health

A viral reprise: When COVID-19 strikes again and again

18 Comments
By LAURA UNGAR

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

© Copyright 2022 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.


18 Comments

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

Fully jabbed and boosted, and still able to acquire, transmit and suffer debilitating symptoms. As in New York and elsewhere, was the punishment for losing one's livelihood for being unjabbed an equitable and justifiable punishment?

3 ( +13 / -10 )

I've only heard of vaccinated people getting it more than once, funny that

-4 ( +10 / -14 )

What we need is a Covid Vaccine that acts like other vaccines which gives you immunity for life.

We don't need to get boosted for polio, measles, smallpox, etc. The scientific community really needs to get on the ball and with global cooperation develop a vaccine that is permanent

6 ( +15 / -9 )

Fully jabbed and boosted, and still able to acquire, transmit and suffer debilitating symptoms

As opposed to what? being vaccinated has never been an absolute protection, but since it helps preventing the worst consequences of infection it is still much better than run the risk of infection multiple times. It is demonstrated scientifically.

I've only heard of vaccinated people getting it more than once, funny that

Trying very hard to ignore information that contradicts your own beliefs tend to do that, reinfections in unvaccinated people are very common, specially since omicron variants became prevalent, in some patients the reinfections are even worse than the first one.

We don't need to get boosted for polio, measles, smallpox, etc. The scientific community really needs to get on the ball and with global cooperation develop a vaccine that is permanent

The problem is that immunity don't work the same for every disease, it may not even be possible to get this kind of vaccine for coronaviruses (not that people will stop trying). One of the first and classical vaccines, against Rabies, is also short lived and people at risk of the disease require boosting regularly because the immune response keeps falling down with time. If we have not yet developed a life immunity vaccine against it, even with so many decades of effort (and a much more deadly disease) we may be even farther from having one against covid.

-1 ( +12 / -13 )

she may need another vaccines no 4,5 and so on.

her bod her choice.

do we need more proof that vaccines are at least not protecting against covid at all?

-3 ( +8 / -11 )

do we need more proof that vaccines are at least not protecting against covid at all?

We don't "need" it because we have enough information of the opposite, vaccinated people have much less rates of heavy disease, complications and deaths so the conclusion is that they are working properly.

For your conclusion to be proved you would need scientific evidence that says equivalent populations have the same rates no matter if they were vaccinated or not, do you have that data?

-3 ( +10 / -13 )

Aly RustomToday  07:50 am JST

What we need is a Covid Vaccine that acts like other vaccines which gives you immunity for life. 

We don't need to get boosted for polio, measles, smallpox, etc. The scientific community really needs to get on the ball and with global cooperation develop a vaccine that is permanent

Previous vaccines for other coronaviruses have been very difficult to produce, and with only limited success when they have. Those for SARS-CoV-2 are simply continuing the trend, yet the powers-that-shouldn't-be were originally trying to pimp them as a panacea. Then when that propaganda effort proved to be BS as honest experts knew it would, they keep shifting the goal posts and covering up unflattering data.

It would indeed be nice if they could develop coronavirus vaccines that are long-lasting, safe and effective FOR THOSE WHO WANT THEM AND ACCEPT THEM UNDER INFORMED CONSENT, NOT UNDER DURESS.

In the meantime, "fully vaccinated" (whatever that means today) people like Ms Mancini who have suffered repeated bouts might do well to cast a skeptical eye towards the official narrative they they unfortunately accepted in good faith, and pay attention to the experts who have been persecuted for pushing back against the narrative with actual factual data.

-1 ( +8 / -9 )

I've only heard of vaccinated people getting it more than once, funny that

But in 2020 we heard about many cases of reinfected people. That was a whole 12 months before the vaccine so you heard about non vaccinated reinfections for sure.

6 ( +9 / -3 )

yet the powers-that-shouldn't-be were originally trying to pimp them as a panacea. 

You mean antivaxxer groups? because those were the only ones saying the vaccines was supposed to give perfectly and eternal protection for anybody no matter the variants that would appear.

The people in charge of evaluating and approving the vaccines said from the very beginning that variants and time would change the efficacy of the vaccines. There is no point in pretending this was something unexpected.

FOR THOSE WHO WANT THEM AND ACCEPT THEM UNDER INFORMED CONSENT, NOT UNDER DURESS.

Any decision that has an effect on others means the person must accept the consequences of that decision as well.

Being vaccinated means not only having a much less risk personally, it also means reducing the risk for others when you are in contact with them. People that decide better not to be in contact with nobody do not need to worry about being vaccinated (except for their own risk), but what is not acceptable is to expect to act as the people that lower the risk for others without acting first to do reduce that risk.

