Its a pretty cool app to be fair considering how much people pay for healthcare in other countries having the ability to order prescriptions and make appointments + view your own medical records all FOC is nice.
So what research suggests that having had COVID 19 produces sufficient antibodies or T Cell memory or whatever the mechanism(s) are that provide equivalent âprotectionâ as the current vaccines?
Granted the different vaccines have different levels of efficacy, or to use the more loaded term, âleaky-nessâ.
I thought I saw something from the CDC about how having had covid plus vaccine provided MORE protection, but Iâm not looking that up right now.
Iâll have to check the status.
âPeer reviewedâ status is still a bit of bullshit, if it is claimed for much of the pandemic research.
There has not been enough time.
So, pre-prints in name, and poorly peer reviewed studies as a function of limited time, are pretty much what we have.
I read the stuff on Israel and it seamed more like data than studies .
As they are the most vaccinated nation in the world and earliest to achieve such large percentage they have data on those being infected after being vaccinated compared to those that got natural infections .
Their infection numbers have gone threw the roof recently so they know quite clearly if vaccinated people are getting infected more than pre infected people without a vaccine .
The reason for the boosters is because the earliest people to get the vaccine were the ones getting infected and also made up the larger percentage of hospitalisation and deaths due the reduction in protection over time .
As those people are the most vulnerable it makes sense to get them a booster rather than let them attempt to obtain natural immunity with what they already have .
I think the UK have differing data because after the first few months they started putting a 2-3months gap between the first and second jab.
This seams to have helped considerably although not so much for the extremely vulnerable over 80s who were the first to get the shots within a few weeks of each other before the policy change .
I might add that Pfizer disagreed with the UK policy at the time .
Iâm no gambling man or pharmaceutical scientist but Iâd bet the vaccines arenât having the desired effects on the T Cell memory that natural infections has .
Has there been any variance in outcomes, between those in the UK that get corrective dental work, and the majority of the UK, who keep their teeth like Polynesian devil masks to ward off the evil spirits that cause sickness?
Of course but they are presenting it in a different way to make it more palatable âCovid has disproportionately effected those in the low income bracket â
But we all know they mean the snaggle toothed amount us.
The UK government website now says that with a positive PCR test you can have a pass for 6 months .
Your Government is saying it wanes after 90 days ?
And that vaccines offer better immunity?
Iâd love to see if somebody can support that bullshit because on the face of it one can only assume somebody is getting envelopes from vaccine makers .
Again vaccines are amazing , saving millions of lives , I have them would have them again , but come on saying they are superior to natural immunity when the data seams to imply the opposite as does common sense is a stretch .
From what I have read the vaccine gives antibodies against 2 antigens where as the infection immunity would protect against 20 .
Looks like the T/B cells likely react the same for both vaccine and natural infection .
âWhen somebody is naturally immune, like, they got COVID, they probably have better - not better, but more antibodies against the virus,â says Mr. Karl in the hidden-camera footage. âBecause what the vaccine is, like I said, that protein thatâs just on the outside, so itâs one antibody against one specific part of the virus.â
He went on: âWhen you actually get the virus, youâre going to start producing antibodies against multiple pieces of virus, and not only just like that outside portion, like, the inside portion, the actual virus.â
â673,676 MHS members 16 years and older were eligible for the study group of fully vaccinated SARS-CoV-2-naĂŻve individuals; 62,883 were eligible for the study group of unvaccinated previously infected individuals and 42,099 individuals were eligible for the study group of previously infected and single-dose vaccinees.â
Results âSARS-CoV-2-naĂŻve vaccinees had a 13.06-fold (95% CI, 8.08 to 21.11) increased risk for breakthrough infection with the Delta variant compared to those previously infected, when the first event (infection or vaccination) occurred during January and February of 2021. The increased risk was significant ( P <0.001) for symptomatic disease as well. When allowing the infection to occur at any time before vaccination (from March 2020 to February 2021), evidence of waning natural immunity was demonstrated, though SARS-CoV-2 naĂŻve vaccinees had a 5.96-fold (95% CI, 4.85 to 7.33) increased risk for breakthrough infection and a 7.13-fold (95% CI, 5.51 to 9.21) increased risk for symptomatic disease. SARS-CoV-2-naĂŻve vaccinees were also at a greater risk for COVID-19-related-hospitalizations compared to those that were previously infected.â
Conclusions âThis study demonstrated that natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity. Individuals who were both previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta variant.â
In any case, a much more relevant, and perhaps more scientific question, is where are the studies that show that natural immunity from a prior infection was not as good as the immunity from the various vaccine flavors, or not âgood enoughâ if anyone is making the claim that people who have had prior infections should or must get vaccinated, especially if antibodies are shown to be present from that prior infection.
Because the burden of scientific proof for that claim is clearly on the people who claim that immunity from prior natural infection is not sufficient, and this is a not a monopoly money matter.
Now this pre-print, does suggest that having both at least one shot of the Pfizer AND a prior infection provides better immunity than just being vaccinated or just having a prior infection.
But it also suggests, that there is evidence that prior natural infection may provide better immunity than the Pfizer vaccinations.
Other vaccines may vary, more data over time needed, may not account for other infection mitigation protocols in place with the various populations studied, or future as yet not encountered variants, yadda-yadda-yadda usual caveats and limitations, etc.
Looks like Pfizer might be the crap one after all.
IIRC the dose of the Pfizer is much smaller than the dose from the other vaccines which I can only hazard a guess and say is likely due to side effects/effectiveness calculation.
So maybe that is why it appears to be failing quicker than the AstraZeneca.
From what I can see the US government are saying that the immunity following infection varies from person to person which is why the vaccine is needed.
One might argue that so does the immunity from the vaccine and also ask what the risk of serious illness following infection due to not having enough immunity from a prior infection was vs the risk of having the vaccine?
Serious side effects are rare but id wager so also are serious illness with a second infection so the argument has significantly less merit without the comparative data.
The more I read into this the more I am getting the Boeing 737 Max and the FAA vibe from Pfizer and your CDC.
Be it corruption or incompetence there does seam to be something.