Science is now cancelled? [USERS NOW BANNED FOR POLITICS]

[sk47]

I’m done with you. You’re beyond ignorant.

Interesting...

Hello; What exactly did I write in my post #7861 that is incorrect?

Sponsored

 

[GT Pony]

School closures. Schools are major transmission points for influenza, but not for COVID. While children do get infected, their risk for COVID death is minuscule, lower than their already low risk of dying from the flu.

Sounds like a bunch if BS to me. Covid is just as contagious if not more than the flu. If this bonehead thinks Covid is less contagious then he's discounting the actions taken to help reduce the spread.

Lots of info that says Covid is killing more kids than the flu.

https://www.khou.com/article/news/h...nths/285-2b3fef00-454b-4b43-a873-573ff6afffe7

 

[Burkey]

Hello; What exactly did I write in my post #7861 that is incorrect?

I’m going to humour you, just to demonstrate for the LAST time, just how disingenuous you are.

The story on natural immunity has been reversed by you and others.

No, we aren’t saying that natural immunity doesn’t exist. We’re saying (with evidence) that it’s “imperfect” and that it can be IMPROVED by the administration of a vaccine. It’s very simple. If you want this to go away, you need as few candidate hosts as is possible. THAT is the point that’s being made. That’s the effect it has on society. The fact that the individual ALSO reduces their risk, is also worth mentioning.

You cannot make natural immunity go away and become less just because you decide to champion a new vaccine tech.

Strawman. You’re attacking a position that nobody has actually presented. Disingenuous.

atural immunity is the long time proven of the two.

Whether that’s true or not plays no part in what’s happening RIGHT NOW. Right now you need as ,any people as possible reaching the highest possible level of immunity they can achieve. This isn’t a race of a defined distance and you get to stop when you’ve covered the required distance. It’s about each person covering as much ground as they can in the shortest time they can. For some that will be very little, for others it will be a lot. Some can’t even enter the race.

What you and others have been "explaining" has been addressed many times by me using links from qualified sources and my own understanding.

No, it’s based on your faulty premises and misunderstanding, combined with some very selective reading and omissions on your part.

Two things start the natural immune system to work. One is an infection with the actual virus. The other is an injection of the new mRNA vaccine. All the vaccine does is trick the body cells into making partial copies of one aspect of the virus ( protein spikes). Those spike copies start up the natural immune system just the way an infection does.

Blah blah, Gregs24 took the time to explain this to you repeatedly, it’s not his fault that you weren’t able to follow along. Perhaps a few more years of schooling would help?

There is nothing in the shots which kills the virus.

Wow! And here I was, thinking that the vaxccines contained such properties. LMFAO.
You’re taking the piss right?

Natural immunity is showing in real studies to be robust and lasting.

You forgot the important part. “FOR MOST PEOPLE”
Now, how are you going to work out exactly which people they are? Who will pay for the expensive testing that would be required? You have AT LEAST 45 million people you’d need to do this testing on. You’re going to want to hurry up with it, time is ticking. How many of them might contract the virus whilst you work out the logistics, instead of them just rolling up their damn sleeve and getting a jab tomorrow.

That is my final response to you. I believe I’ve highlighted how poorly you’ve faired over the past few months, no need to keep rehashing your bullshit over and over.

 

[GT Pony]

Wow! And here I was, thinking that the vaxccines contained such properties. LMFAO.
You’re taking the piss right?

Remember who thought a vaccine wasn't a "real vaccine" unless it killed the virus.

 

[cactus_kid]

How Fauci Fooled America | Opinion (msn.com)

Hello; Not much need for additional comments from me. I did underline a few passages.

“Natural immunity. By pushing vaccine mandates, Dr. Fauci ignores naturally acquired immunity among the COVID-recovered, of which there are more than 45 million in the United States. Mounting evidence indicates that natural immunity is stronger and longer lasting than vaccine-induced immunity. “

“We have known about natural immunity from disease at least since the Athenian Plague in 430 BC. Pilots, truckers and longshoremen know about it, and nurses know it better than anyone. Under Fauci's mandates, hospitals are firing heroic nurses who recovered from COVID they contracted while caring for patients. With their superior immunity, they can safely care for the oldest and frailest patients with even lower transmission risk than the vaccinated.”

Protecting the elderly. While anyone can get infected, there is more than a thousand-fold difference in mortality risk between the old and the young. After more than 700,000 reported COVID deaths in America, we now know that lockdowns failed to protect high-risk older people.

