Wuhan Coronavirus: Megathread - Got too big

[Ruin]

I have nothing to explain to you if you assume you already have the answers. You've already cited two facts to me that aren't facts, and made baldfaced assumptions that the "devestation" was based on those non-facts. It's inherently dishonest.
Yes, if the dramatic response to COVID was based on a disease with a mortality rate of 0.05% that was 20% more deadly than the flu, it would be a very confusing world indeed!

0.05% is literally the mortality rate absent any co morbidity factors per the CDC you stupid twat. Are the CDC Nazi conspiracy theorists now too?

 

[Hippopatumus]

More on the topic of "social responsibility," the goal is to slow the spread in general, and it's hard to do that if retarded college kids pass it around between themselves indefinitely.

Well then here is a thought; don't predicate public health policy on expecting impossible situations to happen.

It's simply untenable to think you can encourage or require an entire population to take a medical treatment-- an experimental one without FDA approval no less--so why would you construct policy around that?

 

[Autopsy]

Furthermore, there has still been zero scientific explanation given of why natural immunity would be less efficient than a vaccine.
The whole purpose of a vaccine is to trick your body into thinking its dealing with the real deal and react accordingly, so why in the fuck would your body magically drop the ball after the real deal?

Currently I think that reinfection seems tenuous myself, which is why I only cited it comparatively. I'm omiting that block of text to focus on this because I can actually explain this pretty straightforwardly, I think.
The mRNA vaccines specifically are better at creating an immune response than natural exposure due to their mechanism of action, it can be compared to playing pachinko and hoping you get the right hole versus chucking the balls down a funnel and watching them all land. This is also why mRNA vaccines have been a coveted technology for so long, and why we can vaccinate the elderly for COVID effectively at-all (better than competing adenovirus shots). However, leaving out mRNA peculiarities, the two shot element is important.
Immune response is mediated by repeat exposure. When you have COVID once, you are likely to be exposed as severely again eventually, but you are unlikely to develop a large infection that would encourage your body to dedicate to mounting a more rapid immune response. The two-shot strategy has the same sized exposure for both hits, triggering the more vigorous immunity.
Since vaccines simulate a massive exposure, on the second shot your body thinks it has been hit by a big wave of virus, and you develop a more powerful immune response as a result compared to the kind of passive exposure you see post infection. Applied to natural immunity, a vaccine booster isn't doing anything to "create" immunity if you've already had COVID, it's enhancing it, by making your body think COVID is everywhere around you at all times and it has to be on guard.
I am personifying the body for convenience's sake, this all comes down to the mechanisms of B-cell production and memory in reality.

No, we are unlikely to ever contain and eliminate COVID because of how transmissible it is, how fast it mutates and the fact that unlike smallpox it has an animal reservoir.

Recent studies on donated blood have found it was circulating in the US as early as December and Europe as early as September. It had spread to at least 2 other continents by the time the world was even noticing some mystery illness in China.

I agree with this in principle, of course. COVID's transmissibility is one of the standout things about it. Yet I expect countries that did shut out the disease entirely will be 100% free of COVID after they vaccinate, acknowledging the risk of mild spread from tourists.

0.05% is literally the mortality rate absent any co morbidity factors per the CDC you stupid twat. Are the CDC Nazi conspiracy theorists now too?

Yes, the CDC are nazi conspiracy theorists if they are basing their policies on "the mortality rate absent any co morbidity factors." Protip: they aren't.
Clarifying which number you mean does not make cherrypicking a "favorable statistic" any less dishonest (0.05% absent any comorbidities is not favorable).
Edit edit: I also can't find the specific IFR estimate absent any comorbidity factors from the CDC. It's certainly not important enough or relevant enough to the general population for anyone to have ever cited it to me, at least, so I'm surprised the CDC bothered to calculate one, if they did.

It's simply untenable to think you can encourage or require an entire population to take a medical treatment-- an experimental one without FDA approval no less--so why would you construct policy around that?

