Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Virus |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is it happening If so Are the symptoms less Is hospital and deaths rare" I know someone that has been double jabbed then had COVID, they were poorly but only for 2 days and nothing long term, guys in his late 50s and was back to work ASAP. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So you think double jabbed is working as goverment says" I think it's giving people immunity to an extent that your symptoms are drastically lowered mostly to the point of asymptomatic meaning you wouldn't even know you were carrying it and in a large minority unable to even be infected. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The vaccine has never been sold as a definitive barrier against the virus It reduces transmission (though there is some concern in America regarding the delta variant where they believe that Delta is highly transmissible regardless of the vaccine) It also reduces the severity of the disease Double vaxxed people will still catch it and die, but these will be the unfortunate ones who are at very high risk anyway As a long term consideration, whether this means there will be new vaccines in the future that are better and will end the virus is anyone's guess Pfizer and Johnson are increasing the price's of their jabs as it is and for these big pharma companies it's a very tidy little earner" It seems the issue with America. like Israel, is the timings between 1st and 2nd jabs. Both along with many others kept to the 3 week gap. Evidence is now coming out the 8 weeks is the optimum gap for sustained immunity. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is it happening If so Are the symptoms less Is hospital and deaths rare" Generally worse if vaxed from the people I know Its not "breakthrough" it's what was always going to happen | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So you think double jabbed is working as goverment says I think it's giving people immunity to an extent that your symptoms are drastically lowered mostly to the point of asymptomatic meaning you wouldn't even know you were carrying it and in a large minority unable to even be infected." So kinda like most people before the jab? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The vaccine has never been sold as a definitive barrier against the virus It reduces transmission (though there is some concern in America regarding the delta variant where they believe that Delta is highly transmissible regardless of the vaccine) It also reduces the severity of the disease Double vaxxed people will still catch it and die, but these will be the unfortunate ones who are at very high risk anyway As a long term consideration, whether this means there will be new vaccines in the future that are better and will end the virus is anyone's guess Pfizer and Johnson are increasing the price's of their jabs as it is and for these big pharma companies it's a very tidy little earner It seems the issue with America. like Israel, is the timings between 1st and 2nd jabs. Both along with many others kept to the 3 week gap. Evidence is now coming out the 8 weeks is the optimum gap for sustained immunity." That piefizier. 8weeks What about astre I heard 12 weeks was good | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The vaccine has never been sold as a definitive barrier against the virus It reduces transmission (though there is some concern in America regarding the delta variant where they believe that Delta is highly transmissible regardless of the vaccine) It also reduces the severity of the disease Double vaxxed people will still catch it and die, but these will be the unfortunate ones who are at very high risk anyway As a long term consideration, whether this means there will be new vaccines in the future that are better and will end the virus is anyone's guess Pfizer and Johnson are increasing the price's of their jabs as it is and for these big pharma companies it's a very tidy little earner It seems the issue with America. like Israel, is the timings between 1st and 2nd jabs. Both along with many others kept to the 3 week gap. Evidence is now coming out the 8 weeks is the optimum gap for sustained immunity." That piefizier. 8weeks What about astre I heard 12 weeks was good | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The vaccine has never been sold as a definitive barrier against the virus It reduces transmission (though there is some concern in America regarding the delta variant where they believe that Delta is highly transmissible regardless of the vaccine) It also reduces the severity of the disease Double vaxxed people will still catch it and die, but these will be the unfortunate ones who are at very high risk anyway As a long term consideration, whether this means there will be new vaccines in the future that are better and will end the virus is anyone's guess Pfizer and Johnson are increasing the price's of their jabs as it is and for these big pharma companies it's a very tidy little earner It seems the issue with America. like Israel, is the timings between 1st and 2nd jabs. Both along with many others kept to the 3 week gap. Evidence is now coming out the 8 weeks is the optimum gap for sustained immunity. That piefizier. 8weeks What about astre I heard 12 weeks was good " The U.K. originally went for 12 weeks as a way to get more people vaccinated. The most recent data suggests that 8 weeks is the most optimal in both Pfizer and Astra Zeneca. