OT: COVID-19 general thread part II (and final part - see closing post)

[HBK27]

the downside you're talking about is less than .002% of people. many, many more people die from aspirin every year. more people probably die from amusement park rides every year.

as i said, if you're unable to get the shot because of your medical history that's one thing, but i would wager none of the players were talking about fall into that category. their decision, i would wager, is based on facebook science and politics.

Or it could be based on the emerging evidence that it may not be necessary given the protection of prior infection. But, no it's just easier to assume anyone that doesn't get it must just be a kook.

I'd like to see this player get the vaccine, but if he doesn't I won't be bothered by it.

 

[Triumph]

Or it could be based on the emerging evidence that it may not be necessary given the protection of prior infection. But, no it's just easier to assume anyone that doesn't get it must just be a kook.

I'd like to see this player get the vaccine, but if he doesn't I won't be bothered by it.

Yes, it is easier to assume that, because this player is costing himself thousands upon thousands of dollars, as well as marking himself as a pariah in the NHL community, which may affect future contract negotiations. But no, they are surely making a reasoned decision.

 

[MartyOwns]

Or it could be based on the emerging evidence that it may not be necessary given the protection of prior infection. But, no it's just easier to assume anyone that doesn't get it must just be a kook.

I'd like to see this player get the vaccine, but if he doesn't I won't be bothered by it.

yeah you're right. i'm sure guys like wilde are making their decisions based on scientific evidence. i'm sure somewhere, right now, tyler bertuzzi is staring quizzically into test tubes, jotting down notes as he goes.

what emerging evidence are you even talking about? is this the same one that was based on like 8 people that got you laughed out of the covid thread on the main boards? why do you weigh these one off, non-peer reviewed studies heavier than the cases of the MILLIONS of people who have been safely vaccinated? if it's not because you're a kook, it must be because...?

 

[HBK27]

Yes, it is easier to assume that, because this player is costing himself thousands upon thousands of dollars, as well as marking himself as a pariah in the NHL community, which may affect future contract negotiations. But no, they are surely making a reasoned decision.

I don't know about "marking himself as a pariah in the NHL community" - is that really how you guys are viewing him?

You'd think that giving all these financial implications that he might believe he has a good reason not to get it?

 

[Triumph]

I don't know about "marking himself as a pariah in the NHL community" - is that really how you guys are viewing him?

Yes. His teammates who are close to him will have to mask up in the locker room and on flights because of him. Who would want that as a teammate, when all of your other teammates did the reasonable thing and got vaccinated?

You'd think that giving all these financial implications that he might believe he has a good reason not to get it?

This is some solid pretzel logic and I admire it. You are implying that because there are heavy financial implications and this player is saying 'no', that they have a good reason not to? People turn down money for dumb reasons all the time. Josh Archibald looks likely to lose his NHL career because he is refusing to be vaccinated. Do I think that's reasonable? Absolutely not, no, I think it's foolish. Now we can pretzel this into him being reasonable because a hockey career as a 4th liner financially is quite possibly not worth the reduced quality of life after your career is over, but that's not the logic he's operating on, is it?

 

[AfroThunder396]

People have died overdosing on water. People end up in the hospital from taking Tylenol. Lipitor, the most commonly prescribed drug in the world, has just had new side effects described nearly 30 years after being FDA approved.

The common side effects of the vaccine - swollen and red at the injection site, fever, chills, aches - these are a good sign because it means your immune system is working properly. Severe reactions are astronomically rare unless you have a very specific allergy or underlying condition, and is the reason why they monitor you for 15 minutes after the shot.

Yeah, I know having a fever for 2 days sucks, but you know what sucks even more? Getting put on a ventilator and having a breathing tube shoved down your throat. The risk of dying from COVID is orders of magnitude higher than the risk of severe reaction to a vaccine.

The chances of severe reaction is about 2-5 people per million, which is roughly the rate of getting struck by lightning is (2 people per million). You're more likely to be killed by a dog (12 people per million), die in a car accident (120 people per million), or die choking on food (400 people per million).

Every single thing you've ever put in your body carries risks. If you want the vaccine to be a squeaky clean magic bullet, then perhaps you should hire a 7th grader to explain some basic biology and statistics to you.

