Nope the study is very conclusive.
I’d like to see further studies on this subject.
it’s easy to have one study say something.
A lot more accepted by all when other studies yield the same result.
It could just be an outler.
Allan
Basically it’s one study.
I want to see more before drawing conclusions.
Allan
So if upcoming studies yield the same result, then what?
Allan
its propaganda.
this study is no different than climate scientist picking a time frame when they knew temperature increased to conclude temperature increased. they knew the result before they started and the study was designed to create conclusions supporting an agenda.
i support the agenda (vaccination). i do not support propagandizing people to achieve it.
then what?
science is good. knowledge is good. i will support any science that is “science”. the real question to be asked is not how many are reinfected… its how sick do they get. we know people will be reinfected, thats nothing new
No…the study provides some evidence people previously infected with COVID should still get vaccinated.
Further studies are indicated. No one study will be definitive.
What I find hysterical is the OPer is arguing against this study’s findings when he actually agrees with the conclusion that people who were previously infected shouldn’t rely on that previous infection to provide them with immunity!
Yes, the study predates the new Biden variants that bypass immunity from the vaccines.
It is pretty much meaningless at this point.
no he doesn’t. the op’er, me, believes we need to study whether memory cells will do the job regardless of how one got antibodies to begin with
i support vaccination for all who have not previously gotten covid. for those who have, i’m on the fence. one shot seems to be good, two maybe not so much.
It only propaganda if the study can not be duplicated.
If there are multiples studies that reach the same conclusion, what will your thoughts be then.
Allan
it depends on those studies parameters. this one was a preordained conclusion looking for a formulae and is nothing but propaganda. if proper studies do in fact show this to be true, this study won’t add one iota of credibility to them. its trash.
1 Like
Well played.
So it’s not scientific misinformation but a bad study. The conclusions are fine but the researchers were biased who wanted a predetermined outcome to their study.
It’s like the sugar industry coming out with a study about sugar saying it is good for you.
And more studies come out and confirm this study, it will still be worthless.
Gotcha.
Allan
no, the conclusion of a bad study is not fine. it adds nothing. its not a conclusion from any science, its propaganda no matter what it says. if an equation says 5=2+2 says 5 equals that because 5 is what you were looking for it is not right because a further equation says 2+3=5. niether is the further equation any more right than it is because of it, its right simply because it is and the first bit of garbage has no bearing. you can’t confirm 5=2+2, because it doesn’t.
2 Likes
It is clearly stated in the study.
“Additional prospective studies with larger populations are warranted to support these findings.”
Even they realize more studies are needed.
We shall await further studies on the matter.
Allan
and? saying 5=2+2 isn’t any better because you say “other mathematicians should check our work”
I am denying that is what the study said.
Allan
denial doesn’t change facts.
if you vaccinate people in jan, feb, march, who might possibly have been reinfected in may, jun, jul, after their naturally derived antibodies have worn off, when you test them, regardless of whether they had covid before the antibodies will be active. they knew that before they started. for a valid test you’ll have to wait for the vaccine antibodies to also wear off and then see what percentage of the vaccinated get reinfected.
the real issue here is not immunity… its memory cells. we know immunity no matter how its derived is temporary.
You read again.
