So he cites The Lancet, Annals of Internal Medicine, and official government statistics for the lowest death rate per 100K of any month in their history, and he’s an idiot?
Cite? Unless I’ve missed a post here, all I’ve seen is your personal anecdotes. You may be right, but I’d like to see the data, I haven’t see anything supporting this level of certainty yet.
Again, cite? We have large carefully controlled studies for the vaccination protocols, where we know exactly when people were inoculated and we are monitoring their response over time.
Just because the disease has been around for longer does not imply that people have done studies with similar statistical power. Assuming infection is generally highly protective, a priori the response to infection is still likely to have much higher variance than the response to vaccination. So unless you are getting regular antibody titer checks, your level of protection from prior infection is more uncertain.
Definitely. That guy is a menace.
He has a book deal in the works, so the good news is that his idiocy will be well-documented for a very long time.
Yes, he is an idiot for missing what they concluded and the limitations they reported.
The findings, however, should not be used to conclude that a recommendation for everyone to wear masks in the community would not be effective in reducing SARS-CoV-2 infections, because the trial did not test the role of masks in source control of SARS-CoV-2 infection. During the study period, authorities did not recommend face mask use outside hospital settings and mask use was rare in community settings (22). This means that study participants’ exposure was overwhelmingly to persons not wearing masks.
Is that really what it’s come to? That citing journals like The Lancet is menacing, if it’s a study that runs counter to some preconceived beliefs? What’s menacing about citing death stats, besides that they aren’t high enough to support a certain narrative? We cite death stats all the time!
Disappointing. Far from shocking, but disappointing.
Right. It’s all anecdotal. But it’s pretty solid anecdotal data, and if anecdotal data is the best you have then it’s a mistake to ignore it IMO.
There are a lot of people who got infected back in March and thereabouts. What percentage of these people have gotten reinfected and how does that compare to the percentage of never-infected people? There are people who have gotten reinfected but it’s a tiny percentage as compared to the never-infected. So there’s pretty strong, albeit anecdotal evidence that there’s some pretty strong protection and lasting as long as 10 months, at the least. By contrast, the vaccines haven’t been around nearly as long, and there’s no telling if and to what extent it does anything past a few months.
Wha?
That has oxymoron written all over it.
But you’ll take a chance on the far more uncertain long term effects of a viral infection?
I’m not sure I understand what in the world you’re talking about, but best as I understand your question the answer is “no, I won’t”.
Ok, let me spell it out for you, since from the title of this thread onward you seem to have a problem stating your own position with clarity in terms of what risk or benefit you are measuring against what.
For somebody who has been infected in the past, you are advocating taking the unknown risk of reinfection because you claim (without evidence) that the risk of unknown potential harm from vaccination is greater.
ETA: and to make my own view clear:
I agree that the evidence we have points to the risk of reinfection being very low.
But the evidence we have for the safety of vaccination is better.
I’ve not made any such claim.
What I did say and seems to be confusing you is that there is much more evidence of the long term protective effects of having been infected than there is evidence of the long term protective effects of being vaccinated, since the history of being infected is a lot longer than the history of the vaccines.
Then state more clearly what you are claiming. What is the relevance of your second paragraph here, other than for a person who has already been infected making a decision on vaccination?
If that sort of “anecdotal data” is all you’ve got, it doesn’t establish that immunity is “a lot higher” than what’s obtained through vaccination.
Remember that there’s evidence showing that a substantial minority of Covid-19 patients lose antibodies in a relatively short time.
“One of the studies found that 10 percent of nearly 1,500 COVID-positive patients registered undetectable antibody levels within weeks of first showing symptoms, while the other of 74 patients found they typically lost their antibodies two to three months after recovering from the infection, especially among those who tested positive but were asymptomatic.”
These people might still have at least some level of protection; they likely would be better off getting a boost from vaccination. Obviously we don’t know just how long antibodies from vaccination will last either, but getting a boost that way seems advisable, especially if you’re particularly at risk.
Speaking of physicians who are candidates for the Hall of Shame, let’s not forget America’s Frontline Doctors, members of which have been pushing bogus information about Covid-19 and attacking measures taken against it (you will of course remember one of these illustrious medicos, Stella Immanuel. She’s the Houston doctor who assured us that certain disorders like endometriosis come from having sex with demons). The group has been trying to use race to create fears about Covid-19 vaccination (They are using an “experimental” vaccine targeting black people, dontcha know). It’s now been learned that one of these Brave Maverick Doctors, Simone Gold was part of the group that entered the Capitol during the recent mob uprising (she claims that she followed others in because she thought it was OK and that she didn’t see any violence).
The relevance is that there is strong albeit anecdotal evidence that the virus itself is protective as far as 10 months out. There can’t be evidence as to whether the vaccine is protective past a few months out, since that’s as long as it’s existed.
The original context is the statement from Jackmanni that “We don’t know what the level of immunity is in previously infected people, or how long it will last.” (emphasis added). My response was that “how long it lasts” is not a very strong argument for being vaccinated at this time for someone previously infected, since there’s pretty strong evidence that it lasts at least 10 months (to one extent or another) while there couldn’t be real evidence that vaccination lasts longer than a few months.
I believe antibodies are just one form of immunity and there are other mechanisms involved, involving T cells.
In any event, one way or another it’s pretty clear that the number of people getting reinfected even 10 months out is extremely low.
You are just repeating yourself. Again, what is the relevance of this claim to any decision that anyone is going to make, if it’s not what I said:
The relevance of the claim is that it weakens one particular argument in favor of vaccinating such people.
No, it’s not pretty clear according to any studies that I’ve seen. We’re aware of a low number of cases, but we haven’t proven how low it is. There could be tens of thousands of reinfected people walking around with no symptoms and no reason to get retested. I’ll certainly agree that some immunity remains for a while post infection. I don’t know what “some” is and I don’t know what a “while” is, nor do you. I also don’t know the variability of those numbers based on other factors.
There have been documented reinfections within 3 months. I’m not aware of anyone in the Pfizer/Moderna trials getting reinfected, and they’ve had their second dose well over 3 months now.
Kiddies, get your vaccinations!