 

[HBK27]

yeah you're right. i'm sure guys like wilde are making their decisions based on scientific evidence. i'm sure somewhere, right now, tyler bertuzzi is staring quizzically into test tubes, jotting down notes as he goes.

what emerging evidence are you even talking about? is this the same one that was based on like 8 people that got you laughed out of the covid thread on the main boards? why do you weigh these one off, non-peer reviewed studies heavier than the cases of the MILLIONS of people who have been safely vaccinated? if it's not because you're a kook, it must be because...?

The emerging evidence was a major study done in Israel, the findings of which were released a month ago.

What a new study reveals about natural immunity—and why experts urge caution

Doesn't mean anything is settled on this subject, as there still need to be more studies done on the impact of natural immunity in protecting against re-infection and the severity levels of a subsequent infection, something the CDC really hasn't studied much (or at least released findings).

If you want to argue the risk is so low this player should just get vaccinated anyway, then fine. It could also be argued though that we may find out that the natural immunity this player already presumably has might already offer a high degree of protection that may make the need for the vaccine on top of that unnecessary.

I'm vaccinated myself. If this player doesn't want to for whatever reason, I'll respect that.

 

[HBK27]

Yes. His teammates who are close to him will have to mask up in the locker room and on flights because of him. Who would want that as a teammate, when all of your other teammates did the reasonable thing and got vaccinated?

Fair point on teammates having to mask as a result, though I think that's an idiotic rule that the NHL imposes.

This is some solid pretzel logic and I admire it. You are implying that because there are heavy financial implications and this player is saying 'no', that they have a good reason not to? People turn down money for dumb reasons all the time. Josh Archibald looks likely to lose his NHL career because he is refusing to be vaccinated. Do I think that's reasonable? Absolutely not, no, I think it's foolish. Now we can pretzel this into him being reasonable because a hockey career as a 4th liner financially is quite possibly not worth the reduced quality of life after your career is over, but that's not the logic he's operating on, is it?

I said the player certainly must believe they have good reason not to given the financial implications.

I'm honestly surprised the player didn't just get a fake vaccination card. Or at least grease someone to not give him a shot. When I took my son to get the vaccine at a local pharmacy, he went into an office there to get it - just him and the pharmacist (and me watching). An NHLer in that situation could easily afford to slip him a few hundred or thousand dollars to not inject him with a shot and just mark the card.

 

[Triumph]

Fair point on teammates having to mask as a result, though I think that's an idiotic rule that the NHL imposes.

I bet this player agrees with you.

I said the player certainly must believe they have good reason not to given the financial implications.

I'm honestly surprised the player didn't just get a fake vaccination card. Or at least grease someone to not give him a shot. When I took my son to get the vaccine at a local pharmacy, he went into an office there to get it - just him and the pharmacist (and me watching). An NHLer in that situation could easily afford to slip him a few hundred or thousand dollars to not inject him with a shot and just mark the card.

More logic - have you realized that in a culture where getting the vaccination is seen in some quarters as tantamount to tyranny, that faking it and therefore being seen as having it, may well be just as bad to this person?

I also think the risks of such a thing are very high for an extremely low reward - if the person says no and then outs you for trying to bribe them, now you are facing a lot of backlash.

 

[MartyOwns]

The emerging evidence was a major study done in Israel, the findings of which were released a month ago.

What a new study reveals about natural immunity—and why experts urge caution

Doesn't mean anything is settled on this subject, as there still need to be more studies done on the impact of natural immunity in protecting against re-infection and the severity levels of a subsequent infection, something the CDC really hasn't studied much (or at least released findings).

If you want to argue the risk is so low this player should just get vaccinated anyway, then fine. It could also be argued though that we may find out that the natural immunity this player already presumably has might already offer a high degree of protection that may make the need for the vaccine on top of that unnecessary.

I'm vaccinated myself. If this player doesn't want to for whatever reason, I'll respect that.

did you read what you linked? half of that article was downplaying the "conclusions" because of small sample size and variant concerns, among other things. my favorites:

However, the researchers said the evidence suggested that natural immunity appeared to wane over time.

...since the delta variant was the most common cause of infection among participants in the study, the study results cannot be translated to other variants of the virus.

They also said the findings may have underestimated asymptomatic cases, and that the findings can only be limited to the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.

