FabSwingers.com > Forums > Virus > Save the vaccinations for those without antibodies
Save the vaccinations for those without antibodies
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By *litterbabe OP Woman
over a year ago
hiding from cock pics. |
Would it make sense to test for antibodies before vaccinating an individual?
The people who have antibodies would not need to consider vaccination until they were no longer showing antibodies.
That would mean more people who wanted the vaccination could get it quicker.
Unless I have misunderstood the situation in some way.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
We don't know that natural exposure results in long lived immunity. The vaccine will contain adjuvants to heighten the immune response and so more prolonged immunity may be achieved by vaccination. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
That makes sense to me.
Not sure how reliable the antibody tests are though. Also depends on the person knowing when they were infected if it's only 6 months of immunity protection. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *litterbabe OP Woman
over a year ago
hiding from cock pics. |
"We don't know that natural exposure results in long lived immunity. The vaccine will contain adjuvants to heighten the immune response and so more prolonged immunity may be achieved by vaccination. "
I thought that both antibodies and the vaccine are unlikely to give a very long immunity.
There is so much conflicting information though that I may have got it wrong. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"We don't know that natural exposure results in long lived immunity. The vaccine will contain adjuvants to heighten the immune response and so more prolonged immunity may be achieved by vaccination.
I thought that both antibodies and the vaccine are unlikely to give a very long immunity.
There is so much conflicting information though that I may have got it wrong."
We don't know exactly how long the vaccine derived immunity will last but with two doses being given across a month or two month period, with the adjuvant etc then it's likely vaccine derived immunity will be longer than natural exposure immunity. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Antibodies would only be an indication of having had the infection, not whether there was a sufficient level of them to protect someone. Both Tcells and the antibodies would both be needed to be an effective response, if inflected and would be more expensive to test for. Effective vaccines will stimulate production of both of these.
We don't yet have the full research results for any of them, merely the advance result indications. I don't think they'll state the effective period of immunity that results but the 2nd dose will enhance and prolong the duration of immunity.
If someone has antibodies, they should get an improved level of immunity as well as for a renewed, potentially longer duration. As mentioned, the adjuvant may result in higher levels and duration of immunity compared with a real infection as well as if the vaccine didn't contain it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"We don't know that natural exposure results in long lived immunity. The vaccine will contain adjuvants to heighten the immune response and so more prolonged immunity may be achieved by vaccination. "
As you say a number of possibles and maybies and unknowns
Surely if there is a test that's been devised that permits us to statistically analyse the effects of the vaccine the same test can be used to detect such an immune response from a person previously infected with the live virus
?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Would it make sense to test for antibodies before vaccinating an individual?
"
To vaccinate most of the population against Covid is a huge logistical undertaking, to also pre-test for antibodies would double the workload and take twice as long, for little reward. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *estivalMan
over a year ago
borehamwood |
was in papershop today and one headline i saw was everyone vaccinated. by april.just thought to myself how do they get away with printing duch garbage.the way we do things in this country i doubt even all the at risk people would of had it by april. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"was in papershop today and one headline i saw was everyone vaccinated. by april.just thought to myself how do they get away with printing duch garbage.the way we do things in this country i doubt even all the at risk people would of had it by april."
That timescale is more than feasible, it could be done in a month if they wanted. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *estivalMan
over a year ago
borehamwood |
cant see it myself 40 odd million people 2 jabs each weeks apart. christ they aint even managed to give everyone who wants a flu jab one yet.like i said everything the goverment has done so far is anything to go by i wont be holding my breath.and we aint even sure if these vaccines are gona be given the go ahead yet.the amount of peeps i know who think a vaccine is gona stop u actually catching it is inbelivable and i imagine that goes for lots of people.they think once they have the jab there bullet proof against it and can go back to how it was this time last year |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Especially as up to 50% of us already have pre-existing immunity according to the British Medical Journal.
Who have been publishing excoriating articles.
https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3563 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Would it make sense to test for antibodies before vaccinating an individual?
To vaccinate most of the population against Covid is a huge logistical undertaking, to also pre-test for antibodies would double the workload and take twice as long, for little reward."
...... this. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
It does make sense to not vaccinate those who have had a positive test until later. Logistically though, it makes sense to just do as many as possible as quickly as possible. I can't imagine that you can have too much resistance to a virus.
Cal |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Having detectable antibodies does not guarantee protection. Logistically it’s just easier to vaccinate everyone. Lots to consider when testing for Abs
"Would it make sense to test for antibodies before vaccinating an individual?
The people who have antibodies would not need to consider vaccination until they were no longer showing antibodies.
That would mean more people who wanted the vaccination could get it quicker.
Unless I have misunderstood the situation in some way.
"
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"was in papershop today and one headline i saw was everyone vaccinated. by april.just thought to myself how do they get away with printing duch garbage.the way we do things in this country i doubt even all the at risk people would of had it by april."
But did it say witch April 2022 or 2023 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I’ve seen various figures stating the take up level being anything from 65% to as low as 48%
So we can say that half of the population aren’t interested in being vaccinated. Why? People are genuinely concerned by side effects over the long term. Just search for the NHS workers who now suffer from narcolepsy, after being assured that the rushed through swine flu vaccine was perfectly safe. These aren’t conspiracy theorists. They’re NHS workers who are paying the price for treatments that aren’t tested properly.
Companies insisting that they are exempt from liability doesn’t help. If their product is safe, why do they need the exemption?
Vaccines are wonderful tools to fight disease but they must be tested rigorously, over an extended period. Anyone who says otherwise is a fool. When speed takes precedence over caution, mistakes happen
There seem to be two camps on this site, the David Icke mob and the ones who trust every word uttered by SAGE and the government.
Do your own research and make up your own mind. Don’t be bullied by anyone.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Antibodies are just 1 component of our immune response. Testing for all of them would be much slower and more expensive. There aren't benchmarks that indicate what level of the declining immunity is needed to stop infection spreading.
The price of the Oxford vaccine is about a pint of beer, plus admin charges. If organising its delivery is complex, creating infinitely more complexity with various immunity tests is added, you create a logistical expensive nightmare.
Keep what is complicated simple ffs. Herd immunity is what is needed and we won't get that as quickly if we fanny about with dubious testing, to satisfy deniers and the medically ignorant |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Would it make sense to test for antibodies before vaccinating an individual?
The people who have antibodies would not need to consider vaccination until they were no longer showing antibodies.
That would mean more people who wanted the vaccination could get it quicker.
Unless I have misunderstood the situation in some way.
"
sounds like common-sense, have you thought about going into politics,-there will be some vacancies soon!
Only problem it would involve spot-on planning and logistics, and being as though contact-tracing and the flu vacination programme has gone tits-up already?  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Just search for the NHS workers who now suffer from narcolepsy, after being assured that the rushed through swine flu vaccine was perfectly safe. These aren’t conspiracy theorists. They’re NHS workers who are paying the price for treatments that aren’t tested properly.
"
Why quote the whole story when half of it is more scary ?
"Normally vaccines undergo testing to make sure they are safe, and vaccination has been proven to save millions of lives across the globe. But Pandemrix was different. It had not gone through the normal process and was fast-tracked without the usual clinical trials." |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
