewed, but damn at this part: "The researchers found the prevalence of B.1.351 among patients who received two doses of the vaccine was about eight times higher than those who were unvaccinated."

The study also noted that partially vaccinated individuals had higher prevalence of the UK variant (B.1.1.7), and even fully vaccinated people saw no statistically significant difference in infection rates of the UK variant vs. the unvaccinated.

Unfortunately the full text doesn't seem to go into the severity of each case or hospitalization rates. If it turns out the vaccinated are technically being infected more but are seeing dramatically reduced symptoms, then it wouldn't seem like such a bad thing. Either way, it seems like a very small sample size to draw any major conclusions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: prag16 and Ascend

Ascend

Member
Jul 23, 2018
3,463
5,016
585
Well, since everyone with a weak immune system does not recover it's obvious that the dataset 'people who recovered' will have relatively more people with such a strong immune system. The others are dead or never recover.
In the vaccinated set those people are still alive. Maybe that is a problem from a the point of view that the weak should die.
The argument is not that people should not get the vaccine.
The argument is not that we should let weak people die.
The argument is that it is not a bad idea to get the vaccine if you have not been infected before, but that it seems unnecessary if you have already been infected and have already recovered.

To quote;
So in short. I'm not saying these vaccines don't work. I am saying that it does not make sense to me that you should get the vaccine, if you already got infected with COVID and naturally fought it off. If you haven't gotten the virus, it seems better to simply get the vaccine, because the physical risk you expose yourself to by getting the vaccine first is lower than the risk of getting the actual virus first.
 

arkhamguy123

Member
Aug 1, 2020
258
251
305
How does it do that when none of the vaccines in active distribution use anything from this specific virus?

It seems absolutely absurd to me that anyone would claim a vaccine which uses nothing from the actual virus could provide superior immunity to the natural immunity one gains from being infected and recovering from the disease caused by the virus (not that I'm recommending people go out of there way to do that...).

If it comes back next year in a mutated form or as COVID-21, then sure, it makes sense for someone who recovered from COVID-19 to consider the vaccine, but otherwise... I'm not getting the argument at all
Kinda with ya on this one. I have so many friends who are getting it all happy and proud but who got infected already mere months ago and I'm like... not to be a dick but thats kinda a huge waste of resources. It just seems so redundant to me. But hey I'm not a scientist so whatever.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Zefah and Ascend

arkhamguy123

Member
Aug 1, 2020
258
251
305
Only 400 people and not yet peer reviewed, but damn at this part: "The researchers found the prevalence of B.1.351 among patients who received two doses of the vaccine was about eight times higher than those who were unvaccinated."

The study also noted that partially vaccinated individuals had higher prevalence of the UK variant (B.1.1.7), and even fully vaccinated people saw no statistically significant difference in infection rates of the UK variant vs. the unvaccinated.

Unfortunately the full text doesn't seem to go into the severity of each case or hospitalization rates. If it turns out the vaccinated are technically being infected more but are seeing dramatically reduced symptoms, then it wouldn't seem like such a bad thing. Either way, it seems like a very small sample size to draw any major conclusions.
These studies... I just kinda tune them out. It's so wishy washy. A constant flip flop of contradictions. Just a week or two ago there was a news article saying the vaccines do neutralize the SA and Brazil variants very and well and now theres this. Then next week there will be a "No actually!" counter article to this, and the week after a counter article to that. It's just so tiring.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ascend and Zefah

arkhamguy123

Member
Aug 1, 2020
258
251
305
I think part of it is the bullshit narrative thats been peddled that nothing is good about natural infection nothing about that does anything positive, the only way to protect against the virus is this man made tool. Which is just such BS that the media has refused to acknowledge natural infections as contribution to herd immunity.

The human body has been fighting off viruses by itself for thousands of years.
 
