There aren't really any reputable sources. All you can is try to piece things together by using a wide variety of them.

Great question. I think that is a study that should definitely be done. Unfortunately, I dont see The Science supporting such a study, because it would force them to acknowledge natural immunity is a thing, which they have shown no inclination towards doing so far.

When is a good time to get the vaccine is a personal question at this point, that depends a lot on your personal perception of risk from Covid vs risk/reward of the vaccine. If you have recently been infected with Covid the fact you have some level of temporary immunity may factor into the decision also of course.

Many Americans, including many members posting in this thread who have divulged their vaccination status, seem to have made the decision not to get any more vaccinations in the near term.

FWIW I am in this group. Got my 3rd booster about 1 1/2 years ago. Got very mild Covid this summer, and am in wait mode right now to decide if/when to ever get another jab.

I am actually optimistic the fact the corporate MSM is belatedly starting to acknowledge there may be health risks to the mRNA vaccine, will force The Science to address the issue head on instead of gaslighting, and we may actually get some real research and data to allow informed decision making, although it looks like unfortunately Pfizer will continue to be successful in blocking legal attempts to get them to release their hidden data, which would be a great boon to public health if the public could ever get our hands on that.

I should say that during an actual infection you would have a full immune response against a wide variety of viral antigens; versus the mRNA vaccines where you develop a more muted response against a single antigen, which the virus has, and still continues to, mutate against anyways.

So general principles of Immunology would suggest immunity from infection itself would be more robust, and in a sane world this would be the de novo position until proven otherwise.

That being said, if the vaccine itself was actually safe and effective, and getting an infection was dangerous; the health benefit/risk calculus would still heavily support getting a vaccine and if possible avoid ever getting infected in the first place.

So the real issue people are having, whether they can articulate or not, is deciding whether the risk/benefit calculus justifies getting vaccinated/boosted or not.

Thanks for your opinions. I am also 100% behind studies to show length of time immunity actually helps an individual; vax vs natural.

Would be helpful to an old man like myself that does benefit having immunity in place a legit 100% of the time. (I had booster #whatever in late Sept and was Covid positive in early November. Mild case imo)

I am having a very hard time understanding what you mean by this. Media can only acknowledge health risks that have been discovered through scientific research in the first place. How else would they be discovered to be health risks?

The Science is the scientific bodies that hold most sway in public opinion, as opposed to (lower case) science, which might suggest there are risks that could be reported, but is not, in MSM? Also The Science, in conjunction with MSM, might have been insinuating that there is little to no risk without having adequately studied that possibility?

You’re not piecing anything together, though. You’re just posting “Hey look at this!” and making a bunch of vague insinuation.

I hunted down the article and read it. Not only is the article very poorly written, the headline, while accurate, is misleading. Vaccinated people are NOT more likely to get this new variant than unvaccinated people. They are more likely to get it than they were with prior variants. Unvaccinated are still more likely to get it than the vaccinated.

Are you piecing anything together? I wasn't aware that was the objective here. I thought we were just here to talk about covid.

I would like to see a breakdown by groups.

I just read that doctors were among the most groups most hesitant to take the vaccines btw. so there is that. they know it usually takes 30 years to make this.

OK. So what was the point of posting the headline?

Yes, some of us are. Apparently you're just here to drop screenshots and discuss nothing.

bobo, check it out. they tell you why Elon said what he said and why lab leak is likely not a conspiracy.

It was to elicit a reply on the subject from Dunyain, which he gave . And it was to ask the question that I asked when I posted it, obviously.

I've discussed plenty. Not sure why a screenshot from Fox News needs to get you and Trolly so worked up.

I'm sure not how it can be accurate and for your last sentence to be true-- seems contradictory

while the nature of the sample is at issue

walgreens publishes their data and last few times I looked the positive test rate for unvaxxed vs vaxxed was usually the same or the vaxxed was higher

obviously, it could be the unvaxxed who are testing more frivolously due to being unvaxxed etc etc but it definitely is food for thought and would definitely like to see a study on current variants

Where did you read that? I doubt any doctors "know" it usually takes 30 years to develop a vaccine. The polio virus was first isolated in 1949. By 1953 Salk tested his vaccine on his family. In 1954 he tested it on 1.6 million people. It was licensed in 1955, and by 1957 annual cases went from 58000 to 5600; by 1961 there were just 161 cases.

