4 ms·
That's not true: "Naturally infected populations were less likely to be reinfected by SARS-CoV-2 than the infection-naïve and vaccinated individuals." https://
by ars 5y ago
That's not true: "Naturally infected populations were less likely to be reinfected by SARS-CoV-2 than the infection-naïve and vaccinated individuals."
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-05325-5 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-05325-5
There are other studies that say the same thing - natural immunity is far superior to vaccination. (But also more risky since acquiring that immunity can cause people to end up in the hospital.)
The best is both:
"Two doses of BNT162b2 vaccine were associated with high short-term protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection; this protection waned considerably after 6 months. Infection-acquired immunity boosted with vaccination remained high more than 1 year after infection." https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2118691 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2118691
- somewhereoutth 5y agoAgree the best is both. Your source pertains to Bangladesh, not sure the results necessarily carry more generally, due to the different society/demographics/etc. Please provide sources for your other studies - "far superior" is quite a strong claim
- JamisonM 5y agoSo the first study is a population that is mostly using the Chinese vaccine that is not very good and the second study just validates that getting vaccinated before getting infected is very good (and the reinfection population was only 210 subjects!). The unvaccinated participants data is pre-delta infections: "A total of 6169 participants in the previously infected cohort were followed in the unvaccinated follow-up period and up to 1 year after a primary infection. These participants were predominantly infected in the spring of 2020 and were followed in the period before emergence of the delta (B.1.617.2) variant." C'mon buddy, do better!