NBA protocols/Covid/Vaccine - Discussion thread

[nickhx2]

it's like watching Shaq and Tim Duncan dunk on Michael olowkandi over and over

like, at the same time

[-HB-]

We know that active natural immunity is more effective than the vaccine.

Once again, this is not true, and doesn’t become more true if constantly mentioned

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1

Comparing SARS-CoV-2 natural immunity to vaccine-induced immunity: reinfections versus breakthrough infections

“SARS-CoV-2-naïve vaccinees had a 13.06-fold increased risk for breakthrough infection with the Delta variant compared to those previously infected, when the first event (infection or vaccination) occurred during January and February of 2021,” “The increased risk was significant for symptomatic disease as well. When allowing the infection to occur at any time before vaccination (from March 2020 to February 2021), evidence of waning natural immunity was demonstrated, though SARS-CoV-2 naïve vaccinees had a 5.96-fold increased risk for breakthrough infection and a 7.13-fold increased risk for symptomatic disease.”

"were also at a greater risk for COVID-19-related-hospitalizations compared to those that were previously infected"

“natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity” and that “individuals who were both previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta variant.”

[TheAlanParsons]

You seem pretty clueless in the way statistics work. Not every single data point needs to be positively correlated for the hypothesis to hold. This is especially true when there are other factors that can impact the results (lifestyle, weather, medical system, etc) You guys keep picking on outlier data to prove your point. Guess what? For every Israel or Singapore, there are 20 other countries with low case / high vax or high case / low vax rate.

The point is inoculation doesn't stop transmission at nearly a high enough rate to justify mandates. Even if were to agree "public health" supercedes individual freedom.

We disagree there. If the rate of transmission were reduced by just one percent due to the vaccine, that would make a drastic difference. I believe 43 million Americans have had COVID (myself included). If 1% of us hadn't gotten it, that would be 430,000 Americans. If we assume the same death rate of 1.6%, then 68,800 of those 430,000 human beings would still be alive, and that's just in the United States. That's not including severe cases or long-termers, either. Think about the numbers, consider that each one is a human being, and tell me again why the transmission rate being less than perfect matters again.

What you neglect to point out here is the lessening of the severity of symptoms and the lightening of the burden on the hospital system.

I will never understand why anyone would oppose the best way to fight a potentially deadly disease.

Apparently you can't do math very well. I'm not surprised.

[nikster]

We know that active natural immunity is more effective than the vaccine.

Once again, this is not true, and doesn’t become more true if constantly mentioned

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1

Comparing SARS-CoV-2 natural immunity to vaccine-induced immunity: reinfections versus breakthrough infections

“SARS-CoV-2-naïve vaccinees had a 13.06-fold increased risk for breakthrough infection with the Delta variant compared to those previously infected, when the first event (infection or vaccination) occurred during January and February of 2021,” “The increased risk was significant for symptomatic disease as well. When allowing the infection to occur at any time before vaccination (from March 2020 to February 2021), evidence of waning natural immunity was demonstrated, though SARS-CoV-2 naïve vaccinees had a 5.96-fold increased risk for breakthrough infection and a 7.13-fold increased risk for symptomatic disease.”

"were also at a greater risk for COVID-19-related-hospitalizations compared to those that were previously infected"

“natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity” and that “individuals who were both previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta variant.”

Yeah this data is convincing. This is the only study im aware at that looks at actual infection rate in vaxxed vs infected and its a massive gap. I think those with proof of previous infection should be eligible for the equivalent of a vaccine passport. That said, everyone else should still get vaccinated

[FNQ]

We know that active natural immunity is more effective than the vaccine.

Once again, this is not true, and doesn’t become more true if constantly mentioned

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1

Comparing SARS-CoV-2 natural immunity to vaccine-induced immunity: reinfections versus breakthrough infections

“SARS-CoV-2-naïve vaccinees had a 13.06-fold increased risk for breakthrough infection with the Delta variant compared to those previously infected, when the first event (infection or vaccination) occurred during January and February of 2021,” “The increased risk was significant for symptomatic disease as well. When allowing the infection to occur at any time before vaccination (from March 2020 to February 2021), evidence of waning natural immunity was demonstrated, though SARS-CoV-2 naïve vaccinees had a 5.96-fold increased risk for breakthrough infection and a 7.13-fold increased risk for symptomatic disease.”