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Stolen ...no borrowed from Irish site to share.... By soft_sexy_sweet An analogy - a seat belt doesn't stop you from getting in a car accident, but it does reduce your chances of getting hurt, or dying, or hurting others in an accident. The more people who wear their seat belts, the fewer deaths and injuries there will be from car accidents, and the injuries that do occur will be less severe. Seat belt = vaccine. Covid = car accident. Similarly, being vaccinated doesn't eliminate the possibility of transmitting the virus or getting sick from the virus, but it dramatically reduces the chances of both (and the severity of illness), because the vaccine attacks the covid virus and stops it from replicating meaning you have less of it in your system. If you have a low viral load (of any disease) your chances of transmitting it are lower. Also, vaccination only works effectively on a group level, it's not about individual protection. If enough people are vaccinated, the virus doesn't have the chance to replicate and evolve and get stronger. This is why people don't get polio anymore, for example. It was eradicated through a vaccination programme. But ultimately the answer to your question is yes - if YOU are not vaccinated, you are more at risk of catching Covid, from anyone. Because you're not vaccinated. Two vaccinated people are incredibly unlikely to pass it between them. So... get vaccinated" My sister lives with my mum. Both double jabbed and both caught Covid - sis was asymptomatic, mum had symptoms and was bed bound for a few days, but fine now.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Stolen ...no borrowed from Irish site to share.... By soft_sexy_sweet An analogy - a seat belt doesn't stop you from getting in a car accident, but it does reduce your chances of getting hurt, or dying, or hurting others in an accident. The more people who wear their seat belts, the fewer deaths and injuries there will be from car accidents, and the injuries that do occur will be less severe. Seat belt = vaccine. Covid = car accident. Similarly, being vaccinated doesn't eliminate the possibility of transmitting the virus or getting sick from the virus, but it dramatically reduces the chances of both (and the severity of illness), because the vaccine attacks the covid virus and stops it from replicating meaning you have less of it in your system. If you have a low viral load (of any disease) your chances of transmitting it are lower. Also, vaccination only works effectively on a group level, it's not about individual protection. If enough people are vaccinated, the virus doesn't have the chance to replicate and evolve and get stronger. This is why people don't get polio anymore, for example. It was eradicated through a vaccination programme. But ultimately the answer to your question is yes - if YOU are not vaccinated, you are more at risk of catching Covid, from anyone. Because you're not vaccinated. Two vaccinated people are incredibly unlikely to pass it between them. So... get vaccinated My sister lives with my mum. Both double jabbed and both caught Covid - sis was asymptomatic, mum had symptoms and was bed bound for a few days, but fine now. " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The vaccine has never been sold as a definitive barrier against the virus It reduces transmission (though there is some concern in America regarding the delta variant where they believe that Delta is highly transmissible regardless of the vaccine) It also reduces the severity of the disease Double vaxxed people will still catch it and die, but these will be the unfortunate ones who are at very high risk anyway As a long term consideration, whether this means there will be new vaccines in the future that are better and will end the virus is anyone's guess Pfizer and Johnson are increasing the price's of their jabs as it is and for these big pharma companies it's a very tidy little earner" Where have you found this information about increase in prices, I thought the deal for the approval was no profit or cost increase (other than base cost increase) or am I missing something? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The vaccine has never been sold as a definitive barrier against the virus It reduces transmission (though there is some concern in America regarding the delta variant where they believe that Delta is highly transmissible regardless of the vaccine) It also reduces the severity of the disease Double vaxxed people will still catch it and die, but these will be the unfortunate ones who are at very high risk anyway As a long term consideration, whether this means there will be new vaccines in the future that are better and will end the virus is anyone's guess Pfizer and Johnson are increasing the price's of their jabs as it is and for these big pharma companies it's a very tidy little earner Where have you found this information about increase in prices, I thought the deal for the approval was no profit or cost increase (other than base cost increase) or am I missing something? " The only company to offer at cost supply was Astra Zeneca. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm pretty sure lots and lots of vaccinated and or previously infected people would test positive but they don't take the test because they have zero symptoms, asymptomatic people are far far far less likely to pass on the virus for various reasons. Think of it this way, measles cases still break out despite 95% vaccination rates for decades, it's clear the virus is finding the susceptible via the vaccinated/previously immune,I think it would be an interesting experiment to PCR test society to see who's currently got measles?." probably s it 99% plus using PCR I’d estimate | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is it happening If so Are the symptoms less Is hospital and deaths rare" For a balanced opinion I usually check a range of sources. Are you prepared to rely just on Fab to educate you? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is it happening If so Are the symptoms less Is hospital and deaths rare For a balanced opinion I usually check a range of sources. Are you prepared to rely just on Fab to educate you?" Can you tell me which sources | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm pretty sure lots and lots of vaccinated and or previously infected people would test positive but they don't take the test because they have zero symptoms, asymptomatic people are far far far less likely to pass on the virus for various reasons. Think of it this way, measles cases still break out despite 95% vaccination rates for decades, it's clear the virus is finding the susceptible via the vaccinated/previously immune,I think it would be an interesting experiment to PCR test society to see who's currently got measles?." That's actually not true. A recent publication in the US comparing rt-pcr from vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals suggested there was little difference in virus titres between the two groups. Vaccinated people are probably less likely to test due to experiencing little to no symptoms and so, as some suggest, may be more apt to transmit as they don't feel unwell so carry on as normal. Seems like a year ago we were concerned with what the implications of asymptomatic individuals might be on spread but we've only gone and added to the numbers that might be at risk of transmitting asymptomatically! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is it happening If so Are the symptoms less Is hospital and deaths rare I know someone that has been double jabbed then had COVID, they were poorly but only for 2 days and nothing long term, guys in his late 50s and was back to work ASAP." Exactly that for me. Double jabbed, slight head and back ache for two days and a slight fever for 1 of them, then it was over. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm pretty sure lots and lots of vaccinated and or previously infected people would test positive but they don't take the test because they have zero symptoms, asymptomatic people are far far far less likely to pass on the virus for various reasons. Think of it this way, measles cases still break out despite 95% vaccination rates for decades, it's clear the virus is finding the susceptible via the vaccinated/previously immune,I think it would be an interesting experiment to PCR test society to see who's currently got measles?. That's actually not true. A recent publication in the US comparing rt-pcr from vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals suggested there was little difference in virus titres between the two groups. Vaccinated people are probably less likely to test due to experiencing little to no symptoms and so, as some suggest, may be more apt to transmit as they don't feel unwell so carry on as normal. Seems like a year ago we were concerned with what the implications of asymptomatic individuals might be on spread but we've only gone and added to the numbers that might be at risk of transmitting asymptomatically! " I think there's probably two different classes of vaccinated/previous infected and that's those within 10 weeks of point of immunity, after 10 weeks on average your antibodies will drop off allowing for reinfection to be made easier but also meaning any second reinfection would be far less severe, research shows those in front line medical who come into contact with the virus regularly often have antibodies lasting 12 months as the body keeps producing them to fight off infections. In a standard cold/flu epidemic 10-12 weeks would be sufficiently long enough to see the virus run thru the population meaning you'd spend that entire time with antibodies either after vaccination or infection to not get reinfected. Ps I didn't even know you could measure antibody titers with a PCR?? Are sure that's correct??. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm pretty sure lots and lots of vaccinated and or previously infected people would test positive but they don't take the test because they have zero symptoms, asymptomatic people are far far far less likely to pass on the virus for various reasons. Think of it this way, measles cases still break out despite 95% vaccination rates for decades, it's clear the virus is finding the susceptible via the vaccinated/previously immune,I think it would be an interesting experiment to PCR test society to see who's currently got measles?. That's actually not true. A recent publication in the US comparing rt-pcr from vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals suggested there was little difference in virus titres between the two groups. Vaccinated people are probably less likely to test due to experiencing little to no symptoms and so, as some suggest, may be more apt to transmit as they don't feel unwell so carry on as normal. Seems like a year ago we were concerned with what the implications of asymptomatic individuals might be on spread but we've only gone and added to the numbers that might be at risk of transmitting asymptomatically! I think there's probably two different classes of vaccinated/previous infected and that's those within 10 weeks of point of immunity, after 10 weeks on average your antibodies will drop off allowing for reinfection to be made easier but also meaning any second reinfection would be far less severe, research shows those in front line medical who come into contact with the virus regularly often have antibodies lasting 12 months as the body keeps producing them to fight off infections. In a standard cold/flu epidemic 10-12 weeks would be sufficiently long enough to see the virus run thru the population meaning you'd spend that entire time with antibodies either after vaccination or infection to not get reinfected. Ps I didn't even know you could measure