21–30 of 371 posts
There's really nothing surprising about this conclusion. Before Covid came along and the focus inexplicably shifted to antibodies-only, it was well understood that infection with a pathogen was always likely to result in better immunity than vaccination.
>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?
I can only consider this a positive for those who are vaccine hesitant, as they will probably be getting it, but I can't see how, considering the realistic dangers of a vaccine, a rational individual wouldn't want both forms of protection even if they were previously infected.
I think people in high risk groups should get it, i.e., the elderly and people with weak immune systems or other health issues. Those who are strong health wise ok, they stand a good chance. That said, I am totally against this blanket insistence on passports. There may be some situations which warrant vaccinations where the subject has no acquired immunity, health workers, etc. But being denied access to govt servic…
What gov services are people being denied? legit question - I hear this, but unsure what is being referred to.
How about "vaccine proof or wear a mask" to get/access govt services/buildings/etc?
I can only consider this a positive for those who are vaccine hesitant, as they will probably be getting it, but I can't see how, considering the realistic dangers of a vaccine, a rational individual wouldn't want both forms of protection even if they were previously infected.
I think people in high risk groups should get it, i.e., the elderly and people with weak immune systems or other health issues. Those who are strong health wise ok, they stand a good chance. That said, I am totally against this blanket insistence on passports. There may be some situations which warrant vaccinations where the subject has no acquired immunity, health workers, etc. But being denied access to govt servic…
One can observe how this topic has become political, and is no longer scientific. Our focus and concerns are now all about existing and forthcoming restrictions and mandates for vaccinations and masks -- so much that information like this is no longer even interesting to most people. Not only uninteresting, but vulnerable to censors.
But don’t you risk long hauler symptoms or worse? Meaning, it’s an interesting datapoint but not a viable strategy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you saying 32,000 people isn't a large enough study to be meaningful?
For low-prevalence events the number of events that happened is just as important for statistical power as the big 32,000. Especially when doing relative risk, the confidence interval on that "27 times" could be extremely large.
>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…
And if you remove hospitalization as an endpoint, you're basically dependent on self-reports. That's not to say I don't believe the conclusions -- they should survive this critique -- but there is reason to expect a little inflation of the ORs.
But don’t you risk long hauler symptoms or worse? Meaning, it’s an interesting datapoint but not a viable strategy.