Last edited:

ManaByte

Gold Member
Jun 10, 2004
34,353
48,564
2,510
California
manabyte.com
The argument is that it is not a bad idea to get the vaccine if you have not been infected before, but that it seems unnecessary if you have already been infected and have already recovered.
I know people who got it pretty bad and still got vaccinated because they didn’t want to risk going through it again.
 

Dr.Guru of Peru

played the long game
Jun 10, 2004
6,341
1,004
1,690
Only 400 people and not yet peer reviewed, but damn at this part: "The researchers found the prevalence of B.1.351 among patients who received two doses of the vaccine was about eight times higher than those who were unvaccinated."

The study also noted that partially vaccinated individuals had higher prevalence of the UK variant (B.1.1.7), and even fully vaccinated people saw no statistically significant difference in infection rates of the UK variant vs. the unvaccinated.

Unfortunately the full text doesn't seem to go into the severity of each case or hospitalization rates. If it turns out the vaccinated are technically being infected more but are seeing dramatically reduced symptoms, then it wouldn't seem like such a bad thing. Either way, it seems like a very small sample size to draw any major conclusions.
You are 20x less likely to get C19 if you've been vaccinated. They're comparing 400 people infected with the vaccine with 400 infected people who have not been vaccinated. An 8x higher prevalence of a variant still means that the vaccine provides protection (assuming precise numbers, 2.5x less likely to be infected with the variant if you're vaccinated), just not as great as the wild type.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Zefah

JimmyRustler

Member
Jun 17, 2006
10,396
2,582
1,630
Yea everyone i know including my parents and grandmother got it and are fine. I just hate medicine and stuff that mess with the body
I can relate. I'm the same but for this case I will make an exception. I want this shit to end finally and if people don't get the vaccine it never will.
 

Guileless

Temp Banned for Remedial Purposes
Jun 7, 2004
10,288
1,834
1,925
Memphis
I wouldn't call you crazy for thinking that. If there's undeniable evidence that this pandemic was a result of lack of control at a lab, then there will be calls for compensation to be paid, China will have major reputational damage and any association with them on a business level could be toxic. Being pushed into isolation could see some military rhetoric come into play.

There will never be undeniable evidence. China is locked down tight and the WHO does whatever the CCP dictates. The US media decided the lab leak was a GOP conspiracy theory a year ago.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jezbollah

Hulk_Smash

Gold Member
Jan 8, 2014
2,183
2,891
870
I can relate. I'm the same but for this case I will make an exception. I want this shit to end finally and if people don't get the vaccine it never will.
That is simply not true. It will end either way. With or without the vaccine. The Spanish flu ended without a vaccine to help. So did the Hong Kong Flu. Every flu pandemic has ended without the help of a vaccine. This is the first time we’ve received one during the height of the pandemic.
 

JimmyRustler

Member
Jun 17, 2006
10,396
2,582
1,630
That is simply not true. It will end either way. With or without the vaccine. The Spanish flu ended without a vaccine to help. So did the Hong Kong Flu. Every flu pandemic has ended without the help of a vaccine. This is the first time we’ve received one during the height of the pandemic.
My time is way too valueable to wait for that to go away naturally.
 

Hulk_Smash

Gold Member
Jan 8, 2014
2,183
2,891
870
My time is way too valueable to wait for that to go away naturally.
Most of those flus burned themselves out in around 2 years. We are about 1 1/2 years into it. At best we’ve saved ourselves a couple of months by introducing a vaccine so early.

Unless you live in Commiefornia or NYC, or you’re under doctor’s orders, you can take the mask off.

IMO
 

JimmyRustler

Member
Jun 17, 2006
10,396
2,582
1,630
Most of those flus burned themselves out in around 2 years. We are about 1 1/2 years into it. At best we’ve saved ourselves a couple of months by introducing a vaccine so early.

Unless you live in Commiefornia or NYC, or you’re under doctor’s orders, you can take the mask off.