antibody titers with a PCR?? Are sure that's correct??." Does this mean who had covid. Or double jabbed Are you saying double jabbed falls off after 10 weeks Thanks some interesting info from you | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm pretty sure lots and lots of vaccinated and or previously infected people would test positive but they don't take the test because they have zero symptoms, asymptomatic people are far far far less likely to pass on the virus for various reasons. Think of it this way, measles cases still break out despite 95% vaccination rates for decades, it's clear the virus is finding the susceptible via the vaccinated/previously immune,I think it would be an interesting experiment to PCR test society to see who's currently got measles?. That's actually not true. A recent publication in the US comparing rt-pcr from vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals suggested there was little difference in virus titres between the two groups. Vaccinated people are probably less likely to test due to experiencing little to no symptoms and so, as some suggest, may be more apt to transmit as they don't feel unwell so carry on as normal. Seems like a year ago we were concerned with what the implications of asymptomatic individuals might be on spread but we've only gone and added to the numbers that might be at risk of transmitting asymptomatically! I think there's probably two different classes of vaccinated/previous infected and that's those within 10 weeks of point of immunity, after 10 weeks on average your antibodies will drop off allowing for reinfection to be made easier but also meaning any second reinfection would be far less severe, research shows those in front line medical who come into contact with the virus regularly often have antibodies lasting 12 months as the body keeps producing them to fight off infections. In a standard cold/flu epidemic 10-12 weeks would be sufficiently long enough to see the virus run thru the population meaning you'd spend that entire time with antibodies either after vaccination or infection to not get reinfected. Ps I didn't even know you could measure antibody titers with a PCR?? Are sure that's correct??. Does this mean who had covid. Or double jabbed Are you saying double jabbed falls off after 10 weeks Thanks some interesting info from you " On average yes about 10-12 weeks before antibodies go, slightly longer for heavy infections, b cells can replicate them within days when contact with sars-cov2 is made in the future. I'm pretty I've read a good paper asserting that having antibodies present makes it much harder to become reinfected than b cell immunity but then there's also the innate immune which is a fascinating but not fully understood category on it's own. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm pretty sure lots and lots of vaccinated and or previously infected people would test positive but they don't take the test because they have zero symptoms, asymptomatic people are far far far less likely to pass on the virus for various reasons. Think of it this way, measles cases still break out despite 95% vaccination rates for decades, it's clear the virus is finding the susceptible via the vaccinated/previously immune,I think it would be an interesting experiment to PCR test society to see who's currently got measles?. That's actually not true. A recent publication in the US comparing rt-pcr from vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals suggested there was little difference in virus titres between the two groups. Vaccinated people are probably less likely to test due to experiencing little to no symptoms and so, as some suggest, may be more apt to transmit as they don't feel unwell so carry on as normal. Seems like a year ago we were concerned with what the implications of asymptomatic individuals might be on spread but we've only gone and added to the numbers that might be at risk of transmitting asymptomatically! I think there's probably two different classes of vaccinated/previous infected and that's those within 10 weeks of point of immunity, after 10 weeks on average your antibodies will drop off allowing for reinfection to be made easier but also meaning any second reinfection would be far less severe, research shows those in front line medical who come into contact with the virus regularly often have antibodies lasting 12 months as the body keeps producing them to fight off infections. In a standard cold/flu epidemic 10-12 weeks would be sufficiently long enough to see the virus run thru the population meaning you'd spend that entire time with antibodies either after vaccination or infection to not get reinfected. Ps I didn't even know you could measure antibody titers with a PCR?? Are sure that's correct??. Does this mean who had covid. Or double jabbed Are you saying double jabbed falls off after 10 weeks Thanks some interesting info from you On average yes about 10-12 weeks before antibodies go, slightly longer for heavy infections, b cells can replicate them within days when contact with sars-cov2 is made in the future. I'm pretty I've read a good paper asserting that having antibodies present makes it much harder to become reinfected than b cell immunity but then there's also the innate immune which is a fascinating but not fully understood category on it's own." So double jabbed will be protected | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm pretty sure lots and lots of vaccinated and or previously infected people would test positive but they don't take the test because they have zero symptoms, asymptomatic people are far far far less likely to pass on the virus for various reasons. Think of it this way, measles cases still break out despite 95% vaccination rates for decades, it's clear the virus