"were also at a greater risk for COVID-19-related-hospitalizations compared to those that were previously infected"

“natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity” and that “individuals who were both previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta variant.”

Ok. Ill try being clearer. I'm not saying its not possible, I'm saying that its not definitive as presented, and is dangerous when presented that way.

Immune systems are NOT uniform. They greatly differ from the vaccine, which is in fact, uniform. That means a study on natural immunity would need to cover people of various viral loads, various outcomes (no symptoms, mild symptoms, severe symptoms, ICU treatments) because what has been proven, and easily shown, is that the stronger your case of COVID was, the stronger your antibodies should be.

To level it all out as equal is irresponsible and irrelevant, especially when each individual can go to a doctor, get tested for their antibodies load level, and *actually* find out whether or not their natural immunity is stronger than a vaccine immunity, even though they should get that as well.

What you guys seem to have trouble understanding is that when I say you aren't correct, its not saying that the opposite IS correct. I'm saying its a wildly irresponsible thing to say in either direction, including saying that the vaccine is definitely stronger. It is something that needs to be fleshed out at an individual level instead of using a median point. If the average height of a man is 6'0, and we build everything to those exact specifications, everyone above or below 6' would not be getting the benefits. Immune systems can be as varied - even more so - than things like height.

[Jables]

so wiggins and kyrie can take consolation that they remain true to themselves

Let them do their own research man, they know better than all the supposed ‘expert’ scientists. It’s their bodies so they don’t have to care about anybody else, jeez.

they can give the money back and alls well, dude.

"guys, i'll take your 20-30 million this year but i wont play cuz i don't wanna get vaxxed." - what do you think part of this is about anyway,,,,,jeez

I think it's kinda depressing we hate on guys like Simmons, Durant, Harden, more than guys helping spread disease and ignorance because they saw something on Facebook or Youtube and decided to be dickheads.

[FNQ]

Once again, this is not true, and doesn’t become more true if constantly mentioned

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1

Comparing SARS-CoV-2 natural immunity to vaccine-induced immunity: reinfections versus breakthrough infections

“SARS-CoV-2-naïve vaccinees had a 13.06-fold increased risk for breakthrough infection with the Delta variant compared to those previously infected, when the first event (infection or vaccination) occurred during January and February of 2021,” “The increased risk was significant for symptomatic disease as well. When allowing the infection to occur at any time before vaccination (from March 2020 to February 2021), evidence of waning natural immunity was demonstrated, though SARS-CoV-2 naïve vaccinees had a 5.96-fold increased risk for breakthrough infection and a 7.13-fold increased risk for symptomatic disease.”

"were also at a greater risk for COVID-19-related-hospitalizations compared to those that were previously infected"

“natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity” and that “individuals who were both previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta variant.”

Yeah this data is convincing. This is the only study im aware at that looks at actual infection rate in vaxxed vs infected and its a massive gap. I think those with proof of previous infection should be eligible for the equivalent of a vaccine passport. That said, everyone else should still get vaccinated

It shouldn't be. There's a reason why despite these studies being over a month old, that the medical community hasn't latched onto this. Doctors would love natural immunity being a key, because it promotes the idea of COVID being a short-term problem (itll still be around, but the efficacy will go down). And that's what this study proves more than anything.

However, go beyond the surface data and see that viral loads were not accounted for. Severity not accounted for. Patient cardiac health and double-blind comorbidities were not accounted for. To use this as a guide for general healthcare is wildly dangerous. And please do not believe me, ask the specialists at your health facility. If you happen to be at the prominent one in CA, they had a very clear and very stern message sent out about people citing this study, 2 days after it came out.

