|
Rare but we need to have an emergency meeting
| Posted By |
Message |
| Pages: << 5 6 7 [8] |
GoldenRod
10 years on LIF!
Member since 11/06 26792 total posts
Name:
Shawn
|
Re: Rare but we need to have an emergency meeting
So, a single non-peer reviewed study, that wasn't double-blind, with many admitted faults agrees with your belief, so you believe it 100%. Hundreds of different, peer-reviewed studies around the world say something, and all of those you immediately dismiss.
Some of the quotes from the posted study:
...
Reports of true reinfections are extremely rare in the absence of emergence of new variants
...
The booster shots being looked into deal with the variants, which is on the rise around the country, so even this study doesn't want to say anything about being protected from the new variants that are going around the country.
...
The study has its limitations. Because we did not have a policy of asymptomatic employee
screening, previously infected subjects who remained asymptomatic might have been misclassified as previously uninfected. Given this limitation, one should be cautious about drawing conclusions about the protective effect of prior asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection.
...
They are not saying anything about asymptomatic people being immune, or how immune, or for how long. They only tracked symptomatic people.
...
Our study included no children and
few elderly subjects, and the majority would not have been immunosuppressed.
...
So, they didn't study older people, younger people, or immunosuppressed.... which is most of our country.
I truly hope that catching the virus gives long lasting immunity. I want people to be immune, I don't care how.
I just don't want to blindly follow a single non-peer reviewed, self-admittedly flawed study.
We have documentation that the virus causes long-term effects for survivors, including documented cases of lung damage, heart damage, erectile disfunction, fertility issues, brain damage, liver damage, and other organs. Pretty much anything with blood vessels can be damaged by this virus. Yes, the cases of damage is rare, but it is greater than zero cases now, which is significantly higher than the supposed possible side effects from the vaccine. We also don't know the long-term effects for those people who were asymptomatic with the virus.
How do we know that kids who catch the virus won't have sterility issues? Nobody can say for sure. Will they have heart problems early in life? Nobody knows. There are way too many unknowns with this virus, and even more knowns to risk catching this virus.
I just hope that people don't plan on catching the virus, "surviving" it, and then relying on that to be protected from future infections.
If there are more peer-reviewed studies that follow asymptomatic, as well as symptomatic people, and groups that more closely represent the broader population, then I'm all for following the science that they discover.
I would have no issue if many studies agreed on their findings, and people who were infected were able to get a "get out of vaccine free" card, with all of the equivalent access to those with vaccines, and counted in the "vaccinated percentage".
|
Posted 6/15/21 6:42 AM  |
| |
|
Long Island Weddings
Long Island's Largest Bridal Resource |
|
|
Re: Rare but we need to have an emergency meeting
Posted by GoldenRod
So, a single non-peer reviewed study, that wasn't double-blind, with many admitted faults agrees with your belief, so you believe it 100%. Hundreds of different, peer-reviewed studies around the world say something, and all of those you immediately dismiss.
Some of the quotes from the posted study:
...
Reports of true reinfections are extremely rare in the absence of emergence of new variants
...
The booster shots being looked into deal with the variants, which is on the rise around the country, so even this study doesn't want to say anything about being protected from the new variants that are going around the country.
...
The study has its limitations. Because we did not have a policy of asymptomatic employee
screening, previously infected subjects who remained asymptomatic might have been misclassified as previously uninfected. Given this limitation, one should be cautious about drawing conclusions about the protective effect of prior asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection.
...
They are not saying anything about asymptomatic people being immune, or how immune, or for how long. They only tracked symptomatic people.
...
Our study included no children and
few elderly subjects, and the majority would not have been immunosuppressed.
...
So, they didn't study older people, younger people, or immunosuppressed.... which is most of our country.
I truly hope that catching the virus gives long lasting immunity. I want people to be immune, I don't care how.
I just don't want to blindly follow a single non-peer reviewed, self-admittedly flawed study.
We have documentation that the virus causes long-term effects for survivors, including documented cases of lung damage, heart damage, erectile disfunction, fertility issues, brain damage, liver damage, and other organs. Pretty much anything with blood vessels can be damaged by this virus. Yes, the cases of damage is rare, but it is greater than zero cases now, which is significantly higher than the supposed possible side effects from the vaccine. We also don't know the long-term effects for those people who were asymptomatic with the virus.
How do we know that kids who catch the virus won't have sterility issues? Nobody can say for sure. Will they have heart problems early in life? Nobody knows. There are way too many unknowns with this virus, and even more knowns to risk catching this virus.
I just hope that people don't plan on catching the virus, "surviving" it, and then relying on that to be protected from future infections.
If there are more peer-reviewed studies that follow asymptomatic, as well as symptomatic people, and groups that more closely represent the broader population, then I'm all for following the science that they discover.
I would have no issue if many studies agreed on their findings, and people who were infected were able to get a "get out of vaccine free" card, with all of the equivalent access to those with vaccines, and counted in the "vaccinated percentage".
Who is the ramble aimed towards?
|
| Posted 6/15/21 7:51 AM |
| |
|
Hofstra26
Love to Bake!
