Had Covid + unvaccinated = 2.3 times more likely to get re-infected than if vaccinated

This study shows that people who had Covid-19 but did not get vaccinated after the infection, are 2.34 more likely to get re-infected than people who had Covid-19 but then got vaccinated.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm?s_cid=mm7032e1_w

The study's conclusion:

"To reduce their likelihood for future infection, all eligible persons should be offered COVID-19 vaccine, even those with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection."

This is a strong argument against the idea that just the natural immunity from having had the infection is sufficient.

If you had Covid-19 before and you don't want to have it again (a wise idea, because who knows if you'll get cumulative organ damage), get vaccinated. Protection won't be 100% but will be better than natural immunity alone.

Also read this:

https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0806-vaccination-protection.html

 

B.S. again.
There is no reason to believe CDC
The average death rate in U.S. is steady, about above 1000 per day.
There is no positive correlation between vaccination and death rate.

 

Meanwhile, people who have had 2 or even 3 COVID shots are still getting it...

 

COVID has killed a whopping 0.23% of the U.S. population. Less than half of a half of a single percent. Not exactly what I'd call a deadly pandemic worthy of crippling the entire country over....

 

Completely false and manipulated study. You can't compare the two without taking into account the time since infection vs time since vaccine

 

Would you like to know how much of the world's population has died due to COVID? 0.06%

Again, not exactly what I'd call a world-ending pandemic....

 

Yeah. You're a big authority in understanding a scientific study. Right. [Insert sarcasm here]

 

They are, but at a much smaller rate than the unvaccinated.

 

That's one way to see it. Another way is to realize that this is the pandemic that has killed most Americans in the whole history of this country, and also, that's the event that killed more Americans than all the major wars combined. Also, deaths are not all. More than 50% of survivors come out of it with organ damage. Finally, what the hell you are still talking about, crippling the economy? Are you whining about lockdowns? They were employed for 3 to 5 weeks in some states back in May of 2020, then never more. There aren't economy-crippling measures being taken. What damages the economy is that many people are not willing to spend money and patronize business due to the uncertainty generated by the pandemic. The virus damages the economy, not the containment measures which at this point are very modest.

 

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/pdfs/mm7032e1-H.pdf

1) It's not comparing people unvaccinated (natural immunity) to the vaccinated
It's comparing natural immunity to people who had natural immunity + vaccine

2) It's not comparing natural immunity gained at 1.5 months ago to vaccines 1.5 months ago, and natural immunity at 12 months ago to vaccinations 12 months ago.
Instead, they are comparing natural immunity gained up to 15 months ago to vaccines gained as near as two weeks ago.
Both natural immunity and vaccines lose their efficacy over time. Instead of comparing how they lose their efficacy over time, they use the loss of efficacy to give them the best possible results that would make the vaccine look good.

Not surprising that Fauci the immoral deceiver would approve such a study. What's next, having fleas eat the ears off beagles?

 

The problem is, you don't understand what "natural immunity" is. Once you get to understand the concept (if you ever do), talk to me again, OK?

Oh, and by the way, if you think that by posting these studies I'm in any way, shape, or form defending Anthony Fauci, you're sorely mistaken and you don't have a clue about my posting history in regards to Fauci.

Actually, I should rather say, you don't have a clue, period.

 

90% of your post is BS, why people should trust your "scientific" expertise.

 

So you are going to avoid the point being made by playing semantics over common use language vs medical? Reminds me of Fauci lying in congress about Gain of Function.

 

Oh boy, if you ever saw a non-David v Goliath...

Your analogy is actually spot on. Rand Paul had no idea what he was talking about.

 

So what do you think about the topic at hand? Do you think it's okay to pick out test groups that would be most beneficial to getting the results you want? Seems unethical to me.

 

Look, if you don't understand the scientific terms used in a study, then you can't correctly interpret the scientific findings of the study. This is what made you be mistaken. It's not semantics. You need to know what the definitions are to understand what is being compared to what.

Again, what's with the Fauci thing? Do I look to you like a Fauci fan? Hint: I'm definitely not one, and I've berated him for lying several times in my posting, and in real life in my professional capacity too. You want to berate Fauci? Be my guest and start a thread, I'll join you there and berate him too, like I've done multiple times. If you think you're scoring points against me by putting down Fauci, like I said you're sorely mistaken. But Fauci has nothing to do with what I posted here. Focus, please. Stay on topic.

The reason why you're not understanding this study and you think it is mistaken (no, it isn't), is that you didn't understand what the researchers meant by natural immunity. Once you do, read the study again, OK? Like I said, then, if you get it, you can talk to me again about it and maybe I'll even listen. But I'm not about to waste my time debating the very science I've spent 41 years of my professional life making, with someone who doesn't even get the basic concepts.

Yes, I've patiently explained it to people here over and over... but it's not every day that I feel patient.

My reason to post this, was to encourage people who had Covid-19 to still get the vaccine. All studies so far have confirmed that it is a wise thing to do (INCLUDING the study that anti-vaxxers like to quote to say that natural immunity is better than vaccine immunity; they talk about two of the arms of that study, conveniently skipping over a third arm which considered natural immunity + vaccine and found it to be even higher protection than the other two arms, and the very last line of that study's conclusion advised people to get vaccinated - it's funny that it's the very study quoted by anti-vaxxers, LOL... of course when they quote it, they pretend that the conclusion was never the one the authors, in reality, adopted - an exercise in selective quoting that works for those who, unlike me, did not read the original study).

I don't feel like debating the merits of this issue with someone who couldn't even understand the much simpler study I posted. You want my attention? Get a clue.

 

They don't mention natural immunity in the papers. I used the term because it is the commonly used term and the actual intent behind it would have been understood on these forums. There is no point in discussing the meaning of a term as it relates to the study when the study never uses the term. The study uses the phrase "natural infection-derived immunity'; a bit of a mouth full.

 

Yep. Look at what YOU said: "people unvaccinated (natural immunity)"
See now how you collapsed and simplified the situation?

 

Since those who die or end up in hospitals and had covid previously aren't kept as part of the stats that I see...I have trouble believing this study is correct. I don't trust it.

What I'm seeing vaccinated people getting sick with COVID. I'm seeing people non vaccinated getting sick. I know of people of both of those groups that have died. BUT...not yet have known or heard of a person who had covid catch it again. That is my study so far.

 

If its such a thorn in your foot I won't use the common term anymore... when talking to you. I am not referring to innate immunity. I am talking about naturally obtained immunity through infection and that is what the paper is talking about (natural infection-derived immunity). You said you would respond to what I posted earlier if I knew the difference. What is your response?

 

@GrayMan your main objection regarding comparing timelines, is indeed addressed by the study.

"Overall, 246 case-patients met eligibility requirements and were successfully matched by age, sex, and date of initial infection with 492 controls."
"For controls, the same definition was applied, using the reinfection date of the matched case-patient."
"Case-patients and controls were matched on a 1:2 ratio based on sex, age (within 3 years), and date of initial positive SARS-CoV-2 test (within 1 week).

So, you see, people are matched in the groups with others that got infected and re-infected in similar periods of time. The differing variable was vaccination versus no vaccination (for the partially vaccinated, the study was inconclusive).

Also, you seem to interpret this study as trying to show what kind of immunity is best (your objection of time lapse between infection and the study versus more recent vaccination MIGHT make sense in this context). But that's NOT what this study is getting at. It is simply saying that if you get Covid-19 and then you ALSO get vaccinated, you're MORE protected from re-infection.

Given that the conclusion was based on matched controls for dates of infection and reinfection, and the odds ratio was significantly different, the study is crystal clear and not "false and manipulated" like you said.

 

Now that you used the correct concept, the response is above, post #21.

 

From your very own article

This study is hardly conclusive as it pretty much says in my quote from the article.

 

If I’m reading this study correctly they had 219 vaccinated participants and 463 unvaccinated participants. Seems a bit off on their equality of participation. Why would they want more unvaccinated people than vaccinated?

 

That is exactly what they trying to convey. In fact you used it to suggest that natural infection-derived immunity is insufficient in your original post. This is false. Both vaccines and infection-derived immunity deminish over time. Both are insufficient at a certain point.

Natural infection-derived immunity is so deminished by that time its not really comparing apples to apples.

I think a more honest assertion would be that a vaccine is still helpful at some point, much like a booster. A better study would include time frames to determine when that is. I don't think they did that though, because there was an agenda..