People need to stop conflating the possibility of natural immunity being stronger (which to be clear, absolutely can be) vs. the idea that its guaranteed. The study above - yet to be peer reviewed FWIW but its large volume makes it more trustworthy than a typical non-reviewed study - can be extremely dangerous if presented incorrectly. For anyone who doesn't want the jab because they were infected before, it may not represent their situation, and should absolutely consult with their GP who can actually test them to give them an accurate outlook.

[nikster]

Add Singapore to that list. High vaccination something like 90% and are seeing a spike in "cases".

You seem pretty clueless in the way statistics work. Not every single data point needs to be positively correlated for the hypothesis to hold. This is especially true when there are other factors that can impact the results (lifestyle, weather, medical system, etc) You guys keep picking on outlier data to prove your point. Guess what? For every Israel or Singapore, there are 20 other countries with low case / high vax or high case / low vax rate.

The point is inoculation doesn't stop transmission at nearly a high enough rate to justify mandates. Even if were to agree "public health" supercedes individual freedom.

Florida has 5.6% of their population infected with this 3rd wave. Singapores current wave has infected 0.5% of the population, Singapores wave is not over but likely will end up around 1-1.5% of the population. That is a huge difference, especially when you factor in Singapore has 20 times the population density

[hoosierdaddy34]

Gonna be hilarious this season when the NBA experiences a ton of breakthrough cases... and we realize a “mandate” is worthless (I didn’t say vaccine is worthless). NYT today reporting 55% of those hospitalized now in the USA at this moment are vaccinated. Let them start counting breakthrough cases again (not just hospitalized or dead) so we can get a more complete picture of where it’s spreading.

I strongly believe this is already endemic (most scientists at minimum seem to agree it will become endemic soon). This thing is here to stay forever now. Learning to cope with it is far more viable than pretending it can be eradicated. Better therapeutics, better health. That’s how we will “beat” this IMO.

Ughhj i dont see such an article, you mean their article today that said 'mandate on vaccinations largely working ' lol.

The only data i found was about IRELAND where 54% hospitalized were vaxed but the country is 90%+ vaxed so clearly it helps reduce hospitalizations- if the other 10% accounts for half of hospitalizations.

Cite your 55% in america. Maybe you misread bc 55% americans are vaccinated. Otherwise dont spread misinformation.

It’s not an article, it’s their data sheet they update. But they put vaccinated percentage to the right of hospitalized and death tallies, which led me to believe that was referring to those categories, could just be the way the chart is. Regardless we’ve seen plenty of breakthrough recently in other highly vaxxed countries (Israel and Australia being most popular) and even states here.

Vermont is more vaxxed than anyone lately and they still saw a big spike recently. My overall point being breakthrough cases are happening at a higher rate potentially than they know (because they aren’t counting them). So forcing one to vaccinate or not in the NBA isn’t necessarily gonna stop a bunch of guys from ending up in protocols.

I personally think at this point 20 players in the NBA being unvaxxed won’t have much impact. These are pro athletes usually under 30, with no commorbidities. The number of American’s in the under 39 group that have died from Covid contributed situations (not even necessarily FROM Covid, some WITH) covid is less than 20k. The average number of commorbidities in people dying is between 3-4.

Covid is not a threat to these players. It’s not statistically a threat to their young children either. The CDC death count by age is available online. It isn’t me being a “conspiracy theorist”.

This is just a bunch of BS. In my state the very conservative governor’s health administration just released a bunch of facts.

65% of our population is vaccinated. 35% is not.

90% of all hospitalizations are unvaccinated. 10% vaccinated.

92% of all deaths are unvaccinated. 8% are vaccinated.

That means 35% of unvaccinated make up 90% of hospitalizations and 92% of deaths. While the 65% vaccinated make up just 10% of hospitalizations and 8% of deaths.

The virus and the vaccine do not act any differently in other places, so the numbers are going to fairly similar wherever you go. So stop making up false numbers and lying about this stuff. Be a better person than that.

[FNQ]

Ughhj i dont see such an article, you mean their article today that said 'mandate on vaccinations largely working ' lol.