COVID vaccines are not experimental and do have FDA approval per EUA. EUA is an ongoing process and would be revoked the moment the vaccines did anything contrary to what you would allow in a FDA approved drug. Protip: they haven't.
No one is basing public health policy on the idea that literally everyone can be vaccinated, we are encouraging the sane and the attentive to vaccinate on behalf of the daft and the recalcitrant, to help compensate for their net negative impact on the situation. I can't speak for organizing bodies like universities, the military, or the works, because they have always expected common sense vaccinations from anyone who goes to or works in these places.
Edit: fuck me, stop baiting me into addressing non-facts seriously. This is the last one I'm going to give as a freebie, I swear. If you want me to restate things you could figure out yourself in under five minutes with a bit of intellectual honesty, you're going to have to ask it in the form of a Jeopardy question.

 

[Hippopatumus]

EUA is not the same thing as FDA approval.

 

[Bosmadden]

Currently I think that reinfection seems tenuous myself, which is why I only cited it comparatively. I'm omiting that block of text to focus on this because I can actually explain this pretty straightforwardly, I think.
The mRNA vaccines specifically are better at creating an immune response than natural exposure due to their mechanism of action, it can be compared to playing pachinko and hoping you get the right hole versus chucking the balls down a funnel and watching them all land. This is also why mRNA vaccines have been a coveted technology for so long, and why we can vaccinate the elderly for COVID effectively at-all (better than competing adenovirus shots). However, leaving out mRNA peculiarities, the two shot element is important.
Immune response is mediated by repeat exposure. When you have COVID once, you are likely to be exposed as severely again eventually, but you are unlikely to develop a large infection that would encourage your body to dedicate to mounting a more rapid immune response. The two-shot strategy has the same sized exposure for both hits, triggering the more vigorous immunity.
Since vaccines simulate a massive exposure, on the second shot your body thinks it has been hit by a big wave of virus, and you develop a more powerful immune response as a result compared to the kind of passive exposure you see post infection. Applied to natural immunity, a vaccine booster isn't doing anything to "create" immunity if you've already had COVID, it's enhancing it, by making your body think COVID is everywhere around you at all times and it has to be on guard.
I am personifying the body for convenience's sake, this all comes down to the mechanisms of B-cell production and memory in reality.


I agree with this in principle, of course. COVID's transmissibility is one of the standout things about it. Yet I expect countries that did shut out the disease entirely will be 100% free of COVID after they vaccinate, acknowledging the risk of mild spread from tourists.


Yes, the CDC are nazi conspiracy theorists if they are basing their policies on "the mortality rate absent any co morbidity factors." Protip: they aren't.
Clarifying which number you mean does not make cherrypicking a "favorable statistic" any less dishonest (0.05% absent any comorbidities is not favorable).


COVID vaccines are not experimental and do have FDA approval per EUA. EUA is an ongoing process and would be revoked the moment the vaccines did anything contrary to what you would allow in a FDA approved drug. Protip: they haven't.
No one is basing public health policy on the idea that literally everyone can be vaccinated, we are encouraging the sane and the attentive to vaccinate on behalf of the daft and the recalcitrant, to help compensate for their net negative impact on the situation. I can't speak for organizing bodies like universities, the military, or the works, because they have always expected common sense vaccinations from anyone who goes to or works in these places.
Edit: fuck me, stop baiting me into addressing non-facts seriously. This is the last one I'm going to give as a freebie, I swear. If you want me to restate things you could figure out yourself in under five minutes with a bit of intellectual honesty, you're going to have to ask it in the form of a Jeopardy question.

If you're claiming that the mRNA vaccines provide sterilizing immunity then you're either retarded or a lying shill.

Question- if the vaccines are 'better' than natural immunity what is the purpose of injecting people who are at demonstrably higher risk of suffering vaccine side effects, including death, than serious illness from Covid? If the vaccines are so effective in preventing transmission and serious illness why shouldn't they be limited to obese diabetics and old people?

