|
|
|
|
|
Forum
-> Children's Health
amother
Catmint
|
Thu, Aug 26 2021, 11:48 am
|
Back to top |
0
0
|
amother
Aqua
|
Thu, Aug 26 2021, 12:07 pm
amother [ Catmint ] wrote: | Links 1 and 4 are the same thing.
Link to the Lancet does not work--would you mind re-posting?
The Cleveland Clinic published a statement providing additional context regarding Link 3. https://newsroom.clevelandclin.....arch/
In general, the peer review process helps ensure that data can be relied on--that people are not making things up or contorting numbers to suit an agenda; it's like a self-regulating mechanism. Think of it like trust, but verify. Sometimes through that process, problems in methodology, analysis, etc. are discovered. (More rarely, this can also happen after something has been published as well, in which case, the journals will retract the publication. Nothing is perfect.)
Totally think the robustness and durability of immunity acquired through covid infection should be studied--there has been a lot of focus on the vaccines because the vast majority of the population has not yet had covid & if we were to just let it rip through the population, the results would be catastrophic given the mortality rate of the disease, as well as the cases of long covid. Just look at what is happening in the hospitals in the south right now. |
https://www.thelancet.com/jour.....-5370(21)00141-3/fulltext
Does the link work now?
The major issue that I have with forcing the vaccine is that they're completely ignoring data that shows that those that had Covid have immunity (for the time being, can be reevaluated with further studies) and proof of previous covid should preclude the necessity of the vaccine at this point.
I had Covid. I have antibodies 1 year later. Why should I be forced to take the vaccine? I really think it's unethical to make me choose to take a vaccine that's most likely unnecessary to being let go from my job.
Eta: I see the link is not working. Google "Qatar study covid" and the lancet document is the 5th page that comes up in my search.
| |
|
Back to top |
0
0
|
amother
Steelblue
|
Thu, Aug 26 2021, 12:07 pm
amother [ Catmint ] wrote: | The numbers are in tables at the bottom of the study--there are links to table 1 and table 2. That study was specifically looking at whether the vaccines help people who have had covid already to avoid reinfection--comparing the strength of natural immunity to vaccine-enhanced immunity--the numbers demonstrate that the vaccine helps even those who have already had covid.
Anyway, here is a recent study that compares a group of not previously infected and vaccinated--involved weekly pcr testing of healthcare and other frontline workers over a period of about 8 months.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volum.....4.htm |
What I'm looking for is a study that compares previously infected to vaccinated. This one linked above does not include a group of previously infected. Therefore, it isn't really relevant to this discussion. You cant really take a group from one study and compare it to a group in another study. They took place at different times in different locations and were conducted by different people. You cant really just pull info from one study and pull some other info from another study.....
| |
|
Back to top |
0
0
|
amother
Steelblue
|
Thu, Aug 26 2021, 12:10 pm
amother [ Catmint ] wrote: | Links 1 and 4 are the same thing.
Link to the Lancet does not work--would you mind re-posting?
The Cleveland Clinic published a statement providing additional context regarding Link 3. https://newsroom.clevelandclin.....arch/
In general, the peer review process helps ensure that data can be relied on--that people are not making things up or contorting numbers to suit an agenda; it's like a self-regulating mechanism. Think of it like trust, but verify. Sometimes through that process, problems in methodology, analysis, etc. are discovered. (More rarely, this can also happen after something has been published as well, in which case, the journals will retract the publication. Nothing is perfect.)
Totally think the robustness and durability of immunity acquired through covid infection should be studied--there has been a lot of focus on the vaccines because the vast majority of the population has not yet had covid & if we were to just let it rip through the population, the results would be catastrophic given the mortality rate of the disease, as well as the cases of long covid. Just look at what is happening in the hospitals in the south right now. |
Link 3 doesn't take away from what Cleveland Clinic showed in their study, which is that previous infection is extremely protective against reinfection.
A statement is just that, a statement. A study is a study. Not the same thing.
I am curious if the two links you posted above were peer reviewed studies. I have no idea where that information would be listed. Any idea?
| |
|
Back to top |
0
0
|
amother
Aqua
|
Thu, Aug 26 2021, 12:11 pm
amother [ Catmint ] wrote: | Links 1 and 4 are the same thing.
Link to the Lancet does not work--would you mind re-posting?
The Cleveland Clinic published a statement providing additional context regarding Link 3. https://newsroom.clevelandclin.....arch/
In general, the peer review process helps ensure that data can be relied on--that people are not making things up or contorting numbers to suit an agenda; it's like a self-regulating mechanism. Think of it like trust, but verify. Sometimes through that process, problems in methodology, analysis, etc. are discovered. (More rarely, this can also happen after something has been published as well, in which case, the journals will retract the publication. Nothing is perfect.)
Totally think the robustness and durability of immunity acquired through covid infection should be studied--there has been a lot of focus on the vaccines because the vast majority of the population has not yet had covid & if we were to just let it rip through the population, the results would be catastrophic given the mortality rate of the disease, as well as the cases of long covid. Just look at what is happening in the hospitals in the south right now. |
The additional Cleveland Clinic statement doesn't negate what the outcome of the study showed.
All it basically says is that we don't know how immunity from natural infection protects against the Delta variant. Ok so let's study it and see. Don't force the vaccine though until we have more information.
| |
|
Back to top |
0
1
|
amother
Catmint
|
Thu, Aug 26 2021, 12:44 pm
amother [ Steelblue ] wrote: | Link 3 doesn't take away from what Cleveland Clinic showed in their study, which is that previous infection is extremely protective against reinfection.
A statement is just that, a statement. A study is a study. Not the same thing.
I am curious if the two links you posted above were peer reviewed studies. I have no idea where that information would be listed. Any idea? |
They were published in the CDC’s MMWR (Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report)—the vetting process for that publication is technically not the same as “peer-review” for a medical journal, but submissions are subjected to multi level review process before publication. The MMWR is a go to for info on public health events and is a mechanism for getting info and data out more quickly than via full length journal articles (often full length articles ultimately do get published elsewhere based on the reports). For those who do not believe anything the CDC says or is involved with, idk what to say.
Here’s a link to all of the MMWR reports regarding COVID if you’re interested—there is a wide spectrum of subjects, including the impact of the pandemic on mental health, the identification of rare vaccine side effects etc. (I actually think it’s pretty interesting to see how much had been learned over the past year & a half, obviously so much more to discover though).
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/Novel......html
| |
|
Back to top |
0
0
|
|
Imamother may earn commission when you use our links to make a purchase.
© 2024 Imamother.com - All rights reserved
| |
|
|
|
|
|