The only data i found was about IRELAND where 54% hospitalized were vaxed but the country is 90%+ vaxed so clearly it helps reduce hospitalizations- if the other 10% accounts for half of hospitalizations.

Cite your 55% in america. Maybe you misread bc 55% americans are vaccinated. Otherwise dont spread misinformation.

It’s not an article, it’s their data sheet they update. But they put vaccinated percentage to the right of hospitalized and death tallies, which led me to believe that was referring to those categories, could just be the way the chart is. Regardless we’ve seen plenty of breakthrough recently in other highly vaxxed countries (Israel and Australia being most popular) and even states here.

Vermont is more vaxxed than anyone lately and they still saw a big spike recently. My overall point being breakthrough cases are happening at a higher rate potentially than they know (because they aren’t counting them). So forcing one to vaccinate or not in the NBA isn’t necessarily gonna stop a bunch of guys from ending up in protocols.

I personally think at this point 20 players in the NBA being unvaxxed won’t have much impact. These are pro athletes usually under 30, with no commorbidities. The number of American’s in the under 39 group that have died from Covid contributed situations (not even necessarily FROM Covid, some WITH) covid is less than 20k. The average number of commorbidities in people dying is between 3-4.

Covid is not a threat to these players. It’s not statistically a threat to their young children either. The CDC death count by age is available online. It isn’t me being a “conspiracy theorist”.

This is just a bunch of BS. In my state the very conservative governor’s health administration just released a bunch of facts.

65% of our population is vaccinated. 35% is not.

90% of all hospitalizations are unvaccinated. 10% vaccinated.

92% of all deaths are unvaccinated. 8% are vaccinated.

That means 35% of unvaccinated make up 90% of hospitalizations and 92% of deaths. While the 65% vaccinated make up just 10% of hospitalizations and 8% of deaths.

The virus and the vaccine do not act any differently in other places, so the numbers are going to fairly similar wherever you go. So stop making up false numbers and lying about this stuff. Be a better person than that.

Not to mention a data sheet would still have a link

[nikster]

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1

Comparing SARS-CoV-2 natural immunity to vaccine-induced immunity: reinfections versus breakthrough infections

“SARS-CoV-2-naïve vaccinees had a 13.06-fold increased risk for breakthrough infection with the Delta variant compared to those previously infected, when the first event (infection or vaccination) occurred during January and February of 2021,” “The increased risk was significant for symptomatic disease as well. When allowing the infection to occur at any time before vaccination (from March 2020 to February 2021), evidence of waning natural immunity was demonstrated, though SARS-CoV-2 naïve vaccinees had a 5.96-fold increased risk for breakthrough infection and a 7.13-fold increased risk for symptomatic disease.”

"were also at a greater risk for COVID-19-related-hospitalizations compared to those that were previously infected"

“natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity” and that “individuals who were both previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta variant.”

Yeah this data is convincing. This is the only study im aware at that looks at actual infection rate in vaxxed vs infected and its a massive gap. I think those with proof of previous infection should be eligible for the equivalent of a vaccine passport. That said, everyone else should still get vaccinated

It shouldn't be. There's a reason why despite these studies being over a month old, that the medical community hasn't latched onto this. Doctors would love natural immunity being a key, because it promotes the idea of COVID being a short-term problem (itll still be around, but the efficacy will go down). And that's what this study proves more than anything.

However, go beyond the surface data and see that viral loads were not accounted for. Severity not accounted for. Patient cardiac health and double-blind comorbidities were not accounted for. To use this as a guide for general healthcare is wildly dangerous. And please do not believe me, ask the specialists at your health facility. If you happen to be at the prominent one in CA, they had a very clear and very stern message sent out about people citing this study, 2 days after it came out.

People need to stop conflating the possibility of natural immunity being stronger (which to be clear, absolutely can be) vs. the idea that its guaranteed. The study above - yet to be peer reviewed FWIW but its large volume makes it more trustworthy than a typical non-reviewed study - can be extremely dangerous if presented incorrectly. For anyone who doesn't want the jab because they were infected before, it may not represent their situation, and should absolutely consult with their GP who can actually test them to give them an accurate outlook.