IMO
I'm from Europe and here where I live I do not see a return to normal anytime soon if not enough people take the vaccine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: God Enel

Hulk_Smash

Gold Member
Jan 8, 2014
2,183
2,891
870
Well, we have low numbers but the lockdown is still pretty strict and every time they lift some rules the numbers rise again.
Do you honestly think your government is going to lift all the restrictions once everyone has been vaccinated? Just curious. And which country if I might ask?
 

JimmyRustler

Member
Jun 17, 2006
10,396
2,582
1,630
Do you honestly think your government is going to lift all the restrictions once everyone has been vaccinated? Just curious. And which country if I might ask?
Austria... and yes, I believe the goverment will lift the restictions soonest possible considering how much of a pillar tourism is for our country. My thinking is that once enough people are vaccinated and hospitaizations go down, the restrictions will be gradually lifed. So for all I care they may get the fuck on with those vaccines.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Hulk_Smash

Hulk_Smash

Gold Member
Jan 8, 2014
2,183
2,891
870

6 cases out of 6.8 million doses. This is now an across the board overreaction.
How fucking retarded do these federal organization get? It's too late assholes! The FDA approved the production of the vaccine and they want to pause. You can't unvaccinate 7 million people. I swear it's time we stop listening to the alphabet organizations that love playing politics with a pandemic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jezbollah

Jezbollah

Member
Jun 14, 2010
12,337
2,352
1,070
It's genuinely insane. Birth control pills have a higher chance of causing blood clots historically.

I hope that if they stop rollout of these vaccines, that those halting it will donate their stocks to COVAX. Give the vaccines to people that want it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FunkMiller

BadBurger

Gold Member
Nov 6, 2019
2,681
4,346
545
Vaccines offer superior immunity compared to someone that never got sick. But once you get sick and you manage to recover, your immune system will be as strong or (highly likely) stronger than if it was through a vaccine. This is well-known in the medical community. Only now are the media touting the idea that the vaccines can give superior protection for those that were already infected. People are conflating the relatively high risk of not recovering and therefore it being preferable to get the vaccine, with the vaccine still having use after already having recovered from a natural infection.

And you know what else supports this? The fact that you need these vaccines twice to build a strong enough immunity, while generally you only need to be infected once and recover on your own for you to have a strong enough immunity. See here;

"Is natural infection better than immunization?
It is true that natural infection almost always causes better immunity than vaccines. Whereas immunity from disease often follows a single natural infection, immunity from vaccines usually occurs only after several doses. However, the difference between vaccination and natural infection is the price paid for immunity:


  • The price paid for immunity after natural infection might be pneumonia from chickenpox, intellectual disability from Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib), pneumonia from pneumococcus, birth defects from rubella, liver cancer from hepatitis B virus, or death from measles.
  • Immunization with vaccines, like natural infections, typically induces long-lived immunity. But unlike natural infection, immunization does not extract such a high price for immunity; that is, immunization does not cause pneumonia, intellectual disability, birth defects, cancer or death."

Could things have changed with the mRNA vaccines? Maybe. But the fact that you need to have them twice just like many other vaccines suggests otherwise. If these claims are to be made that even after infection the vaccines have use, they need to be scientifically supported. And right now, the science and the propaganda are being blended together.

And no, the amount of anti-bodies is not an indication of strength of immunity. Why? Because you might not have chickenpox antibodies floating around in you all the time, but generally, people get it only once in their life and never again. The antibodies are created only when necessary.

That is why to me, the argument that people that got only mild symptoms from the infection might have a weaker immunity is weird. It's possible if they got a low concentration of the virus (i.e. low dose), but afterwards got a much higher dose and the body didn't expect it. It's more likely that in those people their immune system is quicker to respond and develop antibodies, to the point of not allowing the virus to spread rapidly in their bodies. It is also known that people that recovered, if they are re-infected, the symptoms are generally more mild than the first time. Additionally, the vaccines do not guarantee that you won't get infected.

