6 ms·

Vaccination protects against Covid-19 more strongly than prior infection, study

40 points by IgorPartola 5y ago

zxcb1 5y ago
For which risk group?
- hammock 5y ago
  They don't specify. They looked at hospitalized cases only. Chances are they are almost all elderly, who are 90+% vaccinated anyway. No specific mention of very low-risk groups such as children 5-11 (which are THE lowest-risk group), and no mention of the risk-benefit tradeoff related to adverse events. Rather, we find a blanket "everyone should get vaccinated" normative statement clouding an otherwise interesting study.
ghoward 5y ago
I admit that every time I see a CDC study, I wonder if they began the study with their desired end in mind. The CDC has admitted that they lied multiple times; why should I believe their studies? Edit: I see that this study did begin with the desired end in mind because they have a blurb titled "What are the implications for public health practice?" that says: > All eligible persons should be vaccinated against COVID-19 as soon as possible, including unvaccinated persons previously infected with SARS-CoV-2. In other words, these "scientists" decided to comment on public policy in their study. Such an act makes it extremely suspect for several reasons, not least of which the scientists are making a political statement in what is supposed to be a scientific study.
- IgorPartola 5y ago
  What study did they admit to lying about?
  - ghoward 5y ago
    Not a study, but they admitted to lying. They lied about masks. They lied about what percentage of people need to be vaccinated for herd immunity. I'm sure there's more.
    - sturza 5y ago
      Did the people involved with this particular study admit to previous lies?
      - ghoward 5y ago
        Does that matter? No! It was a study commissioned by an organization I don't trust anymore because they lost that trust. But even if I did trust these scientists before, I don't know that they decided to put a political statement in a scientific study. The only agenda scientists should have is truth.
      - pawelmurias 5y ago
        Would you fully trust a study done by scientists hired by Fox News or the CNN?
        IgorPartola 5y ago
        FWIW Fox has some of the highest rated political polling as per 538. And I personally think their news is garbage.
    - mint2 5y ago
      Lying about percentage needed to reach herd immunity?! I’m not actually familiar with the claims this is directed at, but due to the changing circumstance with more transmissible variants and not even 100% of data on the original, it’s hard to take a comment like that seriously. Being incorrect or becoming no longer correct due to changed circumstances doesn’t make a claim a lie or the person making it a liar.
      - b0sk 5y ago
bhelkey 5y ago
There was a study earlier this year which had the opposite findings [1]. This study addressed the discrepancy: > these findings differ from those of a retrospective records-based cohort study in Israel, which did not find higher protection for vaccinated adults compared with those with previous infection during a period of Delta variant circulation. This variation is possibly related to differences in the outcome of interest and restrictions on the timing of vaccination. The Israeli cohort study assessed any positive SARS-CoV-2 test result, whereas this study examined laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 among hospitalized patients. The Israeli cohort study also only examined vaccinations that had occurred 6 months earlier, so the benefit of more recent vaccination was not examined. This report focused on the early protection from infection-induced and vaccine-induced immunity, though it is possible that estimates could be affected by time. [1] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1%20 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v...
- hammock 5y ago
  >There was a study earlier this year which had the opposite findings [1]. This study addressed the discrepancy They did address the one study from Israel. They did not address the nearly 20 other studies also done which share its conclusion that natural immunity is at least as powerful as a jab.
- radu_floricica 5y ago
  So best case scenario, vaccines only win short term?
  - Arnt 5y ago
    No, that's an unsound conclusion. That assumes that all the unobserved kinds of cases are like the those in the Israeli study and not like those in this. The sound conclusion is: "This seems to be complicated; further study needed."
    - radu_floricica 5y ago
      Yes, but in a bayesian sense, what are we updating toward? So far everything indicates that disease has better imunity long term.
rolph 5y ago
near the end of the summary are some numbers "Laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection was identified among 324 (5.1%) of 6,328 fully vaccinated persons and among 89 of 1,020 (8.7%) unvaccinated, previously infected persons. A higher proportion of previously infected than vaccinated patients were aged 18–49 years (31% versus 9%), Black (10% versus 7%), and Hispanic (19% versus 12%)." https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7044e1.htm#T1_down https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7044e1.htm#T1_down https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7044e1.htm#T2_down https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7044e1.htm#T2_down this study was conducted across nine states using hospitalization rates as data source betweeen Jan-Sept 2021
- makomk 5y ago
  Hmmmm. The obvious question here is, did the previously-infected group catch Covid-19 more because we're selecting for people who're at higher risk of catching Covid-19, for example because of their job or some other similar external factor? Those differences are not reassuring on this area, and they suggest another question: is the actual reason a higher proportion of hospitalized people test negative for Covid-19 amongst those who're vaccinated because those who are at higher risk of being hospitalized for other reasons are more likely to get vaccinated?
  - bigodbiel 5y ago
    This reminds me of the recent study where vaccinated people had less non-covid related deaths than non vaccinated. Obviously this isn’t because of the vaccine but demographics of each group, such as healthcare access. Having access to healthcare, for example, makes one more likely to seek medical help at the briefest presentation of illness. Being the latter more common among the vaccinated, analyzing for positive cases only among hospitalizations for “covid-like symptoms” is extremely disingenuous.
disambiguation 5y ago
interesting how the natural immunity crowd surged in April/May (a nice normal distribution) while the vaccinated crowd is surging in July/August, near the tail end of the survey. given the decreasing efficacy of vaccines over time, it's disappointing to see the same old "6 month" cut-off, as well as no regard for normalizing over time.
airmailspecial 5y ago
>aORs and 95% CIs were calculated using multivariable logistic regression, adjusted for age, geographic region, calendar time (days from January 1 to hospitalization), and local virus circulation, and weighted based on propensity to be in the vaccinated category (1,2). What does it mean to adjust for local virus circulation in this context?
peteradio 5y ago
Is "presenting covid-like symptoms" a prerequesite for inclusion into this study? That seems like a goofy denominator. If I'm in the hospital with covid-like symptoms what do I care whether its covid or some other easily transmissable respiratory virus?
- bhelkey 5y ago
  From TFA, >Eligible hospitalizations were defined as those among adults aged ≥18 years who had received SARS-CoV-2 molecular testing (from 14 days before to 72 hours after admission) and had a COVID-19–like illness discharge diagnosis† during January–September 2021
  - peteradio 5y ago
    Ok I take that as a yes then? So what is that really telling us then? If you are already in the hospital and are vaccinated then its less likely that you have covid than in the alternate universe where you are in the hospital but unvaccinated. That seems useless. I guess I don't understand it. How good is the vaccine vs immunity at keeping people out of the hospital? Or preventing death? Those are the fundamentals we would obviously care about and neither can be derived from this study. Yet the study will be presented as if it illuminates those fundamentals
jsisto 5y ago
Horowitz: 15 studies that indicate natural immunity from prior infection is more robust than the COVID vaccines https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/horowitz-15-studies-that-indicate-natural-immunity-from-prior-infection-is-more-robust-than-the-covid-vaccines https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/horowitz-15-studies-that-indi...
peteradio 5y ago
This title is not close to the paper title and is not close to a fair representation of what this study reports.

