FabSwingers.com > Forums > Virus > Meeting after having covid
Meeting after having covid
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
"Could you ? Would you ? If both parties have had it previously then is there any reason why not ??" For us, it's all a bit too early. We've missed a few swingers holidays this year, initially due to flight cancellations but some from fear of mixing a few drinks with naked bodies and watch our social distancing rules come crashing down.  | |||
| |||
| |||
"I have had it and was told only last night by nhs111 and paramedics that you can get it again" ** That's interesting as my G.P said it was highly unlikely I would get it again and just last week we had the news that post covid your protection runs at least 6 months. (In 6 months that could become 12 months) | |||
"Cheers, so even if you had previously had covid , then had a vaccination your still not 100% safe ? So the days of safely swinging are gone ?" If you've had Covid you can be infected again. For me widespread vaccination will be when I start optional socialising including swinging again. | |||
"I have had it and was told only last night by nhs111 and paramedics that you can get it again ** That's interesting as my G.P said it was highly unlikely I would get it again and just last week we had the news that post covid your protection runs at least 6 months. (In 6 months that could become 12 months) " I listened to a breakdown of a paper on Covid immunity (This Week In Virology, a recent episode), and antibody waning was wildly variable. In some people it persisted at six months, in others it waned (and different immunity measurements waned at different times). I think the answer is we don't know: for me, it's reason to hang tight. | |||
"I have had it and was told only last night by nhs111 and paramedics that you can get it again ** That's interesting as my G.P said it was highly unlikely I would get it again and just last week we had the news that post covid your protection runs at least 6 months. (In 6 months that could become 12 months) " 1 scientist claimed that, few others agree. We are now told that we have numerous cases of reinfection | |||
| |||
"I have had it and was told only last night by nhs111 and paramedics that you can get it again ** That's interesting as my G.P said it was highly unlikely I would get it again and just last week we had the news that post covid your protection runs at least 6 months. (In 6 months that could become 12 months) 1 scientist claimed that, few others agree. We are now told that we have numerous cases of reinfection" Last I've heard, there are four cases of reinfection that have been sequenced (an intensive job and requiring genetically distinct infections of the disease, so, difficult to find and prove). The four cases I've heard about, two were asymptomatic, one had worse disease, and one had worse disease plus death. (Numbers too small to be meaningful) By analogy with other corona viruses (common cold) over a 30 year period in a blood bank for people with HIV, reinfection occurs every 6-12 months (whether that analogy holds with SARS-CoV-2 obviously we don't know) We don't yet know what constitutes protective immunity for the disease, if I've understood correctly. Hang tight. | |||
"There's never going to be total certainty about this I imagine. Even 'old' diseases we thought were eradicated can make a resurgence under certain conditions. And no-one can say how long 'immunity' lasts for as we don't yet have the data. " Yes, science has moved incredibly fast here, but this is still quite new in terms of working on it. There are some signs, data points, and research which need further examination. Although I'd say - we've properly eliminated smallpox. That's all. I don't think that's coming back naturally. | |||
| |||
"So why are people on here still asking for meets and presumeably having meets ??? Are they basically playing russian roulette with their and there families lives ????" In a word, yes | |||
"So why are people on here still asking for meets and presumeably having meets ??? Are they basically playing russian roulette with their and there families lives ????" Because they are selfish self obsessed pricks who have no empathy. | |||
 | |||
"So why are people on here still asking for meets and presumeably having meets ??? Are they basically playing russian roulette with their and there families lives ????" Yes, because they are incapable about thinking of anything beyond their own selfish wants. | |||
"So why are people on here still asking for meets and presumeably having meets ??? Are they basically playing russian roulette with their and there families lives ???? Because they are selfish self obsessed pricks who have no empathy. " I don't think that is the case, there is a tendency among swingers to be more impulsive, it is not done with malice. There are lots of emotionally damaged people on here too with psychological conditions that may not fully be responsible for their actions. I know of someone who is bipolar and they can't currently get the help that would normally be easily available. It's not black and white. We've all seen the late Friday and Saturday night posts from intoxicated people clearly having a mental health crisis. There is an unfortunate human trait to gravitate to self destructive behaviour when under extreme stress and uncertainty. | |||
"So why are people on here still asking for meets and presumeably having meets ??? Are they basically playing russian roulette with their and there families lives ????" Yes they are... | |||
"So why are people on here still asking for meets and presumeably having meets ??? Are they basically playing russian roulette with their and there families lives ???? Because they are selfish self obsessed pricks who have no empathy. I don't think that is the case, there is a tendency among swingers to be more impulsive, it is not done with malice. There are lots of emotionally damaged people on here too with psychological conditions that may not fully be responsible for their actions. I know of someone who is bipolar and they can't currently get the help that would normally be easily available. It's not black and white. We've all seen the late Friday and Saturday night posts from intoxicated people clearly having a mental health crisis. There is an unfortunate human trait to gravitate to self destructive behaviour when under extreme stress and uncertainty. " That's just excusing bad behaviour. You know of one person with mental health problems, i know that's a terrible illness but no excuse to meet up , risk others health and their own. | |||
| |||
"Could you ? Would you ? If both parties have had it previously then is there any reason why not ??" Can’t you still carry it even if you’ve had it ? Hence why Boris is off work. So ok you may be in a very small percentage to rematch it but you could pass on the disease still. And risk each other’s families . Risky game to be played. No one urgently needs sex and most people on here never get any anyway apparently. So what’s another month or two ? | |||
| |||
"So why are people on here still asking for meets and presumeably having meets ??? Are they basically playing russian roulette with their and there families lives ????" Yes they are , and some outright lie they are immune,,what world do they think we live in? It's easy to convince yourself it's going to be ok and people arnt dieing around us. Till it's you in the IC unit. When it is safe would you play with someone who lied about their health? And was happy to gamble with your life, Or so blarsay about other people's? What else haven't they conviently mentioned. | |||
"I have had it and was told only last night by nhs111 and paramedics that you can get it again ** That's interesting as my G.P said it was highly unlikely I would get it again and just last week we had the news that post covid your protection runs at least 6 months. (In 6 months that could become 12 months) " There's only a very small chance of you being reinfected to a degree where you will show symptoms, there is a very real risk you could still become infected and pass the virus to someone else which is why BJ had to self isolate even though he had already been positive. Definitely russian roulette and definitely not smart. | |||
| |||
"I'm amazed how many people met during covid. One guy boast he had the most sex than ever before "Maybe he uses both hands now  | |||
"Could you ? Would you ? If both parties have had it previously then is there any reason why not ??" If you have had it then you haven’t got it ...... so what’s the problem | |||
"Could you ? Would you ? If both parties have had it previously then is there any reason why not ?? If you have had it then you haven’t got it ...... so what’s the problem " Having had it, doesn't mean you definitely can't have it again and then spread it to others as well. Who is also to say the other person is telling the truth, there are countless examples here of people ignoring the rules to try to meet already, don't you think they would say absolutely anything if they thought it would get them laid. | |||
"I have had it and was told only last night by nhs111 and paramedics that you can get it again ** That's interesting as my G.P said it was highly unlikely I would get it again and just last week we had the news that post covid your protection runs at least 6 months. (In 6 months that could become 12 months) I listened to a breakdown of a paper on Covid immunity (This Week In Virology, a recent episode), and antibody waning was wildly variable. In some people it persisted at six months, in others it waned (and different immunity measurements waned at different times). I think the answer is we don't know: for me, it's reason to hang tight." If that's the case this new vaccine, which teaches your body to recognise covid, is going to wane quicker than a natural biological response. I for one have more confidence in my natural immune system. So 4 reinfection cases of a variety of strains of covid, in billions doesn't worry me. | |||
| |||
"I have had it and was told only last night by nhs111 and paramedics that you can get it again ** That's interesting as my G.P said it was highly unlikely I would get it again and just last week we had the news that post covid your protection runs at least 6 months. (In 6 months that could become 12 months) I listened to a breakdown of a paper on Covid immunity (This Week In Virology, a recent episode), and antibody waning was wildly variable. In some people it persisted at six months, in others it waned (and different immunity measurements waned at different times). I think the answer is we don't know: for me, it's reason to hang tight. If that's the case this new vaccine, which teaches your body to recognise covid, is going to wane quicker than a natural biological response. I for one have more confidence in my natural immune system. So 4 reinfection cases of a variety of strains of covid, in billions doesn't worry me. " There is no reason to think that vaccine immunity will wane any faster than natural immunity. In fact it is more likely to be the reverse, the vaccines are specifically designed to provoke the greatest response from your immune system, natural infection will vary wildly in terms of viral load and the potential reaction from your body. With either, there will be some people who do not develop immunity at all. In terms of reinfection, there are only a handful of documented cases of double infection, what we don't know, is how many may have been asymptomatic the first time then picked up the second (thus only showing as one official infection). We also don't know if people may have been asymptomatic more than once and been merrily spreading Covid. | |||
"There really isn't any need for the judgements and name calling. It is the same people over and over attacking anyone that asks about socialising in any form. " Possibly because meeting for casual sex is actually illegal right now. A lot of the people asking these questions do so over and over whilst in other posts admitting to breaking the rules previously. It provokes an angry response from those who are desperately trying to do their best not to spread Covid so that they might actually be able to go hug their gran again, or to visit a relative with dementia who hasn't seen them for 9 months. | |||
"I think the why of people meeting is a number of factors, and it's neither explained by people who can't help it or irresponsible fuckwits. I think it runs the spectrum from people with significant mental health issues, to people who don't handle their shit well (suffering but could do better), those without the education to understand what's going on, those pissed off with the seeming mixed messages who don't have good resources, those who don't understand risk to themselves, those who don't understand risk to others, all the way through to irresponsible fuckwits who know and don't care. Their risk to themselves and their local communities is the same whether they're suffering and acting out or if they're sociopathic raging douchecanoes, though."  | |||
"I have had it and was told only last night by nhs111 and paramedics that you can get it again ** That's interesting as my G.P said it was highly unlikely I would get it again and just last week we had the news that post covid your protection runs at least 6 months. (In 6 months that could become 12 months) I listened to a breakdown of a paper on Covid immunity (This Week In Virology, a recent episode), and antibody waning was wildly variable. In some people it persisted at six months, in others it waned (and different immunity measurements waned at different times). I think the answer is we don't know: for me, it's reason to hang tight. If that's the case this new vaccine, which teaches your body to recognise covid, is going to wane quicker than a natural biological response. I for one have more confidence in my natural immune system. So 4 reinfection cases of a variety of strains of covid, in billions doesn't worry me. There is no reason to think that vaccine immunity will wane any faster than natural immunity. In fact it is more likely to be the reverse, the vaccines are specifically designed to provoke the greatest response from your immune system, natural infection will vary wildly in terms of viral load and the potential reaction from your body. With either, there will be some people who do not develop immunity at all. In terms of reinfection, there are only a handful of documented cases of double infection, what we don't know, is how many may have been asymptomatic the first time then picked up the second (thus only showing as one official infection). We also don't know if people may have been asymptomatic more than once and been merrily spreading Covid." Factoring out any possible mutations that could cause any upset in predictions and plans. | |||
| |||
"There really isn't any need for the judgements and name calling. It is the same people over and over attacking anyone that asks about socialising in any form. Possibly because meeting for casual sex is actually illegal right now. A lot of the people asking these questions do so over and over whilst in other posts admitting to breaking the rules previously. It provokes an angry response from those who are desperately trying to do their best not to spread Covid so that they might actually be able to go hug their gran again, or to visit a relative with dementia who hasn't seen them for 9 months. " | |||
"if u have brains ask u whats that? its only regular flue like was vefore with some symotoms of complication was be4 are u really so dumb? " My irony meter just overheated and blew up in my face. | |||
"Cheers, so even if you had previously had covid , then had a vaccination your still not 100% safe ? So the days of safely swinging are gone ?" Yes! Humans will never, ever even get to be socially engaged with any others. 
Immunity may or may not be sufficient after an infection and nobody knows how long it may work for.