School closures. Schools are major transmission points for influenza, but not for COVID. While children do get infected, their risk for COVID death is minuscule, lower than their already low risk of dying from the flu. Throughout the 2020 spring wave, Sweden kept daycare and schools open for all its 1.8 million children ages 1 to 15, with no masks, testing or social distancing. The result? Zero COVID deaths among children and a COVID risk to teachers lower than the average of other professions. In fall 2020, most European countries followed suit, with similar results. Considering the devastating effects of school closures on children, Dr. Fauci's advocacy for school closures may be the single biggest mistake of his career.

Masks. The gold standard of medical research is randomized trials, and there have now been two on COVID masks for adults. For children, there is no solid scientific evidence that masks work. A Danish study found no statistically significant difference between masking and not masking when it came to coronavirus infection. In a study in Bangladesh, the 95 percent confidence interval showed that masks reduced transmission between 0 percent and 18 percent. Hence, masks are either of zero or limited benefit.

Contact tracing. For some infectious diseases, such as Ebola and syphilis, contact tracing is critically important. For a commonly circulating viral infection such as COVID, it was a hopeless waste of valuable public health resources that did not stop the disease.

Collateral public health damage. A fundamental public health principle is that health is multidimensional; the control of a single infectious disease is not synonymous with health. As an immunologist, Dr. Fauci failed to properly consider and weigh the disastrous effects lockdowns would have on cancer detection and treatment, cardiovascular disease outcomes, diabetes care, childhood vaccination rates, mental health and opioid overdoses, to name a few. Americans will live with—and die from—this collateral damage for many years to come.

In private conversations, most of our scientific colleagues agree with us on these points. While a few have spoken up, why are not more doing so? Well, some tried but failed. Others kept silent when they saw colleagues slandered and smeared in the media or censored by Big Tech. Some are government employees who are barred from contradicting official policy. Many are afraid of losing positions or research grants, aware that Dr. Fauci sits on top of the largest pile of infectious disease research money in the world.

I now have a serious headache from reading this tripe. And, I think I'm going to throw up.

 

[Vlad Soare]

Hey, yeah, so this week, for the TM3P I got two updates:

36.5 that improves the winter climate control (Tesla uses programmable sensors/microcontrollers, so they can even change things like the climate control behavior). It also added new functions from the iOS app that allows you to set scheduled charging and also, scheduled climate! So - for example - if you're leaving every morning at 8am, set the heat for 7:45a, so you hop in a nice warm car.

But the real money is the 36.8 I got a couple of days later. As I've mentioned, the car has 8 cameras, and you can set Sentry Mode while parked, which is basically like a multi-camera security system (using motion sensors). This can be played back on the car display, or, the USB drive can be removed and you can view them on a computer, tablet, etc.

With this new update, you can view the cameras live from the iOS app. Dozens of real world uses for having a live view: check parking situation, confirm a meter, check the weather, for folks leaving work late, check out the parking area for any shady goings-on, etc.

You can also honk and blink the lights from the remote viewer, as well as speak through the cars external speaker. "Hey, you in the hoodie, I'm coming out with security ..."

 

[CJJon]

Hello; What exactly did I write in my post #7861 that is incorrect?

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7044e1.htm?s_cid=mm7044e1_w

 

[Burkey]

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7044e1.htm?s_cid=mm7044e1_w

A good read.
Likelihood of him changing his mind is….?

 

[sk47]

'Antibodies are not the be-all end-all' of COVID-19 immunity: medical expert (msn.com)
Hello; Because the mRNA vaccines are new I had to do some digging to find details about how they work. I already understood some about mRNA in terms of how it is used in our bodies.
If you picture each body cell as a worker with a particular job to do there is an interesting thing. Each worker has a complete copy of instructions for building everything in our body. Does not matter that the cell( worker) has only a single particular job to do, each cell has the entire set of instructions. The entire set of instructions is called DNA.
So when it is time to do that particular job the cell goes to the "page" of instructions for that job and makes a copy of the instructions to do that particular job. That copy of instructions is called mRNA and each of our trillions of cells uses mRNA that way. The mRNA is carried to the ribosomes which is where the job is done. The mRNA directs the ribosome about how to build what is needed.

