CDC now admits natural immunity better than vaccination in own study

[JonMom]

https://justthenews.com/politics-policy ... nst-covids

The new research is based on analyses of COVID infections among roughly 1.1 million adults in California and New York from May to November of last year

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/ ... mm7104e1_w

[cdnavater]

https://justthenews.com/politics-policy ... nst-covids

The new research is based on analyses of COVID infections among roughly 1.1 million adults in California and New York from May to November of last year

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/ ... mm7104e1_w

So, what are you waiting for, go get yourself some Covid then!

[DanWEC]

I was wondering when this would get posted here, it needs to be taken with a grain of salt however.

The results are concrete: Prior infection results in stronger immunity than vaccination alone, but the dilemma is that the unvaccinated are a higher risk of severe reaction or death upon the initial infection.

To take another direction, it could be argued that the fastest, most effective way out of this mess would be highest possible vaccination rate combined with zero lockdowns or mitigating measures. This could theoretically yield the most resilient population while limiting the collateral damage of severe reactions to the initial infection.

While this would be the ideal epidimiological route, too bad we're not allowed to do that because of the potential load on our neutered health care system overseen by an unapologetic, shortsighted administration. This will take far longer than necessary to return to normal.

[WellThatAgedWell]

I was wondering when this would get posted here, the results need to be taken with a grain of salt however.

The results are concrete: Prior infection results in stronger immunity than vaccination alone, but the dilemma is that the unvaccinated are a higher risk of severe reaction upon the initial infection.

To take another direction, it could be argued that the fastest, most effective way out of this mess would be highest possible vaccination rate combined with zero lockdowns or mitigating measures. This could theoretically yield the most resilient population while limiting the collateral damage of severe reactions to the initial infection.

While this would be the ideal epidimiological route, too bad we're not allowed to do that because of the potential load on our neutered health care system designed by an unapologetic, shortsighted administration. This will take far longer than necessary to return to normal.

You don’t say! So not only were lockdowns detrimental to our economy, and we also know that wealth and prosperity are linked to more favourable health outcomes. We can also now say lockdowns are also counter productive to curbing Covid.

We pretend to save the lives of older people (because let’s face it, lockdowns or not, or masks or no masks, the outcome’s are not dramatically different) at the expense of everyone else. It is likely everyone has had years removed off their lives indirectly due to following these expert opinions on Covid. How selfish, all of those who think we should lockdown and mask. They are responsible for a few years of life of everyone who made it out on the other side of this.

Look back on all those comments on this form the past two years regarding Covid. They aged so well!

[Aviatard]

From the same report:

Vaccination protected against COVID-19 and related hospitalization, and surviving a previous infection protected against a reinfection and related hospitalization during periods of predominantly Alpha and Delta variant transmission, before the emergence of Omicron; evidence suggests decreased protection from both vaccine- and infection-induced immunity against Omicron infections, although additional protection with widespread receipt of booster COVID-19 vaccine doses is expected. Initial infection among unvaccinated persons increases risk for serious illness, hospitalization, long-term sequelae, and death;

[CpnCrunch]

Not much good if it kills you though...

[WellThatAgedWell]

From the same report:

Vaccination protected against COVID-19 and related hospitalization, and surviving a previous infection protected against a reinfection and related hospitalization during periods of predominantly Alpha and Delta variant transmission, before the emergence of Omicron; evidence suggests decreased protection from both vaccine- and infection-induced immunity against Omicron infections, although additional protection with widespread receipt of booster COVID-19 vaccine doses is expected. Initial infection among unvaccinated persons increases risk for serious illness, hospitalization, long-term sequelae, and death;

Can you break that down by age? And by how much?

Let’s say healthy 18 year old. What is the risk of hospitalization, what is the risk of death, and how much is either of those reduced with a vaccine.

Then tell me the consequences of lockdowns on the 18 year old from an education/health/economic standpoint.

The problem with the vaccines right now is that line between being hospitalized or not, or death of not is not heavily influenced by the vaccines itself. There are plenty of people where with or without a vaccine are very likely to be hospitalized based on their health conditions. And there are millions of healthy people where with or without a vaccine they are not likely to be hospitalized either way. Vaccination is a small percentage of the puzzle. Let’s stop pretending vaccinating and boosting 20 year olds is how we end the pandemic. Let’s stop pretending lockdowns give us the best outcomes for everyone overall.

[Vaticinator]

To take another direction, it could be argued that the fastest, most effective way out of this mess would be highest possible vaccination rate combined with zero lockdowns or mitigating measures. This could theoretically yield the most resilient population while limiting the collateral damage of severe reactions to the initial infection.

While this would be the ideal epidimiological route, too bad we're not allowed to do that because of the potential load on our neutered health care system overseen by an unapologetic, shortsighted administration.

An approach not unlike this was recommended by professors of epidemiology and medicine from Oxford, Stanford and Harvard. They proposed that it would minimize the negative effects that we will now reap for years to come. To your second point, they recommended "focused protection" for the vulnerable to minimize mortality and strain on health care. I guess those professors weren't expert enough. Or maybe politics and emotions have been playing a bigger role in policy than some may want to admit and it hasn't been exclusively "following the science."

[Vaticinator]

Not much good if it kills you though...

What's the risk of death from omicron? The risk of ending up in ICU is 0.26%. The risk of ending up on a ventilator is 0.07%. Death seems rather unlikely.

[TG]

blah!

You're not tired of spamming this forum with your multiple profils?

[‘Bob’]

Just imagine.

What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger.

Too bad about all of those Herman Cain award winners who lost that bet.

[Rooster69]

Herman Cain?


You mean the 74 year old , with stage IV liver cancer who died with Covid ? Or did he die because of Covid?

[Schooner69A]

The link JonMom posted reflects the reverse of his assertion...