-6 ( +8 / -14 )

virusrexToday  12:15 pm JST

yet the powers-that-shouldn't-be were originally trying to pimp them as a panacea. 

You mean antivaxxer groups? because those were the only ones saying the vaccines was supposed to give perfectly and eternal protection for anybody no matter the variants that would appear.

The people in charge of evaluating and approving the vaccines said from the very beginning that variants and time would change the efficacy of the vaccines. There is no point in pretending this was something unexpected.

FOR THOSE WHO WANT THEM AND ACCEPT THEM UNDER INFORMED CONSENT, NOT UNDER DURESS.

Any decision that has an effect on others means the person must accept the consequences of that decision as well. 

Being vaccinated means not only having a much less risk personally, it also means reducing the risk for others when you are in contact with them. People that decide better not to be in contact with nobody do not need to worry about being vaccinated (except for their own risk), but what is not acceptable is to expect to act as the people that lower the risk for others without acting first to do reduce that risk.

Do you actually believe what you write? These authorities have been shifting the goalposts from the beginning, and denying this is futile. They only change their message when pressured from outside and they can no longer keep up the facade with a straight face.

As for your claim that taking the vaccine is protecting others, that would be true if these vaccines dramatically slowed the spread of the virus. Because it doesn't trying to pressure people to take it for the good of others is both unethical and based on a lie.

2 ( +11 / -9 )

I would like to see more attention to the therapies and medicines once you have covid.

11 ( +12 / -1 )

Previous vaccines for other coronaviruses have been very difficult to produce, and with only limited success when they have. Those for SARS-CoV-2 are simply continuing the trend, yet the powers-that-shouldn't-be were originally trying to pimp them as a panacea. Then when that propaganda effort proved to be BS as honest experts knew it would, they keep shifting the goal posts and covering up unflattering data.

Because everyone was pressed for time to create something to combat COVID. Now we have Vaccines but they are not a sliver bullet, BUT they do buy us some time. Now is the time for the best scientists in the world to get together and create that silver bullet.

3 ( +11 / -8 )

it also means reducing the risk for others when you are in contact with them.

There's no way you believe that.

2 ( +8 / -6 )

Because everyone was pressed for time to create something to combat COVID. Now we have Vaccines but they are not a sliver bullet, BUT they do buy us some time. Now is the time for the best scientists in the world to get together and create that silver bullet.

There are various other coronaviruses besides this one, and nobody has ever been able to make any long-lasting, effective vaccines against them, something about the nature of that type of virus. They're very different to polio, smallpox and the like.

So all the PR about the vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 was just that: PR. The companies making them knew that, and though there were doubtless plenty of honest scientists working hard to develop safe, effective and long-lasting vaccines for it, this is not yet possible. At least not in the time frame given or expected by pharma execs, major shareholders and the politicians and media outlets they own.

I do agree they buy some time, but that's only for the people who are actually vulnerable to the virus due to advanced age and certain underlying conditions. For them, the risk from the virus is greater than that from the vaccines. Once you get below the 70s and are healthy, the risk reverses.

-1 ( +9 / -10 )

Do you actually believe what you write? 

You keep saying this is not true, but failing to produce any kind of evidence about it. that would mean you already realized your beliefs are mistaken. If you are unable to accept this that is a different problem.

Can you provide any reference that proves experts and doctors ever said the vaccines were sure to be as effective against any variants? or that protection would be for sure permanent? obviously not, else you would have been bringing those already. In reality this is a strawman, something no expert said, a falsehood promoted only by antivaxxers.

As for your claim that taking the vaccine is protecting others, that would be true if these vaccines dramatically slowed the spread of the virus

According to studies it does, do you have any evidence (as in a comparison of transmission between vaccinated and not vaccinated people) that proves the opposite? if not then the only logical thing to do is to accept it.

https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj.o298

So all the PR about the vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 was just that: PR.

The problem is that the PR you keep referring to do not come from the experts, it comes from antivaxxer groups you are criticizing something the experts never said, in fact they explicitly said the opposite, that variants were concerning because they would likely reduce the efficacy of immunity, and this was even before the variants even appeared.

-6 ( +4 / -10 )

Even after being vaccinated i got sick few times in a row, first time being unbearable(cant imagine what would have been if i hadnt been vaccinated) then after a month once again, and I really suspect after another month only light symptoms but still i felt it. My poor immune system is at its genkai now, dunno what to expect next

3 ( +3 / -0 )

@ Virusrex

If you hadn’t already noticed Covid is out there in the world-most have had it by now-multiple times.

We don’t need any scientist or lab study or scientific paper telling us what is true or not-we already know.

We know reinfections are high but extreme symptoms are low.

Mancini (in the article) knows this, as we all do, as she willingly continues to expose herself to infection again and again.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites