Vaccines offer superior immunity compared to someone that never got sick. But once you get sick and you manage to recover, your immune system will be as strong or (highly likely) stronger than if it was through a vaccine. This is well-known in the medical community. Only now are the media touting the idea that the vaccines can give superior protection for those that were already infected. People are conflating the relatively high risk of not recovering and therefore it being preferable to get the vaccine, with the vaccine still having use after already having recovered from a natural infection.
www.cnbc.com
Well, since everyone with a weak immune system does not recover it's obvious that the dataset 'people who recovered' will have relatively more people with such a strong immune system. The others are dead or never recover.
This just in, not yet peer-reviewed though;
Researchers at Tel Aviv University and Clalit, the largest health-care organization in Israel, examined nearly 400 people who had tested positive for Covid-19 after receiving at least one dose of the vaccine. They compared them to the same number of people who were infected and unvaccinated.
The researchers found the prevalence of the variant from South Africa, known as B.1.351, among patients who received two doses of the vaccine was about eight times higher than those who were unvaccinated. The data, published online over the weekend, suggest the B.1.351 is better able to “break through” the protection of the vaccine than the original strain, the researchers wrote in the study.
Covid variant from South Africa was able to ‘break through’ Pfizer vaccine in Israeli study
The coronavirus variant first discovered in South Africa is able to evade some of the protection of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, according to an Israeli study.
The argument is not that people should not get the vaccine.
Kinda with ya on this one. I have so many friends who are getting it all happy and proud but who got infected already mere months ago and I'm like... not to be a dick but thats kinda a huge waste of resources. It just seems so redundant to me. But hey I'm not a scientist so whatever.
These studies... I just kinda tune them out. It's so wishy washy. A constant flip flop of contradictions. Just a week or two ago there was a news article saying the vaccines do neutralize the SA and Brazil variants very and well and now theres this. Then next week there will be a "No actually!" counter article to this, and the week after a counter article to that. It's just so tiring.
I know people who got it pretty bad and still got vaccinated because they didn’t want to risk going through it again.
You are 20x less likely to get C19 if you've been vaccinated. They're comparing 400 people infected with the vaccine with 400 infected people who have not been vaccinated. An 8x higher prevalence of a variant still means that the vaccine provides protection (assuming precise numbers, 2.5x less likely to be infected with the variant if you're vaccinated), just not as great as the wild type.
My grandmother got Pfizer. I talked to her a day later and she told me she feeling great. Go for it.
Yea everyone i know including my parents and grandmother got it and are fine. I just hate medicine and stuff that mess with the body
I can relate. I'm the same but for this case I will make an exception. I want this shit to end finally and if people don't get the vaccine it never will.
That is simply not true. It will end either way. With or without the vaccine. The Spanish flu ended without a vaccine to help. So did the Hong Kong Flu. Every flu pandemic has ended without the help of a vaccine. This is the first time we’ve received one during the height of the pandemic.
My time is way too valueable to wait for that to go away naturally.
Most of those flus burned themselves out in around 2 years. We are about 1 1/2 years into it. At best we’ve saved ourselves a couple of months by introducing a vaccine so early.
I'm from Europe and here where I live I do not see a return to normal anytime soon if not enough people take the vaccine.
Problem is its only 6 months. Scares me
Is it really bad in your country? The virus I mean.
Well, we have low numbers but the lockdown is still pretty strict and every time they lift some rules the numbers rise again.
Do you honestly think your government is going to lift all the restrictions once everyone has been vaccinated? Just curious. And which country if I might ask?
Austria... and yes, I believe the goverment will lift the restictions soonest possible considering how much of a pillar tourism is for our country. My thinking is that once enough people are vaccinated and hospitaizations go down, the restrictions will be gradually lifed. So for all I care they may get the fuck on with those vaccines.
Vaccines offer superior immunity compared to someone that never got sick. But once you get sick and you manage to recover, your immune system will be as strong or (highly likely) stronger than if it was through a vaccine. This is well-known in the medical community. Only now are the media touting the idea that the vaccines can give superior protection for those that were already infected. People are conflating the relatively high risk of not recovering and therefore it being preferable to get the vaccine, with the vaccine still having use after already having recovered from a natural infection.
And you know what else supports this? The fact that you need these vaccines twice to build a strong enough immunity, while generally you only need to be infected once and recover on your own for you to have a strong enough immunity. See here;
"Is natural infection better than immunization?
It is true that natural infection almost always causes better immunity than vaccines. Whereas immunity from disease often follows a single natural infection, immunity from vaccines usually occurs only after several doses. However, the difference between vaccination and natural infection is the price paid for immunity:
- The price paid for immunity after natural infection might be pneumonia from chickenpox, intellectual disability from Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib), pneumonia from pneumococcus, birth defects from rubella, liver cancer from hepatitis B virus, or death from measles.
- Immunization with vaccines, like natural infections, typically induces long-lived immunity. But unlike natural infection, immunization does not extract such a high price for immunity; that is, immunization does not cause pneumonia, intellectual disability, birth defects, cancer or death."
Vaccine Safety: Immune System and Health | Children's Hospital of Philadelphia
In this section we address vaccine topics related to natural infection vs. immunization and the impact of vaccines on the immune system.www.chop.edu
Could things have changed with the mRNA vaccines? Maybe. But the fact that you need to have them twice just like many other vaccines suggests otherwise. If these claims are to be made that even after infection the vaccines have use, they need to be scientifically supported. And right now, the science and the propaganda are being blended together.
And no, the amount of anti-bodies is not an indication of strength of immunity. Why? Because you might not have chickenpox antibodies floating around in you all the time, but generally, people get it only once in their life and never again. The antibodies are created only when necessary.
That is why to me, the argument that people that got only mild symptoms from the infection might have a weaker immunity is weird. It's possible if they got a low concentration of the virus (i.e. low dose), but afterwards got a much higher dose and the body didn't expect it. It's more likely that in those people their immune system is quicker to respond and develop antibodies, to the point of not allowing the virus to spread rapidly in their bodies. It is also known that people that recovered, if they are re-infected, the symptoms are generally more mild than the first time. Additionally, the vaccines do not guarantee that you won't get infected.
They talk about reinfection, but in reality, they don't know if it's a true reinfection with another exposure of the virus, or simply the same infection that the immune system ultimately failed to fight of. It's not that easy to make that distinction. See here;
What we know about covid-19 reinfection so far
With most coronaviruses, recovery confers a degree of immunity to reinfection. But a small number of patients have caught covid-19 for a second time. Chris Stokel-Walker looks at what we know and how worried we should be “Other things being equal, we can expect to see—even without this new...www.bmj.com
So in short. I'm not saying these vaccines don't work. I am saying that it does not make sense to me that you should get the vaccine, if you already got infected with COVID and naturally fought it off. If you haven't gotten the virus, it seems better to simply get the vaccine, because the physical risk you expose yourself to by getting the vaccine first is lower than the risk of getting the actual virus first. Not accounting for the risks related to of loss of freedoms by being compliant if vaccine passports are implemented.
Good to see that you generally agree.
A higher proportion of infections were variants, people were not more likely to be infected. Already posted anyways.Study finds COVID variant affects vaccinated individuals more than unvaccinated
The South Africa variant of the coronavirus affects vaccinated individuals more than those who are unvaccinated, according to a new study from Tel Aviv University and Israel’s largest healthcare provider.denvergazette.com
