Slash Boxes

SoylentNews is people

posted by mrpg on Friday May 28, @11:26AM   Printer-friendly
from the what-could-go-wrong dept.

Ohio lawmakers want to abolish vaccine requirements:

[...] Lawmakers are working on legislation to call off the lottery immediately. They're also trying to head off any plans for "vaccine passports." And last month, they introduced a sweeping antivaccination bill that would essentially demolish public health and vaccination requirements in the state—and not just requirements for COVID-19 vaccines, requirements for any vaccine.

[...] State Rep. Beth Liston (D-Dublin) blasted the bill, telling The Columbus Dispatch, "Not only would it prevent schools, businesses and communities from putting safety measures in pace related to COVID, it will impact the health of our children... This bill applies to all vaccines—polio, measles, meningitis, etc. If it becomes law we will see worsening measles outbreaks, meningitis in the dorms, and children once again suffering from polio."

[...] "At its core, this proposal would destroy our current public health framework that prevents outbreaks of potentially lethal diseases, threatens the stability of our economy as it recovers from a devastating pandemic and jeopardizes the way we live, learn, work and celebrate life," the letter said.

[...] "HB 248 would put all Ohioans at risk while increasing the cost of health care for families, individuals and businesses," spokesperson Dan Williamson said. "This proposal applies to all immunizations, including childhood vaccines. If passed, this legislation could reverse decades of immunity from life-threatening, but vaccine-preventable diseases such as measles, mumps, hepatitis, meningitis and tuberculosis."

Also: Ohio GOP lawmakers, citing 'need to protect' from vaccines, seek to expand exemptions, nix COVID passports

Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 29, @04:15AM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 29, @04:15AM (#1139945)

    Next time you should read them then. "The quality, quantity, and durability of protective immunity elicited by natural infection with SARS-CoV-2 are poor relative to the much higher levels of virus-neutralising antibodies and T cells induced by the vaccines currently being administered globally." And the conclusion sentence is "These data are all confirmation, if it were needed, that for SARS-CoV-2 the hope of protective immunity through natural infections might not be within our reach, and a global vaccination programme with high efficacy vaccines is the enduring solution."

  • (Score: 2) by ElizabethGreene on Sunday May 30, @03:14AM

    by ElizabethGreene (6748) on Sunday May 30, @03:14AM (#1140168)

    I did read them, and I read the underlying reference as well. You're right, I did pick a cherry.

    The authors assert that the level of immunity is correlated with circulating antibody levels, that those levels vary widely post infection, and that the levels decline as a function of time. Those are completely reasonable assertions.

    The cherry I picked is in the prior paragraph:

    they determined from that, in general, past infection confers 80·5% protection against reinfection, which decreases to 47·1% in those aged 65 years and older. Hansen and colleagues acknowledge the many limitations of their analysis being restricted to only PCR data, including the possibility that people might change their behaviour after a positive PCR test. This confounder is addressed by noting that the findings are similar in a sensitivity analysis of nurses, doctors, social workers, and health-care assistants who were tested regularly due to their profession.

    If you go to the underlying citation on the efficacy testing of the vaccine candidate ( Figure 4 graphs A and B the circulating antibody levels for PCR confirmed COVID patients is higher than 14 days post one-shot and lower but not dramatically so after the booster. That leaves a quandary. Did that study (n=5) randomly pick people only with very high levels of antibodies?