 

[knobslobbin]

I see today is feed the trolls day, lol

Let them bask in their vaccine happiness while they can. Best estimate is 6-8 months before prion disorders and immune overreactions start killing them off.

 

[NyQuilninja]

Ok cool none of that explains why a disease with a mortality rate of 0.05% requires a response that causes this much social and economic devestation. That's like 20% more deadly than the flu.

Orangemen was the real virus
Some npc

 

[Autopsy]

Question- if the vaccines are 'better' than natural immunity what is the purpose of injecting people who are at demonstrably higher risk of suffering vaccine side effects, including death, than serious illness from Covid? If the vaccines are so effective in preventing transmission and serious illness why shouldn't they be limited to obese diabetics and old people?

Those are some good question, actually!

1. There is no purpose to doing so if the vaccines are more likely to cause harm than good. You need to define was "demonstrably" is, because the numbers have already run and there is no such thing for Pfizer/Moderna. It is the case that JNJ/AZ had a very rare HIT-like side effect currently being studied however, which is why the current medical topic of the day is not recommending/disallowing AZ/JNJ administration to the young (<40 years of age) based on these concerns. This is the system working as intended.
2. They were limited to obese diabetics and old people while supplies were very limited. People may have missed that in the hubbub of the rona. Now they're not, and since the vaccines are overwhelmingly safe and effective, they are being provided as a service to other people who dislike getting laid out on a bed for a week or a month, regardless of if they'd die or not. Especially because the best protection for the elderly and infirm is to reduce exposure in the first place, because some of them refuse to get vaccinated as well, and medicine doesn't abandon people even if they'd rather see themselves off the cliff. It's a bit of a problem, sometimes.

Edit: Sharing some basic medical concepts for perspective. "NNT"/"NNH" are important datapoints for clinical recommendation, number needed to treat and number needed to harm respectively. How many patients can you give a medication before one of them sees benefits, and how many can you give it before one gets sufficiently nasty side effects? The goal is to have an extremely low relative risk, with a very high (very unlikely) NNH. If the NNT goes up, the ratio gets worse by orders of magnitude.
The NNT for vaccines is somewhat higher in younger patients than in the elderly, while the NNH is astronomically high. The problem with AZ/JnJ is that a known risk has been added, lowering the NNH by a smidgeon, while the younger patients have a higher NNT than the elderly, so the relative risk looks a lot worse than Pfizer/Moderna's. It's still good, just not good enough for modern medicine when we have alternatives at hand, and when the young have a high "NNH" for rona infections.
So, the wager is that until we know more, it may be worth forcing the young to try their luck with the rona first, out of abundance of caution, before giving them these specific vaccines that have an as of yet unknown, but incredibly low, chance of killing them. More properly, to encourage they take Pfizer or Moderna instead.
As it happens, this is a demonstration that vaccines aren't being "pushed too hard," the approach by healthcare worldwide can be described as overly cautious, at least everywhere except China and Russia, who shat out piece of shit no-data death traps, because they knew the US would never ship them Pfizer.

I see today is feed the trolls day, lol

Let them bask in their vaccine happiness while they can. Best estimate is 6-8 months before prion disorders and immune overreactions start killing them off.

Please @ me in 6-8 months so I can laugh at you.

 

[Fanatical Pragmatist]

Currently I think that reinfection seems tenuous myself, which is why I only cited it comparatively. I'm omiting that block of text to focus on this because I can actually explain this pretty straightforwardly, I think.
The mRNA vaccines specifically are better at creating an immune response than natural exposure due to their mechanism of action, it can be compared to playing pachinko and hoping you get the right hole versus chucking the balls down a funnel and watching them all land. This is also why mRNA vaccines have been a coveted technology for so long, and why we can vaccinate the elderly for COVID effectively at-all (better than competing adenovirus shots). However, leaving out mRNA peculiarities, the two shot element is important.
Immune response is mediated by repeat exposure. When you have COVID once, you are likely to be exposed as severely again eventually, but you are unlikely to develop a large infection that would encourage your body to dedicate to mounting a more rapid immune response. The two-shot strategy has the same sized exposure for both hits, triggering the more vigorous immunity.
Since vaccines simulate a massive exposure, on the second shot your body thinks it has been hit by a big wave of virus, and you develop a more powerful immune response as a result compared to the kind of passive exposure you see post infection. Applied to natural immunity, a vaccine booster isn't doing anything to "create" immunity if you've already had COVID, it's enhancing it, by making your body think COVID is everywhere around you at all times and it has to be on guard.
I am personifying the body for convenience's sake, this all comes down to the mechanisms of B-cell production and memory in reality.

So if the point of a second shot is to stimulate a second natural exposure, then how is it any better than a second natural exposure?
Again, why is artificial exposure better than the real deal?

You almost managed to dodge my question. Almost.

Also mRNA are coveted because they can *in theory* get train the body to attack something made by the body, which is how one would *in theory* treat a number of cancers, or something like HIV which hijacks the cell permanently.

I agree with this in principle, of course. COVID's transmissibility is one of the standout things about it. Yet I expect countries that did shut out the disease entirely will be 100% free of COVID after they vaccinate, acknowledging the risk of mild spread from tourists.

Literally the only countries that have shut out COVID completely are tiny pacific island nations.
Even the holy cows of Taiwan and New Zealand keep having recurring cases.

Something else I don't understand is how "we just don't know" keeps coming up as an argument when talking about the supposed long-term damage of COVID (which even that is being debunked) despite over a year of medical data - yet we know virtually nothing of the ecology of SARS-CoV-2 in the wild.
How many species is it endemic to? How wide are the ranges of these species? What is the intra-species range of the virus? What other species in the wild can or have been effected? What is the seasonal cycle of infection activity?
Like fuck there are so many questions about his this species/strain of virus functions beyond medical effects of its infection, but please tell me more about how it can be eradicated with the power of society and government.

 

[Zbk3VmLfujjzjxBd43tL]

Well then here is a thought; don't predicate public health policy on expecting impossible situations to happen.

It's simply untenable to think you can encourage or require an entire population to take a medical treatment-- an experimental one without FDA approval no less--so why would you construct policy around that?

For the same reason we expect a population too retarded not to cough/sneeze into their hands or even wash their hands to begin with to suddenly understand the proper use and wearing of surgical masks when anyone besides surgeons, dentists, and tattoo artists have never worn one outside of a Halloween costume maybe.

Basically some bureaucrat or hand-picked "expert" gave a presentation and rattled off some numbers and showed some fancy charts and nobody ever questioned them on where their numbers came from. Note that they do this for lots of other government policy, as SCIENCE is conducted by politicians listening to their favorite experts and bureaucrats, and god forbid anyone dare challenge that because you can't contradict the EXPERTS.

This is why you will wear two masks, you will take the vaccine every few months, you will live in a pod, you will eat the bugs, and you will own nothing and be happy. All because the EXPERTS and SCIENCE know it to be true.

 

[Car Won't Crank]

I'm still waiting to hear stories and see fallout style videos of the coof induced apocalypse that was supposed to hit Florida for going against the grain of the established dogma.

On another note, this excessive push for these vaccines by politicians, mainstream news, hired Hollywood actors, etc. is all very suspicious as many here have pointed out. I think it is indicative of a longer, more harmful problem in American healthcare industry, which is the over reliance on drugs for everything. A lot of simple ailments could be remedied by just taking care of your body eg. not being a fat lard and eating well. Obviously having more complicated afflictions like PCOS changes things but for the vast majority the Occam's Razor approach would work. Some docs like Dr. Ryan Cole from Idaho and the cardiopulmonary specialist from Texas who testified earlier have discussed non vaccine related solutions but they have been suspiciously silenced on the mainstream internet.