Vaccines have lots of evidence behind them and it will build up over coming months. There's no urgency to put others at risk from a shag, as you'll read in many threads. Herd immunity should start next year, if enough people get vaccinated. Life will then continue with less cause for concern | |||
| |||
"I have had it and was told only last night by nhs111 and paramedics that you can get it again ** That's interesting as my G.P said it was highly unlikely I would get it again and just last week we had the news that post covid your protection runs at least 6 months. (In 6 months that could become 12 months) I listened to a breakdown of a paper on Covid immunity (This Week In Virology, a recent episode), and antibody waning was wildly variable. In some people it persisted at six months, in others it waned (and different immunity measurements waned at different times). I think the answer is we don't know: for me, it's reason to hang tight. If that's the case this new vaccine, which teaches your body to recognise covid, is going to wane quicker than a natural biological response. I for one have more confidence in my natural immune system. So 4 reinfection cases of a variety of strains of covid, in billions doesn't worry me. There is no reason to think that vaccine immunity will wane any faster than natural immunity. In fact it is more likely to be the reverse, the vaccines are specifically designed to provoke the greatest response from your immune system, natural infection will vary wildly in terms of viral load and the potential reaction from your body. With either, there will be some people who do not develop immunity at all. In terms of reinfection, there are only a handful of documented cases of double infection, what we don't know, is how many may have been asymptomatic the first time then picked up the second (thus only showing as one official infection). We also don't know if people may have been asymptomatic more than once and been merrily spreading Covid." Catching the virus would appear to lead to far better immunity than the vaccine. The best vaccine appears to provide immunity to less than 95% whereas they struggle to find more than a handful out of millions who have caught the virus who go on to catch it again. | |||
"I have had it and was told only last night by nhs111 and paramedics that you can get it again ** That's interesting as my G.P said it was highly unlikely I would get it again and just last week we had the news that post covid your protection runs at least 6 months. (In 6 months that could become 12 months) I listened to a breakdown of a paper on Covid immunity (This Week In Virology, a recent episode), and antibody waning was wildly variable. In some people it persisted at six months, in others it waned (and different immunity measurements waned at different times). I think the answer is we don't know: for me, it's reason to hang tight. If that's the case this new vaccine, which teaches your body to recognise covid, is going to wane quicker than a natural biological response. I for one have more confidence in my natural immune system. So 4 reinfection cases of a variety of strains of covid, in billions doesn't worry me. There is no reason to think that vaccine immunity will wane any faster than natural immunity. In fact it is more likely to be the reverse, the vaccines are specifically designed to provoke the greatest response from your immune system, natural infection will vary wildly in terms of viral load and the potential reaction from your body. With either, there will be some people who do not develop immunity at all. In terms of reinfection, there are only a handful of documented cases of double infection, what we don't know, is how many may have been asymptomatic the first time then picked up the second (thus only showing as one official infection). We also don't know if people may have been asymptomatic more than once and been merrily spreading Covid. Catching the virus would appear to lead to far better immunity than the vaccine. The best vaccine appears to provide immunity to less than 95% whereas they struggle to find more than a handful out of millions who have caught the virus who go on to catch it again." . ONE HELL OF A RISK PURPOSELY CATCHING THE VIRUS SO YOU WILL BE MORE IMMUNE THAN TAKING THE VACCINE !! , russian roulette again ? You do no that a hell of a lot of people have died from it ?? You only get the one life !, wow thats one hell of a risk your prepared to take | |||
| |||
| |||
"Taking the vaccine wont kill you ,PURPOSELY GETTING COVID MAY WELL DO !!! simple really " Mostly. All intervention carries risk, including vaccination. The risks of vaccines giving you anything beyond a sore arm or mild flu like symptoms are tiny. Bad things happen but they're exceptionally rare. The risks of catching Covid, even just to yourself, seem to be fairly small, but they're monumental compared to vaccination. | |||
" ONE HELL OF A RISK PURPOSELY CATCHING THE VIRUS SO YOU WILL BE MORE IMMUNE THAN TAKING THE VACCINE !! , russian roulette again ? You do no that a hell of a lot of people have died from it ?? You only get the one life !, wow thats one hell of a risk your prepared to take" Except I didn't get a choice, I, like millions of others got covid, recovered and waves as I'm still alive, so are my children
We don't have any idea how many people have had covid and we don't know how many died from it!
Don't quote those msm figures because within 28days of a positive test only tells us they got a test and are no longer with us.
At no point did I think or suggest people get covid instead of taking a potential vaccine but russian roulette?
Yeah it was like roulette with an empty water pistol if you want to use that comparison
Once again a huge leap, over reacting to what is actually a good conversation.
| |||
"Taking the vaccine wont kill you ,PURPOSELY GETTING COVID MAY WELL DO !!! simple really " So vaccine could work for between 65% - 90% of vulnerable people. Covid only affects 30% of the population, with any symptoms. And it does not put 10% - 35% of the population in hospital either. Mathematically .... Taking the vaccine and getting covid could still kill you. Remember not 1 of the 3 says it will prevent you from getting covid. | |||
"I have had it and was told only last night by nhs111 and paramedics that you can get it again ** That's interesting as my G.P said it was highly unlikely I would get it again and just last week we had the news that post covid your protection runs at least 6 months. (In 6 months that could become 12 months) I listened to a breakdown of a paper on Covid immunity (This Week In Virology, a recent episode), and antibody waning was wildly variable. In some people it persisted at six months, in others it waned (and different immunity measurements waned at different times). I think the answer is we don't know: for me, it's reason to hang tight. If that's the case this new vaccine, which teaches your body to recognise covid, is going to wane quicker than a natural biological response. I for one have more confidence in my natural immune system. So 4 reinfection cases of a variety of strains of covid, in billions doesn't worry me. There is no reason to think that vaccine immunity will wane any faster than natural immunity. In fact it is more likely to be the reverse, the vaccines are specifically designed to provoke the greatest response from your immune system, natural infection will vary wildly in terms of viral load and the potential reaction from your body. With either, there will be some people who do not develop immunity at all. In terms of reinfection, there are only a handful of documented cases of double infection, what we don't know, is how many may have been asymptomatic the first time then picked up the second (thus only showing as one official infection). We also don't know if people may have been asymptomatic more than once and been merrily spreading Covid. Catching the virus would appear to lead to far better immunity than the vaccine. The best vaccine appears to provide immunity to less than 95% whereas they struggle to find more than a handful out of millions who have caught the virus who go on to catch it again.. ONE HELL OF A RISK PURPOSELY CATCHING THE VIRUS SO YOU WILL BE MORE IMMUNE THAN TAKING THE VACCINE !! , russian roulette again ? You do no that a hell of a lot of people have died from it ?? You only get the one life !, wow thats one hell of a risk your prepared to take" I'm not suggesting purposely catching the virus. I saying that if you have already had it you are better protected from catching it than someone who has been vaccinated, which is what the op was asking about. This means that anyone who has already had it is safer to meet than someone who has been vaccinated. | |||
"Taking the vaccine wont kill you ,PURPOSELY GETTING COVID MAY WELL DO !!! simple really So vaccine could work for between 65% - 90% of vulnerable people. Covid only affects 30% of the population, with any symptoms. And it does not put 10% - 35% of the population in hospital either. Mathematically .... Taking the vaccine and getting covid could still kill you. Remember not 1 of the 3 says it will prevent you from getting covid. " I don't know if I can follow your maths, but I daresay it's a truism you could take the vaccine and still die of covid... but the chances of it are far slimmer than if you don't have the vaccine. That's the point. The chances of you passing it on and being part of a chain which kills someone else are slimmer still... now I'm of the opinion that if there's something I can do to stop someone else's death, even in a small way, then I'm pretty happy to do it. Even if there's an infinitesimal chance that it'll have some mild adverse effect on me... I understand others have different priorities. | |||
"I have had it and was told only last night by nhs111 and paramedics that you can get it again ** That's interesting as my G.P said it was highly unlikely I would get it again and just last week we had the news that post covid your protection runs at least 6 months. (In 6 months that could become 12 months) I listened to a breakdown of a paper on Covid immunity (This Week In Virology, a recent episode), and antibody waning was wildly variable. In some people it persisted at six months, in others it waned (and different immunity measurements waned at different times). I think the answer is we don't know: for me, it's reason to hang tight. If that's the case this new vaccine, which teaches your body to recognise covid, is going to wane quicker than a natural biological response. I for one have more confidence in my natural immune system. So 4 reinfection cases of a variety of strains of covid, in billions doesn't worry me. There is no reason to think that vaccine immunity will wane any faster than natural immunity. In fact it is more likely to be the reverse, the vaccines are specifically designed to provoke the greatest response from your immune system, natural infection will vary wildly in terms of viral load and the potential reaction from your body. With either, there will be some people who do not develop immunity at all. In terms of reinfection, there are only a handful of documented cases of double infection, what we don't know, is how many may have been asymptomatic the first time then picked up the second (thus only showing as one official infection). We also don't know if people may have been asymptomatic more than once and been merrily spreading Covid. Catching the virus would appear to lead to far better immunity than the vaccine. The best vaccine appears to provide immunity to less than 95% whereas they struggle to find more than a handful out of millions who have caught the virus who go on to catch it again.. ONE HELL OF A RISK PURPOSELY CATCHING THE VIRUS SO YOU WILL BE MORE IMMUNE THAN TAKING THE VACCINE !! , russian roulette again ? You do no that a hell of a lot of people have died from it ?? You only get the one life !, wow thats one hell of a risk your prepared to take I'm not suggesting purposely catching the virus. I saying that if you have already had it you are better protected from catching it than someone who has been vaccinated, which is what the op was asking about. This means that anyone who has already had it is safer to meet than someone who has been vaccinated. " That's possible, but there is absolutely no science saying it is in fact there's another thread here suggesting that natural immunity to those having caught the visit may be as short as six months. | |||
"I have had it and was told only last night by nhs111 and paramedics that you can get it again ** That's interesting as my G.P said it was highly unlikely I would get it again and just last week we had the news that post covid your protection runs at least 6 months. (In 6 months that could become 12 months) I listened to a breakdown of a paper on Covid immunity (This Week In Virology, a recent episode), and antibody waning was wildly variable. In some people it persisted at six months, in others it waned (and different immunity measurements waned at different times). I think the answer is we don't know: for me, it's reason to hang tight. If that's the case this new vaccine, which teaches your body to recognise covid, is going to wane quicker than a natural biological response. I for one have more confidence in my natural immune system. So 4 reinfection cases of a variety of strains of covid, in billions doesn't worry me. There is no reason to think that vaccine immunity will wane any faster than natural immunity. In fact it is more likely to be the reverse, the vaccines are specifically designed to provoke the greatest response from your immune system, natural infection will vary wildly in terms of viral load and the potential reaction from your body. With either, there will be some people who do not develop immunity at all. In terms of reinfection, there are only a handful of documented cases of double infection, what we don't know, is how many may have been asymptomatic the first time then picked up the second (thus only showing as one official infection). We also don't know if people may have been asymptomatic more than once and been merrily spreading Covid. Catching the virus would appear to lead to far better immunity than the vaccine. The best vaccine appears to provide immunity to less than 95% whereas they struggle to find more than a handful out of millions who have caught the virus who go on to catch it again.. ONE HELL OF A RISK PURPOSELY CATCHING THE VIRUS SO YOU WILL BE MORE IMMUNE THAN TAKING THE VACCINE !! , russian roulette again ? You do no that a hell of a lot of people have died from it ?? You only get the one life !, wow thats one hell of a risk your prepared to take I'm not suggesting purposely catching the virus. I saying that if you have already had it you are better protected from catching it than someone who has been vaccinated, which is what the op was asking about. This means that anyone who has already had it is safer to meet than someone who has been vaccinated. That's possible, but there is absolutely no science saying it is in fact there's another thread here suggesting that natural immunity to those having caught the visit may be as short as six months." Natural immunity =/= vaccine immunity... Vaccine immunity is a different thing. In fact many of the vaccines go about their business in totally different ways. I've read a little on it, and am by no means an expert, but I'm willing to trust the consensus of a scientific community made up of collectively hundreds of years of education and experience rather than draw my own amateur conclusions based on headlines and a bit of biology in high school (even if I did get a B. Decent)! | |||
"I have had it and was told only last night by nhs111 and paramedics that you can get it again ** That's interesting as my G.P said it was highly unlikely I would get it again and just last week we had the news that post covid your protection runs at least 6 months. (In 6 months that could become 12 months) I listened to a breakdown of a paper on Covid immunity (This Week In Virology, a recent episode), and antibody waning was wildly variable. In some people it persisted at six months, in others it waned (and different immunity measurements waned at different times). I think the answer is we don't know: for me, it's reason to hang tight. If that's the case this new vaccine, which teaches your body to recognise covid, is going to wane quicker than a natural biological response. I for one have more confidence in my natural immune system. So 4 reinfection cases of a variety of strains of covid, in billions doesn't worry me. There is no reason to think that vaccine immunity will wane any faster than natural immunity. In fact it is more likely to be the reverse, the vaccines are specifically designed to provoke the greatest response from your immune system, natural infection will vary wildly in terms of viral load and the potential reaction from your body. With either, there will be some people who do not develop immunity at all. In terms of reinfection, there are only a handful of documented cases of double infection, what we don't know, is how many may have been asymptomatic the first time then picked up the second (thus only showing as one official infection). We also don't know if people may have been asymptomatic more than once and been merrily spreading Covid. Catching the virus would appear to lead to far better immunity than the vaccine. The best vaccine appears to provide immunity to less than 95% whereas they struggle to find more than a handful out of millions who have caught the virus who go on to catch it again.. ONE HELL OF A RISK PURPOSELY CATCHING THE VIRUS SO YOU WILL BE MORE IMMUNE THAN TAKING THE VACCINE !! , russian roulette again ? You do no that a hell of a lot of people have died from it ?? You only get the one life !, wow thats one hell of a risk your prepared to take I'm not suggesting purposely catching the virus. I saying that if you have already had it you are better protected from catching it than someone who has been vaccinated, which is what the op was asking about. This means that anyone who has already had it is safer to meet than someone who has been vaccinated. That's possible, but there is absolutely no science saying it is in fact there's another thread here suggesting that natural immunity to those having caught the visit may be as short as six months." The reason they say as short as six months is because they have only been looking for the last six months. On the same basis you could say the vaccine may offer immunity for as little as 3 months because nobody had a vaccine more than 3 months ago. | |||
