61–70 of 371 posts
Survivorship bias comes to mind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias
Not sure how that's really relevant when over 99% of people in both the vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts do not die from Covid.
Putting in some caveats about the risks associated with infection is not enough. This is a garbage analysis that should never have been accepted for publication.
Then let each business and jurisdiction choose whom to admit. Part of the problem with the prior-infection claim is it’s harder to verify than vaccination. Solving that would go a long way towards letting those individuals participate in normal life without compromising public health or the right to choose with whom one assembles.
Broadly, the Israeli data seem to favour natural immunity while the British data, very slightly, vaccination. We need more data. In the meantime, let people make their own choices.
>the risk of developing symptomatic COVID-19 was 27 times higher among the vaccinated, and the risk of hospitalization eight times higher This sounds convincing, but then in the next graf: >For instance, the higher hospitalization rate in the 32,000-person analysis was based on just eight hospitalizations in a vaccinated group and one in a previously infected group. And the 13-fold increased risk of infection in the…
To develop natural immunity, you would need to get infected with the virus, no? That's considerably more risky than getting the vaccine. If you do get infected with the virus after vaccination, wouldn't you also develop natural immunity?
Or that goes to "fill up" again the immunity lost due to the time which went by since the vaccination.
The Lancet just published a study yesterday on natural infection still causing symptoms one year later (“long Covid”) for 49% of unvaccinated people. I’ll stick to the vaccine.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
Why is "natural infections and recovery produce a better immune response than a vaccine" so controversial? Has it been this controversial for any other disease?
The PROBLEM is that people then say "oh well then to protect myself better against COVID19 what I should do is get infected with COVID19, rather than get vaccinated". I have NO IDEA why so many people are jumping to that conclusion.. but oh well..
But don’t you risk long hauler symptoms or worse? Meaning, it’s an interesting datapoint but not a viable strategy.
Its not about vaccine vs natural immunity. Its about immunity vs mandates. Getting covid intentionally is stupid. If you feel up to it, get the vaccine. Any encounter with covid will be milder. However, some people have already had it and are frankly being unjustly discriminated in some states and institutions. I'm not against vaccines but the treatment of previously infected people as second tier has got to stop.
it only lasts a limited time though, and these measured antibodies fade within months. so people that have been sick are still encouraged to get at least 1 shot of Pfizer
It's important to add antibody levels for people that have been sick are very different. I know many sick people who got under 150 (the stated minimum to get the passport) a few weeks after being sick. With 2 shots of Pfizer I got over 12,000 units. So it's not even the same ballpark. At least for the measurable antibody tests we currently have
I suspect, if the government offered a monitored blood test to prove antibodies, the "but muh mandates" crowd will still be just as angry