3 ms·

Your claim that natural immunity superiority is a myth is based on which scientific principles? Please throw all the science you can at me, I am genuinely inter

Your claim that natural immunity superiority is a myth is based on which scientific principles? Please throw all the science you can at me, I am genuinely interested. Also, I'm curious if you read the studies you're linking to? This is literally the conclusion from link #8 >This 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.

Pyramus 5y ago
Please re-read what I wrote: It's BS to call natural immunity superior for the reasons of being "natural" or because "vaccines only encode the spike protein". There is no black and white argument why natural immunity should be superior - it can be worse, similar or better than vaccine-induced immunity. It all depends on the amount of viral particles you were exposed to in the first place. Any study that compares natural immunity to vaccine-induced has to deal with a selection bias (as stated in the quote by somebody who is a professional at designing such studies). Let me know if that clears things up.
- passivate 5y ago
  >There is no black and white argument why natural immunity should be superior - it can be worse, similar or better than vaccine-induced immunity. It all depends on the amount of viral particles you were exposed to in the first place. Logical arguments for a position don't equate to empirical truths. Data is preferred over argument/opinion. >Any study that compares natural immunity to vaccine-induced has to deal with a selection bias (as stated in the quote by somebody who is a professional at designing such studies). Do you have any evidence that the study you linked to is biased? If so, why even link to it? In any case, I think this thread is not going anywhere, so I will just let you have the last word.

Pyramus 5y ago

Please re-read what I wrote: It's BS to call natural immunity superior for the reasons of being "natural" or because "vaccines only encode the spike protein". There is no black and white argument why natural immunity should be superior - it can be worse, similar or better than vaccine-induced immunity. It all depends on the amount of viral particles you were exposed to in the first place. Any study that compares natural immunity to vaccine-induced has to deal with a selection bias (as stated in the quote by somebody who is a professional at designing such studies). Let me know if that clears things up.

passivate 5y ago
>There is no black and white argument why natural immunity should be superior - it can be worse, similar or better than vaccine-induced immunity. It all depends on the amount of viral particles you were exposed to in the first place. Logical arguments for a position don't equate to empirical truths. Data is preferred over argument/opinion. >Any study that compares natural immunity to vaccine-induced has to deal with a selection bias (as stated in the quote by somebody who is a professional at designing such studies). Do you have any evidence that the study you linked to is biased? If so, why even link to it? In any case, I think this thread is not going anywhere, so I will just let you have the last word.