The way a natural immune response works is some foreign object gets into our body. That object is recognized as foreign and is attacked. If it is a virus several things happen. Once the invader is identified the body starts making defenders. Among the first things is the immune system makes some early types of attackers called antibodies. These early antibodies are not well suited for the job but can be brought to bear quickly. They are called circulating antibodies by some sources and are less effective than what will replace them. Those early circulation antibodies are in large numbers and help start the battle. As long as they are in large enough numbers, they can be effective enough.
These early circulating antibodies are not meant to last a long time. Both the circulating antibodies from an actual infection and from a shot begin to fade. As they fade they are replaced with antibodies better suited for the job. The immune system tailors some responses much more specific to a particular virus so that by the time the early circulating antibodies are gone we have a better set up to kill off that particular virus.

The Rockefeller University » Natural infection versus vaccination: Differences in COVID antibody responses emerge

Back to the mRNA shots. From my searching I find two possible differences from a natural infection response compared to a shot response. First and the most commonly used by those who advocate for the shots over natural immunity is this. The shots do cause the production of greater numbers of those early short term circulating antibodies. This is done by tricking the body cell into making more copies of the virus spike protein than a cell would produce normally. Those extra amounts of spike protein copies do two things. First they trigger the natural immune system to start same as an actual infection does. Second there is an extra number of short term circulating antibodies.
As far as I have been able to find thus far this is the basic advantage of shot immunity. For someone who has never had the infection these extra numbers of circulating antibodies is a positive thing.
However some thing are left out when it is stated in various ways that the shots improve natural immunity. The naturally immune have a proven immune reaction by the fact they fought off the virus. The naturally immune also have had a time advantage with the elements of a secondary immune response working which will replace those less effective early circulating antibodies with better suited virus fighting components. The natural immune response gets stronger over time.

My take has been those who focus on circulating antibodies as the main measure of immune status only mean there is a short term increase in these less effective circulating antibodies if the naturally immune get a shot. What this approach leaves out is all the work the immune system has done since the person recovered from the infection. The naturally immune have had time for the secondary immune responses to become much more suited to fight off that same virus.
What appears to happen after a shot is there will indeed be a short term increase in measurable amounts of these short term antibodies in the naturally immune. This short term antibody spike appears to be the main case for the naturally immune to have the shot. Thing appears to be these extra antibodies are not as important as the better tuned secondary immune mechanism which the naturally immune have been building up over time.

There is one other issue with the shot antibodies that can be addressed. That being the shots were tailored to the virus protein spikes of the early version of the virus. ( likely alpha). The mutated virus variety now around is called delta. Delta apparently is not changed enough so the shots are worthless, but the effectiveness of the shot formula is reduced. There is some sort of rule which prevents the shot formula from being changed to match delta or any other mutations.

 

[CJJon]

'Antibodies are not the be-all end-all' of COVID-19 immunity: medical expert (msn.com)
Hello; Because the mRNA vaccines are new I had to do some digging to find details about how they work. I already understood some about mRNA in terms of how it is used in our bodies.
If you picture each body cell as a worker with a particular job to do there is an interesting thing. Each worker has a complete copy of instructions for building everything in our body. Does not matter that the cell( worker) has only a single particular job to do, each cell has the entire set of instructions. The entire set of instructions is called DNA.
So when it is time to do that particular job the cell goes to the "page" of instructions for that job and makes a copy of the instructions to do that particular job. That copy of instructions is called mRNA and each of our trillions of cells uses mRNA that way. The mRNA is carried to the ribosomes which is where the job is done. The mRNA directs the ribosome about how to build what is needed.

The way a natural immune response works is some foreign object gets into our body. That object is recognized as foreign and is attacked. If it is a virus several things happen. Once the invader is identified the body starts making defenders. Among the first things is the immune system makes some early types of attackers called antibodies. These early antibodies are not well suited for the job but can be brought to bear quickly. They are called circulating antibodies by some sources and are less effective than what will replace them. Those early circulation antibodies are in large numbers and help start the battle. As long as they are in large enough numbers, they can be effective enough.
These early circulating antibodies are not meant to last a long time. Both the circulating antibodies from an actual infection and from a shot begin to fade. As they fade they are replaced with antibodies better suited for the job. The immune system tailors some responses much more specific to a particular virus so that by the time the early circulating antibodies are gone we have a better set up to kill off that particular virus.