 

[Autopsy]

So if the point of a second shot is to stimulate a second natural exposure, then how is it any better than a second natural exposure?
Again, why is artificial exposure better than the real deal?
You almost managed to dodge my question. Almost.

I didn't dodge your question, please reread. The second exposure by the vaccine (simulates an infection's level of antigen) is more concentrated than passive exposure (fought off by the body with little effort), so it revs up the immunity granted by the time the patient got sick systemically. It is as though you've been sick twice already and developed a very strong and rapid response, as opposed to a single time and built the foundation for a response that has yet to be stress-tested. Another analogy is that the natural infection is bootcamp and the booster shot is a wargame, if you skip the wargames then your immune system is still a wuss when it gets to the real battlefield, but with both the training and the extra exposure, it can shoot back (for certain, not "maybe") when the time comes.
mRNA is also a multifacted technology and cancer is far from the only application or reason it is coveted. This is one of them.
Edited a bit for clarity.

Literally the only countries that have shut out COVID completely are tiny pacific island nations.
Even the holy cows of Taiwan and New Zealand keep having recurring cases.

Taiwan and NZ haven't been vaccinated yet, which was my precondition. I don't disagree, nor did I in my previous post.

Something else I don't understand is how "we just don't know" keeps coming up as an argument when talking about the supposed long-term damage of COVID (which even that is being debunked) despite over a year of medical data - yet we know virtually nothing of the ecology of SARS-CoV-2 in the wild.
How many species is it endemic to? How wide are the ranges of these species? What is the intra-species range of the virus? What other species in the wild can or have been effected? What is the seasonal cycle of infection activity?
Like fuck there are so many questions about his this species/strain of virus functions beyond medical effects of its infection, but please tell me more about how it can be eradicated with the power of society and government.

I don't know who you're arguing with, but the long-term effects of COVID are pretty clear and relatively understood. Data collection was the main barrier, we now have a decent load of data to work with.
As far as the ecology of SARS-CoV-2 in the wild, ask the Chinese. None of that is clear because they got it from some backwoods, did gain of function experiments on it in their bargain bin BSL-4 lab that never should have been approved in the first place, and managed to get a few of their employees sick in the process. We would be in a much better place if COVID was extant instead of a rapid spread over mere months.
So far as the chance of eradication, I already said the government and society would be helpless to do so. The preconditions required to avoid the virus' features being a factor in spread (short of it literally teleporting across the globe) were not met. Everything after that is catchup, and I'm providing you with a bit of the rationale used on why it can be a population good for individually neutral decisions, not that COVID vaccinations are neutral, except maybe JNJ/AZ if you're 20 and healthy. If you want to know who to blame for "population good" being a factor in health policy, it's Darwin, not the commies. I'm not a fan overall, but in this case it's a clear win-win.

I'm still waiting to hear stories and see fallout style videos of the coof induced apocalypse that was supposed to hit Florida for going against the grain of the established dogma.

On another note, this excessive push for these vaccines by politicians, mainstream news, hired Hollywood actors, etc. is all very suspicious as many here have pointed out. I think it is indicative of a longer, more harmful problem in American healthcare industry, which is the over reliance on drugs for everything. A lot of simple ailments could be remedied by just taking care of your body eg. not being a fat lard and eating well. Obviously having more complicated afflictions like PCOS changes things but for the vast majority the Occam's Razor approach would work. Some docs like Dr. Ryan Cole from Idaho and the cardiopulmonary specialist from Texas who testified earlier have discussed non vaccine related solutions but they have been suspiciously silenced on the mainstream internet.

