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 |
"Why isn’t natural immunity from previous infection considered alongside vaccine status? The Lancet has a very interesting article arguing this very point... “Given the evidence of immunity from previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, however, policy makers should consider recovery from previous SARS-CoV-2 infection equal to immunity from vaccination for purposes related to entry to public events, businesses, and the workplace, or travel requirements.” And also... “In Switzerland, residents who can prove they have recovered from a SARS-CoV-2 infection through a positive PCR or other test in the past 12 months are considered equally protected as those who have been fully vaccinated.” They also point out that there is evidence that people who were previously infected may not benefit from the vaccine or even have more severe adverse reactions... “...one study found that previous COVID-19 was associated with increased adverse events following vaccination with the Comirnaty BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine (Pfizer–BioNTech).” And encouragingly for those who have had it... “...found that the risk of repeat SARS-CoV-2 infection decreased by 80·5–100% among those who had had COVID-19 previously (panel). The reported studies were large and conducted throughout the world. Another laboratory-based study that analysed the test results of 9119 people with previous COVID-19 from Dec 1, 2019, to Nov 13, 2020, found that only 0·7% became reinfected.” So why not include previous infection on your “Covid Status” rather than your “Vaccine Status / Passport”? Why is the only game in town getting the 2 initial jabs of vaccine and 3rd booster? The only conclusion I can come to is it is all about the money rather than health. There’s no revenue stream for big pharma and the politicians on their payroll if people do not actually need the vaccines. Big pharma need an booster programme to continually drive future revenue. Follow the money. Always! P.S. This post is NOT saying the vaccines do not work (though the dramatic and accelerated decrease in efficacy is also rather handy in creating ongoing revenue streams by requiring boosters more frequently)." 
Great Post.
There isn't just two groups, Vaccinated and Unvaccinated.
There's the 3rd group, the Covid recovered.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It is considered , if you’ve recovered from Covid in the last 90 days you can show this on the NHS app instead in vaccination status " it’s not accepted for travel or entry requirements though in order from this country. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It is considered , if you’ve recovered from Covid in the last 90 days you can show this on the NHS app instead in vaccination status " Honest question as I do not know... Isn’t the 90 day thing due to advice that previously infected people shouldn’t have the vaccine for 90 days? Also Switzerland = 12 months! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Viruses mutate, hence getting flu every year or new vaccine booster. So old antibodies won’t be as effective. It’ll eventually mutate enough to be much less of a concern. More contagious but less deadly. Remember it’s not in a parasitic organisms best interest to kill the host. " Yep viruses mutate but here too The Lancet article has some interesting findings... “Researchers have also found that people who recovered from SARS-CoV infection in 2002–03 continue to have memory T cells that are reactive to SARS-CoV proteins 17 years after that outbreak. Additionally, a memory B-cell response to SARS-CoV-2 evolves between 1·3 and 6·2 months after infection, which is consistent with longer-term protection.” | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Viruses mutate, hence getting flu every year or new vaccine booster. So old antibodies won’t be as effective. It’ll eventually mutate enough to be much less of a concern. More contagious but less deadly. Remember it’s not in a parasitic organisms best interest to kill the host. " Parasitic organism? FFS a virus isn't a parasite. The only parasites are big pharma. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Viruses mutate, hence getting flu every year or new vaccine booster. So old antibodies won’t be as effective. It’ll eventually mutate enough to be much less of a concern. More contagious but less deadly. Remember it’s not in a parasitic organisms best interest to kill the host. Parasitic organism? FFS a virus isn't a parasite. The only parasites are big pharma." Urgh…. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It should be reasonably obvious that our government (and all governments) will be considering this, as the article suggests they should. When they are confident the data supports the approach, that is. As with most things Covid related, the evidences are wide, and forming a coherent approach to public health takes time. Of course, that we also have the most corrupt and inept government in British history at the wheel means policy is as often scattershot and reactive to trivial considerations as it is sensible and evidence based. Still, this governments main driver is and has always been clear - economic preservation, through public health. As soon as they can ensure this without requiring mass vaccination / isolation (and the public spending it implies) they will move to whatever model can be shown to work, regardless of its relative efficacy and individual safety. Which may well include Covid infection status - but it won’t be happening tomorrow, as vaccines are currently understood to offer the widest and most reliable protection against hospital admissions. A functioning public health service is vital to a functioning economy, after all. Seeing any of that as some sort of collusion with pharmaceutical companies is just a bit silly. Profits for Tory party donors here is the result of a happy accident, rather than by design." Considering our sparring on another thread