Coronavirus in Massachusetts (house, school, shop)

[tribecavsbrowns]

Originally Posted by htfdcolt

Yet that's exactly what the right wing has been advocating from the beginning. Boris Johnson briefly considered it, then had a change of heart when he himself nearly died from Covid. It's absolute lunacy--the short & long term effects from Covid, even a mild version (and of course, you're playing Russian roulette here), are far worse than the side effects from a vaccine.

At some point, I say let Darwinism do its thing.

The Amish have taken the herd immunity approach you're panning here. Holmes County, Ohio (second-largest Amish community in the country) is 82 percent unvaccinated, and their population fatality rate from Covid (total number of deaths divided by total population) is 0.298 percent (Massachusetts' population fatality rate, for comparison, is 0.278 percent).

Those stupid Amish and their herd immunity! Darwin will make them pay! We're so much smarter than them!

[htfdcolt]

Originally Posted by tribecavsbrowns

The Amish have taken the herd immunity approach you're panning here. Holmes County, Ohio (second-largest Amish community in the country) is 82 percent unvaccinated, and their population fatality rate from Covid (total number of deaths divided by total population) is 0.298 percent (Massachusetts' population fatality rate, for comparison, is 0.278 percent).

Those stupid Amish and their herd immunity! Darwin will make them pay! We're so much smarter than them!

Assuming your stats are correct, the Amish are also a notoriously isolated community. So again--scientific method--you need to control for factors! At a very large scale, that was the same strategy pursued by ANZ, China, and many other Asian countries, and it worked for a long time.

I stand with most rational people on this: herd immunity by letting a deadly disease (or at least, one proven to do lung damage) run rampant is stupid at best, murderous at worst.

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by tribecavsbrowns

You believe that someone who has contracted the virus and recovered from it has inferior immunity to someone who has had the vaccine and never had the virus? Why? Do you also believe someone who has already had the flu and recovered from it is more vulnerable to infection during a given flu season than someone who has had a flu shot but not had the flu?

I believe this is a red herring.

The research has repeatedly demonstrated that those have contracted the virus and recovered are better protected with the vaccine in addition to their "natural immunity", so having the virus previously is in no way, shape or form a justification to not get the vaccine.

[tribecavsbrowns]

Originally Posted by timberline742

I believe this is a red herring.

The research has repeatedly demonstrated that those have contracted the virus and recovered are better protected with the vaccine in addition to their "natural immunity", so having the virus previously is in no way, shape or form a justification to not get the vaccine.

It's not only not a red herring, it's not even an argument.

It's a set of two simple questions. Here, I'll copy and paste it again:

You believe that someone who has contracted the virus and recovered from it has inferior immunity to someone who has had the vaccine and never had the virus? Why? Do you also believe someone who has already had the flu and recovered from it is more vulnerable to infection during a given flu season than someone who has had a flu shot but not had the flu?

My answers to these two questions are: 1) no, and 2) no. What are yours?

[OutdoorLover]

I don't understand the whole "protect yourself from a disease by acquiring the disease" strategy. I mean, if you have to run the course of disease to get your protection, then you've already exposed yourself to all the risks, so what did you exactly gain? And why don't Republicans try to acquire e.g. Hepatitis C, polio and smallpox while they're at it? No sense in getting a vaccine when you can just get the disease, right?

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by tribecavsbrowns

It's not only not a red herring, it's not even an argument.

It's a set of two simple questions. Here, I'll copy and paste it again:

You believe that someone who has contracted the virus and recovered from it has inferior immunity to someone who has had the vaccine and never had the virus? Why? Do you also believe someone who has already had the flu and recovered from it is more vulnerable to infection during a given flu season than someone who has had a flu shot but not had the flu?

My answers to these two questions are: 1) no, and 2) no. What are yours?

My answer is that these are the absolutely the incorrect questions to be asking.

The correct questions are:

Does someone who has contracted covid and recovered benefit immunity wise from receiving the vaccine as well?

The answer is yes, the research is overwhelmingly clear on this. So, get the vaccine.

Re the flu, the correct question is does someone who had the flu and recovered also benefit from receiving the flu shot?

I don't know the answer to that as I've not reviewed the research. So, I won't answer it.

Asking the incorrect questions is a way to sidetrack important conversations, and, I will not be a party to playing stupid games with people's lives.

[htfdcolt]

Originally Posted by tribecavsbrowns

It's not only not a red herring, it's not even an argument.

It's a set of two simple questions. Here, I'll copy and paste it again:

You believe that someone who has contracted the virus and recovered from it has inferior immunity to someone who has had the vaccine and never had the virus? Why? Do you also believe someone who has already had the flu and recovered from it is more vulnerable to infection during a given flu season than someone who has had a flu shot but not had the flu?

My answers to these two questions are: 1) no, and 2) no. What are yours?

Therein lies the fundamental problem. It doesn't matter what you "believe". It's what do scientific, peer-reviewed studies with controls, tell us?

Revenge of the "C" students, at its finest.

[tribecavsbrowns]

Originally Posted by timberline742

My answer is that these are the absolutely the incorrect questions to be asking.

The correct questions are:

Does someone who has contracted covid and recovered benefit immunity wise from receiving the vaccine as well?

The answer is yes, the research is overwhelmingly clear on this. So, get the vaccine.

Re the flu, the correct question is does someone who had the flu and recovered also benefit from receiving the flu shot?

I don't know the answer to that as I've not reviewed the research. So, I won't answer it.

Asking the incorrect questions is a way to sidetrack important conversations, and, I will not be a party to playing stupid games with people's lives.

I will. The answer's no. That's why no one goes out and gets a flu shot after they've had the flu.

[htfdcolt]

Originally Posted by OutdoorLover

I don't understand the whole "protect yourself from a disease by acquiring the disease" strategy. I mean, if you have to run the course of disease to get your protection, then you've already exposed yourself to all the risks, so what did you exactly gain? And why don't Republicans try to acquire e.g. Hepatitis C, polio and smallpox while they're at it? No sense in getting a vaccine when you can just get the disease, right?

Bingo. Darwinism, let's go! (But then again...a lot of these jokers are creationists, so it's a double whammy)

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by tribecavsbrowns

I will. The answer's no.

Citation of a peer reviewed study that has shown this?