4 ms·

Your second link is the unpublished, widely criticized study I was referring to. Even taken at a face value, it does not indicate infection-acquired immunity is

Your second link is the unpublished, widely criticized study I was referring to. Even taken at a face value, it does not indicate infection-acquired immunity is longer lasting, only more robust. None of the other links indicate infection-acquired immunity is more robust or longer lasting than vaccine-acquired. Only that there is some lasting immunity in some people.

disambiguation 5y ago
i'm curious to learn more about the discussion and criticism surrounding the 2nd link, if you'd be so kind as to share such resources true, none of the other links are directly comparative to vaccine efficacy. my claim is in the context that _other_ studies show vaccine efficacy drops off after 6 months. https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2021-11-04/study-shows-dramatic-decline-in-effectiveness-of-covid-19-vaccines https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2021-11-04/study-shows... overall im trying to make 2 points 1. many (all?) of the vaccine efficacy studies omit data for candidates who received the vaccine 6+ months prior to the time of study. 2. the vaccine is redundant for those with prior infection.
- phonypc 5y ago
  I'm perhaps being hyperbolic when I say widely criticized, but here's one critical take: https://twitter.com/DGBassani/status/1431390188924768269 https://twitter.com/DGBassani/status/1431390188924768269 Or take a quote from this article: https://www.science.org/content/article/having-sars-cov-2-once-confers-much-greater-immunity-vaccine-vaccination-remains-vital https://www.science.org/content/article/having-sars-cov-2-on... >“The biggest limitation in the study is that testing [for SARS-CoV-2 infection] is still a voluntary thing—it’s not part of the study design.” That means, she says, that comparisons could be confounded if, for example, previously infected people who developed mild symptoms were less likely to get tested than vaccinated people, perhaps because they think they are immune. I don't think your point 2. should be taken for granted. From the conclusion of the contested study: >Individuals who were both previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta variant.
  - disambiguation 5y ago
    > gained additional protection against the Delta variant. we've officially come full circle! my original complaint is that these studies all baseline against candidates that were vaccinated within the 6 months prior to publishing. the gained improvement is already marginal in this scenario, but if the improvement diminishes even further, then it's hard to justify a mandate.
    - phonypc 5y ago
      I don't understand. Yes, many of the vaccine effectiveness studies are limited by the window of time they use. That's a separate issue from vaccines being redundant for previously infected people. Studies show that previously infected people still benefit from vaccination.
      - disambiguation 5y ago
        yes, the studies show it's better .. in a 6 month time frame. after that, who knows?

disambiguation 5y ago

i'm curious to learn more about the discussion and criticism surrounding the 2nd link, if you'd be so kind as to share such resources true, none of the other links are directly comparative to vaccine efficacy. my claim is in the context that _other_ studies show vaccine efficacy drops off after 6 months. https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2021-11-04/study-shows-dramatic-decline-in-effectiveness-of-covid-19-vaccines https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2021-11-04/study-shows... overall im trying to make 2 points 1. many (all?) of the vaccine efficacy studies omit data for candidates who received the vaccine 6+ months prior to the time of study. 2. the vaccine is redundant for those with prior infection.

phonypc 5y ago
I'm perhaps being hyperbolic when I say widely criticized, but here's one critical take: https://twitter.com/DGBassani/status/1431390188924768269 https://twitter.com/DGBassani/status/1431390188924768269 Or take a quote from this article: https://www.science.org/content/article/having-sars-cov-2-once-confers-much-greater-immunity-vaccine-vaccination-remains-vital https://www.science.org/content/article/having-sars-cov-2-on... >“The biggest limitation in the study is that testing [for SARS-CoV-2 infection] is still a voluntary thing—it’s not part of the study design.” That means, she says, that comparisons could be confounded if, for example, previously infected people who developed mild symptoms were less likely to get tested than vaccinated people, perhaps because they think they are immune. I don't think your point 2. should be taken for granted. From the conclusion of the contested study: >Individuals who were both previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta variant.
- disambiguation 5y ago
  > gained additional protection against the Delta variant. we've officially come full circle! my original complaint is that these studies all baseline against candidates that were vaccinated within the 6 months prior to publishing. the gained improvement is already marginal in this scenario, but if the improvement diminishes even further, then it's hard to justify a mandate.
  - phonypc 5y ago
    I don't understand. Yes, many of the vaccine effectiveness studies are limited by the window of time they use. That's a separate issue from vaccines being redundant for previously infected people. Studies show that previously infected people still benefit from vaccination.
    - disambiguation 5y ago
      yes, the studies show it's better .. in a 6 month time frame. after that, who knows?