4 ms·

You're more than twice as likely to be reinfected if you have immunity through previous infection. Vaccine protection is significantly better. https://www.news

You're more than twice as likely to be reinfected if you have immunity through previous infection. Vaccine protection is significantly better. https://www.news-medical.net/news/20210811/COVID-19-vaccines-offer-better-protection-than-natural-immunity-alone.aspx https://www.news-medical.net/news/20210811/COVID-19-vaccines...

js290 5y ago
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1420130581426364416.html https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1420130581426364416.html
- tstrimple 5y ago
  Cool, you counter a news article backed by a study with a tweet backed by screenshots of headlines. Seems totally reasonable.
  - raphlinus 5y ago
    Not only that, but a tweet from someone who has earned the title, "the pandemic's wrongest man". ETA: And to critique the substance and not the messenger, I have tried to track down any publication of the Israeli Health Ministry that contains data supporting this claim, and have failed to do so. All traces lead to a story in the Israel National News, which gives no specifics about the source of the data, just lots of numbers to support the conclusion that vaccines don't work well. There's a good chance all this is just fabricated. If you can cite a report by the Israeli Health Ministry and provide an analysis supporting the claim that doesn't contain an obvious statistical error (wrong denominator being the one I suspect), then I will apologize abjectly and donate $1000 to the charity of your choice. [1]: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/04/pandemics-wrongest-man/618475/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/04/pandemics-...
    - JPKab 5y ago
      Thank you for recognizing the ad-hominem nature of your initial sentence and moving on to engaging on the argument. This is far more convincing and made your comment far more credible.
  - js290 5y ago
    you're a "hacker"... use the interwebz to find the original study... or do you need Snopes to do that for you?
hccgh 5y ago
Who is the one linking sketchy sources and implying people do their own research, now?
mattowen_uk 5y ago
I seriously doubt this is correct. Covid has 3 protein markers. After you get infected your antibodies will continue to recognise all three. However the vaccines don't have all three, so the antibodies generated are not as all encompassing as they would be if you contracted Covid. Therefore, if it doesn't kill you, having Covid puts you in a better position to fight off variants. At least that's how I understand it from all the articles I read about the various vaccines, that said, IANAD, so don't take this post as medical advice.
- tstrimple 5y ago
  Speculation from a random stranger on the internet, or a study showing results? I'll take the study with the results. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm?s_cid=mm7032e1_w https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm?s_cid=mm...
  - joshuakelly 5y ago
    After this legitimation crisis, sorry, but articulate strangers are often the best way to "read the headlines upside down" - a necessary fact of life now.
  - vaidhy 5y ago
    This study talks about reinfection for vaccinated patients and not about reinfection of unvaccinated patients. This does not seem to contradict the parent comment.
  - JPKab 5y ago
    You might want to look at the multiple peer reviewed studies I posted in a different reply, because you are spreading misinformation. There is a big public health motivation (completely understandable) for why they don't talk much about natural immunity. A lot of people, my lovable but dumb as a rock sister included, who had some symptoms after socializing with people who end up testing positive, who never got the test themselves. They just assume they were infected. We definitely don't want these people to skip the vaccines. But again, managing the behavior of morons is a separate activity from determining the actual truth of the matter.
sp332 5y ago
among people who were previously infected This says that a combination of having been infected and vaccinated is better than just having been infected.
JPKab 5y ago
There are multiple longitudinal studies with large cohorts whose conclusions completely disagree. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.20.21255670v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.20.21255670v... https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.01.21258176v2 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.01.21258176v... https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)00675-9/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/341241 https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/341241 The meta-conclusion is that natural immunity is at least as effective as the Pfizer/Moderna, and more protective than the J&J vaccine. There isn't a collection of billion dollar multi-national pharma companies pushing studies on natural immunity, nor are public health experts talking about it, creating a false impression in the mind of the public. Trust me, I got the "redneck vaccine" in February, before I was eligible for the real vaccines. I still haven't recovered all of my sense of smell, and don't recommend it. That being said, I am also at increased risk of complications from the vaccine due to having a sky-high level of antibodies in my blood according to my doctor. I visit him monthly, and at his recommendation I will be getting the shot as soon as the antibodies wane. Edit: Here is clinical evidence of worse side effects for previously infected individuals getting vaccinated https://www.google.com/url?q=https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33803014/&sa=D&source=editors&ust=1628183637212000&usg=AOvVaw3UReVK7UIK0Xd9WEMdxMsE https://www.google.com/url?q=https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... Really obnoxious that my comment is getting downvoted with no rebuttals.