is finding the susceptible via the vaccinated/previously immune,I think it would be an interesting experiment to PCR test society to see who's currently got measles?. That's actually not true. A recent publication in the US comparing rt-pcr from vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals suggested there was little difference in virus titres between the two groups. Vaccinated people are probably less likely to test due to experiencing little to no symptoms and so, as some suggest, may be more apt to transmit as they don't feel unwell so carry on as normal. Seems like a year ago we were concerned with what the implications of asymptomatic individuals might be on spread but we've only gone and added to the numbers that might be at risk of transmitting asymptomatically! I think there's probably two different classes of vaccinated/previous infected and that's those within 10 weeks of point of immunity, after 10 weeks on average your antibodies will drop off allowing for reinfection to be made easier but also meaning any second reinfection would be far less severe, research shows those in front line medical who come into contact with the virus regularly often have antibodies lasting 12 months as the body keeps producing them to fight off infections. In a standard cold/flu epidemic 10-12 weeks would be sufficiently long enough to see the virus run thru the population meaning you'd spend that entire time with antibodies either after vaccination or infection to not get reinfected. Ps I didn't even know you could measure antibody titers with a PCR?? Are sure that's correct??. Does this mean who had covid. Or double jabbed Are you saying double jabbed falls off after 10 weeks Thanks some interesting info from you On average yes about 10-12 weeks before antibodies go, slightly longer for heavy infections, b cells can replicate them within days when contact with sars-cov2 is made in the future. I'm pretty I've read a good paper asserting that having antibodies present makes it much harder to become reinfected than b cell immunity but then there's also the innate immune which is a fascinating but not fully understood category on it's own. So double jabbed will be protected" I can't remember the exact statistics but it's on average about 40% from infection, 75% symptomatic infection, 95% hospitalisation and 98% death. After two doses and after 3 weeks from last jab. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm pretty sure lots and lots of vaccinated and or previously infected people would test positive but they don't take the test because they have zero symptoms, asymptomatic people are far far far less likely to pass on the virus for various reasons. Think of it this way, measles cases still break out despite 95% vaccination rates for decades, it's clear the virus is finding the susceptible via the vaccinated/previously immune,I think it would be an interesting experiment to PCR test society to see who's currently got measles?. That's actually not true. A recent publication in the US comparing rt-pcr from vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals suggested there was little difference in virus titres between the two groups. Vaccinated people are probably less likely to test due to experiencing little to no symptoms and so, as some suggest, may be more apt to transmit as they don't feel unwell so carry on as normal. Seems like a year ago we were concerned with what the implications of asymptomatic individuals might be on spread but we've only gone and added to the numbers that might be at risk of transmitting asymptomatically! I think there's probably two different classes of vaccinated/previous infected and that's those within 10 weeks of point of immunity, after 10 weeks on average your antibodies will drop off allowing for reinfection to be made easier but also meaning any second reinfection would be far less severe, research shows those in front line medical who come into contact with the virus regularly often have antibodies lasting 12 months as the body keeps producing them to fight off infections. In a standard cold/flu epidemic 10-12 weeks would be sufficiently long enough to see the virus run thru the population meaning you'd spend that entire time with antibodies either after vaccination or infection to not get reinfected. Ps I didn't even know you could measure antibody titers with a PCR?? Are sure that's correct??. Does this mean who had covid. Or double jabbed Are you saying double jabbed falls off after 10 weeks Thanks some interesting info from you On average yes about 10-12 weeks before antibodies go, slightly longer for heavy infections, b cells can replicate them within days when contact with sars-cov2 is made in the future. I'm pretty I've read a good paper asserting that having antibodies present makes it much harder to become reinfected than b cell immunity but then there's also the innate immune which is a fascinating but not fully understood category on it's own. So double jabbed will be protected I can't remember the exact statistics but it's on average about 40% from infection, 75% symptomatic infection, 95% hospitalisation and 98% death. After two doses and after 3 weeks from last jab." Wouldn't it be great if we had the stats you quote? For each of the vaccines (somehow they are now all lumped in together for some reason) And they were verified and accurate? And were readily available and published far and wide to address the continuing questions and concerns about the vaccines.... