3 ms·

The CDC press release you link to is misinformation. Its title is "New CDC Study: Vaccination Offers Higher Protection than Previous COVID-19 Infection". But

The CDC press release you link to is misinformation. Its title is "New CDC Study: Vaccination Offers Higher Protection than Previous COVID-19 Infection". But that is not what the study demonstrates. It demonstrates instead that getting vaccinated in addition to having had COVID-19 previously improves immunity. It does not demonstrate that people who are only vaccinated (not previously infected) have higher immunity than people who were prevously infected (and not vaccinated).

tfehring 5y ago
I completely agree with all of that. The press release is misleading, it was probably drafted in bad faith with the intent to mislead, and its title as stated is factually inaccurate and directly contradicts the balance of the available evidence from other research. I condemn all of that. However, it's worth emphasizing that none of that invalidates the parent commenter's claim that vaccination provides significant additional protection against reinfection for people who've already had COVID, as the study linked in the press release finds.
- angelzen 5y ago
  CDC has tainted epidemiological data by issuing guidance to exempt vaccinated people from testing unless symptomatic. Vaccinated asymptomatic cases were simply not counted for a period of time ending in late June 2021. I can't find the date when they issued the faulty guidance for a precise time interval, but any study comparing vaccinated / unvaccinated cases relying on US epidemiological data including May/June 2021 must sadly be considered tainted. https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/07/28/world/covid-delta-variant-vaccine https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/07/28/world/covid-delta-va...
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Retric 5y ago
It’s hardly hiding what’s being described, the very first sentence clarifies: In today’s MMWR, a study of COVID-19 infections in Kentucky among people who were previously infected with SAR-CoV-2 shows that unvaccinated individuals are more than twice as likely to be reinfected with COVID-19 than those who were fully vaccinated after initially contracting the virus. As to which is better, there are studies showing higher protection from vaccination alone than prior infection, and other showing the opposite. It’s complicated in part because the pandemic has been around for significant periods so the timing of infection vs vaccination matters. Further, infection doesn’t provide a uniform level of protection and of course the details get deep. https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(20)31235-6?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0092867420312356%3Fshowall%3Dtrue https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(20)31235-6?_re... And of course from a public health standpoint a positive Covid test isn’t guaranteed to represent an actual infection.
- throwoutway 5y ago
  > there are studies showing higher protection from vaccination alone than prior infection, and other showing the opposite. So you admit to listing one small study that states A while knowingly ignoring the other studies that argue the opposite? The NIH-funded study and Israel’s data are relevant counterpoints in this discussion.
  - Retric 5y ago
    It’s not just one small study for example here’s: Not all persons recovering from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection develop SARS-CoV-2–specific antibodies. https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/27/9/21-1042_article https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/27/9/21-1042_article I granted severe infections do result in a strong immune response, but simply having a positive test result isn’t the sign of long term immunity people assume. That said, surviving COVID also implies a healthy immune system which is a rather morbid example of survivorship bias.
    - throwoutway 5y ago
      > but simply having a positive test result isn’t the sign of long term immunity people assume You were overly dismissive in your first mention of this. Do you have data behind the tests being false positive? Multiple positive tests + symptoms are surely sufficient
      - Retric 5y ago
        That really depends on the tests and time period. False positive rates depend not just in the test but also the percentage of population infected. Unfortunately many people where diagnosed based on symptoms or a single test which was inaccurate. At the time telling someone to self isolate based on an inaccurate test and only preforming more accurate testing if they got really sick was considered acceptable. In a study of 14 of the approved tests, one of the tests gave false positives more than 15% of the time, and three others gave false positives more than 10% of the time. https://www.sfgate.com/coronavirus/article/which-COVID-19-tests-are-accurate-antibody-swab-15250911.php https://www.sfgate.com/coronavirus/article/which-COVID-19-te...

tfehring 5y ago

I completely agree with all of that. The press release is misleading, it was probably drafted in bad faith with the intent to mislead, and its title as stated is factually inaccurate and directly contradicts the balance of the available evidence from other research. I condemn all of that. However, it's worth emphasizing that none of that invalidates the parent commenter's claim that vaccination provides significant additional protection against reinfection for people who've already had COVID, as the study linked in the press release finds.

angelzen 5y ago
CDC has tainted epidemiological data by issuing guidance to exempt vaccinated people from testing unless symptomatic. Vaccinated asymptomatic cases were simply not counted for a period of time ending in late June 2021. I can't find the date when they issued the faulty guidance for a precise time interval, but any study comparing vaccinated / unvaccinated cases relying on US epidemiological data including May/June 2021 must sadly be considered tainted. https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/07/28/world/covid-delta-variant-vaccine https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/07/28/world/covid-delta-va...

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

Retric 5y ago

It’s hardly hiding what’s being described, the very first sentence clarifies: In today’s MMWR, a study of COVID-19 infections in Kentucky among people who were previously infected with SAR-CoV-2 shows that unvaccinated individuals are more than twice as likely to be reinfected with COVID-19 than those who were fully vaccinated after initially contracting the virus. As to which is better, there are studies showing higher protection from vaccination alone than prior infection, and other showing the opposite. It’s complicated in part because the pandemic has been around for significant periods so the timing of infection vs vaccination matters. Further, infection doesn’t provide a uniform level of protection and of course the details get deep. https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(20)31235-6?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0092867420312356%3Fshowall%3Dtrue https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(20)31235-6?_re... And of course from a public health standpoint a positive Covid test isn’t guaranteed to represent an actual infection.

throwoutway 5y ago
> there are studies showing higher protection from vaccination alone than prior infection, and other showing the opposite. So you admit to listing one small study that states A while knowingly ignoring the other studies that argue the opposite? The NIH-funded study and Israel’s data are relevant counterpoints in this discussion.
- Retric 5y ago
  It’s not just one small study for example here’s: Not all persons recovering from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection develop SARS-CoV-2–specific antibodies. https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/27/9/21-1042_article https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/27/9/21-1042_article I granted severe infections do result in a strong immune response, but simply having a positive test result isn’t the sign of long term immunity people assume. That said, surviving COVID also implies a healthy immune system which is a rather morbid example of survivorship bias.
  - throwoutway 5y ago
    > but simply having a positive test result isn’t the sign of long term immunity people assume You were overly dismissive in your first mention of this. Do you have data behind the tests being false positive? Multiple positive tests + symptoms are surely sufficient
    - Retric 5y ago
      That really depends on the tests and time period. False positive rates depend not just in the test but also the percentage of population infected. Unfortunately many people where diagnosed based on symptoms or a single test which was inaccurate. At the time telling someone to self isolate based on an inaccurate test and only preforming more accurate testing if they got really sick was considered acceptable. In a study of 14 of the approved tests, one of the tests gave false positives more than 15% of the time, and three others gave false positives more than 10% of the time. https://www.sfgate.com/coronavirus/article/which-COVID-19-tests-are-accurate-antibody-swab-15250911.php https://www.sfgate.com/coronavirus/article/which-COVID-19-te...