Take our user survey and make your voice heard.
health

96.4% of Americans had COVID-19 antibodies in their blood by fall 2022

23 Comments
By Matt Hitchings and Derek Cummings, University of Florida

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© The Conversation

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

23 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

Does it, though? Don't get me wrong, I am not and was never a fan of vaccine passports. In my opinion they did more harm than good. But how do you read "missing scientific basis" from a sentence that basically says "vaccines work"?

Vaccine passports had no scientific basis because the vaccines neither stopped the virus from spreading nor were particularly effective in stopping the illness from developing. Pfizer admitted the former (a Pfizer exec was forced to admit they didn't know whether the jab stopped the virus from spreading), and the case infection rate proved the latter. Hence there was no public health advantage in forcing jab passports onto the public.

-4 ( +9 / -13 )

Never had the COVID. Only symptoms during the vaccines. Now I use Neem as prevention.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

That's not a requirement for a vaccine, though, neither legally nor medically. Pfizer did never test that, they never said they did, and they weren't required to. It's a bit strange to claim someone "admitted" not doing something they weren't supposed to in the first place.

Nevertheless, this claim was made repeatedly by corporate and state-owned media and governments to justify de facto compulsory jabbing and vaccine passports. Pfizer and the other vax makers were happy for the media and governments to maintain the fiction, and never clarified the fact until forced to under questioning in an EU committee inquiry. Various experts like Geert Vandenbosch (formerly of the WHO and GAVI) said the jabs should only have been given to the most vulnerable, for who the risk of death or serious illness from the virus was higher than that from vax side effects. Looks more likely all the time that he was right due to the rising death toll from the jabs, especially in young people.

Governments and the media don't want to acknowledge this, but the spike in excess deaths that are clear in UK, European and Australian stats indicate something is very odd. Some of those deaths can be attributed to conditions such as cancers that weren't picked up during the lockdowns, but the rise in young deaths - and the disturbing fact that the authorities don't want to talk about them - is deeply disturbing.

-1 ( +9 / -10 )

the rise in young deaths - and the disturbing fact that the authorities don't want to talk about them - is deeply disturbing.

While elder people with health risks are still the most vulnerable, people of all ages can be carriers and/or get it. Children have been overlooked, neglected and/or ignored in some cases. Schools have been crowded again, in some cases too early because some screaming idiot said so.

And in America, kooky conspiracy theories or not - so many people have been so eager to go out and resume their job/religious/party lives again.

But who got vaxxed and who didn't? I'm still not so eager for mass social gatherings yet. I got all 5 shots at my local VA but I don't want to be a carrier. We're not over this yet and the doctors haven't found all the answers or long term effects yet either.

1 ( +7 / -6 )

but the rise in young deaths

Was there such a rise? Data for England suggest there was a drop in child deaths during the first year of Covid, but it jumped back to earlier levels in the second year.

https://adc.bmj.com/content/107/3/e22

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2800144

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Practically no one evaded / resisted the virus then

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Never got vaccinated, although I was leaning towards the non-MRNA vaccine from Novavax. Ultimately decided not to get anything that produced spike proteins.

Lucky enough to not be required to get jabbed for work, but was required to test weekly, being a middle school teacher.

Specifically wore N95 masks and often doubled them. Never been healthier. Also wear full on P100 3M respirator masks on Planes. Can't even tell when people are eating.

I am the 3% they will never get.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Specifically wore N95 masks and often doubled them. Never been healthier. Also wear full on P100 3M respirator masks on Planes.

Ohhhhh my.

The complete and total failure of the vaccines to protect anyone was its only positive.

Everyone ended up getting it anyway giving us herd immunity.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Practically no one evaded / resisted the virus then

The comment previous to yours disproves this, people can get immunity from vaccines without infection, proved by the detection of antibodies against the spike protein but not against the nucleoprotein.

Ultimately decided not to get anything that produced spike proteins.

If only were that easy the pandemic would not have had the huge importance it had, lots of people "decided" not to get covid and still got infected with a virus that produces much more of it than any vaccine (as well as other proteins made specifically to disrupt the immune response).

No measure can guarantee absolute prevention of infection,

The complete and total failure of the vaccines to protect anyone was its only positive.