recently, I appreciate this response. Indeed I agree with most of what you say. However, I disagree with your last paragraph. I didn’t say Government collusion with Big Pharma. I said individual politicians on the payroll. You rightly point out that we have the most corrupt and inept Govt in history. Governments are peoples by individuals, many of whom have personal vested interests (as evidenced by the PPE scandal and fast track VIP lanes bypassing procurement due diligence to award multi-million pound contracts to friends, family and cronies. Having spent part of my career working in a relatively senior position in a central Government dept, with access to Ministers and SpAds, I can say first hand that vested interests often override sensible, considered policy making. That vested interest might not always be financial but for the most part it is (either short term through lobbying fees or consultancy fees or long term through shares and future promised non-exec directorships). This applies equally to those politicians who work in some shape or form for big pharma (more than you would imagine as these companies have deep pockets). These ministers have the ability to drive policy to benefit themselves. That is not (in my opinion) an indicator of a coordinated world-wide conspiracy but more an indicator of corrupt individuals in positions of power being opportunistic. So no, not silly! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The domestic NHS covid pass (getting in to clubs etc) is generated if you are... vaxxed... have a neg test (72hrs), post covid pos test (128 days) and medical exemption It will generate a QR code but does not state what the qualify reason was, so some level of privacy. You are also blocked from generating a pass for 10 days after a positive test (so when in isolation).. The travel pass will state the reason though, as different countries have different entry requirements .. After testing positive for covid you are advised not to have any vaccine for 28 days and there is also a restriction on having a PCR test as the covid cells can still be detected for some time even if they are by now "dead" .. " thanks interesting. Didn’t know the 128 days thing. So does that mean “they” are assuming natural immunity for 18 weeks? Wonder where that came from?
Also wonder how that squares with diminishing efficacy of the vaccines? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It should be reasonably obvious that our government (and all governments) will be considering this, as the article suggests they should. When they are confident the data supports the approach, that is. As with most things Covid related, the evidences are wide, and forming a coherent approach to public health takes time. Of course, that we also have the most corrupt and inept government in British history at the wheel means policy is as often scattershot and reactive to trivial considerations as it is sensible and evidence based. Still, this governments main driver is and has always been clear - economic preservation, through public health. As soon as they can ensure this without requiring mass vaccination / isolation (and the public spending it implies) they will move to whatever model can be shown to work, regardless of its relative efficacy and individual safety. Which may well include Covid infection status - but it won’t be happening tomorrow, as vaccines are currently understood to offer the widest and most reliable protection against hospital admissions. A functioning public health service is vital to a functioning economy, after all. Seeing any of that as some sort of collusion with pharmaceutical companies is just a bit silly. Profits for Tory party donors here is the result of a happy accident, rather than by design. Considering our sparring on another thread recently, I appreciate this response. Indeed I agree with most of what you say. However, I disagree with your last paragraph. I didn’t say Government collusion with Big Pharma. I said individual politicians on the payroll. You rightly point out that we have the most corrupt and inept Govt in history. Governments are peoples by individuals, many of whom have personal vested interests (as evidenced by the PPE scandal and fast track VIP lanes bypassing procurement due diligence to award multi-million pound contracts to friends, family and cronies. Having spent part of my career working in a relatively senior position in a central Government dept, with access to Ministers and SpAds, I can say first hand that vested interests often override sensible, considered policy making. That vested interest might not always be financial but for the most part it is (either short term through lobbying fees or consultancy fees or long term through shares and future promised non-exec directorships). This applies equally to those politicians who work in some shape or form for big pharma (more than you would imagine as these companies have deep pockets). These ministers have the ability to drive policy to benefit themselves. That is not (in my opinion) an indicator of a coordinated world-wide conspiracy but more an indicator of corrupt individuals in positions of power being opportunistic. So no, not silly! " It was not suggested you said it was evidence of a world wide conspiracy. You said this: ‘ The only conclusion I can come to is it is all about the money rather than health. There’s no revenue stream for big pharma and the politicians on their payroll if people do not actually need the vaccines. Big pharma need an booster programme to continually drive future revenue. Follow the money. Always!’ Writing this, and then saying you mean individual politicians but somehow not government, which is the collective of individual politicians, is silly. It is quite obviously not ‘all about the money’, as there are reliable, visible and obvious public health benefits. Vested interests and benefits to individuals do not change this fact. So, you made a reasonable post, but ended it by being silly. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It should be reasonably obvious that our government (and all governments) will be considering this, as the article suggests they should. When they are confident the data supports the approach, that is. As with most things Covid related, the evidences are wide, and forming a coherent approach to public health takes time. Of course, that we also have the most corrupt and inept government in British history at the wheel means policy is as often scattershot and reactive to trivial considerations as it is sensible and evidence based. Still, this governments main driver is and has always been clear - economic preservation, through public health. As soon as they can ensure this without requiring mass vaccination / isolation (and the public spending it implies) they will move to whatever model can be shown to work, regardless of its relative efficacy and individual safety. Which may well include Covid infection status - but it won’t be happening tomorrow, as vaccines are currently understood to offer the widest and most reliable protection against hospital admissions. A functioning public health service is vital to a functioning economy, after all. Seeing any of that as some sort of collusion with pharmaceutical companies is just a bit silly. Profits for Tory party donors here is the result of a happy accident, rather than by design. Considering our sparring on another thread recently, I appreciate this response. Indeed I agree with most of what you say. However, I disagree with your last paragraph. I didn’t say Government collusion with Big Pharma. I said individual politicians on the payroll. You rightly point out that we have the most corrupt and inept Govt in history. Governments are peoples by individuals, many of whom have personal vested interests (as evidenced by the PPE scandal and fast track VIP lanes bypassing procurement due diligence to award multi-million pound contracts to friends, family and cronies. Having spent part of my career working in a relatively senior position in a central Government dept, with access to Ministers and SpAds, I can say first hand that vested interests often override sensible, considered policy making. That vested interest might not always be financial but for the most part it is (either short term through lobbying fees or consultancy fees or long term through shares and future promised non-exec directorships). This applies equally to those politicians who work in some shape or form for big pharma (more than you would imagine as these companies have deep pockets). These ministers have the ability to drive policy to benefit themselves. That is not (in my opinion) an indicator of a coordinated world-wide conspiracy but more an indicator of corrupt individuals in positions of power being opportunistic. So no, not silly! It was not suggested you said it was evidence of a world wide conspiracy. You said this: ‘ The only conclusion I can come to is it is all about the money rather than health. There’s no revenue stream for big pharma and the politicians on their payroll if people do not actually need the vaccines. Big pharma need an booster programme to continually drive future revenue. Follow the money. Always!’ Writing this, and then saying you mean individual politicians but somehow not government, which is the collective of individual politicians, is silly. It is quite obviously not ‘all about the money’, as there are reliable, visible and obvious public health benefits. Vested interests and benefits to individuals do not change this fact. So, you made a reasonable post, but ended it by being silly." Oh dear and we were just starting to get along! As you quoted “There’s no revenue stream for big pharma and the politicians on their payroll” I did not reference Govt as a whole. If you truly believe individual Ministers are unable to influence policy making to benefit themselves without the support of the “collective” then that is incredibly naive. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It should be reasonably obvious that our government (and all governments) will be considering this, as the article suggests they should. When they are confident the data supports the approach, that is. As with most things Covid related, the evidences are wide, and forming a coherent approach to public health takes time. Of course, that we also have the most corrupt and inept government in British history at the wheel means policy is as often scattershot and reactive to trivial considerations as it is sensible and evidence based. Still, this governments main driver is and has always been clear - economic preservation, through public health. As soon as they can ensure this without requiring mass vaccination / isolation (and the public spending it implies) they will move to whatever model can be shown to work, regardless of its relative efficacy and individual safety. Which may well include Covid infection status - but it won’t be happening tomorrow, as vaccines are currently understood to offer the widest and most reliable protection against hospital admissions. A functioning public health service is vital to a functioning economy, after all. Seeing any of that as some sort of collusion with pharmaceutical companies is just a bit silly. Profits for Tory party donors here is the result of a happy accident, rather than by design. Considering our sparring on another thread recently, I appreciate this response. Indeed I agree with most of what you say. However, I disagree with your last paragraph. I didn’t say Government collusion with Big Pharma. I said individual politicians on the payroll. You rightly point out that we have the most corrupt and inept Govt in history. Governments are peoples by individuals, many of whom have personal vested interests (as evidenced by the PPE scandal and fast track VIP lanes bypassing procurement due diligence to award multi-million pound contracts to friends, family and cronies. Having spent part of my career working in a relatively senior position in a central Government dept, with