SoulMonster Posted June 21, 2022 Share Posted June 21, 2022 42 minutes ago, action said: I have read the article a bit further1, and it continues to clarify, that vaccines and boosters, also work better when a natural infection has occurred somewhere along the line. Vaccination, without natural infection, works significantly less effective. My objection then is, if vaccination is supposed to protect from infection, and a vaccine works less well without prior infection, does the vaccine impair itself this way? The article confirms, that the best protection comes from vaccines AND natural infection. So my conclusion then is, don't put all your money on vaccination alone It is well known and has been discussed widely in the media that the best protection you can possible get (for second and subsequent infections), is a combination of having had the disease and having had vaccination. I have discussed it a few times in this very thread. And this shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone with rudimentary knowledge on how the immune system works. Still, it is the first infection that is the most dangerous. Avoiding vaccines because you have read that infection boosts the immune system, too, is just stupid. You are then entirely at risk from this first infection event, whereas if you get vaccinated you are almost entirely safe. We will all get infected sooner or later, and likely multiple times over our lifetimes, and this will provide natural immunity that will work in concert with the vaccines to provide a strong and hopefully lasting immunity. But, and I am repeating this ad nauseum because it is so important and you are such a slow learner, avoiding the vaccines and instead going for natural immunity puts your completely at risk at the first infection event which is by far the most dangerous event because your immune system is not at all prepared to deal with the novel virus. The most intelligent approach is to get the vaccines and the booster, and then accept you might get infected nonetheless but at least you will be as protected as you can be. A less intelligent approach is to not take the vaccines, get infected (and likely suffer more severe symptoms), then get vaccinated and get the booster. Both of these offer very good protection in the end. The least intelligent approach is to not get vaccinated at all, suffer the risk of the first infection and then have a less attenuated immune system for subsequent infections. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
action Posted June 21, 2022 Share Posted June 21, 2022 1 hour ago, SoulMonster said: But you have been arguing against vaccination and claiming that people should just go for natural immunity, which is incredibly stupid and reckless. And here's why: It is the first-time infection that kills you, not the second time you get the infection or the third. It is when your immune system is not at all prepared you may get seriously sick and may die, not when you get infected again and have a primed immune system from the first infection. So when it comes to protection against infectious diseases, it is really about protecting yourself from the first infection. And that's what vaccination does, it gives you a safe first infection (the vaccination). Do you understand this? yes. what is the percentage of the population that has yet to "receive" their first - time infection? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
action Posted June 21, 2022 Share Posted June 21, 2022 55 minutes ago, SoulMonster said: But, and I am repeating this ad nauseum because it is so important and you are such a slow learner, avoiding the vaccines and instead going for natural immunity puts your completely at risk at the first infection event which is by far the most dangerous event because your immune system is not at all prepared to deal with the novel virus. the first infection is the most dangerous phase, I agree. When I was first infected, the vaccines werent ready yet. Would I have vaccinated myself before first infection? It's an academic question. We're two years down the line, first infections have become old news. the vast majority of the population has been infected at least once already. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted June 21, 2022 Share Posted June 21, 2022 5 minutes ago, action said: yes. what is the percentage of the population that has yet to "receive" their first - time infection? What population are you talking about and why don't you find such numbers yourself? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted June 21, 2022 Share Posted June 21, 2022 2 minutes ago, action said: the first infection is the most dangerous phase, I agree. When I was first infected, the vaccines werent ready yet. Would I have vaccinated myself before first infection? It's an academic question. We're two years down the line, first infections have become old news. the vast majority of the population has been infected at least once already. And just for everyone else who might read this: action just thinks he had Covid-19. He never got tested and for all we know he didn't have it back then... he was going through a somewhat dramatic phase at the time. Yet now he uses this alleged infection as an argument against getting vaccinated. Yes, most people have been infected by now, at least here in Norway although it various across the world. Still, I am talking about the general idea of avoiding vaccines in favor of "natural immunity". It is bonkers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
action Posted June 21, 2022 Share Posted June 21, 2022 58 minutes ago, SoulMonster said: The most intelligent approach is to get the vaccines and the booster, and then accept you might get infected nonetheless but at least you will be as protected as you can be. A less intelligent approach is to not take the vaccines, get infected (and likely suffer more severe symptoms), then get vaccinated and get the booster. Both of these offer very good protection in the end. The least intelligent approach is to not get vaccinated at all, suffer the risk of the first infection and then have a less attenuated immune system for subsequent infections. the problem with this line of thinking, is that it loses track of individualities. some people react badly over vaccines. some people react badly over natural infection. And everything in between. I have read a couple of days ago, that the reason some young kids die of corona, has something to do with a particular DNA defect in their chromosomes. your line of thinking is true, in many cases. In other cases, it could have desastrous consequences. people "have" died because of the vaccines this is what I mean with "everyone has their own truth" not getting