The Rockefeller University » Natural infection versus vaccination: Differences in COVID antibody responses emerge

Back to the mRNA shots. From my searching I find two possible differences from a natural infection response compared to a shot response. First and the most commonly used by those who advocate for the shots over natural immunity is this. The shots do cause the production of greater numbers of those early short term circulating antibodies. This is done by tricking the body cell into making more copies of the virus spike protein than a cell would produce normally. Those extra amounts of spike protein copies do two things. First they trigger the natural immune system to start same as an actual infection does. Second there is an extra number of short term circulating antibodies.
As far as I have been able to find thus far this is the basic advantage of shot immunity. For someone who has never had the infection these extra numbers of circulating antibodies is a positive thing.
However some thing are left out when it is stated in various ways that the shots improve natural immunity. The naturally immune have a proven immune reaction by the fact they fought off the virus. The naturally immune also have had a time advantage with the elements of a secondary immune response working which will replace those less effective early circulating antibodies with better suited virus fighting components. The natural immune response gets stronger over time.

My take has been those who focus on circulating antibodies as the main measure of immune status only mean there is a short term increase in these less effective circulating antibodies if the naturally immune get a shot. What this approach leaves out is all the work the immune system has done since the person recovered from the infection. The naturally immune have had time for the secondary immune responses to become much more suited to fight off that same virus.
What appears to happen after a shot is there will indeed be a short term increase in measurable amounts of these short term antibodies in the naturally immune. This short term antibody spike appears to be the main case for the naturally immune to have the shot. Thing appears to be these extra antibodies are not as important as the better tuned secondary immune mechanism which the naturally immune have been building up over time.

There is one other issue with the shot antibodies that can be addressed. That being the shots were tailored to the virus protein spikes of the early version of the virus. ( likely alpha). The mutated virus variety now around is called delta. Delta apparently is not changed enough so the shots are worthless, but the effectiveness of the shot formula is reduced. There is some sort of rule which prevents the shot formula from being changed to match delta or any other mutations.

Good grief...Why are you refusing to read this? Those that are recovered (naturally immune) are over 5 TIMES more likely to be reinfected than those who never had covid but were fully vaccinated.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7044e1.htm?s_cid=mm7044e1_w

Summary
What is already known about this topic?

Previous infection with SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19 vaccination can provide immunity and protection against subsequent SARS-CoV-2 infection and illness.

What is added by this report?

Among COVID-19–like illness hospitalizations among adults aged ≥18 years whose previous infection or vaccination occurred 90–179 days earlier, the adjusted odds of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 among unvaccinated adults with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection were 5.49-fold higher than the odds among fully vaccinated recipients of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine who had no previous documented infection (95% confidence interval = 2.75–10.99).

What are the implications for public health practice?

All eligible persons should be vaccinated against COVID-19 as soon as possible, including unvaccinated persons previously infected with SARS-CoV-2.

 

[sk47]

Good grief...Why are you refusing to read this? Those that are recovered (naturally immune) are over 5 TIMES more likely to be reinfected than those who never had covid but were fully vaccinated.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7044e1.htm?s_cid=mm7044e1_w

Summary
What is already known about this topic?

Previous infection with SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19 vaccination can provide immunity and protection against subsequent SARS-CoV-2 infection and illness.

What is added by this report?

Among COVID-19–like illness hospitalizations among adults aged ≥18 years whose previous infection or vaccination occurred 90–179 days earlier, the adjusted odds of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 among unvaccinated adults with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection were 5.49-fold higher than the odds among fully vaccinated recipients of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine who had no previous documented infection (95% confidence interval = 2.75–10.99).

What are the implications for public health practice?

All eligible persons should be vaccinated against COVID-19 as soon as possible, including unvaccinated persons previously infected with SARS-CoV-2.

Hello; With regard to the highlighted and underlined part of your response. This is a very particular set of people who wind up in the hospital after having either covid vaccine shots or having had a natural infection.

From your link:
"Laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection was identified among 324 (5.1%) of 6,328 fully vaccinated persons and among 89 of 1,020 (8.7%) unvaccinated, previously infected persons. A higher proportion of previously infected than vaccinated patients were aged 18–49 years (31% versus 9%), Black (10% versus 7%), and Hispanic (19% versus 12%)."

Thing is both immunity from an actual infection and immunity from the vaccine shots depend on the persons natural immune response. The shot only trigger an immune response. The shots do not themselves do anything else. It is the immune system of a person which make an immune response.
That infection happens after getting the shots is known. That re-infection after a first infection happens is known. This makes sense since both shot and natural immunity are derived from the persons immune system.

