Natural Immunity

[nett]

Pfizer's 6 month follow up study showed something very interesting. It's been stated here multiple times that infection + vax is the strongest immunity. Turns out that's not the case. In Pfizer's own 6 mo safety and efficacy follow up study, vaccination did not show a statistically significant increase in protection in a baseline population with prior infections.

If you take the statically insignificant protectiveness factor that they found for previously infected vaccinated population, and you factor in the statistical risk of an adverse reaction due to vaccination. you end up with a very sorry argument for vaccinating previously infected folks. For every 1 COVID reinfection that you prevent, you will average 23 moderate to severe adverse reactions to the vaccine.

As Josh said, the vaccines are worse than useless to a significant portion of the population that has been infected, they're actually dangerous to us.

6 mo safety / efficacy study: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101 ... 21261159v1

safety and reactogenicity study: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101 ... 21252096v1

[temporal1]

Question. There is a lot of noise about the Delta variant.
When someone is tested for Covid, does the test differentiate between the Alpha variant and the Delta variant, or is it simply assumed that most or all current cases are the Delta variant?

Testing for the delta variant is time consuming and expensive, so health departments will do a "sampling" where they just test a handful of new cases, and then assume all cases match that percentage.

I'm not sure why there is so much noise about different variants - COVID is COVID.

Have you ever sat around wondering which strain of the flu or of the common cold you have?
Natural immunity seems to extend to all variants (unlike the vaccine, which doesn't protect against newer variants at all).

i do wonder a bit about which flu strains, because i get seasonal flu shots, and they are known for being LIMITED to certain strains.
i wonder, not that it does me any good.

[Josh]

i do wonder a bit about which flu strains, because i get seasonal flu shots, and they are known for being LIMITED to certain strains.
i wonder, not that it does me any good.

I got the flu shot in 2015 and then promptly got the worst flu I've ever had (the Brisbane Flu of 2015-2016).

The flu shot is ineffective and is primarily about making money by scaring people.

Very interestingly, some doctors and nurses in Canada didn't want to take the flu shot and offered to wear masks instead. The Canadian government did lots of research and published a study in 2019 trying to prove that masks don't work, so that they could mandate these workers get flu shots instead.

Mass vaccination is all about money.

[temporal1]

i do wonder a bit about which flu strains, because i get seasonal flu shots, and they are known for being LIMITED to certain strains.
i wonder, not that it does me any good.

I got the flu shot in 2015 and then promptly got the worst flu I've ever had (the Brisbane Flu of 2015-2016).

The flu shot is ineffective and is primarily about making money by scaring people.

Very interestingly, some doctors and nurses in Canada didn't want to take the flu shot and offered to wear masks instead. The Canadian government did lots of research and published a study in 2019 trying to prove that masks don't work, so that they could mandate these workers get flu shots instead.

Mass vaccination is all about money.

i think i suffered the 2015 flu vaccine disaster, too. it was terrible. such a fail, it was in the news.

i get them since i’ve gotten older. my doctors like it.

[Bootstrap]

Bootstrap is demonstrating the precise art of doublethink. The study clears shows a difference, the authors do not conclude that there is a difference (because it would be wrongthink), therefore we conclude there is no difference.

Oh come on. You repeatedly cite papers that do not say what you claim, then accuse me of being in denial because I read the papers and point that out. And if you believe that the 15 cases are statistically significant in the Cleveland study are statistically, show your math. But so far, you won't, you will keep making ugly claims about me and playing rhetorical games instead, then claiming that you are just following the data. If you have the ability to follow data, show me how you computed that, if you don't, please stop bragging, and regardless, please start admitting what the papers you point to say when someone else points it out.

Here's another example: I am not the person who says that vaccination can be helpful for those who have already had Covid, that's the Israel paper you keep citing, pretending it says the opposite.

You have a pattern of making bold claims, then pointing to papers that do not actually support those claims, then trolling anyone who notices. Please start answering specific questions, and please start admitting when a paper you cite says something that contradicts your own opinion.

