waysider

Oh, I'm not saying I disagree with you. I'm just saying there is no way to know the actual number of unreported cases. I, too, like to check the numbers. HERE is a site I like to peek at.

We can't really know this because we don't know how many asymptomatic and/or mildly symptomatic cases have gone untested and unreported. But, the case numbers we see reported is almost certainly lower than the actual number of cases. I do agree with you on the rationale of the rest of your statement, though.

52 year old local contractor, Joe Baloneyface, got vaccinated and, 2 weeks later, was squashed by a steam roller. Coincidence? I think not. (sarc) And you call this "critical thinking"? You say you've had Covid twice already. Where is the preventative value of the regimen you've been following? Well, that seems like a pretty strong argument for vaccinating as many people as possible so we give the virus less opportunities to mutate. Our full understanding of mid to long term consequences of anything will always be somewhat limited. But, ZERO? That's simply not honest. Yeah, it couldn't possibly be linked to the strict lock-down measures, could it?

Vitamin D is not a "preventative". It does not prevent you from becoming infected with the SARS-2 virus. This is a misconception. If you do become infected, however, it may help your immune system fight off serious disease. Data shows that inadequate levels of Vitamin D may lead to a more severe outcome when the body is subjected to viral infection. The vaccine, on the other hand, is a "preventive". It teaches your immune system how to recognize the virus and avoid becoming infected in the first place. In instances where it is not completely successful, it can minimize the effects of an infection. Vitamin D is important for good health but should not be thought of as an alternative to the vaccine.

Ivermectin still has some indirect value by virtue of eliminating health depleting parasites that could cause people to be more susceptible to a SARS-2 infection. That's an important benefit if accessibility to vaccine is limited, should they eventually become infected.

"Natural" immunity. Also known as "Got sicker than a dog and crapped my pants at Walmart" immunity.

I'm not a doctor, nor do I play one on T.V... Heh I did work in a para-medical field at one time, though. I can tell you from experience that one of the biggest challenges practitioners face is patient compliance, getting patients to do as instructed without deviation. A common example would be discontinuing an antibiotic protocol before the allotted time. Some of these treatments, such as Ivermectin, do have data showing they can achieve a level of success IF the proper protocol is followed precisely. This is where the trouble begins. The protocol is complex and requires strict adherence. When used correctly, it's a relatively safe drug. When used incorrectly it can be deadly. If, for some reason, you are inclined to use one of these treatments, make absolutely certain you seek medical guidance and follow the instructions to the letter. These treatments do offer value to places that may be unable to use the vaccine due to logistic difficulties or lack of funding. Still, by far, the best option available is to get vaccinated as a prophylactic measure. Despite the misinformation circulating on the net, these vaccines have been extensively and thoroughly tested. They are relatively safe (everything has an element of danger.), readily available, inexpensive(Free in U.S.), and easy to administer. And remember, "You can't have your pudding if you don't eat your meat.".

Anyone still talking about the vaccine? Just curious.

Vaccines do not make you immune. Your immune system does that. Vaccines teach your immune system what to look for so it can launch a defensive. In this particular instance, we're talking about the SARS-2 virus that causes the COVID-19 disease. A natural infection will also teach your immune system what the virus looks like. There are problems with this approach. First, you run the risk of becoming seriously ill or dying in the process. The vaccine eliminates that from the equation since the body is reacting to something that is not really a pathogen. Your body only thinks it is. In addition, the immunity you receive from a natural infection is, for the most part, unpredictable because it's unknown how much virus you were exposed to. With the vaccine, it's mostly predictable because the strength and dosage is controlled. This is why studies have been able to assign efficacy values. And, recent studies have strongly suggested that the immunity you receive from a natural infection does not last as long as immunity gained through vaccination. If you are serious about guarding against becoming infected with SARS-2, vaccination is clearly a better choice than taking a chance on a naturally occurring exposure to infect you.

Unless you realise vaccinated people ALSO shed virus, you've missed the point, so that excuse for vaccinating kids is moot. Being vaccinated makes you less likely to become infected in the first place. If you're not infected, you're not contagious. That seems like it should be an easy enough concept to grasp.

You're still missing the point, Allan. 1.) Children with the virus are vectors. They spread the disease to others who can suffer severe disease and death. Remember Typhoid Mary? She unknowingly infected 53 people. Three of them died. She, herself, was asymptomatic. 2.) Children can appear to be unaffected, only to develop MIS-C weeks later. If left untreated, it can be life threatening. No one wants to knowingly subject their kids to that possibility. 3.) The risks you can face from getting the disease are greater than the risks from the vaccine. Pericarditis is a good example. Your chance of developing pericarditis from the disease, itself, is several times higher than from the vaccine. All the vaccine does is teach the body's immune system what the virus looks like so when it sees it, it can launch an immune response. Your immune system does the heavy lifting, not the vaccine. You are correct when you say we don't know how long your immune system will fight off infection. Not enough time has passed to really know yet. Immunity is multifaceted. When your body senses a foreign substance (virus), it begins to produce antibodies. Our bodies encounter foreign invaders all the time so they are constantly producing some form or other of antibodies. They are too numerous for your body to retain on a long term basis. That's why efficacy wanes. There is good news, though. Once your immune system knows what a particular virus looks like, it starts producing special cells (T-Cells and B-Cells) that are specifically tasked with sensing the presence of invaders and subsequently making a new batch of antibodies. People who were infected with SARS-1 in 2003 have long since lost any antibodies they developed. Recent tests, however, have revealed they still have at least some T and B cells, 18 years after the fact. SARS-1 is similar to the current SARS-2 that is causing Covid. With that in mind, it's reasonable to assume that some T and B cells for SARS-2 may last for years, as well. We don't know that for a fact, though, because not enough time has passed. In the meantime we can use the vaccine to tell the body to make T and B cells and keep the arsenal full just in case .

Current numbers for Australia: https://coronavirus.1point3acres.com/en https://www.google.com/search?q=vaccination+australia&rlz=1C1CHWL_enUS850US850&oq=vaccination+australia&aqs=chrome..69i57j0i512l9.8255j1j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 https://graphics.reuters.com/world-coronavirus-tracker-and-maps/countries-and-territories/australia/

This is great news if everything plays out. There are still parts of the world that don't have access to the vaccine for various reasons, such as logistical difficulties and lack of funds. This could be a real life saver if all goes to plan. In the meantime, our best tool available is the vaccine. We need to be getting as many people vaccinated as possible so there will be no need to treat the disease after it's already taken hold.

Fascinating. An opinion piece critiquing peer review. Having children does not change whether something is true or not. It may, however, change how you perceive that truth. In other words, it may change your opinion . Yes, Einstein had a controversial opinion. It was based on lots of hard work, calculation and data.

Allan, do you understand what an opinion piece is? I'm beginning to wonder.

Heh. Pretty sure that's not the same usage of the word. Although there does seem to be some parallel in them "executing" each other for the right to rule.

Are you sure about that? It seems to me that an awful lot of people still can't comprehend the concept that your immune system, no matter how strong it might be, does not automatically launch an antibody response to a novel virus the first time it's encountered. People see that there is a risk of pericarditis from the vaccine and neglect to recognize that the virus, itself, presents a risk of pericarditis that is several times greater.

I think some people use the term "God Given" to mean you were born with an immune system to fight off pathogens. The problem with SARS-2, though, is that if you have never had previous exposure to the virus, your immune system has no idea what it is. (That's why it's call "novel".) It can't instantly launch a counter attack because it doesn't have a memory of having seen it before. That's where the vaccine comes in. It teaches the immune system what to look for without making you vulnerable to serious disease or death like a natural infection would.

We have orthopedic surgeons now. There's no longer a need to look both ways when crossing the street. Hey, fun fact! Know what other disease is largely asymptomatic (90-95%)? Polio Yeah, that's right. Why bother getting the Polio vaccine? Take a chance on herd immunity. What could go wrong?

Hi, Wet Blanket. I'm Stick in the Mud. This is my brother Bump on a Log and this is my other brother Bump on a Log.

That's just crazy. Q. How do patients with serious Covid die? A. The infection advances to pneumonia and they drown in their own fluid. You might as well say they didn't die from Covid, they just died from drowning. edit: "...this is really just an opinion piece where the author is poking fun at the NIH while trying to make a point about the risks of Covid." So it's poking fun at this NIH report. Talk about up being down and down being up.

"Hey kids, remember how we used to be able to sit cross-legged on the cold floor, sing Kumbaya and then get back up without any help? Boy, those were the days, weren't they?"

This is an opinion piece. Professor Curtis produces no hard data whatsoever to support his opinion. Reread the article. It even presents data that refutes his position. I don't understand why "not dying" has suddenly become the gold standard for safety. Plenty of other things can happen besides dying, such as organ damage, long lasting symptoms, and transmission to others who may have their lives put in jeopardy by exposure to this disease, as well as opportunities for the virus to mutate to forms that may be more transmissible and/or dangerous. It even says that "Dozens of scientists and children's doctors disagree with Professor Curtis and say vaccinating children is urgent.". Additionally, journalists typically do not write their own headlines. That's an editor's job. Headlines are a marketing tool, designed to entice the reader to further investigate. Sometimes the headline is a valid representation of what the journalist is saying and sometimes it is not. It's a real problem in our information saturated culture. People tend to read the headline and skip the article. That's never a safe approach. Editors can intentionally manipulate a headline to persuade the reader to reach a false conclusion. The jury is not "out" on this, as Professor Curtis would have us believe.. The vaccine is safe and effective for kids. Lots and lots of data supports that stance. The sooner we all get on board, the sooner we can return to at least some level of normalcy.