Medicine is aware of this right now. The motto of all health training, research, and care right now are "polypharmacy is bad, and you should lose that weight before you're 40." Vaccines are not a feature of that concern, though, because unlike cardiovascular drugs, insulin, etc., the drawbacks are nil. Vaccines are an acceptable alternative to natural selection and are very low on the totem pole of things to do away with (right after "the disease it treats") much to the chagrin of paranoid delusionals.
Everyone in general should be opposed to the degree of FDA stricture on new treatments and experimentation, by the way. That's why "non vaccine related solutions" never make it to market or get public distribution- not some invisible hand smothering brave souls just trying to help. Ivermectin has had multiple relatively successful trials for COVID months and months ago, for example, but people are dosing themselves with fucking horse pills because no one's allowed to manufacture it for this new evidence-based indication without approval.
So far as Florida, it did perform worse than states, as one might expect. It never had conditions that would cause a coof induced apocalypse, though, and I don't know who thought it would.

 

[Hippopatumus]

So far as Florida, it did perform worse than states, as one might expect. It never had conditions that would cause a coof induced apocalypse, though, and I don't know who thought it would.

Hahahahaha

Go back to sucking big pharma's meaty cock idiot.

 

[Autopsy]

Fight big pharma by perpetuating the disease through shit public policy, thus netting them infinite money!
The sycophant cries out as he strikes you.

 

[RumblyTumbly]

Well, I traveled out of state via airplane...not dead.

I've gone to a hotel...not dead.

I've gone to the movie theater...not dead.

I went to a packed restaurant where nobody was wearing a mask...not dead.

When are people going to admit that we've been had?

 

[Chocola]

Idk if it’s sociopathic to say, but I hope more people get covid, so they will see that it’s just a weird cold, and there’s nothing to fear. I became «science-denier» after my older relatives and me had it in a very light form, without any complications.

Or, I guess, to make it less sociopathic, I hope people without serious conditions like deathfattness/diabetes/asthma or old age will get it. It’s not right to close down everything for a minority. As was said one million times, all this effort should have been put into protecting people who actually might die.

 

[RumblyTumbly]

Its almost like people that were hardcore into lockdowns and wanting to stay safe from COVID are afraid to admit they overreacted, so they are just doubling and tripling down.

 

[Fanatical Pragmatist]

I didn't dodge your question, please reread. The second exposure by the vaccine (simulates an infection's level of antigen) is more concentrated than passive exposure (fought off by the body with little effort), so it revs up the immunity granted by the time the patient got sick systemically. It is as though you've been sick twice already and developed a very strong and rapid response, as opposed to a single time and built the foundation for a response that has yet to be stress-tested. Another analogy is that the natural infection is bootcamp and the booster shot is a wargame, if you skip the wargames then your immune system is still a wuss when it gets to the real battlefield, but with both the training and the extra exposure, it can shoot back (for certain, not "maybe") when the time comes.
mRNA is also a multifacted technology and cancer is far from the only application or reason it is coveted. This is one of them.
Edited a bit for clarity.

Except unless you're one of the rare cases that has a longer (4-6 week) infection period, a natural response IS stress-tested though.
It's literally why and how your body fought off the infection in the first place.

Also it was kind of a dodge, because I asked about natural immunity vs vaccine immunity and you gave me single exposure vs double exposure. By your logic getting a 1-shot vaccine is therefore a thing of the past (which I know isn't the case).
You're certainly smarter and at least arguing in good-faith unlike the usual weekly doomposters/social boot-lickers, so I'm not trying to be antagonistic but you did kind of miss the gist of my post.

So far as the chance of eradication, I already said the government and society would be helpless to do so. The preconditions required to avoid the virus' features being a factor in spread (short of it literally teleporting across the globe) were not met.

Sorry but your earlier posts gave the impression that you were blaming apathetic human behavior and people who are either weary or don't care about getting vaccination; so my comeback was that we are dealing with a species with an utterly unknown ecology which already has the traits to make eradication impossible.