Some of us who have the shots, like me, will get the virus. Some who had the virus and recovered will get the virus again. I can think of reasons. One being there are mutations of the virus now in circulation that both natural and shot immunity are less effective against. Some people have health issues that affect their immune system and will make them more likely to get a variety of infections, not only covid virus.

What I see in you link in that particular study there was a slightly higher percentage of infections among those who had been infected before than infections among the vaccinated. 5.1% (shots)compared to 8.7% (recovered naturally). A difference of 3.6% among 7348 total cases.

I have not studied the whole link in detail so there may be something else you can point out. I may try to find out what the breakthru infections and reinfections rates are among the entire human population of the previously infected and those with the shots. What I recall reading has been the breakthru cases among the vaccinated are rare. That would also mean the reinfections among the previously infected are also rare within 4%.

A more important item for me would be the seriousness of the infections among these two groups who wind up in a hospital after the shots or a previous infection.

 

[sk47]

Hello; With regard to the highlighted and underlined part of your response. This is a very particular set of people who wind up in the hospital after having either covid vaccine shots or having had a natural infection.

From your link:
"Laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection was identified among 324 (5.1%) of 6,328 fully vaccinated persons and among 89 of 1,020 (8.7%) unvaccinated, previously infected persons. A higher proportion of previously infected than vaccinated patients were aged 18–49 years (31% versus 9%), Black (10% versus 7%), and Hispanic (19% versus 12%)."

Thing is both immunity from an actual infection and immunity from the vaccine shots depend on the persons natural immune response. The shot only trigger an immune response. The shots do not themselves do anything else. It is the immune system of a person which make an immune response.
That infection happens after getting the shots is known. That re-infection after a first infection happens is known. This makes sense since both shot and natural immunity are derived from the persons immune system.

Some of us who have the shots, like me, will get the virus. Some who had the virus and recovered will get the virus again. I can think of reasons. One being there are mutations of the virus now in circulation that both natural and shot immunity are less effective against. Some people have health issues that affect their immune system and will make them more likely to get a variety of infections, not only covid virus.

What I see in you link in that particular study there was a slightly higher percentage of infections among those who had been infected before than infections among the vaccinated. 5.1% (shots)compared to 8.7% (recovered naturally). A difference of 3.6% among 7348 total cases.

I have not studied the whole link in detail so there may be something else you can point out. I may try to find out what the breakthru infections and reinfections rates are among the entire human population of the previously infected and those with the shots. What I recall reading has been the breakthru cases among the vaccinated are rare. That would also mean the reinfections among the previously infected are also rare within 4%.

A more important item for me would be the seriousness of the infections among these two groups who wind up in a hospital after the shots or a previous infection.

Hello; I will recycle an older post of mine which has already addressed the issue.

• #7,722

'Antibodies are not the be-all end-all' of COVID-19 immunity: medical expert (msn.com)



“"Antibodies are not the be-all end-all," he said.”

“These tests don't necessarily take into account parameters, such as a person's overall health, either current, before infection or post-infection, said Wells. Having a high level of antibodies does not necessarily protect a person from contracting COVID-19 or severe disease, especially if that person has any underlying health conditions that limit their immune reserve.”

“"Antibodies alone, except at very very high levels, will not protect you from COVID-19," he said. "They're your first line of defense but then you have to reactivate your immune system to fight it off."”

“Someone with a robust immune system with low levels of antibodies is still highly protected against the virus.”

Hello my comments; This is what I have been writing about for these many weeks. To concentrate on “circulating antibodies” and leave out the rest of the immune system appears to be primary focus using the shots. That appears to be the reasoning behind the booster shots from a medical point of view. The booster shots will stimulate a short term increase in circulating antibodies.

Again my question of how much good a booster using the exact formula from the start will be against the newer variants. If the answer continues to be the shots are still effective, then those with natural immunity will be equally, perhaps better, protected as well.

I have posted some links recently about the value of natural immunity to back my stance up.



“…..it also depends on how responsive a person’s immune system is. "For most of us, outside from the elderly, have a good enough reserve in our immune system without these underlying conditions," he said. Which is why those who do get COVID-19 that are on the younger side are typically able to recover.”

Hello my comments; My best advice is to not be old like me, not be obese, not have other serious comorbidities. I am not able to use my own advice being old with comorbidities so I took the shots.

“For those with underlying conditions that prevent their body from generating antibodies at all, health officials have been developing a treatment using monoclonal antibodies, which are artificial antibodies that help replicate the immune system's response to fight off viruses.”