...many of the numbers used in the study were still "small." For example, she pointed out that the higher rate of hospitalization found within an analysis of 32,000 study participants was based on just eight hospitalizations within the vaccinated group and one hospitalization among the previously infected group.

...the authors' caution that the findings should be interpreted carefully because they likely underestimate the number of people with asymptomatic Covid-19.

Moreover, experts pointed out that no one in the study passed away, which they said clearly demonstrates that the vaccine offers strong protection against serious infection.

"Unvaccinated people who get infected are where we see the deaths occurring," Schooley said. "Putting yourself at risk of dying to have 'natural' immunity is not a great tradeoff."

and it ended with this:

"People who have been infected still get a benefit—for themselves and for society—by getting vaccinated, and one shot of a vaccine is sufficient to achieve that," Sette said.

what a useless study...i've seen better conclusions drawn from shot assists.

as i said an hour ago...players should get the f***ing shot. people like you are trying to turn this into a multifaceted conversation by raising questions that have already been answered. the data is clear, everyone (except for the miniscule fraction that have valid medical reasons) should get the vaccine.

 

[JimEIV]

I was under the impression that there was serious debate regarding whether or not Specifically young people who have had COVID should get the vaccine? Or at least the full vaccine? I thought the latest guidance was just one dose?

Am I off on that?

 

[MartyOwns]

I was under the impression that there was serious debate regarding whether or not Specifically young people who have had COVID should get the vaccine? Or at least the full vaccine? I thought the latest guidance was just one dose?

Am I off on that?

i believe the vaccine for 12 and under will be approved this fall. but i could be wrong. not sure if it's one shot or two

 

[HBK27]

I was under the impression that there was serious debate regarding whether or not Specifically young people who have had COVID should get the vaccine? Or at least the full vaccine? I thought the latest guidance was just one dose?

Am I off on that?

Originally there was, but that seemingly has been replaced by an "everyone just get vaccinated" mentality.

Official CDC recommendations still advice that young people get the full vaccine, though there was at least one Israeli study that showed just one dose of Pfizer vaccine was 100% effective in children 12 to 15. Pfizer is also testing lower doses of the vaccine in the 5-11 year old trials, so it seems to reason that 12 to 15 year olds probably don't need adult-level vaccines.

 

[Azathoth]

Originally there was, but that seemingly has been replaced by an "everyone just get vaccinated" mentality.

Official CDC recommendations still advice that young people get the full vaccine, though there was at least one Israeli study that showed just one dose of Pfizer vaccine was 100% effective in children 12 to 15. Pfizer is also testing lower doses of the vaccine in the 5-11 year old trials, so it seems to reason that 12 to 15 year olds probably don't need adult-level vaccines.

It looks like pfizer was testing 10ug doses in 5-11 year olds (vs 30ug doses for 12 and up) and the results appear to be positive.

Pfizer and BioNTech Announce Positive Topline Results From Pivotal Trial of COVID-19 Vaccine in Children 5 to 11 Years | Pfizer

 

[Smitty426]

The emerging evidence was a major study done in Israel, the findings of which were released a month ago.

What a new study reveals about natural immunity—and why experts urge caution

I'm vaccinated myself. If this player doesn't want to for whatever reason, I'll respect that.

All good and all but what does his employer say, or the union he works for? Not arguing, just saying its not just what he says/wants sometimes

 

[AfroThunder396]

The emerging evidence was a major study done in Israel, the findings of which were released a month ago.

What a new study reveals about natural immunity—and why experts urge caution

Doesn't mean anything is settled on this subject, as there still need to be more studies done on the impact of natural immunity in protecting against re-infection and the severity levels of a subsequent infection, something the CDC really hasn't studied much (or at least released findings).

If you want to argue the risk is so low this player should just get vaccinated anyway, then fine. It could also be argued though that we may find out that the natural immunity this player already presumably has might already offer a high degree of protection that may make the need for the vaccine on top of that unnecessary.

I'm vaccinated myself. If this player doesn't want to for whatever reason, I'll respect that.

This paper is a pre-print which means it has not been peer reviewed or published. And for good reason, there are major methodological errors and biases the authors fail to address.

 

[HBK27]

This paper is a pre-print which means it has not been peer reviewed or published. And for good reason, there are major methodological errors and biases the authors fail to address.

Which is why I specifically stated it was "emerging evidence" and that nothing was settled on this issue.