Yeah im sure more data is helpful, but I'm not convinced there will be any differences. The population is huge and the massive difference in efficacy (which is vs vaccination, not just unvaxxed) virtually guarantees any patient subgroup of significant size is seeing benefit. There was a total of 8 symptomatic patients in a population of 14 000. Outside of populations with immune issues etc... I'm confident natural immunity will remain effective

[FNQ]

Yeah this data is convincing. This is the only study im aware at that looks at actual infection rate in vaxxed vs infected and its a massive gap. I think those with proof of previous infection should be eligible for the equivalent of a vaccine passport. That said, everyone else should still get vaccinated

It shouldn't be. There's a reason why despite these studies being over a month old, that the medical community hasn't latched onto this. Doctors would love natural immunity being a key, because it promotes the idea of COVID being a short-term problem (itll still be around, but the efficacy will go down). And that's what this study proves more than anything.

However, go beyond the surface data and see that viral loads were not accounted for. Severity not accounted for. Patient cardiac health and double-blind comorbidities were not accounted for. To use this as a guide for general healthcare is wildly dangerous. And please do not believe me, ask the specialists at your health facility. If you happen to be at the prominent one in CA, they had a very clear and very stern message sent out about people citing this study, 2 days after it came out.

People need to stop conflating the possibility of natural immunity being stronger (which to be clear, absolutely can be) vs. the idea that its guaranteed. The study above - yet to be peer reviewed FWIW but its large volume makes it more trustworthy than a typical non-reviewed study - can be extremely dangerous if presented incorrectly. For anyone who doesn't want the jab because they were infected before, it may not represent their situation, and should absolutely consult with their GP who can actually test them to give them an accurate outlook.

Yeah im sure more data is helpful, but I'm not convinced there will be any differences. The population is huge and the massive difference in efficacy (which is vs vaccination, not just unvaxxed) virtually guarantees any patient subgroup of significant size is seeing benefit. There was a total of 8 symptomatic patients in a population of 14 000. Outside of populations with immune issues etc... I'm confident natural immunity will remain effective

I know there is a lot of pressure to get a general answer, but how many people would you be ok with misdiagnosing, potentially hurting, by being OK with the generalization that 'natural immunity > vaccine immunity'?

There is a wide range of viral loads available, and unfortunately that study didn't go through the lower range, which is still somewhat prominent. So let's throw some variables in there and see what we're looking at if only tracking in the US (320m), but first, the data points:

- 320m in US, 195m are vaccinated. I don't want to assume all of them are anti-vaccination, because that would mean 40% of the population is antivax. So let's go with a smaller number. I'll take 3 of them: 15%, 20%, and 25%. Think thats being pretty generous

- lets assume endemic, because we are absolutely trending that direction. Meaning its likely that everyone, or close to, will contract a form of COVID at some point

- let's assume that in general, a natural immunity is stronger than a vaccinated immunity. But for this exercise we'd have to put a number on cases where someone had COVID before, but their natural immunity is weaker than vaccine immunity. I want to shoot on the very low end here, so lets go with really small numbers: 2%, 5%, 10% of cases where natural immunity < vaccine immunity. Again, this is being generous to the opposing viewpoint.

This will give us 9 potential possibilities of people who are a) unvaccinated for whatever reason and b) whos natural immunity, if they contracted COVID, would be underneath the strength of vaccine immunity

15% antivaxxers 48m
10%: 4,800,000
5%: 2,400,000
2%: 960,000

20% antivaxxers 64m
10%: 6,400,000
5%: 3,200,000
2%: 1,280,000

25% antivaxxers 80m
10%: 8,000,000
5%: 4,000,000
2%: 1,600,000

Now these aren't cases or anything like that, just an estimate of opportunities where, if the general natural > vaccine is to be believed in general, a person would be given extremely poor advice. And to soften those numbers, they would be presented as percentages by groups that are anti vax. But think about that.. think how many people that is being put at risk simply for the reasoning of making a general yet inaccurate point.

