Natural immunity confers stronger protection against Covid than vaccines(academic.oup.com)
academic.oup.com
Natural immunity confers stronger protection against Covid than vaccines
https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/75/1/e545/6563799
1 comments
Not this again. Check the n-values on this study, aka the number of observed subjects. To "throwawayfear", cherry-picking studies doesn't make it so.
Don’t get the throwawayfear reference.
But the number of participants in the study is relatively high, and the multiples involved are also high.
This should give pause for serious thought even if it is not the final word on the matter for everyone.
But the number of participants in the study is relatively high, and the multiples involved are also high.
This should give pause for serious thought even if it is not the final word on the matter for everyone.
throwawayfear was the name of the submitter. And you don't need studies like this. We have vaccinated literally billions of people across the planet.
We have aggregate medical data on folks who have been vaccinated and not vaccinated en masse on national levels. We're not in the "controlled study" phase anymore where we need samples to extrapolate onto larger populations. We already have the larger populations.
If there were a recent analysis that looked at all of the population of France for example and showed that vaccinated individuals were more likely to contract Covid again than folks who had contracted Covid before but without vaccination, that would be noteworthy. (And it would have to be relative infection rates, not absolute numbers since the vaccinated far outnumber the unvaccinated at this point in any country would could get reliable data from.)
I'm sorry, but this study doesn't register for me. It strikes me as one of the one-off studies that antivaxxers latch onto to promote and agenda rather than find insight. I feel the same about studies that trickle in linking vaccination to autism. It simply doesn't comport with what the majority of medical analysis indicates. And that's normal. There are always one-offs. But those one-offs get a lot of publicity from folks with an axe to grind rather than those who honestly want to improve public health.
We have aggregate medical data on folks who have been vaccinated and not vaccinated en masse on national levels. We're not in the "controlled study" phase anymore where we need samples to extrapolate onto larger populations. We already have the larger populations.
If there were a recent analysis that looked at all of the population of France for example and showed that vaccinated individuals were more likely to contract Covid again than folks who had contracted Covid before but without vaccination, that would be noteworthy. (And it would have to be relative infection rates, not absolute numbers since the vaccinated far outnumber the unvaccinated at this point in any country would could get reliable data from.)
I'm sorry, but this study doesn't register for me. It strikes me as one of the one-off studies that antivaxxers latch onto to promote and agenda rather than find insight. I feel the same about studies that trickle in linking vaccination to autism. It simply doesn't comport with what the majority of medical analysis indicates. And that's normal. There are always one-offs. But those one-offs get a lot of publicity from folks with an axe to grind rather than those who honestly want to improve public health.
I don't think the study is as easy to replicate as you think. It requires correlating test results and vaccination records. Although both of those data sets probably exist, they are sensitive, probably held by different parties. Joining them should be difficult.
As to the study, I'm not really clear if you're objecting to the research itself or to it being posted on HN, but both those positions seem unreasonable. I agree that publicity value sometimes derives from novelty, and that might, in the end be traced to an unfortunate coincidence in the data. But replication and/or review should address that. And if it is as easy as you hint, that should happen quickly and at low cost.
As to the study, I'm not really clear if you're objecting to the research itself or to it being posted on HN, but both those positions seem unreasonable. I agree that publicity value sometimes derives from novelty, and that might, in the end be traced to an unfortunate coincidence in the data. But replication and/or review should address that. And if it is as easy as you hint, that should happen quickly and at low cost.
Agreed. Let peer review sort through it.