KrzyKtty
Well-Known Member
I really don't see how that makes sense at all. How does a vaccine make you more likely to get the virus? This isn't me being snarky, I truly do not understand the science behind how that could even be possible.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion
- Thread starter Parker in NYC
- Start date
-
- Tags
- coronavirus covid covid-19
- Status
Epcotbob
Well-Known Member
They are comparing natural immunity of previously infected, to those who have not been infected and have gotten the vaccine.
The vaccine is still highly effective in preventing initial infection or at least reduces the severity.
danlb_2000
Premium Member
The claim is that natural immunity due to infection provides better protection from the virus then the vaccine. So the vaccine isn't making it more likely for you to get sick, it's just not offering the same protection as natural immunity. Of course, as someone else pointed out, there is currently conflicting data on this point.
DisneyCane
Well-Known Member
I'm sure they'll appeal but based on current Florida law I don't think they will prevail.
I'm too bored to listen to the whole thing but based on what I listened to at the beginning, if the Legislature went into special session and passed a law that prohibited school districts from implementing mask mandates, then it would be legal. The Governor does not currently have the statutory authority to issue this order. If a similar suit was brought by a business that wanted to implement a vaccine passport for customers (like at WDW for example), the State would win because there is a law that prohibits them.
Before somebody brings up the NCL suit, that is a much more complex issue because the cruise ships leave FL after the passengers embark which makes it very difficult for the state to claim that they are a business operating in FL.
KrzyKtty
Well-Known Member
Ah, okay. Then I'd still would rather get the vaccine, and become more likely to get a lesser form of the virus, then to not get the vaccine, and play Russian roulette with dying from the virus
.DisneyCane
Well-Known Member
Sorry, I haven't followed this thread for a while, but this article just popped up on my Android news feed. I was a bit shocked because I thought the vaccine provided greater immunity than previous infection ??
Science | AAAS
www.sciencemag.org
Honestly, I'd be shocked if it turned out to be the opposite. Logically, how can you get more protection from a vaccine which is trying to trick your immune system into thinking you're infected with SARS-CoV-2 than if you actually were infected by it. It would be different if the vaccine was variant specific and we were comparing against the original variant but the vaccines are based on the original.
To me, it makes sense if either the vaccines provide the same protection or less protection than a natural infection but not more protection.
Certainly everybody who can be vaccinated should be. There's no reason not to. People less protected from natural infection could be people who were infected long enough ago that the protection has waned. Probably natural infection + vaccine is amazing because it is like vaccine + booster.Another study showed the opposite. So take what you want on it.
Reduced Risk of Reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 After COVID-19...
This report describes COVID-19 reinfection among vaccinated and unvaccinated persons in Kentucky.www.cdc.gov
My guess is it might vary a bit individually.... but it's so early we don't know. Best thing to do is push for vaccination as best as possible anyway. Covid+ plus vaccine seems amazing. Not that I want us all to do it, so vaccines first.
DisneyCane
Well-Known Member
Even in the highly vaccinated states, there is almost nowhere in the entire USA that has low or moderate spread. Nearly all of the low spread counties are in Nebraska. There must be an error in that data because it makes no sense to have high spread counties border low spread counties even if almost nobody lives in the low spread counties.
Attachments
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
The injunction ruling for Norwegian Cruise Line didn’t hinge on the cruise heading out of state. It was very much focused on issues related to the US, Florida and the law itself.
DisneyFan32
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- Yes
Delta variant spreading is going worse by Christmas. I hope spreading will be slowing down soon. I've got bad feeling about this.
Even in the highly vaccinated states, there is almost nowhere in the entire USA that has low or moderate spread. Nearly all of the low spread counties are in Nebraska. There must be an error in that data because it makes no sense to have high spread counties border low spread counties even if almost nobody lives in the low spread counties.
Epcotbob
Well-Known Member
But it does seem to provide at least a somewhat viable argument for those who have been previously infected to be comfortable with natural immunity?
Vegas Disney Fan
Well-Known Member
This as fantastic news, it shows herd immunity is still the end of this. If natural immunity is as strong (or better) than vaccine immunity the end of the pandemic will come sooner rather than later.Sorry, I haven't followed this thread for a while, but this article just popped up on my Android news feed. I was a bit shocked because I thought the vaccine provided greater immunity than previous infection ??
Science | AAAS
Personally I still think the vaccine approach is the infinitely safer choice but good natural immunity means the anti vaxers will eventually be immune (or dead) whether they like it or not.
