4 ms·
> natural infection is at least as protective (if not more so) than even 3 doses of the current vaccines. This claim is directly contradicted in the paper you
by stonogo 4y ago
> natural infection is at least as protective (if not more so) than even 3 doses of the current vaccines.
This claim is directly contradicted in the paper you linked:
> The effectiveness of previous infection alone against symptomatic BA.2 infection was 46.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 39.5 to 51.9).
...
> The effectiveness of three doses of BNT162b2 and no previous infection was 52.2% (95% CI, 48.1 to 55.9).
- timr 4y agoThose confidence intervals overlap. You're cherry picking one plot, for one outcome, for one vaccine, out of the entire paper, and it's not refuting the conclusion of the paper.
- ImPostingOnHN 4y agoif they overlap, how do you support your statement that the opposite is true?
- timr 4y ago"natural infection is at least as protective (if not more so) than even 3 doses of the current vaccines." GP is citing a part of the paper where they show...that natural infection is statistically indistinguishable from 3 doses. QED.
- ImPostingOnHN 4y ago