"I have had it and was told only last night by nhs111 and paramedics that you can get it again ** That's interesting as my G.P said it was highly unlikely I would get it again and just last week we had the news that post covid your protection runs at least 6 months. (In 6 months that could become 12 months) I listened to a breakdown of a paper on Covid immunity (This Week In Virology, a recent episode), and antibody waning was wildly variable. In some people it persisted at six months, in others it waned (and different immunity measurements waned at different times). I think the answer is we don't know: for me, it's reason to hang tight. If that's the case this new vaccine, which teaches your body to recognise covid, is going to wane quicker than a natural biological response. I for one have more confidence in my natural immune system. So 4 reinfection cases of a variety of strains of covid, in billions doesn't worry me. There is no reason to think that vaccine immunity will wane any faster than natural immunity. In fact it is more likely to be the reverse, the vaccines are specifically designed to provoke the greatest response from your immune system, natural infection will vary wildly in terms of viral load and the potential reaction from your body. With either, there will be some people who do not develop immunity at all. In terms of reinfection, there are only a handful of documented cases of double infection, what we don't know, is how many may have been asymptomatic the first time then picked up the second (thus only showing as one official infection). We also don't know if people may have been asymptomatic more than once and been merrily spreading Covid. Catching the virus would appear to lead to far better immunity than the vaccine. The best vaccine appears to provide immunity to less than 95% whereas they struggle to find more than a handful out of millions who have caught the virus who go on to catch it again.. ONE HELL OF A RISK PURPOSELY CATCHING THE VIRUS SO YOU WILL BE MORE IMMUNE THAN TAKING THE VACCINE !! , russian roulette again ? You do no that a hell of a lot of people have died from it ?? You only get the one life !, wow thats one hell of a risk your prepared to take I'm not suggesting purposely catching the virus. I saying that if you have already had it you are better protected from catching it than someone who has been vaccinated, which is what the op was asking about. This means that anyone who has already had it is safer to meet than someone who has been vaccinated. That's possible, but there is absolutely no science saying it is in fact there's another thread here suggesting that natural immunity to those having caught the visit may be as short as six months. Natural immunity =/= vaccine immunity... Vaccine immunity is a different thing. In fact many of the vaccines go about their business in totally different ways. I've read a little on it, and am by no means an expert, but I'm willing to trust the consensus of a scientific community made up of collectively hundreds of years of education and experience rather than draw my own amateur conclusions based on headlines and a bit of biology in high school (even if I did get a B. Decent)!" Vaccine immunity is exactly like natural immunity. The advantage of being vaccinated is the vaccine can be a blend of vaccines that can protect against more than one strain but of course that's not happening here. | |||
"I have had it and was told only last night by nhs111 and paramedics that you can get it again ** That's interesting as my G.P said it was highly unlikely I would get it again and just last week we had the news that post covid your protection runs at least 6 months. (In 6 months that could become 12 months) I listened to a breakdown of a paper on Covid immunity (This Week In Virology, a recent episode), and antibody waning was wildly variable. In some people it persisted at six months, in others it waned (and different immunity measurements waned at different times). I think the answer is we don't know: for me, it's reason to hang tight. If that's the case this new vaccine, which teaches your body to recognise covid, is going to wane quicker than a natural biological response. I for one have more confidence in my natural immune system. So 4 reinfection cases of a variety of strains of covid, in billions doesn't worry me. There is no reason to think that vaccine immunity will wane any faster than natural immunity. In fact it is more likely to be the reverse, the vaccines are specifically designed to provoke the greatest response from your immune system, natural infection will vary wildly in terms of viral load and the potential reaction from your body. With either, there will be some people who do not develop immunity at all. In terms of reinfection, there are only a handful of documented cases of double infection, what we don't know, is how many may have been asymptomatic the first time then picked up the second (thus only showing as one official infection). We also don't know if people may have been asymptomatic more than once and been merrily spreading Covid. Catching the virus would appear to lead to far better immunity than the vaccine. The best vaccine appears to provide immunity to less than 95% whereas they struggle to find more than a handful out of millions who have caught the virus who go on to catch it again.. ONE HELL OF A RISK PURPOSELY CATCHING THE VIRUS SO YOU WILL BE MORE IMMUNE THAN TAKING THE VACCINE !! , russian roulette again ? You do no that a hell of a lot of people have died from it ?? You only get the one life !, wow thats one hell of a risk your prepared to take I'm not suggesting purposely catching the virus. I saying that if you have already had it you are better protected from catching it than someone who has been vaccinated, which is what the op was asking about. This means that anyone who has already had it is safer to meet than someone who has been vaccinated. That's possible, but there is absolutely no science saying it is in fact there's another thread here suggesting that natural immunity to those having caught the visit may be as short as six months. Natural immunity =/= vaccine immunity... Vaccine immunity is a different thing. In fact many of the vaccines go about their business in totally different ways. I've read a little on it, and am by no means an expert, but I'm willing to trust the consensus of a scientific community made up of collectively hundreds of years of education and experience rather than draw my own amateur conclusions based on headlines and a bit of biology in high school (even if I did get a B. Decent)! Vaccine immunity is exactly like natural immunity. The advantage of being vaccinated is the vaccine can be a blend of vaccines that can protect against more than one strain but of course that's not happening here." What's your evidence for that claim? | |||
"I have had it and was told only last night by nhs111 and paramedics that you can get it again ** That's interesting as my G.P said it was highly unlikely I would get it again and just last week we had the news that post covid your protection runs at least 6 months. (In 6 months that could become 12 months) I listened to a breakdown of a paper on Covid immunity (This Week In Virology, a recent episode), and antibody waning was wildly variable. In some people it persisted at six months, in others it waned (and different immunity measurements waned at different times). I think the answer is we don't know: for me, it's reason to hang tight. If that's the case this new vaccine, which teaches your body to recognise covid, is going to wane quicker than a natural biological response. I for one have more confidence in my natural immune system. So 4 reinfection cases of a variety of strains of covid, in billions doesn't worry me. There is no reason to think that vaccine immunity will wane any faster than natural immunity. In fact it is more likely to be the reverse, the vaccines are specifically designed to provoke the greatest response from your immune system, natural infection will vary wildly in terms of viral load and the potential reaction from your body. With either, there will be some people who do not develop immunity at all. In terms of reinfection, there are only a handful of documented cases of double infection, what we don't know, is how many may have been asymptomatic the first time then picked up the second (thus only showing as one official infection). We also don't know if people may have been asymptomatic more than once and been merrily spreading Covid. Catching the virus would appear to lead to far better immunity than the vaccine. The best vaccine appears to provide immunity to less than 95% whereas they struggle to find more than a handful out of millions who have caught the virus who go on to catch it again.. ONE HELL OF A RISK PURPOSELY CATCHING THE VIRUS SO YOU WILL BE MORE IMMUNE THAN TAKING THE VACCINE !! , russian roulette again ? You do no that a hell of a lot of people have died from it ?? You only get the one life !, wow thats one hell of a risk your prepared to take I'm not suggesting purposely catching the virus. I saying that if you have already had it you are better protected from catching it than someone who has been vaccinated, which is what the op was asking about. This means that anyone who has already had it is safer to meet than someone who has been vaccinated. That's possible, but there is absolutely no science saying it is in fact there's another thread here suggesting that natural immunity to those having caught the visit may be as short as six months. Natural immunity =/= vaccine immunity... Vaccine immunity is a different thing. In fact many of the vaccines go about their business in totally different ways. I've read a little on it, and am by no means an expert, but I'm willing to trust the consensus of a scientific community made up of collectively hundreds of years of education and experience rather than draw my own amateur conclusions based on headlines and a bit of biology in high school (even if I did get a B. Decent)! Vaccine immunity is exactly like natural immunity. The advantage of being vaccinated is the vaccine can be a blend of vaccines that can protect against more than one strain but of course that's not happening here." Sorry, that's plain wrong. | |||
"So why are people on here still asking for meets and presumeably having meets ??? Are they basically playing russian roulette with their and there families lives ????" ....yes | |||
| |||
| |||
"I have had it and was told only last night by nhs111 and paramedics that you can get it again ** That's interesting as my G.P said it was highly unlikely I would get it again and just last week we had the news that post covid your protection runs at least 6 months. (In 6 months that could become 12 months) I listened to a breakdown of a paper on Covid immunity (This Week In Virology, a recent episode), and antibody waning was wildly variable. In some people it persisted at six months, in others it waned (and different immunity measurements waned at different times). I think the answer is we don't know: for me, it's reason to hang tight. If that's the case this new vaccine, which teaches your body to recognise covid, is going to wane quicker than a natural biological response. I for one have more confidence in my natural immune system. So 4 reinfection cases of a variety of strains of covid, in billions doesn't worry me. There is no reason to think that vaccine immunity will wane any faster than natural immunity. In fact it is more likely to be the reverse, the vaccines are specifically designed to provoke the greatest response from your immune system, natural infection will vary wildly in terms of viral load and the potential reaction from your body. With either, there will be some people who do not develop immunity at all. In terms of reinfection, there are only a handful of documented cases of double infection, what we don't know, is how many may have been asymptomatic the first time then picked up the second (thus only showing as one official infection). We also don't know if people may have been asymptomatic more than once and been merrily spreading Covid. Catching the virus would appear to lead to far better immunity than the vaccine. The best vaccine appears to provide immunity to less than 95% whereas they struggle to find more than a handful out of millions who have caught the virus who go on to catch it again.. ONE HELL OF A RISK PURPOSELY CATCHING THE VIRUS SO YOU WILL BE MORE IMMUNE THAN TAKING THE VACCINE !! , russian roulette again ? You do no that a hell of a lot of people have died from it ?? You only get the one life !, wow thats one hell of a risk your prepared to take I'm not suggesting purposely catching the virus. I saying that if you have already had it you are better protected from catching it than someone who has been vaccinated, which is what the op was asking about. This means that anyone who has already had it is safer to meet than someone who has been vaccinated. That's possible, but there is absolutely no science saying it is in fact there's another thread here suggesting that natural immunity to those having caught the visit may be as short as six months. Natural immunity =/= vaccine immunity... Vaccine immunity is a different thing. In fact many of the vaccines go about their business in totally different ways. I've read a little on it, and am by no means an expert, but I'm willing to trust the consensus of a scientific community made up of collectively hundreds of years of education and experience rather than draw my own amateur conclusions based on headlines and a bit of biology in high school (even if I did get a B. Decent)! Vaccine immunity is exactly like natural immunity. The advantage of being vaccinated is the vaccine can be a blend of vaccines that can protect against more than one strain but of course that's not happening here. Sorry, that's plain wrong. " The actual virus gets into your body, the body produces antibodies (and T and B cells to fight it). So next time the body is ready to fight a reinfection before it can take hold a second time. With smallpox the vaccine puts a similar but not infectious virus (cowpox) in your body. The body produces antibodies (and T and B cells to fight it). So the body is ready to fight an infection of smallpox before it can take hold. With the Chinese vaccine they inject a weakend version of the actual virus into your body, the body produces antibodies (and T and B cells to fight it). So the body is ready to fight an infection of the real virus before it can take hold. With the mRNA vaccines (Pfizer etc.), they inject messenger RNA that instructs your body's cells to manufacture the spike protein that is on the surface of the coronavirus. The body produces antibodies (and T and B cells to fight it). So the body is ready to fight an infection of the real virus before it can take hold. | |||
