Vaccine immunity better than natural immunity - newest study

Like I said, those who touted ONE study showing natural immunity as better than vaccine immunity (although they didn't even fully understand it, by not paying attention to the third group examined by that study, featuring people who had the illness AND got vaccinated, the best protection according to that study), should learn that science doesn't go by ONE study.

Other than the ones I've previously posted with an opposite conclusion, this latest one, published today, also has the opposite conclusion.

From the study:

"The adjusted odds of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 among unvaccinated adults with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection were 5.49-fold higher than the odds among fully vaccinated recipients of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine who had no previous documented infection."

The study's conclusion:

"What are the implications for public health practice? All eligible persons should be vaccinated against COVID-19 as soon as possible, including unvaccinated persons previously infected with SARS-CoV-2."

"The data demonstrate that vaccination can provide a higher, more robust, and more consistent level of immunity to protect people from hospitalization for COVID-19 than infection alone for at least 6 months."

The lay press article:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/vaccine-...han-natural-immunity-cdc-finds-201511956.html

The study:

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/pdfs/mm7044e1-H.pdf

@557 was asking one of these days for this kind of evidence. There you go, buddy.

 

Protection against hospitalization for 6 months? Sure. I think many other studies have shown similar results. What concerns me is what happens after 6 months. We’ve known since immunogenicity testing of the vaccines neutralizing antibodies are much higher initially in the vaccinated. It’s good to see this in the real world though. It’s more good evidence if you want to stay out of the hospital vaccination is a great means to that end.

 

What happens after 6 months? You get a booster. I'm scheduled for mine on November 9th.

 

Yep. For people not interested in hybrid immunity it better be 6 months or less. If the longevity is better after #3 I may get on the booster band wagon. I have serious reservations about twice yearly vaccination with any vaccine.

 

CDC can throw all kind of garbage.
They claim that only unvaccinated (90%) are dying from COVID.
So if we have about 100,000 deaths in August/ September (recent spike) then without vaccination we should have close to the million dead people in two months.
It does not sound realistic.

 

No that maths is definitely NOT realistic or even logical

it is relying on some pretty broad false assumptions not the least of which is that unvaccinated people follow other risk mitigation procedures such as mask wearing. To get the expected death rate for August September you would have to look at a comparative between August September last year when there were no vaccines available and august September this year doing a comparative of the death rate per infection rate and even then there would be so many caveats it would make the comparison laughable

 

No, I have to compare with previous spikes. The case/death ratio is approximately the same.
The effect of vaccine is still unknown if we just look at the large samples.

 

show me

 

https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html
US data

 

This study can certainly be indicative, but it does not necessarily prove anything.

Those who got infected in the first place may likely be more likely to be in areas or certain demographic groups which are more likely to get infected in the first place.

Did the study attempt to correct or compensate for that? I don't think so.

What this study might really be showing is that those who got infected before are more likely to get infected again.

Does this really necessarily say anything about the vaccine? I'm not so sure it does.

 

Another issue is that study did not appear to look at exactly when those patients got the vaccine. (Correct me if I am wrong)
It is possible that the protective effects of the vaccine could rapidly wear off.

 

Oh man...

"All authors have completed and submitted the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. Stephanie A. Irving reports support from Westat to Kaiser Permanente Northwest Center for Health Research. Nicola P. Klein reports support from Pfizer to Kaiser Permanente, Northern California for COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, and institutional support from Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, and Sanofi Pasteur outside the current study. Charlene McEvoy reports support from AstraZeneca to HealthPartners Institute for COVID-19 vaccine trials. Allison L. Naleway reports Pfizer Research funding to Kaiser Permanente Northwest for unrelated study of meningococcal B vaccine safety during pregnancy. Suchitra Rao reports grants from GlaxoSmithKline and Biofire Diagnostics. No other potential conflicts of interest were disclosed."

As long as the conflicts of interest are disclosed, I guess it doesn't matter...

 

But HERE is the case fatality ratio plotted over time
https://ourworldindata.org/mortality-risk-covid

But the data is still not clear because of multiple factors including recent cases in the USA have concentrated among geographic areas meaning the hospital systems have been overwhelmed and that in and of itself increases the mortality rate.

in fact it has been entertaining posting side by side maps of vaccinations and COVID infections and one has been a mirror image of the other

 

Sure as hell does not Inspire much confidence. After all 9 out of 10 scientists tend to agree with the people funding them.

 

I wonder if the headline had been 'Study funded by vaccine manufacturers finds their vaccines to be safe and effective' it would be as enthusiastically welcomed. And thats not fasceciousness... I truly do wonder.

 

That is because there was not a lot of testing has been done in earlier stages.
Sure, if we pull data from specific areas (small samples) we can get any kind of result.
If vaccine is working we should not see the pattern that we see.

But sure it could be that vaccinated people are dying without hospitalization.

 

Which is why I suggested we compare August Sept last year with the same period this year

https://www1.racgp.org.au/newsgp/clinical/new-us-study-shows-profound-impact-of-covid-19-vac

Your turn

 

Yep, somehow vaccinated are dying without hospitalizations.
The John Hopkins chart is pretty clear on it.

 

Of course YOU are not "sure it does" given that you're a notorious anti-vaxxer. But it does.

 

Nobody disputes that the protective effects of the vaccine wear off, thus the boosters, which so far have restored very high levels of protection, with no added side effects or fatality risks.

 

Conflicts of interest do NOT necessarily indicate bias. As a lay person, you are not familiar with biological research like I am (I've been doing it professionally for almost four decades). In any major medical center, it is virtually impossible to have absolutely no history of some sort of grant to which one of the pharma companies have contributed. So, if you think that having participated in a large organization's (like Kaiser Permanente) research project for an unrelated meningococcal B vaccine to which Pfizer contributed with some funds, means that the person who had this tinniest of links to the corporation years ago, will lie and engage in fraudulent research results now that Pfizer is one of multiple companies that makes a Covid-19 vaccine, this is UTTERLY AND COMPLETELY RIDICULOUS. For your information, there is such thing as people with integrity.

In my long career as a medical researcher, my disclosure list is long and includes all sorts of funding sources including pharma companies. Despite this, I've NEVER engaged in any data falsification or biased, fraudulent research. I have a reputation to take care of, and the bad apples among us who do engage in fraudulent research are routinely caught and disgraced, given that the international scientific community is very good at spotting suspicious data (like we did, for example, regarding the Sputnik V phase I data, and regarding some ivermectin studies). The percentage of fraudulent research (which does exist; like in all fields of human activity, there are bad apples) is extremely tiny. Months ago I looked at the percentage; I don't recall the exact number but it was a tiny fraction of 1% with a few zeros ahead of the number, after the decimal point.

 

No. First, read the post above. Then, read this: as usual you misinterpret everything. THIS study was not funded by vaccine manufacturers. The disclosures point to PAST research involving other studies. What part of "outside the current study" you don't understand? Stop distorting things to fit your views.

 

I'm not chasing a booster for the rest of my life. Sorry. That's just not gonna happen.

 

I understand only one of the reported conflicts of interest report that its 'outside the current study.' If they all were, they would've all said they were. I'm not distorting anything. I'm quoting your link.

Just because you don't skew your findings to secure future research funding doesn't mean others don't. Conflicts of interest are reported because they're suspicious and potentially undermine the accuracy of information provided. Bias is, of course, not guaranteed. But its certainly suggested.