My own position is that it's too early to take a firm stand on some of these things. I don't know if the Israel paper you cite is correct when it says that people get better protection if they get a vaccination even if they have had Covid, but I can read well enough to know that it does say that. I do not know if another experiment might find a statistically significant difference where your Cleveland study did not, but I do know that it did not.

And for now, at least, please expect me to pin you down on these specific claims where you accuse me of ignoring the proof you have provided and I am simply saying that the papers you cite do not say what you claim they say. Time to stop slipping out of the loop by insulting me and actually address the papers and the data.

[Bootstrap]

It's been stated here multiple times that infection + vax is the strongest immunity.

Not my claim, it's the claim made in the Israel study you keep citing. Could you please admit that? Simply say something like "yes, that's what the study I have been citing says".

Turns out that's not the case. In Pfizer's own 6 mo safety and efficacy follow up study, vaccination did not show a statistically significant increase in protection in a baseline population with prior infections.

As I have said repeatedly, I don't think this question is settled science yet. I haven't read the Pfizer study to see if it says what you claim it says or not.

[Bootstrap]

To me, that's a distinction without a difference, but whatever...

Really?

It's the difference between "Bootstrap says" and "actually, the people who wrote that paper don't say what you claim they said". Which is true for both the Cleveland paper and the Israel paper.

[Bootstrap]

As Josh said, the vaccines are worse than useless to a significant portion of the population that has been infected, they're actually dangerous to us.

6 mo safety / efficacy study: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101 ... 21261159v1

Here's what that paper says:

Results BNT162b2 continued to be safe and well tolerated. Few participants had adverse events leading to study withdrawal. VE against COVID-19 was 91% (95% CI 89.0-93.2) through up to 6 months of follow-up, among evaluable participants and irrespective of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. VE of 86%-100% was seen across countries and in populations with diverse characteristics of age, sex, race/ethnicity, and COVID-19 risk factors in participants without evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. VE against severe disease was 97% (95% CI 80.3−99.9). In South Africa, where the SARS-CoV-2 variant of concern, B.1.351 (beta), was predominant, 100% (95% CI 53.5, 100.0) VE was observed.

Conclusion With up to 6 months of follow-up and despite a gradually declining trend in vaccine efficacy, BNT162b2 had a favorable safety profile and was highly efficacious in preventing COVID-19. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04368728)

Let's check the other paper:

safety and reactogenicity study: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101 ... 21252096v1

Here's what that paper says:

Results Survey was completed by 2,002 respondents, of whom 26.6% had prior COVID-19 infection (68.8% laboratory confirmed). Prior COVID-19 infection was associated with increased risk of any side effect (risk ratio 1.08, 95% confidence intervals [1.05-1.11]), fever (2.24 [1.86-2.70]), breathlessness (2.05 [1.28-3.29]), flu-like illness (1.78 [1.51-2.10]), fatigue (1.34 [1.20-1.49]) and local reactions (1.10 [1.06-1.15]). It was also associated with increased risk of severe side effects, leading to hospital care (1.56 [1.14-2.12]).

While mRNA vaccines were associated with a higher incidence of any side effect (1.06 [1.01-1.11]) compared to viral vector-based vaccines, these were generally milder (p<0.001), mostly local reactions. Importantly, mRNA vaccine-recipients reported considerably lower incidence of systemic reactions (RR<0.6) including anaphylaxis, swelling, flu-like illness, breathlessness and fatigue, and of side effects requiring hospital care (0.42 [0.31-0.58]).

Conclusion For the first time, our study links prior COVID-19 illness with increased incidence of vaccination side effects and demonstrates that mRNA vaccines cause milder, less frequent systemic side effects, but more local reactions.

So how scary are "local reactions"?

Local Reactions. Shot sites can have swelling, redness and pain. Most often, these symptoms start within 24 hours of the shot. They most often last 3 to 5 days. With the DTaP vaccine, they can last up to 7 days.

Not terribly scary.

So Nett, if you can demonstrate that these papers show that vaccines pose a greater risk to people with prior Covid infections than the benefit they provide, please show your math. That does not seem to be what they are saying, it's possible that I am missing something.