 

[MartyOwns]

Which is why I specifically stated it was "emerging evidence" and that nothing was settled on this issue.

no, it's settled if you look at evidence that already emerged, like the literal billions of vaccines that have been administered with no issues.

 

[HBK27]

no, it's settled if you look at evidence that already emerged, like the literal billions of vaccines that have been administered with no issues.

What the hell are you even talking about?

First off, the issue I was talking about was whether or not natural immunity via prior infection offers a higher degree of protection than vaccines alone. That is far from being settled. Go ahead and point to any studies that show otherwise.

Second, are you really asserting that there have been "no issues" among the vaccines that have been administered? Really? No deaths or severe side effects, regardless of how rare? If so, you are completely wrong.

 

[MartyOwns]

What the hell are you even talking about?

First off, the issue I was talking about was whether or not natural immunity via prior infection offers a higher degree of protection than vaccines alone. That is far from being settled. Go ahead and point to any studies that show otherwise.

it’s also far from settled that frosted flakes works as well as a vaccination. what’s your point? what you cited wasn’t evidence to support the theory, since most of it was delegitimized by its own admissions. it’s a non peer reviewed, small sample size of one variant with one brand of vaccine.

Second, are you really asserting that there have been "no issues" among the vaccines that have been administered? Really? No deaths or severe side effects, regardless of how rare? If so, you are completely wrong.

there is always the risk of “issues” with medical procedures. by your logic, we should get rid of aspirin because there’s some more-than-emerging evidence that it could be harmful.

you have to look at the evidence to see if there is a risk. there is not a risk on a wide scale, not even close. even in the article you cited, someone commented (paraphrasing here) that even if you have natural immunity from prior infection, you should still get the shot because why the hell not?

 

[devilsblood]

it’s also far from settled that frosted flakes works as well as a vaccination. what’s your point? what you cited wasn’t evidence to support the theory, since most of it was delegitimized by its own admissions. it’s a non peer reviewed, small sample size of one variant with one brand of vaccine.



there is always the risk of “issues” with medical procedures. by your logic, we should get rid of aspirin because there’s some more-than-emerging evidence that it could be harmful.

you have to look at the evidence to see if there is a risk. there is not a risk on a wide scale, not even close. even in the article you cited, someone commented (paraphrasing here) that even if you have natural immunity from prior infection, you should still get the shot because why the hell not?

If someone were to have natural immunity, and you admit that there are risks with any medical procedure, then you should be able to see the why not?

 

[HBK27]

it’s also far from settled that frosted flakes works as well as a vaccination. what’s your point? what you cited wasn’t evidence to support the theory, since most of it was delegitimized by its own admissions. it’s a non peer reviewed, small sample size of one variant with one brand of vaccine.

I was already very clear in my point, which is that we're seeing evidence that natural immunity may be (perhaps much) stronger than just the vaccine alone. I've already stated that there still need to be additional studies on this topic, but the study was not "delegitimized by its own admissions". That's just blatantly false. And your frosted flakes analogy is piss poor. This was by far the largest study on this and you can't point to any studies on any significant scale that show otherwise. Not sure how a sample of more than 700,000 people is considered a "small sample size".

there is always the risk of “issues” with medical procedures. by your logic, we should get rid of aspirin because there’s some more-than-emerging evidence that it could be harmful.

you have to look at the evidence to see if there is a risk. there is not a risk on a wide scale, not even close. even in the article you cited, someone commented (paraphrasing here) that even if you have natural immunity from prior infection, you should still get the shot because why the hell not?

At least you're admitting that you were clearly wrong in stating there was no risk.

Another piss poor analogy though as I didn't suggest anything remotely along the lines of getting rid of covid vaccines, which would actually be somewhat equivalent to the suggesting of getting rid of aspirin.

I see that you've moved the goalposts from "no issues" to "not a risk on a wide scale". As to "why the hell not", well maybe because we shouldn't just be injecting people with something unless there is a proven tangible benefit to the person, which is not the case for two doses of vaccine for someone with natural immunity. Even if the risks are very rare, the precise amount of risk of a severe or even fatal side effect is not yet completely clear.

