4 ms·

I agree. However I am fed up with the cdc, youtube, facebook and others trying to control the narrative in any way they can. For instance not considering past i

I agree. However I am fed up with the cdc, youtube, facebook and others trying to control the narrative in any way they can. For instance not considering past infection as equal to a vaccination. Follow the science or don’t but do whatever truthfully. The next time when the cdc needs us to have faith in their recommendations we won’t have. This shouldn’t even be fathomable but here we are.

javagram 5y ago
> For instance not considering past infection as equal to a vaccination The CDC has published data on this multiple times... Vaccination seems to be more protective than a past infection. A past infection is approximately equal to a single dose of a two-dose vaccine. e.g. CDC MMWR August 2021, https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm "These findings suggest that among persons with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, full vaccination provides additional protection against reinfection. To reduce their risk of infection, all eligible persons should be offered vaccination, even if they have been previously infected with SARS-CoV-2."
- radford-neal 5y ago
  The linked study does NOT say that past infection is less protective than two vaccine doses. It says that getting vaccinated in addition to having a past infection provides additional protection. It says nothing about the protection provided by past infection only versus two doses without past infection. The CDC issued a false press release misrepresenting the conclusions of this study, at https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0806-vaccination-protection.html https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0806-vaccination-pr... That's the sort of thing that destroys the CDC's credibility.
  - javagram 5y ago
    Just looked at the press release and there doesn’t appear to be any misrepresentation involved. The press release clearly talks about the benefits of vaccination even after a previous COVID-19 infection, just as the study did. CDC credibility seems intact here, but online anti vaxxer credibility continues to decline…
    - radford-neal 5y ago
      The title of the press release is "New CDC Study: Vaccination Offers Higher Protection than Previous COVID-19 Infection". That is false. The first paragraph of the release says "These data further indicate that COVID-19 vaccines offer better protection than natural immunity alone". That is false.
      - javagram 5y ago
        Seems like you stopped reading . The full sentence you quote is “These data further indicate that COVID-19 vaccines offer better protection than natural immunity alone and that vaccines, even after prior infection, help prevent reinfections.” Reinfections is the key word here indicating the study is about reinfections. You’re assuming it’s about initial infections. If they didn’t repeatedly say the word “reinfections” in the press release, you might have a point, but the reality is the CDC summary is accurate, as is the headline message that people will get stronger protection if they get vaccinated.
      - radford-neal 5y ago
        If someone says "X and Y", and X is false, then what they say is false. You're arguing that someone who already knows what the study says can re-interpret the statements in the press release as being true, by adding a few additional qualifiers like "among the already infected" here and there, on the assumption that they were just omitted for brevity. But the intended reader, who doesn't already know what the study really says, will read the statements as written, and will receive a false communication.
        javagram 5y ago
        No, I’m arguing your complaint is based on your own misreading. Some form of “reinfected” or “reinfections” appears 4 times in the press release. There’s no need to “add qualifiers” - simply to not remove them.
        radford-neal 5y ago

javagram 5y ago

> For instance not considering past infection as equal to a vaccination The CDC has published data on this multiple times... Vaccination seems to be more protective than a past infection. A past infection is approximately equal to a single dose of a two-dose vaccine. e.g. CDC MMWR August 2021, https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm "These findings suggest that among persons with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, full vaccination provides additional protection against reinfection. To reduce their risk of infection, all eligible persons should be offered vaccination, even if they have been previously infected with SARS-CoV-2."

radford-neal 5y ago
The linked study does NOT say that past infection is less protective than two vaccine doses. It says that getting vaccinated in addition to having a past infection provides additional protection. It says nothing about the protection provided by past infection only versus two doses without past infection. The CDC issued a false press release misrepresenting the conclusions of this study, at https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0806-vaccination-protection.html https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0806-vaccination-pr... That's the sort of thing that destroys the CDC's credibility.
- javagram 5y ago
  Just looked at the press release and there doesn’t appear to be any misrepresentation involved. The press release clearly talks about the benefits of vaccination even after a previous COVID-19 infection, just as the study did. CDC credibility seems intact here, but online anti vaxxer credibility continues to decline…
  - radford-neal 5y ago
    The title of the press release is "New CDC Study: Vaccination Offers Higher Protection than Previous COVID-19 Infection". That is false. The first paragraph of the release says "These data further indicate that COVID-19 vaccines offer better protection than natural immunity alone". That is false.
    - javagram 5y ago
      Seems like you stopped reading . The full sentence you quote is “These data further indicate that COVID-19 vaccines offer better protection than natural immunity alone and that vaccines, even after prior infection, help prevent reinfections.” Reinfections is the key word here indicating the study is about reinfections. You’re assuming it’s about initial infections. If they didn’t repeatedly say the word “reinfections” in the press release, you might have a point, but the reality is the CDC summary is accurate, as is the headline message that people will get stronger protection if they get vaccinated.
    - radford-neal 5y ago
      If someone says "X and Y", and X is false, then what they say is false. You're arguing that someone who already knows what the study says can re-interpret the statements in the press release as being true, by adding a few additional qualifiers like "among the already infected" here and there, on the assumption that they were just omitted for brevity. But the intended reader, who doesn't already know what the study really says, will read the statements as written, and will receive a false communication.
      - javagram 5y ago
        No, I’m arguing your complaint is based on your own misreading. Some form of “reinfected” or “reinfections” appears 4 times in the press release. There’s no need to “add qualifiers” - simply to not remove them.
        radford-neal 5y ago