40 points by IgorPartola 5y ago

zxcb1 5y ago

For which risk group?

hammock 5y ago
They don't specify. They looked at hospitalized cases only. Chances are they are almost all elderly, who are 90+% vaccinated anyway. No specific mention of very low-risk groups such as children 5-11 (which are THE lowest-risk group), and no mention of the risk-benefit tradeoff related to adverse events. Rather, we find a blanket "everyone should get vaccinated" normative statement clouding an otherwise interesting study.

ghoward 5y ago

I admit that every time I see a CDC study, I wonder if they began the study with their desired end in mind. The CDC has admitted that they lied multiple times; why should I believe their studies? Edit: I see that this study did begin with the desired end in mind because they have a blurb titled "What are the implications for public health practice?" that says: > All eligible persons should be vaccinated against COVID-19 as soon as possible, including unvaccinated persons previously infected with SARS-CoV-2. In other words, these "scientists" decided to comment on public policy in their study. Such an act makes it extremely suspect for several reasons, not least of which the scientists are making a political statement in what is supposed to be a scientific study.

IgorPartola 5y ago
What study did they admit to lying about?
- ghoward 5y ago
  Not a study, but they admitted to lying. They lied about masks. They lied about what percentage of people need to be vaccinated for herd immunity. I'm sure there's more.
  - sturza 5y ago
    Did the people involved with this particular study admit to previous lies?
    - ghoward 5y ago
      Does that matter? No! It was a study commissioned by an organization I don't trust anymore because they lost that trust. But even if I did trust these scientists before, I don't know that they decided to put a political statement in a scientific study. The only agenda scientists should have is truth.
    - pawelmurias 5y ago
      Would you fully trust a study done by scientists hired by Fox News or the CNN?
      - IgorPartola 5y ago
        FWIW Fox has some of the highest rated political polling as per 538. And I personally think their news is garbage.
  - mint2 5y ago
    Lying about percentage needed to reach herd immunity?! I’m not actually familiar with the claims this is directed at, but due to the changing circumstance with more transmissible variants and not even 100% of data on the original, it’s hard to take a comment like that seriously. Being incorrect or becoming no longer correct due to changed circumstances doesn’t make a claim a lie or the person making it a liar.
    - b0sk 5y ago

bhelkey 5y ago

There was a study earlier this year which had the opposite findings [1]. This study addressed the discrepancy: > these findings differ from those of a retrospective records-based cohort study in Israel, which did not find higher protection for vaccinated adults compared with those with previous infection during a period of Delta variant circulation. This variation is possibly related to differences in the outcome of interest and restrictions on the timing of vaccination. The Israeli cohort study assessed any positive SARS-CoV-2 test result, whereas this study examined laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 among hospitalized patients. The Israeli cohort study also only examined vaccinations that had occurred 6 months earlier, so the benefit of more recent vaccination was not examined. This report focused on the early protection from infection-induced and vaccine-induced immunity, though it is possible that estimates could be affected by time. [1] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1%20 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v...