 

[Call Me Al]

please stop posting unreviewed and unproven studies as evidence that you are making a reasonable point. you are spreading misinformation and trying to express doubt about a vaccine that has proven to be safe. the risks are minimal compared to contracting the virus, and you are completely ignoring that.

anyway while we’re just posting studies that support our views, here:

“The data is clear: Natural immunity is not better. The COVID-19 vaccines create more effective and longer-lasting immunity than natural immunity from infection.

• More than a third of COVID-19 infections result in zero protective antibodies
• Natural immunity fades faster than vaccine immunity
• Natural immunity alone is less than half as effective than natural immunity plus vaccination”

COVID-19 natural immunity versus vaccination

i expect that you won’t listen to this because it doesn’t fit what you want reality to be

 

[HBK27]

please stop posting unreviewed and unproven studies as evidence that you are making a reasonable point. you are spreading misinformation and trying to express doubt about a vaccine that has proven to be safe. the risks are minimal compared to contracting the virus, and you are completely ignoring that.

anyway while we’re just posting studies that support our views, here:

“The data is clear: Natural immunity is not better. The COVID-19 vaccines create more effective and longer-lasting immunity than natural immunity from infection.

• More than a third of COVID-19 infections result in zero protective antibodies
• Natural immunity fades faster than vaccine immunity
• Natural immunity alone is less than half as effective than natural immunity plus vaccination”

COVID-19 natural immunity versus vaccination

i expect that you won’t listen to this because it doesn’t fit what you want reality to be

I'll post whatever the f*** I want. It's not spreading "misinformation" (ugh) to call out that study, especially given I've repeatedly stated we still need additional studies on the topic.

The data is not clear on this topic. The study you linked that shows "more than a third of COVID-19 infections result in zero protective antibodies" was based on a study of just 72 people and they noted that "we cannot formally exclude false-positive RT-PCR results in some participants". And your telling me to stop posting unproven studies???

As for Natural Immunity fading faster, maybe that is the case, though your link also says "studies are ongoing to evaluate the full duration of protective immunity" - but, the data is still clear right? The one study they do link on the topic is from November 2020, which looked at a whopping 156 frontline workers and notes in the summary that "however, the timeline of antibody decline over time is uncertain".

As for your 3rd point that "Natural immunity alone is less than half as effective than natural immunity plus vaccination", the article you linked doesn't really provide backing data on this. It notes:
"Natural immunity can be spotty. Some people can react vigorously and get a great antibody response. Other people don't get such a great response," says infectious diseases expert Mark Rupp, MD. "Clearly, vaccine-induced immunity is more standardized and can be longer-lasting." - which I think is a fair comment.

The study that the article linked that shows that those with prior infection have a higher chance of reinfection versus those that were vaccinated is also rather flawed. The group that was tracked that was unvaccinated had acquired COVID at some point in 2020. The period tracked for subsequent infection was May 1 - June 30, 2021. So basically the vaccinated group had just gotten the vaccine prior to the period being tracked whereas the unvaccinated group may have gotten the virus more than a year earlier.

We know that natural immunity as well as the vaccine wanes over time. In many cases, it would likely be beneficial for someone with previous infection to get a vaccine shot as well. Getting the vaccine on top of natural immunity would certainly offer more protection - it's a matter of what additional levels. Perhaps one shot is more than enough protection, as some studies are starting to show (though it would vary by individual). There doesn't seem to be as much of a need for a 2nd shot of vaccine for those with natural immunity (particularly 20-something elite athletes) as it provides a much lower benefit. What we still don't know is the true levels of protection for those with natural immunity or how much benefit the first and second dose of the vaccine provide.

What is the reality that I want? I think natural immunity should be recognized and incorporated when you are making vaccine mandates.

As for "the risks are minimal compared to contracting the virus, and you are completely ignoring that" - yes, I agree that the risks of the vaccine are minimal compared to contracting the virus, which is why I got the vaccine myself as did my entire family and encourage others to do so as well. I'm not ignoring that because I'm not advocating for anyone to skip the vaccine in favor of getting the virus. I'm simply stating that those that have already unintentionally gotten the virus (which appears to be the case for this player) and developed a level of natural immunity should have that taken into consideration when it comes to these mandates.

 

[Call Me Al]

using google to tell you what you want isn't doing research so unless you have a background and experience that actually informs anything that you post, it is spreading misinformation and doubt about the vaccine for no reason