4 ms·
Wtf? I must be misinterpreting the data, otherwise this article raises VERY disturbing questions, if I have read the summary correctly. Three data points: 1.
by ipspam 5y ago
Wtf? I must be misinterpreting the data, otherwise this article raises VERY disturbing questions, if I have read the summary correctly.
Three data points:
1. Natural infection efficacy: not studied or stated (why? Study flawed from start, assuming vaccines are always better, no matter what?)
2. Natural infection, AND then full vaccine course
3. Only fully vaccinated efficacy.
It appears that the vaccine is better than natural Immunity AND the vaccine.
Which begs the question, how effective is natural infection?
Only by answering this question can it be determined if vaccines are destroying natural Immunity, or if natural Immunity is preventing vaccines from working.
A VERY inconvenient question indeed. No wonder it wasn't asked.
- throwmeariver1 5y agoPeople that get infected more often are probably people that get infected more often not because the virus is more effective on them but because they are living a higher risk lifestyle. I have friends that go out clubbing often and they are the ones who had more than one infection...
- ipspam 5y agoEdit: I did read it wrong. One stat was for prevention of infection, another was for hospitalisation. But still doesn't address a baseline of how effective natural Immunity is. It's also pre-omicron.
- yucky 5y ago>But still doesn't address a baseline of how effective natural Immunity is. Until we can figure out a way for large pharmaceutical companies to sell natural immunity, you won't see much work spent on answering that question.