4 ms·

> There was never any indication in the data that a previously recovered person posed any kind of heightened threat to anyone else Nope, also not true. There

> There was never any indication in the data that a previously recovered person posed any kind of heightened threat to anyone else Nope, also not true. There actually was plenty of evidence of exactly this even by August 2021: https://www.healio.com/news/infectious-disease/20210806/cdc-study-shows-covid19-vaccines-offer-better-protection-than-prior-infection https://www.healio.com/news/infectious-disease/20210806/cdc-... Then found again in October: https://www.healio.com/news/infectious-disease/20211029/covid19-vaccination-more-protective-than-previous-infection-study-finds https://www.healio.com/news/infectious-disease/20211029/covi... > by testing and isolating like I was, I was doing likely the best you could possibly do for the folks around me. Short of vaccination yes, you were. But also people have no way to actually trust anything you say, whereas even saying that you aren't vaccinated (again, correctly) indicates quite a lot about some combination of your information, selfishness, or care for others. For example, if you had gone around thinking or saying "I'm not vaccinated because prior infection protections me (and therefore you)" you would have been wrong. That's why people's alarm bells go off when you go around saying that you're not vaccinated. This entire conversation is a validation of their heuristics. You're acting like public health authorities said X and then they didn't, or acting like there's no evidence of Y when there is, and then saying "see I didn't get vaccinated!" is exactly what everyone was cuing into: this is almost certainly either a confused or selfish person, or both.

ifyoubuildit 2mo ago
You might consider reading the actual Kentucky study (as I did at the time) and looking at the limitations. This and the one in October are exactly the kind of shit that would get published and then reports like your link would way overstate what they were actually capable of showing. Eventually things calmed down enough that studies could actually be published showing the efficacy of a prior infection without risking careers. You're misunderstanding btw, I didn't go around telling anyone but my closest friends and family. I wasnt about to out myself as a heretic when the likely biggest propaganda campaign in history was going on (pandemic of the unvaccinated, etc). It was mostly in hn threads on studies like the ones you posted where I would say anything about it.
- estearum 2mo ago
  So why did you claim to be treated like a leper? And yes, all studies have limitations, especially observational studies done in the middle of an emergency. Here's your claim: "There was never any indication in the data that a previously recovered person posed any kind of heightened threat to anyone else" That is quite obviously false. If you believe there was superior data available at the time, please share it. Otherwise, yes that is exactly what the data showed (imperfect as all data is). > Eventually things calmed down enough that studies could actually be published showing the efficacy of a prior infection without risking careers. Like which studies? (Not that more recent studies could've possibly time-traveled to inform your decision-making in the past, of course).
  - ifyoubuildit 2mo ago
    A reasonable prior (which my doctor ascribed to) was that immunity after recovery from an infection with a coronavirus would be pretty durable and effective, and you can find plenty of reporting to support the effectiveness early on. To believe otherwise would take some solid evidence, and maybe the Kentucky study is enough to convince you, but it was not enough to convince me (or apparently my doctor, though we didn't talk about that). It even said this: Finally, this is a retrospective study design using data from a single state during a 2-month period; therefore, these findings cannot be used to infer causation. So maybe "any indication" was too strong. How about any convincing indication? Meanwhile you had things like this demonstrating that prior infection was pretty damn protective as early as late 2020: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034545 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034545 There were others as well, I was following this very closely because it seemed pretty important to not be wrong, and all of the messaging was very insistent.
    - estearum 2mo ago
      The study you linked is evidence that prior infection reduces the rate of reinfection. Yes, this would be surprising if it were not true. Your prior claim was that prior infection is equivalent to or superior to vaccination (i.e. relying on prior infection was not "heightened risk"). That was, and remains, completely false.

ifyoubuildit 2mo ago

You might consider reading the actual Kentucky study (as I did at the time) and looking at the limitations. This and the one in October are exactly the kind of shit that would get published and then reports like your link would way overstate what they were actually capable of showing. Eventually things calmed down enough that studies could actually be published showing the efficacy of a prior infection without risking careers. You're misunderstanding btw, I didn't go around telling anyone but my closest friends and family. I wasnt about to out myself as a heretic when the likely biggest propaganda campaign in history was going on (pandemic of the unvaccinated, etc). It was mostly in hn threads on studies like the ones you posted where I would say anything about it.

estearum 2mo ago
So why did you claim to be treated like a leper? And yes, all studies have limitations, especially observational studies done in the middle of an emergency. Here's your claim: "There was never any indication in the data that a previously recovered person posed any kind of heightened threat to anyone else" That is quite obviously false. If you believe there was superior data available at the time, please share it. Otherwise, yes that is exactly what the data showed (imperfect as all data is). > Eventually things calmed down enough that studies could actually be published showing the efficacy of a prior infection without risking careers. Like which studies? (Not that more recent studies could've possibly time-traveled to inform your decision-making in the past, of course).
- ifyoubuildit 2mo ago
  A reasonable prior (which my doctor ascribed to) was that immunity after recovery from an infection with a coronavirus would be pretty durable and effective, and you can find plenty of reporting to support the effectiveness early on. To believe otherwise would take some solid evidence, and maybe the Kentucky study is enough to convince you, but it was not enough to convince me (or apparently my doctor, though we didn't talk about that). It even said this: Finally, this is a retrospective study design using data from a single state during a 2-month period; therefore, these findings cannot be used to infer causation. So maybe "any indication" was too strong. How about any convincing indication? Meanwhile you had things like this demonstrating that prior infection was pretty damn protective as early as late 2020: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034545 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034545 There were others as well, I was following this very closely because it seemed pretty important to not be wrong, and all of the messaging was very insistent.
  - estearum 2mo ago
    The study you linked is evidence that prior infection reduces the rate of reinfection. Yes, this would be surprising if it were not true. Your prior claim was that prior infection is equivalent to or superior to vaccination (i.e. relying on prior infection was not "heightened risk"). That was, and remains, completely false.