hammock 5y ago
>There was a study earlier this year which had the opposite findings [1]. This study addressed the discrepancy They did address the one study from Israel. They did not address the nearly 20 other studies also done which share its conclusion that natural immunity is at least as powerful as a jab.
radu_floricica 5y ago
So best case scenario, vaccines only win short term?
- Arnt 5y ago
  No, that's an unsound conclusion. That assumes that all the unobserved kinds of cases are like the those in the Israeli study and not like those in this. The sound conclusion is: "This seems to be complicated; further study needed."
  - radu_floricica 5y ago
    Yes, but in a bayesian sense, what are we updating toward? So far everything indicates that disease has better imunity long term.

rolph 5y ago

near the end of the summary are some numbers "Laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection was identified among 324 (5.1%) of 6,328 fully vaccinated persons and among 89 of 1,020 (8.7%) unvaccinated, previously infected persons. A higher proportion of previously infected than vaccinated patients were aged 18–49 years (31% versus 9%), Black (10% versus 7%), and Hispanic (19% versus 12%)." https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7044e1.htm#T1_down https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7044e1.htm#T1_down https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7044e1.htm#T2_down https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7044e1.htm#T2_down this study was conducted across nine states using hospitalization rates as data source betweeen Jan-Sept 2021

makomk 5y ago
Hmmmm. The obvious question here is, did the previously-infected group catch Covid-19 more because we're selecting for people who're at higher risk of catching Covid-19, for example because of their job or some other similar external factor? Those differences are not reassuring on this area, and they suggest another question: is the actual reason a higher proportion of hospitalized people test negative for Covid-19 amongst those who're vaccinated because those who are at higher risk of being hospitalized for other reasons are more likely to get vaccinated?
- bigodbiel 5y ago
  This reminds me of the recent study where vaccinated people had less non-covid related deaths than non vaccinated. Obviously this isn’t because of the vaccine but demographics of each group, such as healthcare access. Having access to healthcare, for example, makes one more likely to seek medical help at the briefest presentation of illness. Being the latter more common among the vaccinated, analyzing for positive cases only among hospitalizations for “covid-like symptoms” is extremely disingenuous.

disambiguation 5y ago

interesting how the natural immunity crowd surged in April/May (a nice normal distribution) while the vaccinated crowd is surging in July/August, near the tail end of the survey. given the decreasing efficacy of vaccines over time, it's disappointing to see the same old "6 month" cut-off, as well as no regard for normalizing over time.

airmailspecial 5y ago

>aORs and 95% CIs were calculated using multivariable logistic regression, adjusted for age, geographic region, calendar time (days from January 1 to hospitalization), and local virus circulation, and weighted based on propensity to be in the vaccinated category (1,2). What does it mean to adjust for local virus circulation in this context?

peteradio 5y ago

Is "presenting covid-like symptoms" a prerequesite for inclusion into this study? That seems like a goofy denominator. If I'm in the hospital with covid-like symptoms what do I care whether its covid or some other easily transmissable respiratory virus?

bhelkey 5y ago
From TFA, >Eligible hospitalizations were defined as those among adults aged ≥18 years who had received SARS-CoV-2 molecular testing (from 14 days before to 72 hours after admission) and had a COVID-19–like illness discharge diagnosis† during January–September 2021
- peteradio 5y ago
  Ok I take that as a yes then? So what is that really telling us then? If you are already in the hospital and are vaccinated then its less likely that you have covid than in the alternate universe where you are in the hospital but unvaccinated. That seems useless. I guess I don't understand it. How good is the vaccine vs immunity at keeping people out of the hospital? Or preventing death? Those are the fundamentals we would obviously care about and neither can be derived from this study. Yet the study will be presented as if it illuminates those fundamentals

jsisto 5y ago

Horowitz: 15 studies that indicate natural immunity from prior infection is more robust than the COVID vaccines https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/horowitz-15-studies-that-indicate-natural-immunity-from-prior-infection-is-more-robust-than-the-covid-vaccines https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/horowitz-15-studies-that-indi...

peteradio 5y ago

This title is not close to the paper title and is not close to a fair representation of what this study reports.