...and I'm providing you with a bit of the rationale used on why it can be a population good for individually neutral decisions, not that COVID vaccinations are neutral, except maybe JNJ/AZ if you're 20 and healthy. If you want to know who to blame for "population good" being a factor in health policy, it's Darwin, not the commies. I'm not a fan overall, but in this case it's a clear win-win.

Brah what?

So far as Florida, it did perform worse than states, as one might expect. It never had conditions that would cause a coof induced apocalypse, though, and I don't know who thought it would.

Florida performed no worse than states with similar populations under stricter lockdown/mask mandate conditions.

 

[Hippopatumus]

Its almost like people that were hardcore into lockdowns and wanting to stay safe from COVID are afraid to admit they overreacted, so they are just doubling and tripling down.

The problem is half the country is perfectly happy to sit home and play video games and collect a government check, so they naturally support the current situation--doubly so because they are manipulated to think they are "doing their part" and being "part of the solution". It's fucking pathetic, and will have dire consequences for both sides.

 

[Autopsy]

Except unless you're one of the rare cases that has a longer (4-6 week) infection period, a natural response IS stress-tested though.
It's literally why and how your body fought off the infection in the first place.

Also it was kind of a dodge, because I asked about natural immunity vs vaccine immunity and you gave me single exposure vs double exposure. By your logic getting a 1-shot vaccine is therefore a thing of the past (which I know isn't the case).
You're certainly smarter and at least arguing in good-faith unlike the usual weekly doomposters/social boot-lickers, so I'm not trying to be antagonistic but you did kind of miss the gist of my post.

I didn't realize this was your question, actually, my bad.
To answer whether natural immunity is worse than vaccine immunity in a single shot scenario, it simply isn't necessarily. The potency of the vaccine plays a role, natural exposure is variable and some diseases (including the coronavirus) produce variable immune responses based on viral load. The variability is undesirable because vaccine efficacy is studied and effects are predictable, natural immunity is harder to study and more random, so why take the risk that they fought off their initial infection easily and lose immunity more quickly than they should? This is part of why "shoring up" a patient with natural immunity is in this case recommendable, especially in the vulnerable. It means you know how and when to schedule follow-ups, what to monitor, etc.
On stress testing: after a single exposure, your body begins to roll back protection after a disease is fought off unless it is a common environmental threat, keeping mainly memory and not proliferating it very thoroughly at that. If you have a second exposure close to the first, you develop a more lasting response, because the way the system has developed is meant to fight off frequent threats first and foremost.
Single-shot vaccines aren't a thing of a past because for most diseases necessarily (esp. bacteria), you don't need to prime your system regularly for rapid response if infection is slow enough your body will have time to ramp up normally in secondary natural exposure. There are plenty you do, though, which is why most vaccines are in fact series of shots and/or have irregular boosters. You may not recall these because they happen mainly while you are a toddler/very young.

About Florida, I'm sure you can prove otherwise to yourself with relative ease. Florida did better than states with shit health systems, it did not do better than states that were stricter on their controls with similar levels of public funding and bed availability. I would accept the argument that they have an older average population, but that's not exactly true either, because Florida had forewarning to lock its nursing homes & retirement communities the fuck down and Cali/NE did not. The model states to follow performance-wise are California and Virginia, who had dramatically different approaches. Make of that what you will, just don't pretend Florida did better.
Note that I haven't argued that California's lockdowns were "worth" the extra strain on their economy and social landscape, I'm emphasizing the facts before that can be argued.

Edit: I knew I forgot something. Population health is a relatively new part of health study that focuses more on the performance of a community in disease states rather than the individuals who suffer those diseases. Population health drives healthcare's interest in society, where instead of promoting that a fatass patient stops being fat, you try to encourage society to address the things that urged him to become fat, because that is in some ways easier and prevention is cheaper than treatment. It's also pretty much just eugenics shit when you boil it down. If you want to know why certain experts would look so favorably on lockdowns despite some of the downsides, it's because they think in terms of population health, not patients.