That's why being extremely clear about this kind of thing is so important. A definitive statement in either direction, even if natural immunity is heavily favored, needs to be metered to ensure people understand whats actually going on, especially since we can test it to make sure.

[FNQ]

Yeah im sure more data is helpful, but I'm not convinced there will be any differences. The population is huge and the massive difference in efficacy (which is vs vaccination, not just unvaxxed) virtually guarantees any patient subgroup of significant size is seeing benefit. There was a total of 8 symptomatic patients in a population of 14 000. Outside of populations with immune issues etc... I'm confident natural immunity will remain effective

To be clear, I'm not arguing for more data. I know what the data is (or at least the noted range of natural efficacy & the standard rate of vaccinated efficacy per each US vaccine), I know there are a comfortable amount of people who's antibody count would be under the vaccine's immunity. I was one of those people, and I caught it twice! No hospitalization and mostly asymptomatic (way before a vaxx as well: March 2020 and again July 2020).

But the study even shows the life of natural immunity waning over time, meaning when you caught COVID is important. How strong was it. Etc etc.. So many variables there.

So the question becomes why on earth would we push out a general answer that could leave millions of Americans thinking the wrong thing, leaving them at risk not only to further spread the virus, but potentially lose or alter their lives?

I get it from the antivax side. Those guys really, really want a win. And the fact that natural immunity can be stronger, on average, than a vaccinated immunity is probably the best one they've had. However it still requires a lot nuance, testing, research and understanding that its not typical from that side of the aisle. And it should be cleared up to anyone on the fence that a definitive idea of natural > vaccine is extremely dangerous and it should be discussed with your doctor. And your doctor will suggest the vaccine regardless, but that's still your choice. However whats most important is having all the details necessary to make a personal decision, and that would include the awareness of timing/efficacy of your own immune system

[LightTheBeam]

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1

Comparing SARS-CoV-2 natural immunity to vaccine-induced immunity: reinfections versus breakthrough infections

“SARS-CoV-2-naïve vaccinees had a 13.06-fold increased risk for breakthrough infection with the Delta variant compared to those previously infected, when the first event (infection or vaccination) occurred during January and February of 2021,” “The increased risk was significant for symptomatic disease as well. When allowing the infection to occur at any time before vaccination (from March 2020 to February 2021), evidence of waning natural immunity was demonstrated, though SARS-CoV-2 naïve vaccinees had a 5.96-fold increased risk for breakthrough infection and a 7.13-fold increased risk for symptomatic disease.”

"were also at a greater risk for COVID-19-related-hospitalizations compared to those that were previously infected"

“natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity” and that “individuals who were both previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta variant.”

Yeah this data is convincing. This is the only study im aware at that looks at actual infection rate in vaxxed vs infected and its a massive gap. I think those with proof of previous infection should be eligible for the equivalent of a vaccine passport. That said, everyone else should still get vaccinated

It shouldn't be. There's a reason why despite these studies being over a month old, that the medical community hasn't latched onto this. Doctors would love natural immunity being a key, because it promotes the idea of COVID being a short-term problem (itll still be around, but the efficacy will go down). And that's what this study proves more than anything.

However, go beyond the surface data and see that viral loads were not accounted for. Severity not accounted for. Patient cardiac health and double-blind comorbidities were not accounted for. To use this as a guide for general healthcare is wildly dangerous. And please do not believe me, ask the specialists at your health facility. If you happen to be at the prominent one in CA, they had a very clear and very stern message sent out about people citing this study, 2 days after it came out.

People need to stop conflating the possibility of natural immunity being stronger (which to be clear, absolutely can be) vs. the idea that its guaranteed. The study above - yet to be peer reviewed FWIW but its large volume makes it more trustworthy than a typical non-reviewed study - can be extremely dangerous if presented incorrectly. For anyone who doesn't want the jab because they were infected before, it may not represent their situation, and should absolutely consult with their GP who can actually test them to give them an accurate outlook.

