i been saying this

minor chance of having heart problems same as young people chance of dying from covid

yep either way

but person i quoted was like get vaxxed to stop the spread

which it doesnt

did you see what i was replying to or?

It was a joke lol pretty sure dak Prescott said my post word for word

hes right imo

i had covid but decided to get the vaccine because i was essentially forced to. once u have had the virus u should be fine antibody wise

also when did everyone become so informed on antibodies? this dude knows more about antibodies then i do and im a biology major lmao

I’m so tired abt ppl talking abt the vaccine and COVID honestly

Actually miss the stupid topics ppl nattered about before Feb. 2020

This is a great example of why we need to actually discuss this topic rather than shut people down. IMO that was one of the most well-articulated explanations of the opposing perspective to mine that I've heard throughout this whole thing.

I'd mainly challenge his points about antibody effectiveness. Science is continuing to evolve on the topic, as he says, but the merits of mRNA as a mitigation of lethality rather than of transmissibility is a nuance that I feel has gotten lost in the vitriol. The theory is that, because mRNA teaches our bodies to fight the virus and therefore give us a lighter case of COVID-19 the disease, a fully- or majority-vaccinated public would lessen the load on the healthcare system in addition to potentially preventing the opportunity for the virus to mutate. Yes, in his (and my) case, the chances of a lethal infection are far lower. That's not the point, though - the point is to a. minimize the amount of people who do get the disease to a point that requires hospitalization (and people outside of the age ranges in direct danger DO get severe cases in rare instances) and therefore b. "control" the virus not in terms of transmission, but in terms of cutting off its ability to mutate and disrupt society. COVID antibodies will protect him from this current strain, yes, but they may well not for the next.

Ironically, I completely agree with his empathy for his neighbors. Particularly for black Americans, skepticism about vaccination is perfectly valid. But if you truly are trying to protect your neighbors and do what's best for society as a whole, you'll get the vaccine even if the disease poses very little statistical risk to you as an individual.

Also a very valid perspective, but in this case:

According to one U.S. study that has yet to undergo peer review young males under 20 are up to six times more likely to develop myocarditis after contracting COVID-19 than those who have been vaccinated.

Denmark said that, while it used the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine as its main option for people aged 12-17 years, it had decided to pause giving the Moderna vaccine to people below 18 according to a "precautionary principle".

"In the preliminary data ... there is a suspicion of an increased risk of heart inflammation, when vaccinated with Moderna," the Danish Health Authority said in a statement.

It referred to data from a yet unpublished Nordic study, which would now be sent to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) for further assessment. Final data was expected within a month, it added.

This is a very reasonable conservative response to an as-yet-not-peer-reviewed study. I'm glad they did it rather than take chances, but transparency goes a long way and burying the details of the why lower down the page does no one any favors.

EDIT: source: reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/sweden-pauses-use-moderna-covid-vaccine-cites-rare-side-effects-2021-10-06

science on antibody effectiveness more and more points to getting covid is stronger and lasts longer than getting vaccinated and never having covid

"The new a***ysis relies on the database of Maccabi Healthcare Services, which enrolls about 2.5 million Israelis. The study, led by Tal Patalon and Sivan Gazit at KSM, the system’s research and innovation arm, found in two a***yses that never-infected people who were vaccinated in January and February were, in June, July, and the first half of August, six to 13 times more likely to get infected than unvaccinated people who were previously infected with the coronavirus. In one a***ysis, comparing more than 32,000 people in the health system, the risk of developing symptomatic COVID-19 was 27 times higher among the vaccinated, and the risk of hospitalization eight times higher."

dinner with jay z and 200 dollar dates got played out, tbh.

idc

true but this still worse

this is like if some people were arguing that the government should mandate people to have dinner with jay z instead of taking $200 and other people were saying dinner with jay z actually makes you more hungry

ALL F***ING CAPS

HIPPO

violating my HIPPO rights and s***

Hungry hungry HIPAA rights

Isn't this this player that didn't wanna take a knee and then ending up tearing his ACL

Midwits become geniuses overnight with the help of pop sci YouTube videos

This is true - and it's still compatible with the need for a vaccine to minimize severe cases. Great article on the matter:

science.org/content/article/having-sars-cov-2-once-confers-much-greater-immunity-vaccine-vaccination-remains-vital

The preprint, for example, reported that people who were previously infected and then vaccinated with an mRNA vaccine had antibodies in their blood that neutralized the infectivity of another virus, harmless to humans, that was engineered to express a version of the coronavirus spike protein that contains 20 concerning mutations. Sera from vaccinated and naturally infected people could not do so.

^ this is f***ing awesome news. It means that as of now natural immunity is pacing with mutations. Doesn't mean we won't encounter later mutations that ignore previous immunity, but the same theory applies with mRNA. The real difference lies in how many people are developing severe or life threatening cases on their way to natural immunity and whether that number will continue to overwhelm our healthcare systems.

This is why it needs to be a transparent discussion rather than an appeal to emotion. It comes down to two options:

a. Remain at risk for COVID cases that increase in potential for hospitalization with age each year-ish (the current estimate of how long antibodies linger after infection per that article) and essentially resign to getting it roughly once a year forever.

or:

b. Get a vaccine with periodic (realistically probably 6 months max) boosters to minimize your chances of getting the disease at severity that requires hospital care and resign to getting that vaccine (for now, free of charge at least) at those intervals forever.

Neither is great, but the latter is where we see this thing ACTUALLY become a flu equivalent in terms of impact and stress to our healthcare infrastructure. This also all assumes that the disease won't mutate, which could well happen in either case, but is more likely to happen within bodies that aren't vaccinated as the virus has a higher replication rate without the presence of mRNA targeting the spike protein (per: healthline.com/health-news/unvaccinated-people-are-increasing-the-chances-for-more-coronavirus-variants-heres-how#How-the-virus-spreads-and-changes)

fuuuuck. I got Moderna

I'm tall as s*** already, so my heart already not built well for my older years

You're good - peep my above response and the article I prob should've linked before:

reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/sweden-pauses-use-moderna-covid-vaccine-cites-rare-side-effects-2021-10-06

It's a very reasonable proactive response, but it's a response to a non-peer-reviewed study as of now. They're just taking the highest precautions possible which, honestly. I wish more countries did. I also wish they were more transparent with it than "Moderna good, now Moderna bad, now it good again" but hey, guess I'm asking for too much there

Jonathan Isaac is a simpleton and a borderline Christian fundamentalist

This sentiment is coming from the same place as QAnon bullshit