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm pretty sure lots and lots of vaccinated and or previously infected people would test positive but they don't take the test because they have zero symptoms, asymptomatic people are far far far less likely to pass on the virus for various reasons. Think of it this way, measles cases still break out despite 95% vaccination rates for decades, it's clear the virus is finding the susceptible via the vaccinated/previously immune,I think it would be an interesting experiment to PCR test society to see who's currently got measles?. That's actually not true. A recent publication in the US comparing rt-pcr from vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals suggested there was little difference in virus titres between the two groups. Vaccinated people are probably less likely to test due to experiencing little to no symptoms and so, as some suggest, may be more apt to transmit as they don't feel unwell so carry on as normal. Seems like a year ago we were concerned with what the implications of asymptomatic individuals might be on spread but we've only gone and added to the numbers that might be at risk of transmitting asymptomatically! I think there's probably two different classes of vaccinated/previous infected and that's those within 10 weeks of point of immunity, after 10 weeks on average your antibodies will drop off allowing for reinfection to be made easier but also meaning any second reinfection would be far less severe, research shows those in front line medical who come into contact with the virus regularly often have antibodies lasting 12 months as the body keeps producing them to fight off infections. In a standard cold/flu epidemic 10-12 weeks would be sufficiently long enough to see the virus run thru the population meaning you'd spend that entire time with antibodies either after vaccination or infection to not get reinfected. Ps I didn't even know you could measure antibody titers with a PCR?? Are sure that's correct??. Does this mean who had covid. Or double jabbed Are you saying double jabbed falls off after 10 weeks Thanks some interesting info from you On average yes about 10-12 weeks before antibodies go, slightly longer for heavy infections, b cells can replicate them within days when contact with sars-cov2 is made in the future. I'm pretty I've read a good paper asserting that having antibodies present makes it much harder to become reinfected than b cell immunity but then there's also the innate immune which is a fascinating but not fully understood category on it's own. So double jabbed will be protected I can't remember the exact statistics but it's on average about 40% from infection, 75% symptomatic infection, 95% hospitalisation and 98% death. After two doses and after 3 weeks from last jab. Wouldn't it be great if we had the stats you quote? For each of the vaccines (somehow they are now all lumped in together for some reason) And they were verified and accurate? And were readily available and published far and wide to address the continuing questions and concerns about the vaccines.... " Dr John Campbell on YouTube does great podcasts on vaccines and vaccine side effects and to be fair the three vaccines used here really don't differ that much on efficacy overall. In terms of verifying, these are long established statistical and data analysis means of recording and lots of people get confused by the RR (risk reduction of the vaccine) and the ARR (absolute risk reduction) these differ greatly and some people use it to conflate the argument that vaccination doesn't work as well as advertised. These are mute points as the RR is based on a certain amount of distribution in the population,I think I'm right that they used an 80-85% distribution in this case(adults) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm pretty sure lots and lots of vaccinated and or previously infected people would test positive but they don't take the test because they have zero symptoms, asymptomatic people are far far far less likely to pass on the virus for various reasons. Think of it this way, measles cases still break out despite 95% vaccination rates for decades, it's clear the virus is finding the susceptible via the vaccinated/previously immune,I think it would be an interesting experiment to PCR test society to see who's currently got measles?. That's actually not true. A recent publication in the US comparing rt-pcr from vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals suggested there was little difference in virus titres between the two groups. Vaccinated people are probably less likely to test due to experiencing little to no symptoms and so, as some suggest, may be more apt to transmit as they don't feel unwell so carry on as normal. Seems like a year ago we were concerned with what the implications of asymptomatic individuals might be on spread but we've only gone and added to the numbers that might be at risk of transmitting asymptomatically! I think there's probably two different classes of vaccinated/previous infected and that's those within 10 weeks of point of immunity, after 10 weeks on average your antibodies will drop off allowing for reinfection to be made easier but also meaning any second reinfection would be far less severe, research shows those in front line medical who come into contact with the virus regularly often have antibodies lasting 12 months as the body keeps producing them to fight off infections. In a standard cold/flu epidemic 10-12 weeks would be sufficiently long enough to see the virus run thru the population meaning you'd spend that entire time with antibodies either after vaccination or infection to not get reinfected. Ps I didn't even know you could measure antibody titers with a PCR?? Are sure that's correct??. Does this mean who had covid. Or double jabbed Are you saying double jabbed falls off after 10 weeks Thanks some interesting info from you On average yes about 10-12 weeks before antibodies go, slightly longer for heavy infections, b cells can replicate them within days when contact with sars-cov2 is made in