[nett]

As Josh said, the vaccines are worse than useless to a significant portion of the population that has been infected, they're actually dangerous to us.

6 mo safety / efficacy study: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101 ... 21261159v1

Here's what that paper says:

Results BNT162b2 continued to be safe and well tolerated. Few participants had adverse events leading to study withdrawal. VE against COVID-19 was 91% (95% CI 89.0-93.2) through up to 6 months of follow-up, among evaluable participants and irrespective of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. VE of 86%-100% was seen across countries and in populations with diverse characteristics of age, sex, race/ethnicity, and COVID-19 risk factors in participants without evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. VE against severe disease was 97% (95% CI 80.3−99.9). In South Africa, where the SARS-CoV-2 variant of concern, B.1.351 (beta), was predominant, 100% (95% CI 53.5, 100.0) VE was observed.

Conclusion With up to 6 months of follow-up and despite a gradually declining trend in vaccine efficacy, BNT162b2 had a favorable safety profile and was highly efficacious in preventing COVID-19. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04368728)

Let's check the other paper:

safety and reactogenicity study: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101 ... 21252096v1

Here's what that paper says:

Results Survey was completed by 2,002 respondents, of whom 26.6% had prior COVID-19 infection (68.8% laboratory confirmed). Prior COVID-19 infection was associated with increased risk of any side effect (risk ratio 1.08, 95% confidence intervals [1.05-1.11]), fever (2.24 [1.86-2.70]), breathlessness (2.05 [1.28-3.29]), flu-like illness (1.78 [1.51-2.10]), fatigue (1.34 [1.20-1.49]) and local reactions (1.10 [1.06-1.15]). It was also associated with increased risk of severe side effects, leading to hospital care (1.56 [1.14-2.12]).

While mRNA vaccines were associated with a higher incidence of any side effect (1.06 [1.01-1.11]) compared to viral vector-based vaccines, these were generally milder (p<0.001), mostly local reactions. Importantly, mRNA vaccine-recipients reported considerably lower incidence of systemic reactions (RR<0.6) including anaphylaxis, swelling, flu-like illness, breathlessness and fatigue, and of side effects requiring hospital care (0.42 [0.31-0.58]).

Conclusion For the first time, our study links prior COVID-19 illness with increased incidence of vaccination side effects and demonstrates that mRNA vaccines cause milder, less frequent systemic side effects, but more local reactions.

So how scary are "local reactions"?

Local Reactions. Shot sites can have swelling, redness and pain. Most often, these symptoms start within 24 hours of the shot. They most often last 3 to 5 days. With the DTaP vaccine, they can last up to 7 days.

Not terribly scary.

So Nett, if you can demonstrate that these papers show that vaccines pose a greater risk to people with prior Covid infections than the benefit they provide, please show your math. That does not seem to be what they are saying, it's possible that I am missing something.

Of course the papers don't say that. I calculated the decrease in risk of reinfection from COVID that vaccination provides, and compared it to the likelihood of a serious reaction, not local. According to the data, they are both very rare event, but reinfection is much rarer than serious vaccine side effects.

I don't think this is a controversial finding, and I don't think we need an expert from the NIH to help us with this. the data is right there...

[Bootstrap]

Of course the papers don't say that. I calculated the decrease in risk of reinfection from COVID that vaccination provides, and compared it to the likelihood of a serious reaction, not local. According to the data, they are both very rare event, but reinfection is much rarer than serious vaccine side effects.

I don't think this is a controversial finding, and I don't think we need an expert from the NIH to help us with this. the data is right there...

Oh, so you simply point to a paper, claim it says something, and don't even mention that the paper reaches a different conclusion? I think that has happened time after time.

I believe this is a controversial finding. I bet you can't find experts who agree with you that the paper actually says that. Am I wrong about that? Can you point me to the FDA or CDC or NIH experts who agree with you? "Nett says" does not mean "this is not controversial".

Are you going to show your math and explain the underlying model? That's what an actual expert would have to do. Better yet, can you subject this to analysis by experts, just as experts have to do?