I’d also point out it said people with natural immunity plus the vaccine showed even better immunity so the vaccines should still be taken by all.
Natural + vaccine > natural > vaccinated >>> unvaccinated
Wendy Pleakley
Well-Known Member
Last edited by a moderator:
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Your article said also getting a vaccine improved protection. The natural immunity argument isn’t good for verification because it’s not standardized. I’ve also noticed some who claim they have “natural immunity” self diagnosed, including illness before December 2019.
Heppenheimer
Well-Known Member
There isn't a consensus on this topic yet, although the weight of opinion seems to lie more with vaccines offering better protection, the one study presented above nonwithstanding. We're just really not sure, though, which confers more enduring immunity. It is possible that vaccines provide more robust protection initially but then fade more quickly than natural infection. Most of what I've read seems to indicate this is probably not the case, but COVID-19 hasn't been around long enough for us to have a really good answer yet.
Now certainly, even if vaccine-induced immunity does wane and needs a booster, vaccination is still far more preferable than taking a roll of the dice on a COVID infection.
One hypothetical mechanism by which natural infection could possibly offer better or more lasting immunity is because the mRNA vaccines only rely on an immune response to the spike protein. Granted, in the earlier research of COVID-19, this was the portion of the virus that elicited by far the strongest immune response, so it made perfect sense to focus vaccine research on this particular target. But SARS-CoV-2 also expresses three other proteins that could possibly provoke an immune response that are not transcribed by the mRNA vaccines. If Novavax ever gets approved, it might find a niche as a complement to the mRNA vaccines because it also targets the membrane protein.
Last edited:
DisneyCane
Well-Known Member
If they are tested for antibodies that should be able to be standardized.
Wendy Pleakley
Well-Known Member
Scientific conclusions change as we learn more or get new information. Sometimes we get the best information available based on the data at hand but scientists keep researching and sometimes they change their conclusions. This is normal, and the lack of understanding has cause a lot of irrational reactions to changing policies during COVID.
Why scientists are changing their minds and disagreeing during the coronavirus pandemic
In our culture, we often hold politicians, corporate executives and other leaders accountable for the consistency of their positions. But in the scientific world, thinking is expected to evolve based on new evidence — and that's happened during Covid-19.
www.cnbc.com
In the scientific world, it’s expected that even the highest-ranking academics will evolve their thinking — and many have done so during this Covid-19 pandemic.
But some scientists fear that the public doesn’t understand this, and is losing faith in scientists who change their minds. And that’s having real consequences on the front lines.
Dr. Megan Ranney, an emergency physician who works at the Rhode Island Hospital, said some patients are coming into her emergency department refusing to wear masks. When she prompted them to wear one, they often told her that public health authorities like the World Health Organization and the CDC initially advised against wearing masks, saying there was little evidence that it would help prevent people from getting sick.
That recommendation later changed, as studies began to show evidence that people with no symptoms might be spreading the disease. Now, the CDC encourages all people in public to wear masks where social distancing measures cannot be maintained, including cloth-based coverings, to prevent the disease from spreading -- exactly what citizens in some countries, like Hong Kong and Japan, had guessed during the early days of the pandemic based on past experiences. As of the time of publication, The World Health Organization recommends masks for sick people or anyone caring for them, but has no guidance on masks for healthy people.
But as Ranney pointed out in an interview with CNBC, it’s “part of the process” that leading public health authorities would adapt their thinking based on new information.
correcaminos
Well-Known Member
I'm not a medical person to know. Personally, I thought similar knowing some natural reinfections always occur. but again not a medical person. Edit and a medical person above already replied so what do I know
No matter what yes, whoever can be vaccinated should be! No matter what the real answer is.
ArmoredRodent
Well-Known Member
\lurk off\
I missed the beginning of the session, but heard the Order recitation; here's a quick analysis of the Court's Order as read. Judge Cooper granted a permanent injunction in this case, but it simply requires government agencies (and not the Governor) to follow existing Florida law, namely the Florida Parents' Bill of Rights. I would anticipate an appeal by both sides, since relief was granted on only two of the plaintiffs' claims and denied on three claims.
This is not an earthshaking decision; it is from a sleep-deprived judge, relying principally on basic legal principles. There is a much more important decision handed down last night by U.S. Supreme Court on the CDC's eviction ban that actually deals with the CDC's power under the Constitution to issue orders during pandemics (see comment to DisneyCane below). Judge Cooper's decision here is much more timid than the Supremes, but that is because he's a lower court judge and they ... are not).
It's important to recognize that Judge Cooper's Order here follows the same pattern I've pointed out before in the course of pandemic judicial decisions: early in the pandemic, there was a lot of deference to government's emergency orders, but now the government will be put to its proof rather than given a great deal of leeway. But he didn't follow the pattern very far. Judge Cooper held the government had to show only a little proof that at least some doctor, somewhere, had supported a mask ban, even though the plaintiffs' evidence (from the CDC mostly) against a mask ban was "overwhelming." At this preliminary stage of this case, he ruled the government was able to show enough evidence to defeat two of the plaintiffs' claims, and not enough to defeat two others (the fifth claim was denied on technical grounds). That's timid, especially in a constitutional challenge (McCutcheon v. FEC, governmental policy affecting constitutional rights cannot be based on "mere speculation").
As you probably guessed with that lead-in, what is most important in any public policy challenge is the standard of review and the burden of proof. Judge Cooper started out using the same standard of review almost every court reviewing a pandemic order has used -- a version of "intermediate scrutiny," meaning that, in enacting the ban on masks, the government had to show evidence demonstrating an substantial governmental interest (protecting public health, for example), and that their remedy (the mask ban) was reasonable and necessary to achieve that interest, and that there was no less restrictive alternative. In fact, Judge Cooper found that the mask ban did not even meet "rational basis," the lowest possible standard of review: "there is no reasonable or rational justification for not following all provisions of Florida law." The mask ban was, as lawyers say, "ultra vires," beyond the government's statutory authority. The government's downfall was that the Florida Parents' Bill of Rights, "signed by the Governor," gives school boards certain Due Process rights to present evidence to meet the same burden of reasonableness, necessity, and less-restrictive alternatives. The mask ban order did not do so. So, Judge Cooper repeatedly said that the mask ban violated Florida law. Violating the law is never a substantial government interest, and the government did not show that it even considered whether there was a less restrictive alternative which would have permitted parents to "opt out" of the ban. I do think Judge Cooper's ruling will be clarified on appeal, however it turns out, since he also ruled that the Florida Parents' Bill of Rights granted certain rights that would not be reviewed by courts; that sounds like the sort of thing that appeals court judges generally don't like. So don't expect a simple or clear appeals court decision; more likely one that will deal with a lot of jurisprudential background, as did Judge Cooper.
Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the State could put up that defense, but the challenge could still win. In that case, especially under last night's Supreme Court decision blocking the eviction ban, it's highly likely that the State would not win without at least showing evidence satisfying the same kind of analysis about need, reasonableness and less burdensome alternative. Given the various claims rejected in this and other cases, and Justice Barrett's shadow docket dismissal of the Indiana University students' very extensive and well-pled Petition for Emergency Relief against a vaccine mandate, I'm not sure they would win. Quoting from last night's decision in Alabama Association of Realtors v. HHS:
"We expect Congress to speak clearly when authorizing an agency to exercise powers of "vast 'economic and political significance.'" Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 573 U. S. 302, 324 (2014) (quoting FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U. S. 120, 160 (2000)). That is exactly the kind of power that the CDC claims here. At least 80% of the country, including between 6 and 17 million tenants at risk of eviction, falls within the moratorium. ... And preventing them from evicting tenants who breach their leases intrudes on one of the most fundamental elements of property ownership—the right to exclude. See Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U. S. 419, 435 (1982)."
So the Florida Legislature would have to legislate quite carefully under this standard, with hearings and evidence. The Court that really matters is looking pretty carefully at what governments do in these cases, and protecting the "right to exclude" from your property would seem to be a powerful element in their considerations. It's probably a safe bet that the Supremes would not use a low "rational basis" standard of review, but would require much more to justify a vaccine passport ban.
AEfx
Well-Known Member
Antibody tests are not widely available (you can't walk into a drug store and get one, your doctor has to order one up), are expensive when they are, and apparently from my understanding, not terribly accurate.
It's way easier to just get the damn shot, then people know they are covered either way.
Vegas Disney Fan
Well-Known Member
Which makes me very happy, our Republic was founded to get away from rule by a single person, over the last year way to many politicians have overstepped their boundaries and become dictators rather than parts in a machine that has checks and balances.
The sooner we get away from emergency orders/declarations and back to a Democratic Republic the better.
- Status