vaccinated seems to work fine for me. I don't say it will work fine for everyone. there is no "absolute" truth that is right in all cases. see the definition of democracy. you can describe a particular aspect of reality well enough, but you'll find that most of the time, there are exceptions to the rule Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted June 21, 2022 Share Posted June 21, 2022 1 minute ago, action said: the problem with this line of thinking, is that it loses track of individualities. some people react badly over vaccines. some people react badly over natural infection. And everything in between. The problem with this line of thinking is that it is based on a lack of understanding and logical consistency. Almost no one reacts badly to vaccines and most people react badly to infection. Until they point where we can personalize vaccination on a cost-efficient basis based on genetic make-up of recipients, your line of thinking is irrelevant and a distraction. Fact is that the vaccines are close to entirely safe while the virus causes disease that can give severe symptoms and in worst cases lead to death. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
action Posted June 21, 2022 Share Posted June 21, 2022 4 minutes ago, SoulMonster said: What population are you talking about and why don't you find such numbers yourself? you illustrate the difficulties of the scientific method. "what population are you talking about" is the problem scientists encounter when setting a measuring unit. How big will my control group be? 20 people? 200? 2000? no matter how many people a scientist takes as a control group, the results will always have to be "extrapolated" to the entire population, losing a lot of accuracy in the process. this can also be illustrated with measuring the size of the united kingdom. How long is its border? Depending on your measuring unit (kilometer, meter, centimeter, millimeter, nanometer, and so on) you can come up with a difference in the results, several hundreds of kilometers. the "real" size of the UK's border is always inaccurate, and impossible to reach, because you can always use a smaller measuring unity, ad infinitum. this is the reason I don't look for the numbers myself: numbers are what the greek call "techni", speaking technical. I prefer the empathic approach. I prefer to let knowledge get "born" within myself (connaitre knowing from intuition) as supposed to knowledge from data and numbers (savoir: knowing from seeing) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted June 21, 2022 Share Posted June 21, 2022 4 minutes ago, action said: not getting vaccinated seems to work fine for me. I don't say it will work fine for everyone. And for the vast majority of people, not getting vaccinated will work out just fine. You will most likely get a harder disease but you will fight it off and be alright afterwards. But you don't know this until you have had it. And vaccination is not only to protect the recipients of the vaccines but all third parties who would get infected from you if you don't get vaccinated. Not getting vaccinated because you trust you will do fine, is selfish. It puts others at risk. And in some cases you are wrong and experience a hard infection that may in worst case scenarios kill you. Taking this risk, for yourself and others, when a perfectly safe vaccine exists, is irrational. That decisions is based on a failure to understand respective risks where the risk of the disease to you and others you might infect is understated while the risk of the vaccine is greatly exaggerated, and likely also a result of tribalism, fear of needles, etc. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
action Posted June 21, 2022 Share Posted June 21, 2022 4 minutes ago, SoulMonster said: Not getting vaccinated because you trust you will do fine, is selfish. It puts others at risk. this is an academic argument, because: 1 hour ago, SoulMonster said: We will all get infected sooner or later, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted June 21, 2022 Share Posted June 21, 2022 5 minutes ago, action said: you illustrate the difficulties of the scientific method. "what population are you talking about" is the problem scientists encounter when setting a measuring unit. How big will my control group be? 20 people? 200? 2000? no matter how many people a scientist takes as a control group, the results will always have to be "extrapolated" to the entire population, losing a lot of accuracy in the process. Heh, no. Again you demonstrate a lack of science understanding yet speak with confidence. I suppose you are an agnorant, someone who is ignorant yet speaks with a certain arrogance on the topic. Going back to control groups and tests: If there is a significant difference in response among control groups, they will be tested separately and data will be collected for each group. This is also being done with vaccine testing where the response in different age groups is not combined, but kept separate since the results in these groups are so different. Which is why the vaccines weren't approved for children initially. And if you now are going to ramble on about not being interested in getting an answer on the amount of people who hasn't got the first infection because you "create knowledge in yourself" or whatever (hint: you don't, and you are a living proof of that) , why the fuck did you ask then? Here's what genuinely happened: You actually wanted to find this out because you had a vague idea that if the number was high you could argue against vaccination altogether but then when I asked you to go and do your own research, which was too much of a burden and too difficult for someone not well-equipped to actually research anything, you decided that book knowledge was stupid and that intuition was the way to go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted June 21, 2022 Share Posted June 21, 2022 4 minutes ago, action said: this is an academic argument, because: Lord have mercy. Yes, everybody will get infected sooner or later, but if you don't get vaccinated, get the disease and spread it on to someone else, chances are they haven't got vaccinated nor have had the disease yet. Only when everyone has either been vaccinated or have had the disease, could you argue the way you do. Do you understand this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvanG Posted June 21, 2022 Share Posted June 21, 2022 3 hours ago, action said: as some of you know, I frequent other boards too. And while the people there are much friendlier than you for example Your posting behaviour really changed, though. When you were still a regular poster here, you were often annoying too because of the false statements you made, but