Israeli Study: Natural Immunity Is 13x Stronger Than Pfizer Covid Shots

I didn't say you did, but the post I was replying to said it the study here sounded like it. It didn't at all really considering the death rate is vastly lower than the infection rate and the infection rate differences were so huge.

> That said, you can account for this confounding factor and perhaps the study did account for that (didn't read it). I'm just pointing out that the question cannot be dismissed just by looking at whether death rates are part of the study or not

I didn't dismiss it, on the contrary I gave the poster a chance to substantiate their claim.

the publicly available numbers that i mentioned (from MA, Israel, Singapore, UK) show that the chances of vaccinated to get infected is 25% of that of unvaccinated (400 out of 1400 with 65% vaccination rate, and that is without paying attention to an obvious fact that breakthrough infections are heavily undercounted due to vaccine softening the disease symptoms). The 25% chances is absolutely too big to speak about any meaningful effect on slowing the spread. Such conclusion clearly comes from basic statistical arithmetic, as well as from seasonal flu vaccine experience where the efficacy is in the same ballpark.

That's an ad hominem, and a complete mis-representation of what he said at the time. The "guy" is one of the most-cited scientists in the world, and the publication is from the WHO. You just don't like what he has to say, so you dismiss it.

But sure, how many other sources do you need? His work is entirely consistent with everyone else...

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10654-020-00698-1

> Our analysis finds a exponential relationship between age and IFR for COVID-19. The estimated age-specific IFR is very low for children and younger adults (e.g., 0.002% at age 10 and 0.01% at age 25) but increases progressively to 0.4% at age 55, 1.4% at age 65, 4.6% at age 75, and 15% at age 85. Moreover, our results indicate that about 90% of the variation in population IFR across geographical locations reflects differences in the age composition of the population and the extent to which relatively vulnerable age groups were exposed to the virus.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2918-0

> We find that age-specific IFRs estimated by the ensemble model range from 0.001% (95% credible interval, 0–0.001) in those aged 5–9 years old (range, 0–0.002% across individual national-level seroprevalence surveys) to 8.29% (95% credible intervals, 7.11–9.59%) in those aged 80+ (range, 2.49–15.55% across individual national-level seroprevalence surveys) (Fig. 2a). We estimate a mean increase in IFR of 0.59% with each five-year increase in age (95% credible interval, 0.51–0.68%) for ages of 10 years and older.

The CDC's current best estimate for US IFR for those under age 65 is 6,000 / 1,000,000 (0.6%). Reduce that by an order of magnitude for those under 50, and another order of magnitude for those under 18:

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scena...

And finally, just to show you that the OP's estimate is widly wrong, here's a paper based only on China, from June 2020, citing a correct-for-the-time (but high for today) IFR of 0.66%:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3...

> Our estimated overall infection fatality ratio for China was 0·66% (0·39–1·33), with an increasing profile with age.