So if Jonathon Issac goes and gets tested for the Antibodies and it turns out that he has high levels and is in fact protected, would you advocate for him to bypass these protocols?

[Curmudgeon]

95% isn't 100%. I want my team to be 100% because then I know they are committed to winning this year.

[FNQ]

Yeah this data is convincing. This is the only study im aware at that looks at actual infection rate in vaxxed vs infected and its a massive gap. I think those with proof of previous infection should be eligible for the equivalent of a vaccine passport. That said, everyone else should still get vaccinated

It shouldn't be. There's a reason why despite these studies being over a month old, that the medical community hasn't latched onto this. Doctors would love natural immunity being a key, because it promotes the idea of COVID being a short-term problem (itll still be around, but the efficacy will go down). And that's what this study proves more than anything.

However, go beyond the surface data and see that viral loads were not accounted for. Severity not accounted for. Patient cardiac health and double-blind comorbidities were not accounted for. To use this as a guide for general healthcare is wildly dangerous. And please do not believe me, ask the specialists at your health facility. If you happen to be at the prominent one in CA, they had a very clear and very stern message sent out about people citing this study, 2 days after it came out.

People need to stop conflating the possibility of natural immunity being stronger (which to be clear, absolutely can be) vs. the idea that its guaranteed. The study above - yet to be peer reviewed FWIW but its large volume makes it more trustworthy than a typical non-reviewed study - can be extremely dangerous if presented incorrectly. For anyone who doesn't want the jab because they were infected before, it may not represent their situation, and should absolutely consult with their GP who can actually test them to give them an accurate outlook.

So if Jonathon Issac goes and gets tested for the Antibodies and it turns out that he has high levels and is in fact protected, would you advocate for him to bypass these protocols?

Would I advocate for it? No. Because he could still be more protected, and I advocate for max protection so long as it doesnt have a medical reason behind it.

My stance has remained unchanged: Isaac is absolutely free to do what he wants. He is not free from local mandates, employer mandates, or public criticism for his decision. I have a much higher opinion of Isaac than I do of Wiggins because Isaac at least manned up and said this is why. I disagree with his decision but he went out there and explained himself.

The problem with the anti-vaxx stance is that its assumes there's a "good enough" when there isn't. The vaccine is safe, effective, and free. It stacks with natural immunity. So I would not advocate for or enable anyone to be complacent about it.

On the flip side, if the NBA did allow him to play because of the scenario you posted above, I wouldnt advocate against him playing either.

[Lockdown504090]

Once again, this is not true, and doesn’t become more true if constantly mentioned

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1

Comparing SARS-CoV-2 natural immunity to vaccine-induced immunity: reinfections versus breakthrough infections

“SARS-CoV-2-naïve vaccinees had a 13.06-fold increased risk for breakthrough infection with the Delta variant compared to those previously infected, when the first event (infection or vaccination) occurred during January and February of 2021,” “The increased risk was significant for symptomatic disease as well. When allowing the infection to occur at any time before vaccination (from March 2020 to February 2021), evidence of waning natural immunity was demonstrated, though SARS-CoV-2 naïve vaccinees had a 5.96-fold increased risk for breakthrough infection and a 7.13-fold increased risk for symptomatic disease.”

"were also at a greater risk for COVID-19-related-hospitalizations compared to those that were previously infected"

“natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity” and that “individuals who were both previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta variant.”

Yeah this data is convincing. This is the only study im aware at that looks at actual infection rate in vaxxed vs infected and its a massive gap. I think those with proof of previous infection should be eligible for the equivalent of a vaccine passport. That said, everyone else should still get vaccinated

thats actually not unreasonable, So if youve gotten it, you have a resistance, just like the vaccinated teammates. although the next sentence says that being infected and then getting vaccinated offers even greater protection, Thats an interesting proposition, and kinda sorta fair. There are so many factors that arent controlled for here as they further mention later on, but If it was up to the league(its not), I think allowing recently infected to play isnt the most abhorent thing in the world. They likely wont get too sick from the virus save for a few, and the risk of an outbreak is lessened, which is the overarching goal here. This would be extremely complicated at a state level/city level though.

from reading the full text, delta is a pretty nasty mfer though compared to the initial outbreak of covid, sheesh

[NBA Sheady]

Gonna be hilarious this season when the NBA experiences a ton of breakthrough cases... and we realize a “mandate” is worthless (I didn’t say vaccine is worthless). NYT today reporting 55% of those hospitalized now in the USA at this moment are vaccinated. Let them start counting breakthrough cases again (not just hospitalized or dead) so we can get a more complete picture of where it’s spreading.