"I have had it and was told only last night by nhs111 and paramedics that you can get it again ** That's interesting as my G.P said it was highly unlikely I would get it again and just last week we had the news that post covid your protection runs at least 6 months. (In 6 months that could become 12 months) I listened to a breakdown of a paper on Covid immunity (This Week In Virology, a recent episode), and antibody waning was wildly variable. In some people it persisted at six months, in others it waned (and different immunity measurements waned at different times). I think the answer is we don't know: for me, it's reason to hang tight. If that's the case this new vaccine, which teaches your body to recognise covid, is going to wane quicker than a natural biological response. I for one have more confidence in my natural immune system. So 4 reinfection cases of a variety of strains of covid, in billions doesn't worry me. There is no reason to think that vaccine immunity will wane any faster than natural immunity. In fact it is more likely to be the reverse, the vaccines are specifically designed to provoke the greatest response from your immune system, natural infection will vary wildly in terms of viral load and the potential reaction from your body. With either, there will be some people who do not develop immunity at all. In terms of reinfection, there are only a handful of documented cases of double infection, what we don't know, is how many may have been asymptomatic the first time then picked up the second (thus only showing as one official infection). We also don't know if people may have been asymptomatic more than once and been merrily spreading Covid. Catching the virus would appear to lead to far better immunity than the vaccine. The best vaccine appears to provide immunity to less than 95% whereas they struggle to find more than a handful out of millions who have caught the virus who go on to catch it again.. ONE HELL OF A RISK PURPOSELY CATCHING THE VIRUS SO YOU WILL BE MORE IMMUNE THAN TAKING THE VACCINE !! , russian roulette again ? You do no that a hell of a lot of people have died from it ?? You only get the one life !, wow thats one hell of a risk your prepared to take I'm not suggesting purposely catching the virus. I saying that if you have already had it you are better protected from catching it than someone who has been vaccinated, which is what the op was asking about. This means that anyone who has already had it is safer to meet than someone who has been vaccinated. That's possible, but there is absolutely no science saying it is in fact there's another thread here suggesting that natural immunity to those having caught the visit may be as short as six months. Natural immunity =/= vaccine immunity... Vaccine immunity is a different thing. In fact many of the vaccines go about their business in totally different ways. I've read a little on it, and am by no means an expert, but I'm willing to trust the consensus of a scientific community made up of collectively hundreds of years of education and experience rather than draw my own amateur conclusions based on headlines and a bit of biology in high school (even if I did get a B. Decent)! Vaccine immunity is exactly like natural immunity. The advantage of being vaccinated is the vaccine can be a blend of vaccines that can protect against more than one strain but of course that's not happening here. Sorry, that's plain wrong. The actual virus gets into your body, the body produces antibodies (and T and B cells to fight it). So next time the body is ready to fight a reinfection before it can take hold a second time. With smallpox the vaccine puts a similar but not infectious virus (cowpox) in your body. The body produces antibodies (and T and B cells to fight it). So the body is ready to fight an infection of smallpox before it can take hold. With the Chinese vaccine they inject a weakend version of the actual virus into your body, the body produces antibodies (and T and B cells to fight it). So the body is ready to fight an infection of the real virus before it can take hold. With the mRNA vaccines (Pfizer etc.), they inject messenger RNA that instructs your body's cells to manufacture the spike protein that is on the surface of the coronavirus. The body produces antibodies (and T and B cells to fight it). So the body is ready to fight an infection of the real virus before it can take hold. " A. "The Chinese Vaccine" reveals from the outset you don't really know what you're talking about. B. You don't know what you're talking about, either about vaccination in general or the vaccines being developed as a response to covid19. Here's an article written by a biologist explaining how vaccines provide a different level of protection: https://theconversation.com/why-a-vaccine-can-provide-better-immunity-than-an-actual-infection-145476 | |||
"DO NOT MEET , simple really , can anyone on here hold their hand up and say its 100 % safe to meet people for fun either after they have either had covid/ vaccinne or anything ? The answer has to be no ( unless they have a 2 metres plus cock which they can maintain social distancing with !!!" Well ive had this virus before, no different to a normal.seasonal cold thats all! | |||
"DO NOT MEET , simple really , can anyone on here hold their hand up and say its 100 % safe to meet people for fun either after they have either had covid/ vaccinne or anything ? The answer has to be no ( unless they have a 2 metres plus cock which they can maintain social distancing with !!! Well ive had this virus before, no different to a normal.seasonal cold thats all! " Ah right - seasonal cold, cool. All those dead people must be making a mountain out of a molehill. Probably just doing it for attention. | |||
"DO NOT MEET , simple really , can anyone on here hold their hand up and say its 100 % safe to meet people for fun either after they have either had covid/ vaccinne or anything ? The answer has to be no ( unless they have a 2 metres plus cock which they can maintain social distancing with !!! MUST BE THE WORSE POST EVER SEEN ON HERE , EVER !!!!! Shameful comment Well ive had this virus before, no different to a normal.seasonal cold thats all! " | |||
"DO NOT MEET , simple really , can anyone on here hold their hand up and say its 100 % safe to meet people for fun either after they have either had covid/ vaccinne or anything ? The answer has to be no ( unless they have a 2 metres plus cock which they can maintain social distancing with !!! MUST BE THE WORSE POST EVER SEEN ON HERE , EVER !!!!! Shameful comment Well ive had this virus before, no different to a normal.seasonal cold thats all! " | |||
"DO NOT MEET , simple really , can anyone on here hold their hand up and say its 100 % safe to meet people for fun either after they have either had covid/ vaccinne or anything ? The answer has to be no ( unless they have a 2 metres plus cock which they can maintain social distancing with !!! Well ive had this virus before, no different to a normal.seasonal cold thats all! " Oh dear...maybe watch some of the tv programmes with patients struggling to breathe..maybe look at the comments of people with long Covid..you were lucky... | |||
"I have had it and was told only last night by nhs111 and paramedics that you can get it again ** That's interesting as my G.P said it was highly unlikely I would get it again and just last week we had the news that post covid your protection runs at least 6 months. (In 6 months that could become 12 months) I listened to a breakdown of a paper on Covid immunity (This Week In Virology, a recent episode), and antibody waning was wildly variable. In some people it persisted at six months, in others it waned (and different immunity measurements waned at different times). I think the answer is we don't know: for me, it's reason to hang tight. If that's the case this new vaccine, which teaches your body to recognise covid, is going to wane quicker than a natural biological response. I for one have more confidence in my natural immune system. So 4 reinfection cases of a variety of strains of covid, in billions doesn't worry me. There is no reason to think that vaccine immunity will wane any faster than natural immunity. In fact it is more likely to be the reverse, the vaccines are specifically designed to provoke the greatest response from your immune system, natural infection will vary wildly in terms of viral load and the potential reaction from your body. With either, there will be some people who do not develop immunity at all. In terms of reinfection, there are only a handful of documented cases of double infection, what we don't know, is how many may have been asymptomatic the first time then picked up the second (thus only showing as one official infection). We also don't know if people may have been asymptomatic more than once and been merrily spreading Covid. Catching the virus would appear to lead to far better immunity than the vaccine. The best vaccine appears to provide immunity to less than 95% whereas they struggle to find more than a handful out of millions who have caught the virus who go on to catch it again.. ONE HELL OF A RISK PURPOSELY CATCHING THE VIRUS SO YOU WILL BE MORE IMMUNE THAN TAKING THE VACCINE !! , russian roulette again ? You do no that a hell of a lot of people have died from it ?? You only get the one life !, wow thats one hell of a risk your prepared to take I'm not suggesting purposely catching the virus. I saying that if you have already had it you are better protected from catching it than someone who has been vaccinated, which is what the op was asking about. This means that anyone who has already had it is safer to meet than someone who has been vaccinated. That's possible, but there is absolutely no science saying it is in fact there's another thread here suggesting that natural immunity to those having caught the visit may be as short as six months. Natural immunity =/= vaccine immunity... Vaccine immunity is a different thing. In fact many of the vaccines go about their business in totally different ways. I've read a little on it, and am by no means an expert, but I'm willing to trust the consensus of a scientific community made up of collectively hundreds of years of education and experience rather than draw my own amateur conclusions based on headlines and a bit of biology in high school (even if I did get a B. Decent)! Vaccine immunity is exactly like natural immunity. The advantage of being vaccinated is the vaccine can be a blend of vaccines that can protect against more than one strain but of course that's not happening here. Sorry, that's plain wrong. The actual virus gets into your body, the body produces antibodies (and T and B cells to fight it). So next time the body is ready to fight a reinfection before it can take hold a second time. With smallpox the vaccine puts a similar but not infectious virus (cowpox) in your body. The body produces antibodies (and T and B cells to fight it). So the body is ready to fight an infection of smallpox before it can take hold. With the Chinese vaccine they inject a weakend version of the actual virus into your body, the body produces antibodies (and T and B cells to fight it). So the body is ready to fight an infection of the real virus before it can take hold. With the mRNA vaccines (Pfizer etc.), they inject messenger RNA that instructs your body's cells to manufacture the spike protein that is on the surface of the coronavirus. The body produces antibodies (and T and B cells to fight it). So the body is ready to fight an infection of the real virus before it can take hold. A. "The Chinese Vaccine" reveals from the outset you don't really know what you're talking about. B. You don't know what you're talking about, either about vaccination in general or the vaccines being developed as a response to covid19. Here's an article written by a biologist explaining how vaccines provide a different level of protection: https://theconversation.com/why-a-vaccine-can-provide-better-immunity-than-an-actual-infection-145476" The Chinese have developed at least one vaccine that they are using for health workers right now. It is using a weakend version of the actual virus. Keep up. | |||
"I have had it and was told only last night by nhs111 and paramedics that you can get it again ** That's interesting as my G.P said it was highly unlikely I would get it again and just last week we had the news that post covid your protection runs at least 6 months. (In 6 months that could become 12 months) I listened to a breakdown of a paper on Covid immunity (This Week In Virology, a recent episode), and antibody waning was wildly variable. In some people it persisted at six months, in others it waned (and different immunity measurements waned at different times). I think the answer is we don't know: for me, it's reason to hang tight. If that's the case this new vaccine, which teaches your body to recognise covid, is going to wane quicker than a natural biological response. I for one have more confidence in my natural immune system. So 4 reinfection cases of a variety of strains of covid, in billions doesn't worry me. There is no reason to think that vaccine immunity will wane any faster than natural immunity. In fact it is more likely to be the reverse, the vaccines are specifically designed to provoke the greatest response from your immune system, natural infection will vary wildly in terms of viral load and the potential reaction from your body. With either, there will be some people who do not develop immunity at all. In terms of reinfection, there are only a handful of documented cases of double infection, what we don't know, is how many may have been asymptomatic the first time then picked up the second (thus only showing as one official infection). We also don't know if people may have been asymptomatic more than once and been merrily spreading Covid. Catching the virus would appear to lead to far better immunity than the vaccine. The best vaccine appears to provide immunity to less than 95% whereas they struggle to find more than a handful out of millions who have caught the virus who go on to catch it again.. ONE HELL OF A RISK PURPOSELY CATCHING THE VIRUS SO YOU WILL BE MORE IMMUNE THAN TAKING THE VACCINE !! , russian roulette again ? You do no that a hell of a lot of people have died from it ?? You only get the one life !, wow thats one hell of a risk your prepared to take I'm not suggesting purposely catching the virus. I saying that if you have already had it you are better protected from catching it than someone who has been vaccinated, which is what the op was asking about. This means that anyone who has already had it is safer to meet than someone who has been vaccinated. That's possible, but there is absolutely no science saying it is in fact there's another thread here suggesting that natural immunity to those having caught the visit may be as short as six months. Natural immunity =/= vaccine immunity... Vaccine immunity is a different thing. In fact many of the vaccines go about their business in totally different ways. I've read a little on it, and am by no means an expert, but I'm willing to trust the consensus of a scientific community made up of collectively hundreds of years of education and experience rather than draw my own amateur conclusions based on headlines and a bit of biology in high school (even if I did get a B. Decent)! Vaccine immunity is exactly like natural immunity. The advantage of being vaccinated is the vaccine can be a blend of vaccines that can protect against more than one strain but of course that's not happening here. Sorry, that's plain wrong. The actual virus gets into your body, the body produces antibodies (and T and B cells to fight it). So next time the body is ready to fight a reinfection before it can take hold a second time. With smallpox the vaccine puts a similar but not infectious virus (cowpox) in your body. The body produces antibodies (and T and B cells to fight it). So the body is ready to fight an infection of smallpox before it can take hold. With the Chinese vaccine they inject a weakend version of the actual virus into your body, the body produces antibodies (and T and B cells to fight it). So the body is ready to fight an infection of the real virus before it can take hold. With the mRNA vaccines (Pfizer etc.), they inject messenger RNA that instructs your body's cells to manufacture the spike protein that is on the surface of the coronavirus. The body produces antibodies (and T and B cells to fight it). So the body is ready to fight an infection of the real virus before it can take hold. A. "The Chinese Vaccine" reveals from the outset you don't really know what you're talking about. B. You don't know what you're talking about, either about vaccination in general or the vaccines being developed as a response to covid19. Here's an article written by a biologist explaining how vaccines provide a different level of protection: https://theconversation.com/why-a-vaccine-can-provide-better-immunity-than-an-actual-infection-145476 The Chinese have developed at least one vaccine that they are using for health workers right now. It is using a weakend version of the actual virus. Keep up." And are all vaccines the same? I'd suggest you look into it before attempting to look knowledgeable in future | |||
| |||