in discussions or arguments you were at least civil and, in my opinion, somewhat respectful. I've had several petty arguments with you in the past but I don't recall you ever insulting me or other posters on here. Then you left and joined that other GnR forum, you know, the one with all those ex-MYGNR posters who spend most of their time insulting moderators and posters from MYGNR. Obsession is real over there. But anyway. Then every few months or so you would still come on here just to quote SoulMonster and insult him and try to get into an argument. You never did that before. You were often annoying, but didn't go out of your way insulting posters. Up until now he ignored you, and so did most posters, so after two or three posts you usually left again for a few months because no one gave you attention. This time around, for some reason, SoulMonster stopped ignoring you and me and a few other posters also reacted to you, and hence you're ''actively'' posting again because I guess you crave the attention? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
action Posted June 21, 2022 Share Posted June 21, 2022 2 minutes ago, SoulMonster said: Heh, no. Again you demonstrate a lack of science understanding yet speak with confidence. I suppose you are an agnorant, someone who is ignorant yet speaks with a certain arrogance on the topic. Going back to control groups and tests: If there is a significant difference in response among control groups, they will be tested separately and data will be collected for each group. This is also being done with vaccine testing where the response in different age groups is not combined, but kept separate since the results in these groups are so different. Which is why the vaccines weren't approved for children initially. And if you now are going to ramble on about not being interested in getting an answer on the amount of people who hasn't got the first infection because you "create knowledge in yourself" or whatever (hint: you don't, and you are a living proof of that) , why the fuck did you ask then? Here's what genuinely happened: You actually wanted to find this out because you had a vague idea that if the number was high you could argue against vaccination altogether but then when I asked you to go and do your own research, which was too much of a burden and too difficult for someone not well-equipped to actually research anything, you decided that book knowledge was stupid and that intuition was the way to go. the reason I asked for those numbers, is because you are a "numbers person". the french "connaitre"; co: together, naitre: born; or knowledge being born from two, is a reference to the source of knowledge through dialogue. With my question, I tried to put myself on your level, the numbers, to establish some kind of mental link and to end up with a better understanding. I dont have interest however, in doing your work. You are the numbers person, not me. Missed opportunity. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
action Posted June 21, 2022 Share Posted June 21, 2022 2 minutes ago, EvanG said: This time around, for some reason, SoulMonster stopped ignoring you and me and a few other posters also reacted to you, and hence you're ''actively'' posting again because I guess you crave the attention? I have continued work on my book, and it is in some need of inspiration. I find inspiration in this place, but also a lot of abuse. Small price to pay, I guess. what really changed, is I don't let people insult me anymore. but enough about my person, pretty please? it's boring. 1 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvanG Posted June 21, 2022 Share Posted June 21, 2022 3 minutes ago, action said: what really changed, is I don't let people insult me anymore. No one was insulting you before, buddy. You'd come on here just to quote SoulMonster and insult him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted June 21, 2022 Share Posted June 21, 2022 1 minute ago, EvanG said: No one was insulting you before, buddy. You'd come on here just to quote SoulMonster and insult him. Ah, and now I have given him the attention he so craves. I will put him back on ignore then. Discussing with him is as pointless as ever before. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
action Posted June 21, 2022 Share Posted June 21, 2022 here is a picture of my book, on my work bench. I am rather proud of it. It is completely hand-written, and only one copy will ever be in existence. Some of my opinion in the past were a bit naive, but they are nonetheless testament to the person I was at one point in time. We all go through a process of understanding. This book is a good chronicle of my own search for truth. My son will no doubt be very happy with it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
action Posted June 21, 2022 Share Posted June 21, 2022 11 minutes ago, EvanG said: No one was insulting you before, buddy. You'd come on here just to quote SoulMonster and insult him. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvanG Posted June 21, 2022 Share Posted June 21, 2022 You still have a phone with a wire? Only in Belgium... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
action Posted June 21, 2022 Share Posted June 21, 2022 Just now, EvanG said: You still have a phone with a wire? Only in Belgium... 2 euro in the thrift store the adapter, to go from a PTT connection to a RJ11 connector was 6 euro, and it needed a wired to be replaced. Works like a dream. No batteries, no radiation, no BS. Just trusted quality from the past. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whiskey Rose Posted June 21, 2022 Share Posted June 21, 2022 2 hours ago, EvanG said: You still have a phone with a wire? Only in Belgium... Hey my parents still have a land line! Don’t most of our parents thiugh? 😄 the reception is so much better too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvanG Posted June 21, 2022 Share Posted June 21, 2022 1 minute ago, Whiskey Rose said: Hey my parents still have a land line! Don’t most of our parents thiugh? 😄 the reception is so much better too. Yeah, mine too, but not with a wire! Even they have upgraded by now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whiskey Rose Posted June 21, 2022 Share Posted June 21, 2022 13 minutes ago, EvanG said: Yeah, mine too, but not with a wire! Even they have upgraded by now. Oh, I didn’t know what you meant by a wire, ( still don’t 😃) I just thought you meant land line . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZoSoRose Posted June 21, 2022 Share Posted June 21, 2022 13 hours ago, 31illusions said: Can I give my opinion, is that okay? No, your opinion is not okay Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.