I strongly believe this is already endemic (most scientists at minimum seem to agree it will become endemic soon). This thing is here to stay forever now. Learning to cope with it is far more viable than pretending it can be eradicated. Better therapeutics, better health. That’s how we will “beat” this IMO.

The vaccine is not being pushed to eradicate. It is being pushed so because it slows the spread and allows hospitals to operate under maximum capacity. It could have eradicated if we saw a very high vaccination rate with some urgency, but as evidenced in other threads, evidence does not mean much to some

That stuff you think will beat this? Secondary to having available hospital capacity for those affected by COVID, and frankly, those with other respiratory illnesses that also require beds in respiratory ICU

Yes but the drugs on hand do NOT stop transmission. So that's the major lie being told by vax fundamentalists here. If the drugs stopped transmission I would condemn Kyrie etc. But the pro vaccine caucus keeps lying about this point!

Vaccines Reduce Transmission. Literally, all the actual studies show this. Here are four of them:

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2021/08/study-ties-covid-vaccines-lower-transmission-rates
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2107717
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanepe/article/PIIS2666-7762(21)00127-7/fulltext
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.13.21260393v1

[bwgood77]

The U.S. has really hoped we could get more Science and Math students/majors for years. We now have even more phenomenal evidence the country desperately needs this.

[3toheadmelo]

The Karen community has gone overboard. ITS A FACT that these immune boosters that are mislabeled as vaccines do not stop transmission. What they claim to do is boost your immune system. So Kyrie, Isaac etc. not taking the jab is NO THREAT to anyone else.

Covid "vaccines" are not sterilizing. It's not like the smallpox vaccine that kills the virus. Guess what folks, you take the jab, you can STILL GET COVID. and yes, people with strong immune systems, like pro athletes, get it and recover quickly by and large. Yes the threat of long covid or even death exists; but the statistical risk of a Beale or Kyrie dying of covid incredibly small.

Sure, your grandma's immune system probably can use a boost from these vaccines. Pro athletes? gimme a break.

All the righteousness is a joke given these facts. Just read the freaking studies and research.

Guys like Fauci straight up lie on camera. He said he wasn't funding gain of function research in Wuhan, turns out he did. Guys like Scott Gottlieb are straight up corrupt, going straight from high govt office to the Pfizer board, openly advocating for kids to take the vax when they likely don't need it.

This whole thing is a liberal freakout. It's become total orthodoxy and 99% of the people commenting haven't taken the time to study the issue and just repeat the word "vaccine" over and over.

Newsflash, science doesn't know how to kill coronaviruses. Sure it would be nice. But the Pfizer / Moderna CEOs are straight up criminals, selling drugs as vaccines that aren't really vaccines, to the point of lobbying for kids to take them when studies aren't showing a need.

Big pharma is a big scam.

Basically everything you've written here is erroneous.

You're 11 times more likely to die from Delta if you're unvaccinated. https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2021-09-10/cdc-finds-unvaccinated-11-times-more-likely-to-die-of-covid

You're 29 times more likely to be hospitalized if you're unvaccinated and 5 times more likely to catch Delta. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/24/cdc-study-shows-unvaccinated-people-are-29-times-more-likely-to-be-hospitalized-with-covid.html

Vaccinated people are less likely to spread the virus. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/09/the-vaccinated-arent-just-as-likely-to-spread-covid/620161/

Rural areas, which have a higher percentage of unvaccinated people, are in real trouble despite having less social interaction:

Read on Twitter

?s=20