Member since 7/06 27915 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Rare but we need to have an emergency meeting
Posted by GoldenRod
So, a single non-peer reviewed study, that wasn't double-blind, with many admitted faults agrees with your belief, so you believe it 100%. Hundreds of different, peer-reviewed studies around the world say something, and all of those you immediately dismiss.
Some of the quotes from the posted study:
...
Reports of true reinfections are extremely rare in the absence of emergence of new variants
...
The booster shots being looked into deal with the variants, which is on the rise around the country, so even this study doesn't want to say anything about being protected from the new variants that are going around the country.
...
The study has its limitations. Because we did not have a policy of asymptomatic employee
screening, previously infected subjects who remained asymptomatic might have been misclassified as previously uninfected. Given this limitation, one should be cautious about drawing conclusions about the protective effect of prior asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection.
...
They are not saying anything about asymptomatic people being immune, or how immune, or for how long. They only tracked symptomatic people.
...
Our study included no children and
few elderly subjects, and the majority would not have been immunosuppressed.
...
So, they didn't study older people, younger people, or immunosuppressed.... which is most of our country.
I truly hope that catching the virus gives long lasting immunity. I want people to be immune, I don't care how.
I just don't want to blindly follow a single non-peer reviewed, self-admittedly flawed study.
We have documentation that the virus causes long-term effects for survivors, including documented cases of lung damage, heart damage, erectile disfunction, fertility issues, brain damage, liver damage, and other organs. Pretty much anything with blood vessels can be damaged by this virus. Yes, the cases of damage is rare, but it is greater than zero cases now, which is significantly higher than the supposed possible side effects from the vaccine. We also don't know the long-term effects for those people who were asymptomatic with the virus.
How do we know that kids who catch the virus won't have sterility issues? Nobody can say for sure. Will they have heart problems early in life? Nobody knows. There are way too many unknowns with this virus, and even more knowns to risk catching this virus.
I just hope that people don't plan on catching the virus, "surviving" it, and then relying on that to be protected from future infections.
If there are more peer-reviewed studies that follow asymptomatic, as well as symptomatic people, and groups that more closely represent the broader population, then I'm all for following the science that they discover.
I would have no issue if many studies agreed on their findings, and people who were infected were able to get a "get out of vaccine free" card, with all of the equivalent access to those with vaccines, and counted in the "vaccinated percentage".
|
| Posted 6/15/21 8:22 AM |
| |
|
lululu
LIF Adult
Member since 7/05 9511 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Rare but we need to have an emergency meeting
Posted by GoldenRod
So, a single non-peer reviewed study, that wasn't double-blind, with many admitted faults agrees with your belief, so you believe it 100%. Hundreds of different, peer-reviewed studies around the world say something, and all of those you immediately dismiss.
Some of the quotes from the posted study:
...
Reports of true reinfections are extremely rare in the absence of emergence of new variants
...
The booster shots being looked into deal with the variants, which is on the rise around the country, so even this study doesn't want to say anything about being protected from the new variants that are going around the country.
...
The study has its limitations. Because we did not have a policy of asymptomatic employee
screening, previously infected subjects who remained asymptomatic might have been misclassified as previously uninfected. Given this limitation, one should be cautious about drawing conclusions about the protective effect of prior asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection.
...
They are not saying anything about asymptomatic people being immune, or how immune, or for how long. They only tracked symptomatic people.
...
Our study included no children and
few elderly subjects, and the majority would not have been immunosuppressed.
...
So, they didn't study older people, younger people, or immunosuppressed.... which is most of our country.
I truly hope that catching the virus gives long lasting immunity. I want people to be immune, I don't care how.
I just don't want to blindly follow a single non-peer reviewed, self-admittedly flawed study.
We have documentation that the virus causes long-term effects for survivors, including documented cases of lung damage, heart damage, erectile disfunction, fertility issues, brain damage, liver damage, and other organs. Pretty much anything with blood vessels can be damaged by this virus. Yes, the cases of damage is rare, but it is greater than zero cases now, which is significantly higher than the supposed possible side effects from the vaccine. We also don't know the long-term effects for those people who were asymptomatic with the virus.
How do we know that kids who catch the virus won't have sterility issues? Nobody can say for sure. Will they have heart problems early in life? Nobody knows. There are way too many unknowns with this virus, and even more knowns to risk catching this virus.
I just hope that people don't plan on catching the virus, "surviving" it, and then relying on that to be protected from future infections.
If there are more peer-reviewed studies that follow asymptomatic, as well as symptomatic people, and groups that more closely represent the broader population, then I'm all for following the science that they discover.
I would have no issue if many studies agreed on their findings, and people who were infected were able to get a "get out of vaccine free" card, with all of the equivalent access to those with vaccines, and counted in the "vaccinated percentage".
Actually this wasn't the only study that indicates that a vaccine is not needed if you've had covid but I didn't feel the need to post the others. There is a similar study that was conducted in Isreal and had the same results as well as others.