"I have had it and was told only last night by nhs111 and paramedics that you can get it again ** That's interesting as my G.P said it was highly unlikely I would get it again and just last week we had the news that post covid your protection runs at least 6 months. (In 6 months that could become 12 months) I listened to a breakdown of a paper on Covid immunity (This Week In Virology, a recent episode), and antibody waning was wildly variable. In some people it persisted at six months, in others it waned (and different immunity measurements waned at different times). I think the answer is we don't know: for me, it's reason to hang tight. If that's the case this new vaccine, which teaches your body to recognise covid, is going to wane quicker than a natural biological response. I for one have more confidence in my natural immune system. So 4 reinfection cases of a variety of strains of covid, in billions doesn't worry me. There is no reason to think that vaccine immunity will wane any faster than natural immunity. In fact it is more likely to be the reverse, the vaccines are specifically designed to provoke the greatest response from your immune system, natural infection will vary wildly in terms of viral load and the potential reaction from your body. With either, there will be some people who do not develop immunity at all. In terms of reinfection, there are only a handful of documented cases of double infection, what we don't know, is how many may have been asymptomatic the first time then picked up the second (thus only showing as one official infection). We also don't know if people may have been asymptomatic more than once and been merrily spreading Covid. Catching the virus would appear to lead to far better immunity than the vaccine. The best vaccine appears to provide immunity to less than 95% whereas they struggle to find more than a handful out of millions who have caught the virus who go on to catch it again.. ONE HELL OF A RISK PURPOSELY CATCHING THE VIRUS SO YOU WILL BE MORE IMMUNE THAN TAKING THE VACCINE !! , russian roulette again ? You do no that a hell of a lot of people have died from it ?? You only get the one life !, wow thats one hell of a risk your prepared to take I'm not suggesting purposely catching the virus. I saying that if you have already had it you are better protected from catching it than someone who has been vaccinated, which is what the op was asking about. This means that anyone who has already had it is safer to meet than someone who has been vaccinated. That's possible, but there is absolutely no science saying it is in fact there's another thread here suggesting that natural immunity to those having caught the visit may be as short as six months. Natural immunity =/= vaccine immunity... Vaccine immunity is a different thing. In fact many of the vaccines go about their business in totally different ways. I've read a little on it, and am by no means an expert, but I'm willing to trust the consensus of a scientific community made up of collectively hundreds of years of education and experience rather than draw my own amateur conclusions based on headlines and a bit of biology in high school (even if I did get a B. Decent)! Vaccine immunity is exactly like natural immunity. The advantage of being vaccinated is the vaccine can be a blend of vaccines that can protect against more than one strain but of course that's not happening here. Sorry, that's plain wrong. The actual virus gets into your body, the body produces antibodies (and T and B cells to fight it). So next time the body is ready to fight a reinfection before it can take hold a second time. With smallpox the vaccine puts a similar but not infectious virus (cowpox) in your body. The body produces antibodies (and T and B cells to fight it). So the body is ready to fight an infection of smallpox before it can take hold. With the Chinese vaccine they inject a weakend version of the actual virus into your body, the body produces antibodies (and T and B cells to fight it). So the body is ready to fight an infection of the real virus before it can take hold. With the mRNA vaccines (Pfizer etc.), they inject messenger RNA that instructs your body's cells to manufacture the spike protein that is on the surface of the coronavirus. The body produces antibodies (and T and B cells to fight it). So the body is ready to fight an infection of the real virus before it can take hold. A. "The Chinese Vaccine" reveals from the outset you don't really know what you're talking about. B. You don't know what you're talking about, either about vaccination in general or the vaccines being developed as a response to covid19. Here's an article written by a biologist explaining how vaccines provide a different level of protection: https://theconversation.com/why-a-vaccine-can-provide-better-immunity-than-an-actual-infection-145476" Secondly the article you reference was published before the recent study that showed people who caught the disease had strong immunity for at least 6 months. It references two people being reinfected so not many given the millions who have caught. Especially when you consider the vaccine protects only 95% percent at best. The Oxford vaccine numbers are a bit of a joke. The protection was 70%. They accidentally gave about 2500 subjects a half dose the first time and are saying that this gave 90% protection. But when you consider that only about 1 in 1000 catch the virus during trial that would suggest 2 or three people on the half dose caught the virus. On that basis I would suggest they are clutching at straws since the figures are based on tiny numbers. | |||
"The Chinese and the Russians have developed vaccines, but my understanding is that they haven't been through the same regulatory process as the "western" ones before being made available. I think the Chinese one is attenuated virus, which is inherently more dangerous than virus particles" All the vaccines are being rushed through testing. I would contest the suggestion that a vaccine made using the tried and tested method is more dangerous than the mRNA method that has never been used before. | |||
"The Chinese and the Russians have developed vaccines, but my understanding is that they haven't been through the same regulatory process as the "western" ones before being made available. I think the Chinese one is attenuated virus, which is inherently more dangerous than virus particles All the vaccines are being rushed through testing. I would contest the suggestion that a vaccine made using the tried and tested method is more dangerous than the mRNA method that has never been used before." Ok | |||
"I have had it and was told only last night by nhs111 and paramedics that you can get it again ** That's interesting as my G.P said it was highly unlikely I would get it again and just last week we had the news that post covid your protection runs at least 6 months. (In 6 months that could become 12 months) I listened to a breakdown of a paper on Covid immunity (This Week In Virology, a recent episode), and antibody waning was wildly variable. In some people it persisted at six months, in others it waned (and different immunity measurements waned at different times). I think the answer is we don't know: for me, it's reason to hang tight. If that's the case this new vaccine, which teaches your body to recognise covid, is going to wane quicker than a natural biological response. I for one have more confidence in my natural immune system. So 4 reinfection cases of a variety of strains of covid, in billions doesn't worry me. There is no reason to think that vaccine immunity will wane any faster than natural immunity. In fact it is more likely to be the reverse, the vaccines are specifically designed to provoke the greatest response from your immune system, natural infection will vary wildly in terms of viral load and the potential reaction from your body. With either, there will be some people who do not develop immunity at all. In terms of reinfection, there are only a handful of documented cases of double infection, what we don't know, is how many may have been asymptomatic the first time then picked up the second (thus only showing as one official infection). We also don't know if people may have been asymptomatic more than once and been merrily spreading Covid. Catching the virus would appear to lead to far better immunity than the vaccine. The best vaccine appears to provide immunity to less than 95% whereas they struggle to find more than a handful out of millions who have caught the virus who go on to catch it again.. ONE HELL OF A RISK PURPOSELY CATCHING THE VIRUS SO YOU WILL BE MORE IMMUNE THAN TAKING THE VACCINE !! , russian roulette again ? You do no that a hell of a lot of people have died from it ?? You only get the one life !, wow thats one hell of a risk your prepared to take I'm not suggesting purposely catching the virus. I saying that if you have already had it you are better protected from catching it than someone who has been vaccinated, which is what the op was asking about. This means that anyone who has already had it is safer to meet than someone who has been vaccinated. That's possible, but there is absolutely no science saying it is in fact there's another thread here suggesting that natural immunity to those having caught the visit may be as short as six months. Natural immunity =/= vaccine immunity... Vaccine immunity is a different thing. In fact many of the vaccines go about their business in totally different ways. I've read a little on it, and am by no means an expert, but I'm willing to trust the consensus of a scientific community made up of collectively hundreds of years of education and experience rather than draw my own amateur conclusions based on headlines and a bit of biology in high school (even if I did get a B. Decent)! Vaccine immunity is exactly like natural immunity. The advantage of being vaccinated is the vaccine can be a blend of vaccines that can protect against more than one strain but of course that's not happening here. Sorry, that's plain wrong. The actual virus gets into your body, the body produces antibodies (and T and B cells to fight it). So next time the body is ready to fight a reinfection before it can take hold a second time. With smallpox the vaccine puts a similar but not infectious virus (cowpox) in your body. The body produces antibodies (and T and B cells to fight it). So the body is ready to fight an infection of smallpox before it can take hold. With the Chinese vaccine they inject a weakend version of the actual virus into your body, the body produces antibodies (and T and B cells to fight it). So the body is ready to fight an infection of the real virus before it can take hold. With the mRNA vaccines (Pfizer etc.), they inject messenger RNA that instructs your body's cells to manufacture the spike protein that is on the surface of the coronavirus. The body produces antibodies (and T and B cells to fight it). So the body is ready to fight an infection of the real virus before it can take hold. A. "The Chinese Vaccine" reveals from the outset you don't really know what you're talking about. B. You don't know what you're talking about, either about vaccination in general or the vaccines being developed as a response to covid19. Here's an article written by a biologist explaining how vaccines provide a different level of protection: https://theconversation.com/why-a-vaccine-can-provide-better-immunity-than-an-actual-infection-145476 Secondly the article you reference was published before the recent study that showed people who caught the disease had strong immunity for at least 6 months. It references two people being reinfected so not many given the millions who have caught. Especially when you consider the vaccine protects only 95% percent at best. The Oxford vaccine numbers are a bit of a joke. The protection was 70%. They accidentally gave about 2500 subjects a half dose the first time and are saying that this gave 90% protection. But when you consider that only about 1 in 1000 catch the virus during trial that would suggest 2 or three people on the half dose caught the virus. On that basis I would suggest they are clutching at straws since the figures are based on tiny numbers." OK, you've moved on from your original claim that natural and vaccine immunity are exactly the same... I'll take that as a concession that you were wrong. As to your rather muddled interpretation of an ever changing landscape of data, it's irrelevant. Even if natural immunity is stronger than vaccine immunity, it leads to millions of deaths across the globe. To suggest that is in some way better is so stupid as to be unworthy of comment. | |||
| |||
"I have had it and was told only last night by nhs111 and paramedics that you can get it again ** That's interesting as my G.P said it was highly unlikely I would get it again and just last week we had the news that post covid your protection runs at least 6 months. (In 6 months that could become 12 months) I listened to a breakdown of a paper on Covid immunity (This Week In Virology, a recent episode), and antibody waning was wildly variable. In some people it persisted at six months, in others it waned (and different immunity measurements waned at different times). I think the answer is we don't know: for me, it's reason to hang tight. If that's the case this new vaccine, which teaches your body to recognise covid, is going to wane quicker than a natural biological response. I for one have more confidence in my natural immune system. So 4 reinfection cases of a variety of strains of covid, in billions doesn't worry me. There is no reason to think that vaccine immunity will wane any faster than natural immunity. In fact it is more likely to be the reverse, the vaccines are specifically designed to provoke the greatest response from your immune system, natural infection will vary wildly in terms of viral load and the potential reaction from your body. With either, there will be some people who do not develop immunity at all. In terms of reinfection, there are only a handful of documented cases of double infection, what we don't know, is how many may have been asymptomatic the first time then picked up the second (thus only showing as one official infection). We also don't know if people may have been asymptomatic more than once and been merrily spreading Covid. Catching the virus would appear to lead to far better immunity than the vaccine. The best vaccine appears to provide immunity to less than 95% whereas they struggle to find more than a handful out of millions who have caught the virus who go on to catch it again.. ONE HELL OF A RISK PURPOSELY CATCHING THE VIRUS SO YOU WILL BE MORE IMMUNE THAN TAKING THE VACCINE !! , russian roulette again ? You do no that a hell of a lot of people have died from it ?? You only get the one life !, wow thats one hell of a risk your prepared to take I'm not suggesting purposely catching the virus. I saying that if you have already had it you are better protected from catching it than someone who has been vaccinated, which is what the op was asking about. This means that anyone who has already had it is safer to meet than someone who has been vaccinated. That's possible, but there is absolutely no science saying it is in fact there's another thread here suggesting that natural immunity to those having caught the visit may be as short as six months. Natural immunity =/= vaccine immunity... Vaccine immunity is a different thing. In fact many of the vaccines go about their business in totally different ways. I've read a little on it, and am by no means an expert, but I'm willing to trust the consensus of a scientific community made up of collectively hundreds of years of education and experience rather than draw my own amateur conclusions based on headlines and a bit of biology in high school (even if I did get a B. Decent)! Vaccine immunity is exactly like natural immunity. The advantage of being vaccinated is the vaccine can be a blend of vaccines that can protect against more than one strain but of course that's not happening here. Sorry, that's plain wrong. The actual virus gets into your body, the body produces antibodies (and T and B cells to fight it). So next time the body is ready to fight a reinfection before it can take hold a second time. With smallpox the vaccine puts a similar but not infectious virus (cowpox) in your body. The body produces antibodies (and T and B cells to fight it). So the body is ready to fight an infection of smallpox before it can take hold. With the Chinese vaccine they inject a weakend version of the actual virus into your body, the body produces antibodies (and T and B cells to fight it). So the body is ready to fight an infection of the real virus before it can take hold. With the mRNA vaccines (Pfizer etc.), they inject messenger RNA that instructs your body's cells to manufacture the spike protein that is on the surface of the coronavirus. The body produces antibodies (and T and B cells to fight it). So the body is ready to fight an infection of the real virus before it can take hold. A. "The Chinese Vaccine" reveals from the outset you don't really know what you're talking about. B. You don't know what you're talking about, either about vaccination in general or the vaccines being developed as a response to covid19. Here's an article written by a biologist explaining how vaccines provide a different level of protection: https://theconversation.com/why-a-vaccine-can-provide-better-immunity-than-an-actual-infection-145476 Secondly the article you reference was published before the recent study that showed people who caught the disease had strong immunity for at least 6 months. It references two people being reinfected so not many given the millions who have caught. Especially when you consider the vaccine protects only 95% percent at best. The Oxford vaccine numbers are a bit of a joke. The protection was 70%. They accidentally gave about 2500 subjects a half dose the first time and are saying that this gave 90% protection. But when you consider that only about 1 in 1000 catch the virus during trial that would suggest 2 or three people on the half dose caught the virus. On that basis I would suggest they are clutching at straws since the figures are based on tiny numbers. OK, you've moved on from your original claim that natural and vaccine immunity are exactly the same... I'll take that as a concession that you were wrong. As to your rather muddled interpretation of an ever changing landscape of data, it's irrelevant. Even if natural immunity is stronger than vaccine immunity, it leads to millions of deaths across the globe. To suggest that is in some way better is so stupid as to be unworthy of comment." I am saying you have at least the same if not better immunity if you have caught it than from the vaccine. That is not the same thing as saying catch it instead of having the vaccine. | |||