access to Ministers and SpAds, I can say first hand that vested interests often override sensible, considered policy making. That vested interest might not always be financial but for the most part it is (either short term through lobbying fees or consultancy fees or long term through shares and future promised non-exec directorships). This applies equally to those politicians who work in some shape or form for big pharma (more than you would imagine as these companies have deep pockets). These ministers have the ability to drive policy to benefit themselves. That is not (in my opinion) an indicator of a coordinated world-wide conspiracy but more an indicator of corrupt individuals in positions of power being opportunistic. So no, not silly! It was not suggested you said it was evidence of a world wide conspiracy. You said this: ‘ The only conclusion I can come to is it is all about the money rather than health. There’s no revenue stream for big pharma and the politicians on their payroll if people do not actually need the vaccines. Big pharma need an booster programme to continually drive future revenue. Follow the money. Always!’ Writing this, and then saying you mean individual politicians but somehow not government, which is the collective of individual politicians, is silly. It is quite obviously not ‘all about the money’, as there are reliable, visible and obvious public health benefits. Vested interests and benefits to individuals do not change this fact. So, you made a reasonable post, but ended it by being silly. Oh dear and we were just starting to get along! As you quoted “There’s no revenue stream for big pharma and the politicians on their payroll” I did not reference Govt as a whole. If you truly believe individual Ministers are unable to influence policy making to benefit themselves without the support of the “collective” then that is incredibly naive." No doubt - but as nothing written above that you’ve responded to suggests that belief, it’s immaterial. Not sure why you’re always so sensitive to criticism, by the way - other than what’s already been observed. Don’t worry, they’re only opinions.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It should be reasonably obvious that our government (and all governments) will be considering this, as the article suggests they should. When they are confident the data supports the approach, that is. As with most things Covid related, the evidences are wide, and forming a coherent approach to public health takes time. Of course, that we also have the most corrupt and inept government in British history at the wheel means policy is as often scattershot and reactive to trivial considerations as it is sensible and evidence based. Still, this governments main driver is and has always been clear - economic preservation, through public health. As soon as they can ensure this without requiring mass vaccination / isolation (and the public spending it implies) they will move to whatever model can be shown to work, regardless of its relative efficacy and individual safety. Which may well include Covid infection status - but it won’t be happening tomorrow, as vaccines are currently understood to offer the widest and most reliable protection against hospital admissions. A functioning public health service is vital to a functioning economy, after all. Seeing any of that as some sort of collusion with pharmaceutical companies is just a bit silly. Profits for Tory party donors here is the result of a happy accident, rather than by design. Considering our sparring on another thread recently, I appreciate this response. Indeed I agree with most of what you say. However, I disagree with your last paragraph. I didn’t say Government collusion with Big Pharma. I said individual politicians on the payroll. You rightly point out that we have the most corrupt and inept Govt in history. Governments are peoples by individuals, many of whom have personal vested interests (as evidenced by the PPE scandal and fast track VIP lanes bypassing procurement due diligence to award multi-million pound contracts to friends, family and cronies. Having spent part of my career working in a relatively senior position in a central Government dept, with access to Ministers and SpAds, I can say first hand that vested interests often override sensible, considered policy making. That vested interest might not always be financial but for the most part it is (either short term through lobbying fees or consultancy fees or long term through shares and future promised non-exec directorships). This applies equally to those politicians who work in some shape or form for big pharma (more than you would imagine as these companies have deep pockets). These ministers have the ability to drive policy to benefit themselves. That is not (in my opinion) an indicator of a coordinated world-wide conspiracy but more an indicator of corrupt individuals in positions of power being opportunistic. So no, not silly! It was not suggested you said it was evidence of a world wide conspiracy. You said this: ‘ The only conclusion I can come to is it is all about the money rather than health. There’s no revenue stream for big pharma and the politicians on their payroll if people do not actually need the vaccines. Big pharma need an booster programme to continually drive future revenue. Follow the money. Always!’ Writing this, and then saying you mean individual politicians but somehow not government, which is the collective of individual politicians, is silly. It is quite obviously not ‘all about the money’, as there are reliable, visible and obvious public health benefits. Vested interests and benefits to individuals do not change this fact. So, you made a reasonable post, but ended it by being silly. Oh dear and we were just starting to get along! As you quoted “There’s no revenue stream for big pharma and the politicians on their payroll” I did not reference Govt as a whole. If you truly believe individual Ministers are unable to influence policy making to benefit themselves without the support of the “collective” then that is incredibly naive. No doubt - but as nothing written above that you’ve responded to suggests that belief, it’s immaterial. Not sure why you’re always so sensitive to criticism, by the way - other than what’s already been observed. Don’t worry, they’re only opinions. "Being sensitive and disagreeing are two different things. You really should try to read the actual words written rather than try to twist things to suit the point you are trying to make. You yourself brought up the corrupt govt. You seem to find it plausible/accepted that our Govt, ergo the Executive (Cabinet), are corrupt enough to line their pockets by using emergency powers* to enable decision making to bypass the Legislature (Parliament) and changing policy to enable PPE contracts for cronies etc but then you find it implausible they might do the same with vaccine policy? Do you think there is some morality line they won’t cross? BTW read my P.S. as didn’t say vaccines don’t work. *No not saying there weren’t also perfectly sensible reasons for emergency powers with a pandemic (before you try to go down that route) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Viruses mutate, hence getting flu every year or new vaccine booster. So old antibodies won’t be as effective. It’ll eventually mutate enough to be much less of a concern. More contagious but less deadly. Remember it’s not in a parasitic organisms best interest to kill the host. Parasitic organism? FFS a virus isn't a parasite. The only parasites are big pharma." What you mean the organisation’s who have produced so many life saving and life changing medicines ? Have a word with yourself  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Why isn’t natural immunity from previous infection considered alongside vaccine status? The Lancet has a very interesting article arguing this very point... “Given the evidence of immunity from previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, however, policy makers should consider recovery from previous SARS-CoV-2 infection equal to immunity from vaccination for purposes related to entry to public events, businesses, and the workplace, or travel requirements.” And also... “In Switzerland, residents who can prove they have recovered from a SARS-CoV-2 infection through a positive PCR or other test in the past 12 months are considered equally protected as those who have been fully vaccinated.” They also point out that there is evidence that people who were previously infected may not benefit from the vaccine or even have more severe adverse reactions... “...one study found that previous COVID-19 was associated with increased adverse events following vaccination with the Comirnaty BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine (Pfizer–BioNTech).” And encouragingly for those who have had it... “...found that the risk of repeat SARS-CoV-2 infection decreased by 80·5–100% among those who had had COVID-19 previously (panel). The reported studies were large and conducted throughout the world. Another laboratory-based study that analysed the test results of 9119 people with previous COVID-19 from Dec 1, 2019, to Nov 13, 2020, found that only 0·7% became reinfected.” So why not include previous infection on your “Covid Status” rather than your “Vaccine Status / Passport”? Why is the only game in town getting the 2 initial jabs of vaccine and 3rd booster? The only conclusion I can come to is it is all about the money rather than health. There’s no revenue stream for big pharma and the politicians on their payroll if people do not actually need the vaccines. Big pharma need an booster programme to continually drive future revenue. Follow the money. Always! P.S. This post is NOT saying the vaccines do not work (though the dramatic and accelerated decrease in efficacy is also rather handy in creating ongoing revenue streams by requiring boosters more frequently)." Of course it's about money. Isn't it always? If it were about science different policies might have been adopted. Profilatic treatment for the more vulnerable and more exposure prone perhaps? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Viruses mutate, hence getting flu every year or new vaccine booster. So old antibodies won’t be as effective. It’ll eventually mutate enough to be much less of a concern. More contagious but less deadly. Remember it’s not in a parasitic organisms best interest to kill the host. " Covid isn’t a parasite | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't know, but two of my family members who aren't vaccinated caught Covid twice and both times were equally as unwell. Maybe it's two different variants they caught and the immune system can't fight the new one off quickly. " Covid is horrible and by now we must all know people who have had it. Right now my Sister and Brother-In-Law have Covid (nice xmas). He brought home and she caught from him. She has been bed ridden and pretty ill for almost a week. He has had nothing worse than a mild cold. She is the fitter and healthier of the two so would have predicted the reverse. Both are double vaxxed and were going to get boosters but now need to delay. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Viruses mutate, hence getting flu every year or new vaccine booster. So old antibodies won’t be as effective. It’ll eventually mutate enough to be much less of a concern. More contagious but less deadly. Remember it’s not in a parasitic organisms best interest to kill the host. " Parasites tend to be non-intelligent. They don't think. The hosts health is of no interest to them. And virus is not even a living organism, it is more like an unstable chemical factory. | |||
| 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 |
"If people stopped taking their phones into the toilet and using them there. Then maybe, just maybe they will have both hands free to wash and thoroughly. What's more important hygiene or updates?" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