the future. I'm pretty I've read a good paper asserting that having antibodies present makes it much harder to become reinfected than b cell immunity but then there's also the innate immune which is a fascinating but not fully understood category on it's own. So double jabbed will be protected I can't remember the exact statistics but it's on average about 40% from infection, 75% symptomatic infection, 95% hospitalisation and 98% death. After two doses and after 3 weeks from last jab. Wouldn't it be great if we had the stats you quote? For each of the vaccines (somehow they are now all lumped in together for some reason) And they were verified and accurate? And were readily available and published far and wide to address the continuing questions and concerns about the vaccines.... Dr John Campbell on YouTube does great podcasts on vaccines and vaccine side effects and to be fair the three vaccines used here really don't differ that much on efficacy overall. In terms of verifying, these are long established statistical and data analysis means of recording and lots of people get confused by the RR (risk reduction of the vaccine) and the ARR (absolute risk reduction) these differ greatly and some people use it to conflate the argument that vaccination doesn't work as well as advertised. These are mute points as the RR is based on a certain amount of distribution in the population,I think I'm right that they used an 80-85% distribution in this case(adults) " I don't doubt your YouTube source.my point however is we spend time warning people off YouTube and twitter niche nutters. If the info is so well known (and I don't think it is) why are we not publishing everywhere to take away the wind from the sails of the argument..? Why not on all the buses like the 350m pound a day argument for brexit.? Why allow people to guess or "think I saw it somewhere"? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm pretty sure lots and lots of vaccinated and or previously infected people would test positive but they don't take the test because they have zero symptoms, asymptomatic people are far far far less likely to pass on the virus for various reasons. Think of it this way, measles cases still break out despite 95% vaccination rates for decades, it's clear the virus is finding the susceptible via the vaccinated/previously immune,I think it would be an interesting experiment to PCR test society to see who's currently got measles?. That's actually not true. A recent publication in the US comparing rt-pcr from vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals suggested there was little difference in virus titres between the two groups. Vaccinated people are probably less likely to test due to experiencing little to no symptoms and so, as some suggest, may be more apt to transmit as they don't feel unwell so carry on as normal. Seems like a year ago we were concerned with what the implications of asymptomatic individuals might be on spread but we've only gone and added to the numbers that might be at risk of transmitting asymptomatically! I think there's probably two different classes of vaccinated/previous infected and that's those within 10 weeks of point of immunity, after 10 weeks on average your antibodies will drop off allowing for reinfection to be made easier but also meaning any second reinfection would be far less severe, research shows those in front line medical who come into contact with the virus regularly often have antibodies lasting 12 months as the body keeps producing them to fight off infections. In a standard cold/flu epidemic 10-12 weeks would be sufficiently long enough to see the virus run thru the population meaning you'd spend that entire time with antibodies either after vaccination or infection to not get reinfected. Ps I didn't even know you could measure antibody titers with a PCR?? Are sure that's correct??. Does this mean who had covid. Or double jabbed Are you saying double jabbed falls off after 10 weeks Thanks some interesting info from you On average yes about 10-12 weeks before antibodies go, slightly longer for heavy infections, b cells can replicate them within days when contact with sars-cov2 is made in the future. I'm pretty I've read a good paper asserting that having antibodies present makes it much harder to become reinfected than b cell immunity but then there's also the innate immune which is a fascinating but not fully understood category on it's own. So double jabbed will be protected I can't remember the exact statistics but it's on average about 40% from infection, 75% symptomatic infection, 95% hospitalisation and 98% death. After two doses and after 3 weeks from last jab. Wouldn't it be great if we had the stats you quote? For each of the vaccines (somehow they are now all lumped in together for some reason) And they were verified and accurate? And were readily available and published far and wide to address the continuing questions and concerns about the vaccines.... Dr John Campbell on YouTube does great podcasts on vaccines and vaccine side effects and to be fair the three vaccines used here really don't differ that much on efficacy overall. In terms of verifying, these are long established statistical and data analysis means of recording and lots of people get confused by the RR (risk reduction of the vaccine) and the ARR (absolute risk reduction) these differ greatly and some people use it to conflate the argument that vaccination doesn't work as well as advertised. These are mute points as the RR is based on a certain amount of distribution in the population,I think I'm right that they used an 80-85% distribution in this case(adults) I don't doubt your YouTube source.my point however is we spend time warning people off YouTube and twitter niche nutters. If the info is so well known (and I don't think it is) why are we not publishing everywhere to take away the wind from the sails of the argument..? Why not on all the buses like the 350m pound a day argument for brexit.? Why allow people to guess or "think I saw it somewhere"? " He links the sources in every episode to anything he shows to official gov data or peer reviewed papers. The statistics are actually much easier to get hold off than on sides of buses. However I agree with you some things they don't release like the joint vaccination committees risk data analysis on 12 year olds, if you've got good data on vaccinating them, print it!. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm pretty sure lots and lots of vaccinated and or previously infected people would test positive but they don't take the test because they have zero symptoms, asymptomatic people are far far far less likely to pass on the virus for various reasons. Think of it this way, measles cases still break out despite 95% vaccination rates for decades, it's clear the virus is finding the susceptible via the vaccinated/previously immune,I think it would be an interesting experiment to PCR test society to see who's currently got measles?. That's actually not true. A recent publication in the US comparing rt-pcr from vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals suggested there was little difference in virus titres between the two groups. Vaccinated people are probably less likely to test due to experiencing little to no symptoms and so, as some suggest, may be more apt to transmit as they don't feel unwell so carry on as normal. Seems like a year ago we were concerned with what the implications of asymptomatic individuals might be on spread but we've only gone and added to the numbers that might be at risk of transmitting asymptomatically! I think there's probably two different classes of vaccinated/previous infected and that's those within 10 weeks of point of immunity, after 10 weeks on average your antibodies will drop off allowing for reinfection to be made easier but also meaning any second reinfection would be far less severe, research shows those in front line medical who come into contact with the virus regularly often have antibodies lasting 12 months as the body keeps producing them to fight off infections. In a standard cold/flu epidemic 10-12 weeks would be sufficiently long enough to see the virus run thru the population meaning you'd spend that entire time with antibodies either after vaccination or infection to not get reinfected. Ps I didn't even know you could measure antibody titers with a PCR?? Are sure that's correct??. Does this mean who had covid. Or double jabbed Are you saying double jabbed falls off after 10 weeks Thanks some interesting info from you On average yes about 10-12 weeks before antibodies go, slightly longer for heavy infections, b cells can replicate them within days when contact with sars-cov2 is made in the future. I'm pretty I've read a good paper asserting that having antibodies present makes it much harder to become reinfected than b cell immunity but then there's also the innate immune which is a fascinating but not fully understood category on it's own. So double jabbed will be protected I can't remember the exact statistics but it's on average about 40% from infection, 75% symptomatic infection, 95% hospitalisation and 98% death. After two doses and after 3 weeks from last jab. Wouldn't it be great if we had the stats you quote? For each of the vaccines (somehow they are now all lumped in together for some reason) And they were verified and accurate? And were readily available and published far and wide to address the continuing questions and concerns about the vaccines.... Dr John Campbell on YouTube does great podcasts on vaccines and vaccine side effects and to be fair the three vaccines used here really don't differ that much on efficacy overall. In terms of verifying, these are long established statistical and data analysis means of recording and lots of people get confused by the RR (risk reduction of the vaccine) and the ARR (absolute risk reduction) these differ greatly and some people use it to conflate the argument that vaccination doesn't work as well as advertised. These are mute points as the RR is based on a certain amount of distribution in the population,I think I'm right that they used an 80-85% distribution in this case(adults) I don't doubt your YouTube source.my point however is we spend time warning people off YouTube and twitter niche nutters. If the info is so well known (and I don't think it is) why are we not publishing everywhere to take away the wind from the sails of the argument..? Why not on all the buses like the 350m pound a day argument for brexit.? Why allow people to guess or "think I saw it somewhere"? He links the sources in every episode to anything he shows to official gov data or peer reviewed papers. The statistics are actually much easier to get hold off than on sides of buses. However I agree with you some things they don't release like the joint vaccination committees risk data analysis on 12 year olds, if you've got good data on vaccinating them, print it!." My point. Everybody and their dog can quote the 350m a day brexit / nhs statistic. If you asked 100 people how much the vaccines reduced infections you'd get 200 different answers. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I’m double vaccinated and I currently have covid, I have felt worse from a cold. I have a slight cough, sore throat and general bunged up feeling. I had to take my children for a test yesterday and both came back negative despite my son having some of my drink so I do think that the vaccine has reduced my symptoms and being transmitted to others " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