js290 5y ago

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1420130581426364416.html https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1420130581426364416.html

tstrimple 5y ago
Cool, you counter a news article backed by a study with a tweet backed by screenshots of headlines. Seems totally reasonable.
- raphlinus 5y ago
  Not only that, but a tweet from someone who has earned the title, "the pandemic's wrongest man". ETA: And to critique the substance and not the messenger, I have tried to track down any publication of the Israeli Health Ministry that contains data supporting this claim, and have failed to do so. All traces lead to a story in the Israel National News, which gives no specifics about the source of the data, just lots of numbers to support the conclusion that vaccines don't work well. There's a good chance all this is just fabricated. If you can cite a report by the Israeli Health Ministry and provide an analysis supporting the claim that doesn't contain an obvious statistical error (wrong denominator being the one I suspect), then I will apologize abjectly and donate $1000 to the charity of your choice. [1]: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/04/pandemics-wrongest-man/618475/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/04/pandemics-...
  - JPKab 5y ago
    Thank you for recognizing the ad-hominem nature of your initial sentence and moving on to engaging on the argument. This is far more convincing and made your comment far more credible.
- js290 5y ago
  you're a "hacker"... use the interwebz to find the original study... or do you need Snopes to do that for you?

hccgh 5y ago

Who is the one linking sketchy sources and implying people do their own research, now?

mattowen_uk 5y ago

I seriously doubt this is correct. Covid has 3 protein markers. After you get infected your antibodies will continue to recognise all three. However the vaccines don't have all three, so the antibodies generated are not as all encompassing as they would be if you contracted Covid. Therefore, if it doesn't kill you, having Covid puts you in a better position to fight off variants. At least that's how I understand it from all the articles I read about the various vaccines, that said, IANAD, so don't take this post as medical advice.

tstrimple 5y ago
Speculation from a random stranger on the internet, or a study showing results? I'll take the study with the results. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm?s_cid=mm7032e1_w https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm?s_cid=mm...
- joshuakelly 5y ago
  After this legitimation crisis, sorry, but articulate strangers are often the best way to "read the headlines upside down" - a necessary fact of life now.
- vaidhy 5y ago
  This study talks about reinfection for vaccinated patients and not about reinfection of unvaccinated patients. This does not seem to contradict the parent comment.
- JPKab 5y ago
  You might want to look at the multiple peer reviewed studies I posted in a different reply, because you are spreading misinformation. There is a big public health motivation (completely understandable) for why they don't talk much about natural immunity. A lot of people, my lovable but dumb as a rock sister included, who had some symptoms after socializing with people who end up testing positive, who never got the test themselves. They just assume they were infected. We definitely don't want these people to skip the vaccines. But again, managing the behavior of morons is a separate activity from determining the actual truth of the matter.

sp332 5y ago

among people who were previously infected This says that a combination of having been infected and vaccinated is better than just having been infected.

JPKab 5y ago

There are multiple longitudinal studies with large cohorts whose conclusions completely disagree. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.20.21255670v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.20.21255670v... https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.01.21258176v2 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.01.21258176v... https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)00675-9/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/341241 https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/341241 The meta-conclusion is that natural immunity is at least as effective as the Pfizer/Moderna, and more protective than the J&J vaccine. There isn't a collection of billion dollar multi-national pharma companies pushing studies on natural immunity, nor are public health experts talking about it, creating a false impression in the mind of the public. Trust me, I got the "redneck vaccine" in February, before I was eligible for the real vaccines. I still haven't recovered all of my sense of smell, and don't recommend it. That being said, I am also at increased risk of complications from the vaccine due to having a sky-high level of antibodies in my blood according to my doctor. I visit him monthly, and at his recommendation I will be getting the shot as soon as the antibodies wane. Edit: Here is clinical evidence of worse side effects for previously infected individuals getting vaccinated https://www.google.com/url?q=https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33803014/&sa=D&source=editors&ust=1628183637212000&usg=AOvVaw3UReVK7UIK0Xd9WEMdxMsE https://www.google.com/url?q=https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... Really obnoxious that my comment is getting downvoted with no rebuttals.