“The FDA is currently considering authorizing using this treatment in shot form to help protect those whose immune system can't fight off COVID-19 on its own, said Wells.”

Hello my comments; This is why I always added people who recovered covid19 on their own do not need the shots. My thinking being those who were infected and have successfully fought off the virus have a proven immune system

 

[CJJon]

Hello; I will recycle an older post of mine which has already addressed the issue.

• #7,722

'Antibodies are not the be-all end-all' of COVID-19 immunity: medical expert (msn.com)



“"Antibodies are not the be-all end-all," he said.”

“These tests don't necessarily take into account parameters, such as a person's overall health, either current, before infection or post-infection, said Wells. Having a high level of antibodies does not necessarily protect a person from contracting COVID-19 or severe disease, especially if that person has any underlying health conditions that limit their immune reserve.”

“"Antibodies alone, except at very very high levels, will not protect you from COVID-19," he said. "They're your first line of defense but then you have to reactivate your immune system to fight it off."”

“Someone with a robust immune system with low levels of antibodies is still highly protected against the virus.”

Hello my comments; This is what I have been writing about for these many weeks. To concentrate on “circulating antibodies” and leave out the rest of the immune system appears to be primary focus using the shots. That appears to be the reasoning behind the booster shots from a medical point of view. The booster shots will stimulate a short term increase in circulating antibodies.

Again my question of how much good a booster using the exact formula from the start will be against the newer variants. If the answer continues to be the shots are still effective, then those with natural immunity will be equally, perhaps better, protected as well.

I have posted some links recently about the value of natural immunity to back my stance up.



“…..it also depends on how responsive a person’s immune system is. "For most of us, outside from the elderly, have a good enough reserve in our immune system without these underlying conditions," he said. Which is why those who do get COVID-19 that are on the younger side are typically able to recover.”

Hello my comments; My best advice is to not be old like me, not be obese, not have other serious comorbidities. I am not able to use my own advice being old with comorbidities so I took the shots.

“For those with underlying conditions that prevent their body from generating antibodies at all, health officials have been developing a treatment using monoclonal antibodies, which are artificial antibodies that help replicate the immune system's response to fight off viruses.”

“The FDA is currently considering authorizing using this treatment in shot form to help protect those whose immune system can't fight off COVID-19 on its own, said Wells.”

Hello my comments; This is why I always added people who recovered covid19 on their own do not need the shots. My thinking being those who were infected and have successfully fought off the virus have a proven immune system

Antibodies? I have no idea what you are getting on about with antibodies. (Neither do you apparently).

Fact is you were going on and on and on and on about how natural immunity was absolute and that the recovered had a distinct advantage over the vaccinated. You were wrong then and continue to be wrong. Now you keep injecting antibodies (no pun intended) as yet another straw man.

Interesting indeed...

 

[RPDBlueMoon]

Antibodies? I have no idea what you are getting on about with antibodies. (Neither do you apparently).

Fact is you were going on and on and on and on about how natural immunity was absolute and that the recovered had a distinct advantage over the vaccinated. You were wrong then and continue to be wrong. Now you keep injecting antibodies (no pun intended) as yet another straw man.

Interesting indeed...

What's makes it even more funny is that the article is referring to the widespread use of antibody tests, and why they are not conclusive.

Literally has nothing to do about the clinical experiments regarding antibodies and taking a deeper dive into the methodology and discussions surrounding how antibodies will fair out in the long term (which the person even acknowledges is of importance in the article).

The desperation is really telling at this point

 

[GT Pony]

People who have had Covid and recovered are not as protected from reinfection (they are 5.5 times less protected) than people who have been fully vaccinated.

Source: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7044e1.htm

Summary

What is already known about this topic?
Previous infection with SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19 vaccination can provide immunity and protection against subsequent SARS-CoV-2 infection and illness.

What is added by this report?
Among COVID-19–like illness hospitalizations among adults aged ≥18 years whose previous infection or vaccination occurred 90–179 days earlier, the adjusted odds of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 among unvaccinated adults with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection were 5.49-fold higher than the odds among fully vaccinated recipients of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine who had no previous documented infection (95% confidence interval = 2.75–10.99).

What are the implications for public health practice?
All eligible persons should be vaccinated against COVID-19 as soon as possible, including unvaccinated persons previously infected with SARS-CoV-2.

Sponsored