"I have had it and was told only last night by nhs111 and paramedics that you can get it again ** That's interesting as my G.P said it was highly unlikely I would get it again and just last week we had the news that post covid your protection runs at least 6 months. (In 6 months that could become 12 months) I listened to a breakdown of a paper on Covid immunity (This Week In Virology, a recent episode), and antibody waning was wildly variable. In some people it persisted at six months, in others it waned (and different immunity measurements waned at different times). I think the answer is we don't know: for me, it's reason to hang tight. If that's the case this new vaccine, which teaches your body to recognise covid, is going to wane quicker than a natural biological response. I for one have more confidence in my natural immune system. So 4 reinfection cases of a variety of strains of covid, in billions doesn't worry me. There is no reason to think that vaccine immunity will wane any faster than natural immunity. In fact it is more likely to be the reverse, the vaccines are specifically designed to provoke the greatest response from your immune system, natural infection will vary wildly in terms of viral load and the potential reaction from your body. With either, there will be some people who do not develop immunity at all. In terms of reinfection, there are only a handful of documented cases of double infection, what we don't know, is how many may have been asymptomatic the first time then picked up the second (thus only showing as one official infection). We also don't know if people may have been asymptomatic more than once and been merrily spreading Covid. Catching the virus would appear to lead to far better immunity than the vaccine. The best vaccine appears to provide immunity to less than 95% whereas they struggle to find more than a handful out of millions who have caught the virus who go on to catch it again.. ONE HELL OF A RISK PURPOSELY CATCHING THE VIRUS SO YOU WILL BE MORE IMMUNE THAN TAKING THE VACCINE !! , russian roulette again ? You do no that a hell of a lot of people have died from it ?? You only get the one life !, wow thats one hell of a risk your prepared to take I'm not suggesting purposely catching the virus. I saying that if you have already had it you are better protected from catching it than someone who has been vaccinated, which is what the op was asking about. This means that anyone who has already had it is safer to meet than someone who has been vaccinated. That's possible, but there is absolutely no science saying it is in fact there's another thread here suggesting that natural immunity to those having caught the visit may be as short as six months. Natural immunity =/= vaccine immunity... Vaccine immunity is a different thing. In fact many of the vaccines go about their business in totally different ways. I've read a little on it, and am by no means an expert, but I'm willing to trust the consensus of a scientific community made up of collectively hundreds of years of education and experience rather than draw my own amateur conclusions based on headlines and a bit of biology in high school (even if I did get a B. Decent)! Vaccine immunity is exactly like natural immunity. The advantage of being vaccinated is the vaccine can be a blend of vaccines that can protect against more than one strain but of course that's not happening here. Sorry, that's plain wrong. The actual virus gets into your body, the body produces antibodies (and T and B cells to fight it). So next time the body is ready to fight a reinfection before it can take hold a second time. With smallpox the vaccine puts a similar but not infectious virus (cowpox) in your body. The body produces antibodies (and T and B cells to fight it). So the body is ready to fight an infection of smallpox before it can take hold. With the Chinese vaccine they inject a weakend version of the actual virus into your body, the body produces antibodies (and T and B cells to fight it). So the body is ready to fight an infection of the real virus before it can take hold. With the mRNA vaccines (Pfizer etc.), they inject messenger RNA that instructs your body's cells to manufacture the spike protein that is on the surface of the coronavirus. The body produces antibodies (and T and B cells to fight it). So the body is ready to fight an infection of the real virus before it can take hold. A. "The Chinese Vaccine" reveals from the outset you don't really know what you're talking about. B. You don't know what you're talking about, either about vaccination in general or the vaccines being developed as a response to covid19. Here's an article written by a biologist explaining how vaccines provide a different level of protection: https://theconversation.com/why-a-vaccine-can-provide-better-immunity-than-an-actual-infection-145476 Secondly the article you reference was published before the recent study that showed people who caught the disease had strong immunity for at least 6 months. It references two people being reinfected so not many given the millions who have caught. Especially when you consider the vaccine protects only 95% percent at best. The Oxford vaccine numbers are a bit of a joke. The protection was 70%. They accidentally gave about 2500 subjects a half dose the first time and are saying that this gave 90% protection. But when you consider that only about 1 in 1000 catch the virus during trial that would suggest 2 or three people on the half dose caught the virus. On that basis I would suggest they are clutching at straws since the figures are based on tiny numbers. OK, you've moved on from your original claim that natural and vaccine immunity are exactly the same... I'll take that as a concession that you were wrong. As to your rather muddled interpretation of an ever changing landscape of data, it's irrelevant. Even if natural immunity is stronger than vaccine immunity, it leads to millions of deaths across the globe. To suggest that is in some way better is so stupid as to be unworthy of comment. I am saying you have at least the same if not better immunity if you have caught it than from the vaccine. That is not the same thing as saying catch it instead of having the vaccine. " You also said "vaccine immunity is exactly like natural immunity", which was wrong. You're even contradicting yourself by claiming natural immunity gives better protection! That aside, you're saying absolutely nothing of value now. Bottom line is that widespread vaccine immunity is better than a rising tide of preventable deaths. | |||
"I have had it and was told only last night by nhs111 and paramedics that you can get it again ** That's interesting as my G.P said it was highly unlikely I would get it again and just last week we had the news that post covid your protection runs at least 6 months. (In 6 months that could become 12 months) I listened to a breakdown of a paper on Covid immunity (This Week In Virology, a recent episode), and antibody waning was wildly variable. In some people it persisted at six months, in others it waned (and different immunity measurements waned at different times). I think the answer is we don't know: for me, it's reason to hang tight. If that's the case this new vaccine, which teaches your body to recognise covid, is going to wane quicker than a natural biological response. I for one have more confidence in my natural immune system. So 4 reinfection cases of a variety of strains of covid, in billions doesn't worry me. There is no reason to think that vaccine immunity will wane any faster than natural immunity. In fact it is more likely to be the reverse, the vaccines are specifically designed to provoke the greatest response from your immune system, natural infection will vary wildly in terms of viral load and the potential reaction from your body. With either, there will be some people who do not develop immunity at all. In terms of reinfection, there are only a handful of documented cases of double infection, what we don't know, is how many may have been asymptomatic the first time then picked up the second (thus only showing as one official infection). We also don't know if people may have been asymptomatic more than once and been merrily spreading Covid. Catching the virus would appear to lead to far better immunity than the vaccine. The best vaccine appears to provide immunity to less than 95% whereas they struggle to find more than a handful out of millions who have caught the virus who go on to catch it again.. ONE HELL OF A RISK PURPOSELY CATCHING THE VIRUS SO YOU WILL BE MORE IMMUNE THAN TAKING THE VACCINE !! , russian roulette again ? You do no that a hell of a lot of people have died from it ?? You only get the one life !, wow thats one hell of a risk your prepared to take I'm not suggesting purposely catching the virus. I saying that if you have already had it you are better protected from catching it than someone who has been vaccinated, which is what the op was asking about. This means that anyone who has already had it is safer to meet than someone who has been vaccinated. That's possible, but there is absolutely no science saying it is in fact there's another thread here suggesting that natural immunity to those having caught the visit may be as short as six months. Natural immunity =/= vaccine immunity... Vaccine immunity is a different thing. In fact many of the vaccines go about their business in totally different ways. I've read a little on it, and am by no means an expert, but I'm willing to trust the consensus of a scientific community made up of collectively hundreds of years of education and experience rather than draw my own amateur conclusions based on headlines and a bit of biology in high school (even if I did get a B. Decent)! Vaccine immunity is exactly like natural immunity. The advantage of being vaccinated is the vaccine can be a blend of vaccines that can protect against more than one strain but of course that's not happening here. Sorry, that's plain wrong. The actual virus gets into your body, the body produces antibodies (and T and B cells to fight it). So next time the body is ready to fight a reinfection before it can take hold a second time. With smallpox the vaccine puts a similar but not infectious virus (cowpox) in your body. The body produces antibodies (and T and B cells to fight it). So the body is ready to fight an infection of smallpox before it can take hold. With the Chinese vaccine they inject a weakend version of the actual virus into your body, the body produces antibodies (and T and B cells to fight it). So the body is ready to fight an infection of the real virus before it can take hold. With the mRNA vaccines (Pfizer etc.), they inject messenger RNA that instructs your body's cells to manufacture the spike protein that is on the surface of the coronavirus. The body produces antibodies (and T and B cells to fight it). So the body is ready to fight an infection of the real virus before it can take hold. A. "The Chinese Vaccine" reveals from the outset you don't really know what you're talking about. B. You don't know what you're talking about, either about vaccination in general or the vaccines being developed as a response to covid19. Here's an article written by a biologist explaining how vaccines provide a different level of protection: https://theconversation.com/why-a-vaccine-can-provide-better-immunity-than-an-actual-infection-145476 Secondly the article you reference was published before the recent study that showed people who caught the disease had strong immunity for at least 6 months. It references two people being reinfected so not many given the millions who have caught. Especially when you consider the vaccine protects only 95% percent at best. The Oxford vaccine numbers are a bit of a joke. The protection was 70%. They accidentally gave about 2500 subjects a half dose the first time and are saying that this gave 90% protection. But when you consider that only about 1 in 1000 catch the virus during trial that would suggest 2 or three people on the half dose caught the virus. On that basis I would suggest they are clutching at straws since the figures are based on tiny numbers. OK, you've moved on from your original claim that natural and vaccine immunity are exactly the same... I'll take that as a concession that you were wrong. As to your rather muddled interpretation of an ever changing landscape of data, it's irrelevant. Even if natural immunity is stronger than vaccine immunity, it leads to millions of deaths across the globe. To suggest that is in some way better is so stupid as to be unworthy of comment. I am saying you have at least the same if not better immunity if you have caught it than from the vaccine. That is not the same thing as saying catch it instead of having the vaccine. You also said "vaccine immunity is exactly like natural immunity", which was wrong. You're even contradicting yourself by claiming natural immunity gives better protection! That aside, you're saying absolutely nothing of value now. Bottom line is that widespread vaccine immunity is better than a rising tide of preventable deaths." So explain to me what other mechanism the vaccine uses to provide immunity which is not a copy of the immunity you get from catching the disease. | |||
"I have had it and was told only last night by nhs111 and paramedics that you can get it again ** That's interesting as my G.P said it was highly unlikely I would get it again and just last week we had the news that post covid your protection runs at least 6 months. (In 6 months that could become 12 months) I listened to a breakdown of a paper on Covid immunity (This Week In Virology, a recent episode), and antibody waning was wildly variable. In some people it persisted at six months, in others it waned (and different immunity measurements waned at different times). I think the answer is we don't know: for me, it's reason to hang tight. If that's the case this new vaccine, which teaches your body to recognise covid, is going to wane quicker than a natural biological response. I for one have more confidence in my natural immune system. So 4 reinfection cases of a variety of strains of covid, in billions doesn't worry me. There is no reason to think that vaccine immunity will wane any faster than natural immunity. In fact it is more likely to be the reverse, the vaccines are specifically designed to provoke the greatest response from your immune system, natural infection will vary wildly in terms of viral load and the potential reaction from your body. With either, there will be some people who do not develop immunity at all. In terms of reinfection, there are only a handful of documented cases of double infection, what we don't know, is how many may have been asymptomatic the first time then picked up the second (thus only showing as one official infection). We also don't know if people may have been asymptomatic more than once and been merrily spreading Covid. Catching the virus would appear to lead to far better immunity than the vaccine. The best vaccine appears to provide immunity to less than 95% whereas they struggle to find more than a handful out of millions who have caught the virus who go on to catch it again.. ONE HELL OF A RISK PURPOSELY CATCHING THE VIRUS SO YOU WILL BE MORE IMMUNE THAN TAKING THE VACCINE !! , russian roulette again ? You do no that a hell of a lot of people have died from it ?? You only get the one life !, wow thats one hell of a risk your prepared to take I'm not suggesting purposely catching the virus. I saying that if you have already had it you are better protected from catching it than someone who has been vaccinated, which is what the op was asking about. This means that anyone who has already had it is safer to meet than someone who has been vaccinated. That's possible, but there is absolutely no science saying it is in fact there's another thread here suggesting that natural immunity to those having caught the visit may be as short as six months. Natural immunity =/= vaccine immunity... Vaccine immunity is a different thing. In fact many of the vaccines go about their business in totally different ways. I've read a little on it, and am by no means an expert, but I'm willing to trust the consensus of a scientific community made up of collectively hundreds of years of education and experience rather than draw my own amateur conclusions based on headlines and a bit of biology in high school (even if I did get a B. Decent)! Vaccine immunity is exactly like natural immunity. The advantage of being vaccinated is the vaccine can be a blend of vaccines that can protect against more than one strain but of course that's not happening here. Sorry, that's plain wrong. The actual virus gets into your body, the body produces antibodies (and T and B cells to fight it). So next time the body is ready to fight a reinfection before it can take hold a second time. With smallpox the vaccine puts a similar but not infectious virus (cowpox) in your body. The body produces antibodies (and T and B cells to fight it). So the body is ready to fight an infection of smallpox before it can take hold. With the Chinese vaccine they inject a weakend version of the actual virus into your body, the body produces antibodies (and T and B cells to fight it). So the body is ready to fight an infection of the real virus before it can take hold. With the mRNA vaccines (Pfizer etc.), they inject messenger RNA that instructs your body's cells to manufacture the spike protein that is on the surface of the coronavirus. The body produces antibodies (and T and B cells to fight it). So the body is ready to fight an infection of the real virus before it can take hold. A. "The Chinese Vaccine" reveals from the outset you don't really know what you're talking about. B. You don't know what you're talking about, either about vaccination in general or the vaccines being developed as a response to covid19. Here's an article written by a biologist explaining how vaccines provide a different level of protection: https://theconversation.com/why-a-vaccine-can-provide-better-immunity-than-an-actual-infection-145476 Secondly the article you reference was published before the recent study that showed people who caught the disease had strong immunity for at least 6 months. It references two people being reinfected so not many given the millions who have caught. Especially when you consider the vaccine protects only 95% percent at best. The Oxford vaccine numbers are a bit of a joke. The protection was 70%. They accidentally gave about 2500 subjects a half dose the first time and are saying that this gave 90% protection. But when you consider that only about 1 in 1000 catch the virus during trial that would suggest 2 or three people on the half dose caught the virus. On that basis I would suggest they are clutching at straws since the figures are based on tiny numbers. OK, you've moved on from your original claim that natural and vaccine immunity are exactly the same... I'll take that as a concession that you were wrong. As to your rather muddled interpretation of an ever changing landscape of data, it's irrelevant. Even if natural immunity is stronger than vaccine immunity, it leads to millions of deaths across the globe. To suggest that is in some way better is so stupid as to be unworthy of comment. I am saying you have at least the same if not better immunity if you have caught it than from the vaccine. That is not the same thing as saying catch it instead of having the vaccine. You also said "vaccine immunity is exactly like natural immunity", which was wrong. You're even contradicting yourself by claiming natural immunity gives better protection! That aside, you're saying absolutely nothing of value now. Bottom line is that widespread vaccine immunity is better than a rising tide of preventable deaths. So explain to me what other mechanism the vaccine uses to provide immunity which is not a copy of the immunity you get from catching the disease." I'm not really interested in holding your hand through an explanation... you're a grown adult and I assume have the ability to read and comprehend things, even if you don't get it first time. Go read the article I sent. Here's a quote which explains one mechanism: "they (vaccines) can be designed to focus the immune system against specific antigens that elicit better responses. For instance, the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine elicits a stronger immune response than infection by the virus itself. One reason for this is that the vaccine contains high concentrations of a viral coat protein, more than what would occur in a natural infection. This triggers strongly neutralising antibodies, making the vaccine very effective at preventing infection." | |||
"DO NOT MEET , simple really , can anyone on here hold their hand up and say its 100 % safe to meet people for fun either after they have either had covid/ vaccinne or anything ? The answer has to be no ( unless they have a 2 metres plus cock which they can maintain social distancing with !!! Well ive had this virus before, no different to a normal.seasonal cold thats all! " Lucky you. Believe it or not people have been infected and not even noticed they had it. Others including a 35 year old friend of mine who runs 3-4 marathons a year ended up in ICU coughing his guts up and fighting for every breath. He was one of the lucky ones too ... He survived. In April be thought it was a load of nonsense and only affected old people. Pity I can't share his photo here like he did on his Facebook page to make people aware. | |||
"I have had it and was told only last night by nhs111 and paramedics that you can get it again ** That's interesting as my G.P said it was highly unlikely I would get it again and just last week we had the news that post covid your protection runs at least 6 months. (In 6 months that could become 12 months) I listened to a breakdown of a paper on Covid immunity (This Week In Virology, a recent episode), and antibody waning was wildly variable. In some people it persisted at six months, in others it waned (and different immunity measurements waned at different times). I think the answer is we don't know: for me, it's reason to hang tight. If that's the case this new vaccine, which teaches your body to recognise covid, is going to wane quicker than a natural biological response. I for one have more confidence in my natural immune system. So 4 reinfection cases of a variety of strains of covid, in billions doesn't worry me. There is no reason to think that vaccine immunity will wane any faster than natural immunity. In fact it is more likely to be the reverse, the vaccines are specifically designed to provoke the greatest response from your immune system, natural infection will vary wildly in terms of viral load and the potential reaction from your body. With either, there will be some people who do not develop immunity at all. In terms of reinfection, there are only a handful of documented cases of double infection, what we don't know, is how many may have been asymptomatic the first time then picked up the second (thus only showing as one official infection). We also don't know if people may have been asymptomatic more than once and been merrily spreading Covid. Catching the virus would appear to lead to far better immunity than the vaccine. The best vaccine appears to provide immunity to less than 95% whereas they struggle to find more than a handful out of millions who have caught the virus who go on to catch it again.. ONE HELL OF A RISK PURPOSELY CATCHING THE VIRUS SO YOU WILL BE MORE IMMUNE THAN TAKING THE VACCINE !! , russian roulette again ? You do no that a hell of a lot of people have died from it ?? You only get the one life !, wow thats one hell of a risk your prepared to take I'm not suggesting purposely catching the virus. I saying that if you have already had it you are better protected from catching it than someone who has been vaccinated, which is what the op was asking about. This means that anyone who has already had it is safer to meet than someone who has been vaccinated. That's possible, but there is absolutely no science saying it is in fact there's another thread here suggesting that natural immunity to those having caught the visit may be as short as six months. Natural immunity =/= vaccine immunity... Vaccine immunity is a different thing. In fact many of the vaccines go about their business in totally different ways. I've read a little on it, and am by no means an expert, but I'm willing to trust the consensus of a scientific community made up of collectively hundreds of years of education and experience rather than draw my own amateur conclusions based on headlines and a bit of biology in high school (even if I did get a B. Decent)! Vaccine immunity is exactly like natural immunity. The advantage of being vaccinated is the vaccine can be a blend of vaccines that can protect against more than one strain but of course that's not happening here. Sorry, that's plain wrong. The actual virus gets into your body, the body produces antibodies (and T and B cells to fight it). So next time the body is ready to fight a reinfection before it can take hold a second time. With smallpox the vaccine puts a similar but not infectious virus (cowpox) in your body. The body produces antibodies (and T and B cells to fight it). So the body is ready to fight an infection of smallpox before it can take hold. With the Chinese vaccine they inject a weakend version of the actual virus into your body, the body produces antibodies (and T and B cells to fight it). So the body is ready to fight an infection of the real virus before it can take hold. With the mRNA vaccines (Pfizer etc.), they inject messenger RNA that instructs your body's cells to manufacture the spike protein that is on the surface of the coronavirus. The body produces antibodies (and T and B cells to fight it). So the body is ready to fight an infection of the real virus before it can take hold. A. "The Chinese Vaccine" reveals from the outset you don't really know what you're talking about. B. You don't know what you're talking about, either about vaccination in general or the vaccines being developed as a response to covid19. Here's an article written by a biologist explaining how vaccines provide a different level of protection: https://theconversation.com/why-a-vaccine-can-provide-better-immunity-than-an-actual-infection-145476 Secondly the article you reference was published before the recent study that showed people who caught the disease had strong immunity for at least 6 months. It references two people being reinfected so not many given the millions who have caught. Especially when you consider the vaccine protects only 95% percent at best. The Oxford vaccine numbers are a bit of a joke. The protection was 70%. They accidentally gave about 2500 subjects a half dose the first time and are saying that this gave 90% protection. But when you consider that only about 1 in 1000 catch the virus during trial that would suggest 2 or three people on the half dose caught the virus. On that basis I would suggest they are clutching at straws since the figures are based on tiny numbers. OK, you've moved on from your original claim that natural and vaccine immunity are exactly the same... I'll take that as a concession that you were wrong. As to your rather muddled interpretation of an ever changing landscape of data, it's irrelevant. Even if natural immunity is stronger than vaccine immunity, it leads to millions of deaths across the globe. To suggest that is in some way better is so stupid as to be unworthy of comment. I am saying you have at least the same if not better immunity if you have caught it than from the vaccine. That is not the same thing as saying catch it instead of having the vaccine. You also said "vaccine immunity is exactly like natural immunity", which was wrong. You're even contradicting yourself by claiming natural immunity gives better protection! That aside, you're saying absolutely nothing of value now. Bottom line is that widespread vaccine immunity is better than a rising tide of preventable deaths. So explain to me what other mechanism the vaccine uses to provide immunity which is not a copy of the immunity you get from catching the disease. I'm not really interested in holding your hand through an explanation... you're a grown adult and I assume have the ability to read and comprehend things, even if you don't get it first time. Go read the article I sent. Here's a quote which explains one mechanism: "they (vaccines) can be designed to focus the immune system against specific antigens that elicit better responses. For instance, the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine elicits a stronger immune response than infection by the virus itself. One reason for this is that the vaccine contains high concentrations of a viral coat protein, more than what would occur in a natural infection. This triggers strongly neutralising antibodies, making the vaccine very effective at preventing infection." " CAN be designed to illicit a stronger response. Do you think that applies here when it protects 90% and has not been shown to provide protection beyond the 2 month trial yet. People lap up the publicity and spin put out by the companies with a vested interest without looking at the figures behind the headlines. An interesting note on the HPV vaccine (which doesn't use the mRNA method of stimulating the immune response) is that the clinical phase III studies ran for 4 years, not a couple of months as is the case with the coronavirus vaccines. | |||
"I have had it and was told only last night by nhs111 and paramedics that you can get it again ** That's interesting as my G.P said it was highly unlikely I would get it again and just last week we had the news that post covid your protection runs at least 6 months. (In 6 months that could become 12 months) I listened to a breakdown of a paper on Covid immunity (This Week In Virology, a recent episode), and antibody waning was wildly variable. In some people it persisted at six months, in others it waned (and different immunity measurements waned at different times). I think the answer is we don't know: for me, it's reason to hang tight. If that's the case this new vaccine, which teaches your body to recognise covid, is going to wane quicker than a natural biological response. I for one have more confidence in my natural immune system. So 4 reinfection cases of a variety of strains of covid, in billions doesn't worry me. There is no reason to think that vaccine immunity will wane any faster than natural immunity. In fact it is more likely to be the reverse, the vaccines are specifically designed to provoke the greatest response from your immune system, natural infection will vary wildly in terms of viral load and the potential reaction from your body. With either, there will be some people who do not develop immunity at all. In terms of reinfection, there are only a handful of documented cases of double infection, what we don't know, is how many may have been asymptomatic the first time then picked up the second (thus only showing as one official infection). We also don't know if people may have been asymptomatic more than once and been merrily spreading Covid. Catching the virus would appear to lead to far better immunity than the vaccine. The best vaccine appears to provide immunity to less than 95% whereas they struggle to find more than a handful out of millions who have caught the virus who go on to catch it again.. ONE HELL OF A RISK PURPOSELY CATCHING THE VIRUS SO YOU WILL BE MORE IMMUNE THAN TAKING THE VACCINE !! , russian roulette again ? You do no that a hell of a lot of people have died from it ?? You only get the one life !, wow thats one hell of a risk your prepared to take I'm not suggesting purposely catching the virus. I saying that if you have already had it you are better protected from catching it than someone who has been vaccinated, which is what the op was asking about. This means that anyone who has already had it is safer to meet than someone who has been vaccinated. That's possible, but there is absolutely no science saying it is in fact there's another thread here suggesting that natural immunity to those having caught the visit may be as short as six months. Natural immunity =/= vaccine immunity... Vaccine immunity is a different thing. In fact many of the vaccines go about their business in totally different ways. I've read a little on it, and am by no means an expert, but I'm willing to trust the consensus of a scientific community made up of collectively hundreds of years of education and experience rather than draw my own amateur conclusions based on headlines and a bit of biology in high school (even if I did get a B. Decent)! Vaccine immunity is exactly like natural immunity. The advantage of being vaccinated is the vaccine can be a blend of vaccines that can protect against more than one strain but of course that's not happening here. Sorry, that's plain wrong. The actual virus gets into your body, the body produces antibodies (and T and B cells to fight it). So next time the body is ready to fight a reinfection before it can take hold a second time. With smallpox the vaccine puts a similar but not infectious virus (cowpox) in your body. The body produces antibodies (and T and B cells to fight it). So the body is ready to fight an infection of smallpox before it can take hold. With the Chinese vaccine they inject a weakend version of the actual virus into your body, the body produces antibodies (and T and