They talk about reinfection, but in reality, they don't know if it's a true reinfection with another exposure of the virus, or simply the same infection that the immune system ultimately failed to fight of. It's not that easy to make that distinction. See here;

So in short. I'm not saying these vaccines don't work. I am saying that it does not make sense to me that you should get the vaccine, if you already got infected with COVID and naturally fought it off. If you haven't gotten the virus, it seems better to simply get the vaccine, because the physical risk you expose yourself to by getting the vaccine first is lower than the risk of getting the actual virus first. Not accounting for the risks related to of loss of freedoms by being compliant if vaccine passports are implemented.

If you get inoculated by the miracle of science that is a vaccine for COVID-19 you'll live. If you rely upon getting infected and then making a second stand, for some absurd reason, you might not. Just get the vaccine. Please stop entertaining these weird stories that neglect the past 100 years of modern medicine. Get your damn vaccine lol
 
  • Like
Reactions: EviLore

Ascend

Member
Jul 23, 2018
3,463
5,016
585
If you get inoculated by the miracle of science that is a vaccine for COVID-19 you'll live. If you rely upon getting infected and then making a second stand, for some absurd reason, you might not. Just get the vaccine. Please stop entertaining these weird stories that neglect the past 100 years of modern medicine. Get your damn vaccine lol
Good to see that you generally agree.

I am fiercely against forcing people to get the vaccine though, but that's another story.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hulk_Smash

Dr.Guru of Peru

played the long game
Jun 10, 2004
6,341
1,004
1,690
  • Like
Reactions: SpiceRacz

JORMBO

Darkness no more
Mar 5, 2009
12,603
21,717
1,900
My J&J appointment is canceled. On the website I am locked to the J&J facility that my appoitment was scheduled at. It won't let me pick another and that facility is listed as "no longer active". So it won't let me pick Pfizer at one of the other places around here since it locked me to the closed J&J place.

I had a problem with the first appointment I scheduled where it automatically picked a time that the place was not open (it gave me a weekday appt for weekend facility) and wouldn't let me cancel or reschedule. I got around this by registering another account with a second email. Looks like if I want to make another appoiintment again I have to register a 3rd account with a new email. Not going to bother anymore for now. This whole thing is a mess.
 
Last edited:
  • Empathy
Reactions: Ascend

arkhamguy123

Member
Aug 1, 2020
258
251
305
Any other mRNA ones coming up in a huge supply besides moderna and Pfizer? Seems like the world could use some help on the vaccine front.
 

Aesius

Member
May 19, 2009
7,291
1,473
1,100
It's easy for men to become completely unattractive to their wives/girlfriends due to complacency in their relationships (it goes both ways, of course, but men are more likely to still want to have sex with their partners even when their attractiveness has decreased).

COVID definitely exacerbated that. I can only imagine how many dudes became utter slobs during lockdowns. Weight gain, not showering/brushing teeth as often, not exercising. Combine that with the expected decrease in desire due to being confined together and there you go.
 

CrankyJay™

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,594
2,068
550
So, the timing of this is really suspect, but 4 days after my second Pfizer shot I have developed some form of dysphagia where I have difficulty swallowing harder foods or large bites of foods. I’ve already been to the docs and mentioned it but they didn’t think there was a link. I have an upper gi X-Ray with barium swallow in two weeks to see if they can track down the cause.
 
  • Empathy
Reactions: Ascend

Game Analyst

Member
Feb 10, 2009
5,872
1,772
1,295
soundcloud.com
So, the timing of this is really suspect, but 4 days after my second Pfizer shot I have developed some form of dysphagia where I have difficulty swallowing harder foods or large bites of foods. I’ve already been to the docs and mentioned it but they didn’t think there was a link. I have an upper gi X-Ray with barium swallow in two weeks to see if they can track down the cause.

So sorry, bro.