Single Post Display - The Market Ticker


RSS available Fact: There is no immunity or protection against The Law of Scoreboards. Did you know: What the media does NOT want you to read is at https://market-ticker.org/nad. You are not signed on; if you are a visitor please register for a free account!

The Market Ticker Single Post Display (Show in context)

User Info	Here It Comes; entered at 2021-07-23 11:45:26
Pseudofed Posts: 23 Registered: 2021-07-22	What are your thoughts on the best way to acquire natural immunity? I worry about mounting pressure to vaccinate that may be somewhat ameliorated by evidence of natural immunity. More importantly, the tail risks of mass immunization with non-sterilizing immunity are pretty scary. We are now seeing all the important signs: seasonally unusual degrees of transmission, reports of extremely low cycle counts among the vaccinated despite absence of any symptoms, and apparent efficacy at preventing hospitalization and death. Now it may be true that Delta is also less virulent, as the data from South Korea where not many people are vaccinated and cases are going up but people are not dying more suggests this. But if we keep this up, I think it is eventually certain that there will eventually be the transmission of a mutation that is naturally unfit, therefore an actual risk to the unvaccinated and maybe even not-recently-vaccinated. The flu shot doesn't work, but at least it really doesn't work. Not only is it unlikely to stop infection, but it's unlikely to help you much if you get infected, and it's unlikely to harm you much either. My position has been that the certainty of the vaccine is worse than the certainty of the virus, and the certainty of the vaccine is certainly worse than the uncertainty of the virus, but the virus being an unnaturally weaponized bioweapon with evident neurological symptoms even among some healthy people -- along with the difficulty of obtaining demonstrably effective treatments without careful planning -- was still better to avoid. Better to avoid unlike a variety of other diseases which do not kill healthy people and enhance longlasting immunity against a complex of future disease; acquiring infection against which is indeed at least a minor social obligation to promote general immunity and protect the vulnerable. But I worry about the incubation of what-ought-to-be unfit mutations, and getting over the social pressure would be a nice bonus. What are the calculations that go into a deliberate viral challenge? Thoughts: 1. Obviously want to prepare with treatments known to be effective, but if Ivermectin is as prophylactic as it is suggested to be do not want that to get in the way of developing longlasting T cell immunity. 2. Want to get natural infection, in a natural way. Meaning: seems like it could be risky to expose oneself to lots of sick or superspreading people shedding tons of virus. We know from peer-reviewed studies that dose dependence is a thing, and exposure to higher doses can sometimes lead to more serious disease. And serious disease provoked by exposure to a high dose of virus may have the same problem as the vaccine, including dysfunctional response to spike and correspondingly high antibody titers to the same, and whole point of natural infection is to avoid that. 3. The prior point is a relevant risk because in all likelihood if I acquired the infection randomly and without trying, everything is likely to work as we see in the wild. But if I am actively trying to get an infection, am apt to do something that exacerbates exposure. This would be easy to do if we lived in a country that respected medical freedom, as there would be knowledgeable professionals to help. Immune system is such a nonlinear thing that I have little confidence in my ability to judge what is happening. For example, one risk of my proposal is I have already been infected, and if I have already been infected then I am immune against almost all normally infectious exposure, but have a heightened and deleterious response to the dosage of exposure that could actually elicit reinfection: and this could either be because prior infection dramatically raises the threshold of such a dose but does not change the severity of disease much beyond that point; or it could be because natural infection results in a susceptibility to ADE at higher doses, which is fine unless you do something unnatural like try to chase infection or receive a vaccination. There are other nonlinearities I'm probably not thinking of, but the described nonlinearities are not really an order-of-magnitude more fantastic than things we very well know. For example the cat coronavirus vaccine in the 1990s did result in the vaccinated cats dying when they were later reinfected. But it actually prevented disease and may even have been sterilizing for the first several months. Maybe it was 9 months before you saw anything bad. Or with RSV, where the vaccine was harmful unless it was also useless due to immunity from prior infection. Or with the Sanofi Dengue vaccine, except there the infection itself is bad for future infection, and the vaccine may have actually been helpful for the previously infected. 2021-07-23 11:45:26