B cells to fight it). So the body is ready to fight an infection of the real virus before it can take hold. With the mRNA vaccines (Pfizer etc.), they inject messenger RNA that instructs your body's cells to manufacture the spike protein that is on the surface of the coronavirus. The body produces antibodies (and T and B cells to fight it). So the body is ready to fight an infection of the real virus before it can take hold. A. "The Chinese Vaccine" reveals from the outset you don't really know what you're talking about. B. You don't know what you're talking about, either about vaccination in general or the vaccines being developed as a response to covid19. Here's an article written by a biologist explaining how vaccines provide a different level of protection: https://theconversation.com/why-a-vaccine-can-provide-better-immunity-than-an-actual-infection-145476 Secondly the article you reference was published before the recent study that showed people who caught the disease had strong immunity for at least 6 months. It references two people being reinfected so not many given the millions who have caught. Especially when you consider the vaccine protects only 95% percent at best. The Oxford vaccine numbers are a bit of a joke. The protection was 70%. They accidentally gave about 2500 subjects a half dose the first time and are saying that this gave 90% protection. But when you consider that only about 1 in 1000 catch the virus during trial that would suggest 2 or three people on the half dose caught the virus. On that basis I would suggest they are clutching at straws since the figures are based on tiny numbers. OK, you've moved on from your original claim that natural and vaccine immunity are exactly the same... I'll take that as a concession that you were wrong. As to your rather muddled interpretation of an ever changing landscape of data, it's irrelevant. Even if natural immunity is stronger than vaccine immunity, it leads to millions of deaths across the globe. To suggest that is in some way better is so stupid as to be unworthy of comment. I am saying you have at least the same if not better immunity if you have caught it than from the vaccine. That is not the same thing as saying catch it instead of having the vaccine. You also said "vaccine immunity is exactly like natural immunity", which was wrong. You're even contradicting yourself by claiming natural immunity gives better protection! That aside, you're saying absolutely nothing of value now. Bottom line is that widespread vaccine immunity is better than a rising tide of preventable deaths. So explain to me what other mechanism the vaccine uses to provide immunity which is not a copy of the immunity you get from catching the disease. I'm not really interested in holding your hand through an explanation... you're a grown adult and I assume have the ability to read and comprehend things, even if you don't get it first time. Go read the article I sent. Here's a quote which explains one mechanism: "they (vaccines) can be designed to focus the immune system against specific antigens that elicit better responses. For instance, the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine elicits a stronger immune response than infection by the virus itself. One reason for this is that the vaccine contains high concentrations of a viral coat protein, more than what would occur in a natural infection. This triggers strongly neutralising antibodies, making the vaccine very effective at preventing infection." CAN be designed to illicit a stronger response. Do you think that applies here when it protects 90% and has not been shown to provide protection beyond the 2 month trial yet. People lap up the publicity and spin put out by the companies with a vested interest without looking at the figures behind the headlines. An interesting note on the HPV vaccine (which doesn't use the mRNA method of stimulating the immune response) is that the clinical phase III studies ran for 4 years, not a couple of months as is the case with the coronavirus vaccines." Yes vaccines CAN be designed to illicit a stronger response. HPV is an example of one which DOES. That's what you asked for right? | |||
| |||
"THE vaccine not A vaccine. The HPV is 100% effective, not the case with any of the coronairis vaccines. The HPV vaccine is a different technology. It's simple, if you are youngish and healthy then you have a choice to make, do you take a vaccine produced using a new method with hurried trials that may have side effects that become evident later in life that will stop you catching the virus in 9 out of 10 cases. Or do you risk catching the virus which is less likely to kill you than you dying in a car crash, also has a small chance of giving you some kind of 'long covid'. If you are old and vulnerable then the vaccine makes complete sense. If you catch covid you are at a much higher risk of dying. You are likely to die of old age before any long term side effects (if there are any) kick in. After a few years if follow data then those that chose not to have the vaccine can look again at the relative risks." I agree it is simple. Do you take a vaccine which has gone through rigorous, albeit accelerated, regulatory approval therefore minimising the risk of covid for everyone, allowing society to open up more quickly? Or do you say, I'll probably be alright so I'm not bothered about getting a vaccine? Guess it's a difference in priority... but go ahead and you do you. | |||
"THE vaccine not A vaccine. The HPV is 100% effective, not the case with any of the coronairis vaccines. The HPV vaccine is a different technology. It's simple, if you are youngish and healthy then you have a choice to make, do you take a vaccine produced using a new method with hurried trials that may have side effects that become evident later in life that will stop you catching the virus in 9 out of 10 cases. Or do you risk catching the virus which is less likely to kill you than you dying in a car crash, also has a small chance of giving you some kind of 'long covid'. If you are old and vulnerable then the vaccine makes complete sense. If you catch covid you are at a much higher risk of dying. You are likely to die of old age before any long term side effects (if there are any) kick in. After a few years if follow data then those that chose not to have the vaccine can look again at the relative risks. I agree it is simple. Do you take a vaccine which has gone through rigorous, albeit accelerated, regulatory approval therefore minimising the risk of covid for everyone, allowing society to open up more quickly? Or do you say, I'll probably be alright so I'm not bothered about getting a vaccine? Guess it's a difference in priority... but go ahead and you do you. " We are in agreement, I will drink to that. | |||
| |||
"Getting back to the op's original question, the answer is that studies show you are less likely to be infectious if you have had the virus and recovered (handful of reinfections) than if you have been vaccinated (10% can catch the virus after being vaccinated). So no reason to avoid meeting if you have had it. Eventually the government will acknowledge that fact but at the moment it suits them to ignore it. " so your basically saying if you have had the virus , put it on your fab profile asking " looking to meet people who have had the covid virus like myself " do you really think thats ok ??? And how the hell are they proving they have had it ?? Would we not get to the point where people will say they have previously had it just to get the meet on ??? ( russian roulette once again ) your playing with peoples lives !, ppeople are dying from this !!! | |||
"Getting back to the op's original question, the answer is that studies show you are less likely to be infectious if you have had the virus and recovered (handful of reinfections) than if you have been vaccinated (10% can catch the virus after being vaccinated). So no reason to avoid meeting if you have had it. Eventually the government will acknowledge that fact but at the moment it suits them to ignore it. so your basically saying if you have had the virus , put it on your fab profile asking " looking to meet people who have had the covid virus like myself " do you really think thats ok ??? And how the hell are they proving they have had it ?? Would we not get to the point where people will say they have previously had it just to get the meet on ??? ( russian roulette once again ) your playing with peoples lives !, ppeople are dying from this !!!" And people are spreading it by not complying with the regulations and openly boasting about going on holiday and a few days later testing positive. Isn't that as bad it worse ? | |||
"Getting back to the op's original question, the answer is that studies show you are less likely to be infectious if you have had the virus and recovered (handful of reinfections) than if you have been vaccinated (10% can catch the virus after being vaccinated). So no reason to avoid meeting if you have had it. Eventually the government will acknowledge that fact but at the moment it suits them to ignore it. so your basically saying if you have had the virus , put it on your fab profile asking " looking to meet people who have had the covid virus like myself " do you really think thats ok ??? And how the hell are they proving they have had it ?? Would we not get to the point where people will say they have previously had it just to get the meet on ??? ( russian roulette once again ) your playing with peoples lives !, ppeople are dying from this !!!" I'm pleased you are not disputing the basic fact that if all parties to the meet have had the virus then there is no risk. How you prove it is a matter for discussion. Showing an antibody test certificate would be an obvious one. We currently have to show a pcr test certificate when entering many countries. The reason the government won't acknowledge this fact is that they know that the young and healthy would go out of their way to catch the virus so they would no longer be subject to restrictions. | |||
"Getting back to the op's original question, the answer is that studies show you are less likely to be infectious if you have had the virus and recovered (handful of reinfections) than if you have been vaccinated (10% can catch the virus after being vaccinated). So no reason to avoid meeting if you have had it. Eventually the government will acknowledge that fact but at the moment it suits them to ignore it. Have noticed the Government have not much interest in finding out who’s had Covid , we think they don’t want the masses not having to worry anymore doesn’t fit there agenda " | |||
| |||
"Getting back to the op's original question, the answer is that studies show you are less likely to be infectious if you have had the virus and recovered (handful of reinfections) than if you have been vaccinated (10% can catch the virus after being vaccinated) So no reason to avoid meeting if you have had it. Eventually the government will acknowledge that fact but at the moment it suits them to ignore it. Have noticed the Government have not much interest in finding out who’s had Covid , we think they don’t want the masses not having to worry anymore doesn’t fit there agenda " Thus is rubbish. I had COVID in March, symptoms were fairly mild bur it still kept me in bed for a few days. In August I caught it again - much worse this time and I was in hospital for two weeks, on both occasions I was tested. There is another issue here though - even if you don't catch COVID for a second time you can still be infectious and pass it on to someone else. We definitely won't be meeting anyone on here until we have been vaccinated AND the number of cases has dropped massively. Sadly I can't see that being before summer next year. | |||
| |||
"Getting back to the op's original question, the answer is that studies show you are less likely to be infectious if you have had the virus and recovered (handful of reinfections) than if you have been vaccinated (10% can catch the virus after being vaccinated) So no reason to avoid meeting if you have had it. Eventually the government will acknowledge that fact but at the moment it suits them to ignore it. Have noticed the Government have not much interest in finding out who’s had Covid , we think they don’t want the masses not having to worry anymore doesn’t fit there agenda Thus is rubbish. I had COVID in March, symptoms were fairly mild bur it still kept me in bed for a few days. In August I caught it again - much worse this time and I was in hospital for two weeks, on both occasions I was tested. There is another issue here though - even if you don't catch COVID for a second time you can still be infectious and pass it on to someone else. We definitely won't be meeting anyone on here until we have been vaccinated AND the number of cases has dropped massively. Sadly I can't see that being before summer next year." Did you test positive both times, or was it a self diagnosis? If you can't catch it again you can't be infectious again. | |||
"I have had it and was told only last night by nhs111 and paramedics that you can get it again ** That's interesting as my G.P said it was highly unlikely I would get it again and just last week we had the news that post covid your protection runs at least 6 months. (In 6 months that could become 12 months) 1 scientist claimed that, few others agree. We are now told that we have numerous cases of reinfection" Source? To the numerous reinfections. | |||
"You must be one of those very rare cases of catching Covid twice and it is very rare " Extremely rare | |||
"Getting back to the op's original question, the answer is that studies show you are less likely to be infectious if you have had the virus and recovered (handful of reinfections) than if you have been vaccinated (10% can catch the virus after being vaccinated) So no reason to avoid meeting if you have had it. Eventually the government will acknowledge that fact but at the moment it suits them to ignore it. Have noticed the Government have not much interest in finding out who’s had Covid , we think they don’t want the masses not having to worry anymore doesn’t fit there agenda Thus is rubbish. I had COVID in March, symptoms were fairly mild bur it still kept me in bed for a few days. In August I caught it again - much worse this time and I was in hospital for two weeks, on both occasions I was tested. There is another issue here though - even if you don't catch COVID for a second time you can still be infectious and pass it on to someone else. We definitely won't be meeting anyone on here until we have been vaccinated AND the number of cases has dropped massively. Sadly I can't see that being before summer next year." Did you test positive both times or did you just think you had it first time around ? | |||
"You must be one of those very rare cases of catching Covid twice and it is very rare " I'm sure what you and others meant to say is "Dedicating the resources to proving that someone has caught Covid twice is something that has only been done a handful of times", because we don't know that it's rare. Hope this helps  | |||
"Getting back to the op's original question, the answer is that studies show you are less likely to be infectious if you have had the virus and recovered (handful of reinfections) than if you have been vaccinated (10% can catch the virus after being vaccinated) So no reason to avoid meeting if you have had it. Eventually the government will acknowledge that fact but at the moment it suits them to ignore it. Have noticed the Government have not much interest in finding out who’s had Covid , we think they don’t want the masses not having to worry anymore doesn’t fit there agenda Thus is rubbish. I had COVID in March, symptoms were fairly mild bur it still kept me in bed for a few days. In August I caught it again - much worse this time and I was in hospital for two weeks, on both occasions I was tested. There is another issue here though - even if you don't catch COVID for a second time you can still be infectious and pass it on to someone else. We definitely won't be meeting anyone on here until we have been vaccinated AND the number of cases has dropped massively. Sadly I can't see that being before summer next year. Did you test positive both times or did you just think you had it first time around ?" Yes, I was tested on both occasions. The first by a paramedic who visited me at home when I developed breathing problems, the second while in hospital. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"1. I did not boast ,2/ caught it from someone at work ,3/ instead of picking through “ bits of what ive put , comment on the whole Post !, 4/ feel free to actually comment something constructive for a change ! Oh and yes i didnt fall to ill whilst having covid, thanks for your concern. , idiots !" There's no need for insults. They are merely pointing out that you asked for advice previously on a post and then went against advice so why you are asking for opinion now clearly doesn't make sense. Your blatant rule break leaves you with no credibility . People will not be concerned about you catching covid when you didnt respect the rules at the time of your holiday. | |||
| |||
