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

No, it's not what the AUTHORS were getting at. Not sufficient, I used in the sense that more is better, which is what this study and others say. Superiority of one over the other is not the goal of this study. You'd have noticed it if you had any familiarity with reading scientific studies.

This study didn't compare titers of neutralizing antibodies, didn't compare duration of immunity... it simply separated two groups, matched for every other factor, and the one difference, vaccinated or not, generated an odds ratio difference of more than 2.3 (that's not small) for likelihood of reinfection among the unvaccinated, with good confidence interval. So, it demonstrated a benefit in vaccinating people who had the infection before, and it's crystal clear and not false or manipulated. Where is the manipulation you speak of?

This part about the study's shortcomings, you thinking that this diminishes this study's solidity, shows your lack of familiarity with scientific studies. ALL of them have a self-deprecating section in the end. It's considered good form. All the ones I've authored myself, have such section (despite being very solid). You'll be hard pressed to locate a single one that doesn't have a list of shortcomings, unless it is done by inexperienced young research fellows who haven't been properly supervised. No study is supposed to encompass the whole possible conclusions in a field or even a topic. We always encourage further research and point at other things that could be done better. Part of the scientific value of a study, is to point at further directions to continue to advance the field.

 

That may be true however why would they have far more unvaccinated participation than vaccinated? I think this would show that they are a bit biased in their approach as well.

 

I mean don’t you find it odd that the unvaccinated were reinfect at 2.3 times the rate of the vaccinated yet the unvaccinated also outnumbered the vaccinated by 2.1….. pretty close numbers there

 

No, it's just how the sample qualified for the study. Studies have inclusion criteria and exclusion criteria. They didn't actively try to influence it one way or the other. It's just how the dice fell.

Again, this ALSO shows that you guys are not familiar with scientific studies. If you read the study, this is not one with recruitment. It's one that looked at a cohort. So, there wasn't any selection bias. The sample is what it is. If they tried to artificially eliminate unvaccinated people who met the inclusion criteria, THEN they'd be biased.

 

No, of course not... the groups are equalized in the statistical treatment. Odds ratio is not ABSOLUTE NUMBER of infected people. It's a comparison of the percentages in each group. You said it right, it's a rate. You are trying to compare a rate, with the absolute number of participants who qualified for the study.

Sigh... I'm discussing this topic with people who have no clue... so they keep raising objections that are completely far-fetched.

-------------

I mean, reading you guys, one would not be too far off if one had a hypothesis to explain your approach:

"I'm a right winger therefore I'm anti-science. So if someone links to a study, if I don't like the conclusion, I'll say it is false, biased, and manipulated, and will point to whatever apparent arguments to support my idea that it's false, biased, and manipulated, although I do not have ANY knowledge whatsoever of study design, biostatistics, randomization, inclusion and exclusion criteria, prospective versus retrospective (cohort) sampling, habitual manner of writing up a study, and I'm entirely incapable of reading a study and understanding the goals and the reasons for the conclusions; even though I'm talking to a freaking medical scientist MD/PhD with 41 years of scientific experience, but I'll doubt the guy and the study's authors anyway (he must be a liberal who loves Fauci - even though his posting indicates the opposite). Whatever, I'm clueless regarding the sciences but I'll just try to minimize and deny the study anyway."

 

You’re not that cool bud. I actually responded in the form of asking a question. Even when I first brought that up I first said “if I’m reading this right”. You’re obviously too smart to talk to People like me so I’ll just avoid your topics from now on. Go **** your self

 

The word you want here is you're, not your

Sorry, I'm not your bud.

You want to say responding, not responded

Fair point, but I was responding in block, including the other guy too, as evidenced by using HIS words "false and manipulated". And when you said "if I'm reading this right," it wasn't the first thing you said. You had a previous post. So you're lying about this when you say "even when I first brought that up." But yes, you were reading this wrong, obviously, like I demonstrated.

That's the one correct thing you said in this tread. Agreed. See, you're not hopeless; you can at least say ONE correct thing.

Good riddance. It's your loss; you won't get educated on these topics. I have no use for you in my topics. And your insult at the end shows that you're not worthy of anybody's attention here. People who run out of arguments appeal to personal insults.

 

While you’re spell checking don’t forget to check yours as well. Lol

 

Last response. I very rarely commit grammatical errors like yours. That wasn't spelling. That was grammar. Apparently you don't know the difference. Grammar errors and typos/spelling are profoundly different. The former are the hallmark of a much bigger problem. The latter are mere accidents that anybody can commit. When I mentioned the correct thing you said, it was the part that I'm too smart to discuss this topic with you. I wasn't referring to the form there; rather, to the idea, but it obviously flew above your head (why am I not surprised?). By the way, I did make one mistake in my post above but it's been corrected in the final version (nothing to do with spelling; just, I better specified where you were lying).

Now, have a long and safe life. As far as you're concerned, no more reading of your posts (they're useless anyway). Farewell. Over and out.

 

You know what they say about correlation and causation...
Could the correlation possibly be due to people who decide not be vaccinated also being statistically more likely not to take other precautions?
If so, this statistic does not necessarily say anything about immunity, either from the vaccine or previous infection. Or it could be a more complicated compilation of factors.

 

Seriously?

 

It is pretty typical aggressive behavior of profit motivated individual.
Eventually doctor will be talking only to his B.S. believers.

 

Folks who have had COVID have ~27x the number of antibodies and beta cells. You don't seem to want to recognize the science. Why deny what is out there? As for CDC, you know they have been consistently wrong, and put out false information since the outbreak, right?

 

Believe the CDC st your own risk. There is an agenda.


https://www.science.org/content/art...er-immunity-vaccine-vaccination-remains-vital


The natural immune protection that develops after a SARS-CoV-2 infection offers considerably more of a shield against the Delta variant of the pandemic coronavirus than two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, according to a large Israeli study that some scientists wish came with a “Don’t try this at home” label. The newly released data show people who once had a SARS-CoV-2 infection were much less likely than never-infected, vaccinated people to get Delta, develop symptoms from it, or become hospitalized with serious COVID-19.

 

You are arguing with someone who once faced with the idea that there are people who have other autoimmune issues that could not tolerate having their autoimmune issues tweaked with the injection, decided that if I couldn't talk at the same scientific level as them, while ignoring facts and links to the information, then I was not worth their time.

Good luck to you.

 

It could. However, this is a randomly distributed, and matched control group study. And the odds ratio difference of 2.3 is quite big. It is also in line with numerous other studies showing vaccine efficacy (I'm not surprised that you dismiss them all and prefer to listen to junk science and conspiracy theories). And also, you do realize that everybody in this study did get Covid at least once, right? So, these people weren't that careful, to start with.

Like I said in response to others here, this study doesn't have the goal of comparing immunity from previous infection versus immunity from vaccine or to suggest any superiority of one over the other. It merely suggests that if you get Covid but then also get vaccinated, your odds of reinfection are smaller.