According to the people that actually know about the field vaccines helped saving millions of lives, obviously just claiming the opposite wihithout ay evidence is just antiscientific bias trying to impose something false.

Everyone ended up getting it anyway giving us herd immunity.

Thanks to vaccination and other measures (that reduce the infectious dose, and thus severity of the disease) the immunity can be gained without countless unnecessary deaths, that is the whole purpose of the measures.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

o quote the very study underlying this here article: "unvaccinated persons had higher rates of infection (as evidenced by N antibody seroconversion) than did vaccinated persons, indicating that vaccination provides some protection against infection".

Of course, for this misinformation to be true, you must first ignore that people were not officially"fully vaccinated" until 2 weeks AFTER their 2nd shot.

And then you have to ignore the fact that with each subsequent shot after the first, the vaccinated were more likely to acquire the virus than before.

The 3rd shot produced.......negative efficacy.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

The 3rd shot produced.......negative efficacy.

People with 3 shots got infected at a higher rate than the unvaccinated?

Where did this happen?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

There were numerous studies that showed vaccinated people contracted Covid-19 at higher rates. There was even CDC data that proved that regions with higher vaccinated populations had higher transmission rates of Covid 19 than areas with lower vaccination rates when comparing populations. They looked at states and counties in the US. This is well documented. But people still will believe whatever they want to believe to tell themselves they did the "right" thing. It doesn't matter to me. Time will reveal everything and it won't be that long.

Autoimmune diseases don't take very long to do what their designed to do. It's just difficult for some people to understand why they are sick

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

There were numerous studies that showed vaccinated people contracted Covid-19 at higher rates. There was even CDC data that proved that regions with higher vaccinated populations had higher transmission rates of Covid 19 than areas with lower vaccination rates when comparing populations. They looked at states and counties in the US. This is well documented.

Good it's well documented. Would be helpful though if you could just point to even one of these numerous studies or to the CDC data.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

its funny yet stunning watching the usual suspects claim that day is night and vice versa.

the easiest way to distinguish who are these people is to check if what they say is supported by the institutions that deal with human health. When absolutely no one support the claims it becomes clear who is wrong.

The vaccines were a disaster. And the entire world knows it.

Yet no institutions in the medical field says so, only deeply antiscientific groups propaganda, which of course is not a valid source to define "the entire world". The medical and scientific community of the world consider vaccines a huge development that benefited people greatly. Obviously pretending everybody is in a global conspiracy is not an argument, is an excuse.

Of course, anyone with even a passing familiarity with IFR knows that of the several oft-repeated lies this baseless claim makes, we first have to accept the biggest one of all;

Professionals that use the IFR for many other kinds of infectious diseases obviously know what it is, and they are included in the people that say vaccines have been a huge success. Your appeal to your own authority to contradict them is not something that have any weight. Being unable to find even a single source to prove this claim easily proves it is not real.

Of course, for this misinformation to be true, you must first ignore that people were not officially"fully vaccinated" until 2 weeks AFTER their 2nd shot.

What is strange about this? this is how biology works, only antivaxxer groups pretended that vaccinated people should become fully protected the moment the needle pierced the skin, which is obviously nonsense.

And then you have to ignore the fact that with each subsequent shot after the first, the vaccinated were more likely to acquire the virus than before.

Something that is false, the selection bias from the single study that reported this trend easily explains this, since the people more exposed to the disease (health personnel treating patients) are also the ones that were more likely to be vaccinated repeatedly, something that even the authors agree. They would know more about their study than you of course.

There were numerous studies that showed vaccinated people contracted Covid-19 at higher rates.

Yet you never reference them, as if the studies concluded something complete different from what you claim.

There was even CDC data that proved that regions with higher vaccinated populations had higher transmission rates of Covid 19 than areas with lower vaccination rates when comparing populations

Which means absolutely nothing, because areas with higher transmission (for multiple reasons) would also be the areas where vaccination efforts would also be more easily justified. "Areas" are not people, so pretending that comparing areas with different vaccination rates means comparing people with different vaccination rates is wrong, it is called the ecological fallacy and a well described way to push false conclusions.

Autoimmune diseases don't take very long to do what their designed to do. It's just difficult for some people to understand why they are sick

Yet vaccinated people have the same rates of these problems than unvaccinated people, thus disproving this conspiracy theory as well.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites