[peteradio]

Recovered people were excluded from trials so conclusion of trials says nothing for them. What percent of vaccine holdouts do you reckon have already been infected? If that is a significant percentage, realize your anger is being channeled into restrictions against these people you are not speaking to.

[crispypotatoes]

> What percent of vaccine holdouts do you reckon have already been infected?

I'm not going to sit here and guess

You have the information to work this one out yourself if you like and none of these comments make any sense mate

[peteradio]

So you don't have those numbers on hand? It seems crucial, if 100% of unvaccinated have already recovered then what is to be gained by vaccinating now?

[crispypotatoes]

> It seems crucial, if 100% of unvaccinated have already recovered then what is to be gained by vaccinating now?

Except we know this isn't the case at all lmao

Elsewhere in the thread it's stated in AUS that 50% of COVID admissions are from the 8% unvaccinated population, that's about enough to prove the point here and I don't need to go any further

You're also seeing more and more cases like this crop up - https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/frighten...

Vaccines work. They reduce severity, transmission and the chance of death.

It's on you to prove your point with some actual facts now, instead of more questions missing the point entirely.

[peteradio]

Just wanted to make sure we were on the same page about numbers mattering.

I guess you are in Australia? Australia may well have successfully suppressed natural immunity. In my own country we have large swaths pre-omicron who have natural antibodies: https://covid19serohub.nih.gov/

Now you seem to be expecting these folks to be vaccinated with a drug that has specifically excluded them from the trials. Drug recommendations ought to be coupled with safety testing on the impacted group.

If you can find me Pfizer/Moderna trial studies which show specific impact on recovered individuals I will never post again.

[crispypotatoes]

> I guess you are in Australia?

Nope

> In my own country we have large swaths pre-omicron who have natural antibodies

It's funny this one, as that's not what this should tell you, the page uses antibodies to measure how many people have potentially been infected, it doesn't demonstrate effective herd immunity or that the population would be naturally immune or protected

We know that COVID is a disease where more exposure leads to more damage, so having antibodies doesn't mean anything

Here's an article for that site telling you about the benefits of a universal vaccine - https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-scientists...

It's also worth reading through their other studies about vaccines, as well as how they're looking to tackle the issues with vaccines themselves - https://search.nih.gov/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&affiliate=nih&q...

> Now you seem to be expecting these folks to be vaccinated with a drug that has specifically excluded them from the trials. Drug recommendations ought to be coupled with safety testing on the impacted group.

I haven't suggested anything of the sort and I'm pretty sure this doesn't work how you think it does

> If you can find me Pfizer/Moderna trial studies which show specific impact on recovered individuals I will never post again.

You know for a fact this doesn't exist because people aren't trying to measure the healthy

What we do have are studies that show the delta goes down as vaccines are introduced, along with the infection rate

I really wish you would stop commenting because this a great demonstrating of not understanding the data at all.

EDIT: someone turned off replies lol

I have addressed them, there's just clearly an understanding gap here

Antibodies are also created by vaccines, if that's your measure here you shouldn't be arguing against them, that's why it's meaningless

Any interaction with disease creates them, so having them present doesn't guarantee that there's enough being produced (or even effectively) to counteract the effects

[peteradio]

> having antibodies doesn't mean anything

Not sure how to address this, of course it means a great deal. As a proxy for exposure and coupled with studies that show impact of known exposure towards immunity, its great evidence. Whether someone was harmed by their infection is a moot point for those who've gone through it.

In a place like Australia with only a small fraction of the population having exposure its no wonder the statistics of their hospitalizations look as they do. In my own state hospitalizations have started decouple from vaccine status due to the high degree of natural immunity and that was before Omicron.

If the delta of whatever you are measuring is 90%+ dependent on a single age group then perhaps the guidance should reflect that. Frankly you aren't attempting to honestly address my points.