the claim here is specious.
you cannot go back to a time before there even was a vaccine and then claim that reinfections now in people who got covid are higher than reinfections with the vaccine. time is a variable in the equation.
another example of agenda driven “science”
Um…the time period that was looked at in the study was precisely the same for both vaccinated and unvaccinated people in the study.
First got infected in 2020…got reinfected in May-Jul 2021.
psst… no vaccine until dec 2020.
That’s not relevant,
Read again what the study was measuring.
it is entirely relevant. antibodies have a life span.
the study would only be relevant if it only looked at people who got covid since the vaccine came out, and then got it again.
It’s not relevant. It’s controlled for because both groups were treated the same.
In each case, they looked at those who caught COVID in 2020 and then either got vaxxed when the vax became available or didn’t get vaxxed. Then they checked who got reinfected when Delta started taking hold in May 2021.
As a matter of fact, what you are concerned about is WHAT THEY WERE TESTING FOR…did the vaccine re-energize the immune response of previously infected people?
I think Jay Jay is correct on this one if you read the study. They compared people who where originally infected at a certain time then if those people got reinfected and compared whether or not they got the vaccine.
no, you are quite wrong, it took people who got covid in 2020 and then after the antibodies from getting covid had worn off over 6 months later checked to see how many got covid again. then it took vaccinated people and checked how many of them, less than 6 months later. its garbage propaganda
“If you have had COVID-19 before, please still get vaccinated,” said Centers for Disease Control Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky in a statement released Friday. “This study shows you are twice as likely to get infected again if you are unvaccinated.”
How do they know a vaccinated person is not reinfected? They may be reinfected but asymptomatic.
Both "the vaccines + recovery"and “natural infection + recovery” mean the person is equipped to fight subsequent infections without death and possibly without symptoms. How do they arrive at the claimed reinfected figures? How do you test for "reinfection + recovery "?
After really studying this thread the conclusion I’ve come to, and feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, is wah-wah-wah, science is saying something again that I don’t like so I’m gonna call it a bunch of lies, propaganda, and poopy doo-doo!
They only took people who got it and recovered then divided those by who (of that group of recoveries) later got vaccinated and those that did not and compared them.
Anyone see the link to the actual study anywhere?
It is in they first paragraph “study” is highlighted.
Tried that, didn’t lead to the study, led to here.
It right there in the link
Allan
Huh? Sure you can. The question is ‘should people who weee infected with Covid get vaccinated?”
The way to test is; compare a group of infected unvaccinated to a group of infected vaccinated and see if either had more favorable results.
You seem to be upset that this study concluded naturally occurring antibodies are not as effective as naturally occurring antibodies with the vaccine laid on top of them.
That is correct. Vaccine enhanced antibodies.
Allan
from Scientific misinformation - #17 by tnt
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. Additional prospective studies with larger populations are warranted to support these findings.
Hmm
I’ve not been impressed with the level of “expertise” of the so called experts and can say with confidence that if that same level was applied in capitalism, companies would be bankrupt.
Just can’t think of any possible reason this could be right.
Why would my body care whether the spike protein came from a shot that induced my cells to make it or it was introduced from the virus itself.