So in about 4 years the vaccine went from initial test to almost eradication of the disease, and that was using 1950s medical technology.

https://www.who.int/news-room/spotli...io-vaccination

Are you actually suggesting that we wouldn't be able to find numerous articles across various reputable journals that set out to understand natural immunity and quantify its duration of benefit?

https://www.researchgate.net/publica...Paid_the_Price



from what I read here is that the polio vaccine took about 10 years to make.


"As to her failure to anticipate the need for adequate supplies of vaccine earlier than she did, she replied heatedly, 'I think no one could have foreseen the public demand. ' " Peter Salk said it took roughly a decade for the polio vaccine to be researched, tested and widely distributed to the American public.30.05.2020



Among The 1st To Get A Polio Vaccine, Peter Salk Says Don't ...

So, it's meant as a tongue-in-cheek way to refer to public health organizations like the CDC?

pretty funny to bring up AIDS which just absolutely destroyed communities for years and ignore that Fauci was the lead man on Reagan's plan to just let the gays die.

Yes, you have. But with that particular post, you're just screenshot dropping. Kind of lame IMO. All the more so in light of Didace's summary of what the article you couldn't be bothered to ready apparently REALLY said.

Not sure why you would think I'm even a little bit worked up. Just think it's pretty silly you drop a screenshot with no interest in a real discussion about the article.

This is so. ****ing. awesome. You've drawn your own conclusion about what the headline means, which you had to do because you didn't bother to read the article, and are happy to do so because it plays into this silly narrative of yours. But then you are so stuck on that conclusion, you can't find the obvious answer that is right there in Didace's summary:

When you saw the incomplete headline, "more likely to infect those who are vaccinated" it seems you filled that in with "...than unvaccinated people", when according to Didace's summary the actual completion of it would be "...than previous variants did". But really, who can blame you? Headlines are typically extremely accurate reflections of the articles themselves, and posting a screenshot of them on their own is usually a great way of making extremely valid points.

I lost interest in the whole origin debate a long time ago.

Hahaha, this is great. Browser provides a link to a complete history of the Polio vaccine, which shows 8 years from isolation of polio to widespread vaccine, so you reply with a link to a story where Salk's son who was just a child at the time recalls that it was "roughly a decade" - is that a lot different in your mind? But given that his post was in reply to your bizarre assertion that doctors "know it usually takes 30 years to make them", I have no idea what your point was supposed to be.

That's my assumption about what he means. It's only natural that the public at large will have to follow a predominant narrative in order to be informed absent delving into specific studies on their own. That's more or less how I come to understand things about Covid, through osmosis. It's somewhat understandable since there has been lots of blatant Covid misinformation and also people strongly in opposition to vaccination all along, which your are aware of of course. So a counternarrative develops naturally by health organizations in cooperation with MSM to combat that, but essentially becomes a little dogmatic perhaps and shies away from reasonable questions that run counter to what they put out to the public. That's my understanding to what Dunyain is broadly referring to here, and of course he can clarify whatever his stance his further.

This is reasonable take but I interpreted Dunyain as going further than this. The way they phrased their post either suggests media knew and hid or ignored known health risks while simultaneously saying there hasn't been real research on health risks or they're criticizing the media for not giving bandwidth to what would have been pure speculation about health risks, which is not really fair.

Your take is the more correct one. I dont know if the corporate media "knew" there was health risks, as the media wasn't particularly curious one way or another. They got their orders to push the narrative of choice and censor any opposing views, and they went with it.

We will have to agree to disagree on whether this was an ethical decision or not. In a sane world I think the media should absolutely be exploring government abuse and censorship, and potentially public health malfeasance, especially when prominent physicians and scientists are giving measured criticism using scientific rationale.

That is where some of the disconnect is. In your mind "Covid disinformation" is equivalent to "Pizzagate." You just hand waive away all the experts in their field of expertise giving scientifically grounded dissenting opinions, and lump everyone into the same "conspiracy theory" bucket.