And I never insinuated that someone should catch covid instead of getting the vaccine but many of us have already had it.
|
| Posted 6/15/21 8:26 AM |
| |
|
lululu
LIF Adult
Member since 7/05 9511 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Rare but we need to have an emergency meeting
Posted by windyweather21
Posted by GoldenRod
So, a single non-peer reviewed study, that wasn't double-blind, with many admitted faults agrees with your belief, so you believe it 100%. Hundreds of different, peer-reviewed studies around the world say something, and all of those you immediately dismiss.
Some of the quotes from the posted study:
...
Reports of true reinfections are extremely rare in the absence of emergence of new variants
...
The booster shots being looked into deal with the variants, which is on the rise around the country, so even this study doesn't want to say anything about being protected from the new variants that are going around the country.
...
The study has its limitations. Because we did not have a policy of asymptomatic employee
screening, previously infected subjects who remained asymptomatic might have been misclassified as previously uninfected. Given this limitation, one should be cautious about drawing conclusions about the protective effect of prior asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection.
...
They are not saying anything about asymptomatic people being immune, or how immune, or for how long. They only tracked symptomatic people.
...
Our study included no children and
few elderly subjects, and the majority would not have been immunosuppressed.
...
So, they didn't study older people, younger people, or immunosuppressed.... which is most of our country.
I truly hope that catching the virus gives long lasting immunity. I want people to be immune, I don't care how.
I just don't want to blindly follow a single non-peer reviewed, self-admittedly flawed study.
We have documentation that the virus causes long-term effects for survivors, including documented cases of lung damage, heart damage, erectile disfunction, fertility issues, brain damage, liver damage, and other organs. Pretty much anything with blood vessels can be damaged by this virus. Yes, the cases of damage is rare, but it is greater than zero cases now, which is significantly higher than the supposed possible side effects from the vaccine. We also don't know the long-term effects for those people who were asymptomatic with the virus.
How do we know that kids who catch the virus won't have sterility issues? Nobody can say for sure. Will they have heart problems early in life? Nobody knows. There are way too many unknowns with this virus, and even more knowns to risk catching this virus.
I just hope that people don't plan on catching the virus, "surviving" it, and then relying on that to be protected from future infections.
If there are more peer-reviewed studies that follow asymptomatic, as well as symptomatic people, and groups that more closely represent the broader population, then I'm all for following the science that they discover.
I would have no issue if many studies agreed on their findings, and people who were infected were able to get a "get out of vaccine free" card, with all of the equivalent access to those with vaccines, and counted in the "vaccinated percentage".
Who is the ramble aimed towards?
It's aimed at me.
|
| Posted 6/15/21 8:27 AM |
| |
|
|
|
Re: Rare but we need to have an emergency meeting
Posted by lululu
Posted by windyweather21
Posted by GoldenRod
So, a single non-peer reviewed study, that wasn't double-blind, with many admitted faults agrees with your belief, so you believe it 100%. Hundreds of different, peer-reviewed studies around the world say something, and all of those you immediately dismiss.
Some of the quotes from the posted study:
...
Reports of true reinfections are extremely rare in the absence of emergence of new variants
...
The booster shots being looked into deal with the variants, which is on the rise around the country, so even this study doesn't want to say anything about being protected from the new variants that are going around the country.
...
The study has its limitations. Because we did not have a policy of asymptomatic employee
screening, previously infected subjects who remained asymptomatic might have been misclassified as previously uninfected. Given this limitation, one should be cautious about drawing conclusions about the protective effect of prior asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection.
...
They are not saying anything about asymptomatic people being immune, or how immune, or for how long. They only tracked symptomatic people.
...
Our study included no children and
few elderly subjects, and the majority would not have been immunosuppressed.
...
So, they didn't study older people, younger people, or immunosuppressed.... which is most of our country.
I truly hope that catching the virus gives long lasting immunity. I want people to be immune, I don't care how.
I just don't want to blindly follow a single non-peer reviewed, self-admittedly flawed study.
We have documentation that the virus causes long-term effects for survivors, including documented cases of lung damage, heart damage, erectile disfunction, fertility issues, brain damage, liver damage, and other organs. Pretty much anything with blood vessels can be damaged by this virus. Yes, the cases of damage is rare, but it is greater than zero cases now, which is significantly higher than the supposed possible side effects from the vaccine. We also don't know the long-term effects for those people who were asymptomatic with the virus.
How do we know that kids who catch the virus won't have sterility issues? Nobody can say for sure. Will they have heart problems early in life? Nobody knows. There are way too many unknowns with this virus, and even more knowns to risk catching this virus.
I just hope that people don't plan on catching the virus, "surviving" it, and then relying on that to be protected from future infections.
If there are more peer-reviewed studies that follow asymptomatic, as well as symptomatic people, and groups that more closely represent the broader population, then I'm all for following the science that they discover.
I would have no issue if many studies agreed on their findings, and people who were infected were able to get a "get out of vaccine free" card, with all of the equivalent access to those with vaccines, and counted in the "vaccinated percentage".
Who is the ramble aimed towards?
It's aimed at me.
Ahh ok, my bad.
|
| Posted 6/15/21 8:29 AM |
| |
|
| Pages: << 5 6 7 [8] |
Potentially Related Topics:
Currently 88631 users on the LIFamilies.com Chat
|
Long Island Bridal Shows
|
