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.
1 Like
Sorry first line second paragraph
I just think it shows that natural antibodies eventually erode over time. I don’t think that was a big revelation. I also believe those from the vaccine will probably erode also.
That’s what memory cells are for.
I’m not real clear on the process, but think it has to do with antigens naturally occurring in the body verses a vaccine induced response creating antibodies.
Which goes back to either you have the ability to fight the infection or you don’t. If you don’t, the vaccine is necessary for living. If you do, it’s not necessary, but it gives you a leg up on fighting the virus and avoiding chronic illnesses associated with Covid.
The only problem with finding out which one you are is that you have to get Covid. Additionally, the Covid response vs the vaccine response is more damaging to your body overall.
I am not suggesting it is preferable to get covid vs getting a vaccine. But I can’t see any mechanism which would make the vaccine superior in providing protection against
future infection than having had covid.
Not unless the vaccine included unique parts of variants that didn’t exist when it was formulated at any rate.
We now see suggestions that a booster shot for those who had the vaccine would help. Wouldn’t having Covid and then getting the vaccine later be comparable to getting a booster shot?
1 Like
Study I read, can’t be bothered to look it up, said if you had covid one dose had better results than none but that two wasn’t a good idea.
I wasn’t implying that was you’re argument, just explaining my rationale.
It’s been said that it promotes a more robust immune response than Covid. Not sure of the documentation supporting that, but it’s been bandied about.
I think the more robust immune response covers that. The variants contain the same spike protein from the original, and the immune system treats them the same and attacks them.
Isn’t the what this study is looking into?
Just saying provides a more robust response is not saying anything about how that could be possible. Does the vaccine produce more spike protein then an actual infection? I don’t think that would be the case. If it were the side effects of the vaccine would be as bad as having the infection as well.
