So we're seeing lots of people who have been vaccinated getting the Delta strain. Are we seeing people who previously had covid but aren't vaccinated getting the same infections?

I've been working with over 500 people from the get go in an outdoor/indoor setting and have yet to see any delta much less alpha variant. The worse it got was about 10 people confirmed positive. What gives?

Do they even tell you which Covid you have when you test positive?

BlackGoldAg2011 said:

---

also from that link you provided:

Quote:

---

To the contrary, a surveillance study among healthcare workers in England estimated SARS-CoV-2 reinfection to be nearly two percent magnitudes higher than the BNO tracker.

---

---

I don't understand the meaning of the bolded part above. This is from the surveillance study hyperlinked in the above quoted sentence:

I

Quote:

---

Interpretation

A previous history of SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with an 84% lower risk of infection, with median protective effect observed 7 months following primary infection. This time period is the minimum probable effect because seroconversions were not included. This study shows that previous infection with SARS-CoV-2 induces effective immunity to future infections in most individuals.

---

BlackGoldAg2011 said:

---

TarponChaser said:

---

bay fan said:

---

I know 3 who had Covid a year or so ago who have had it again in the last month (only assuming it's Delta) and 1person who had J&J and one Who had an MRNA vaccine who have had it in last month. Keep in mind, I know about 100-1 vaccinated people over unvaccinated or post covid.

---

Unless all 3 of those Covid reinfections were in people with severe immune problems or other exceedingly high risk factors I'm calling BS. Either these people weren't actually covid positive in the past or they didn't get it the second time.

According to the Canadian Medical Association and a global tracker out of the Netherlands there have been only 72 confirmed reinfection cases GLOBALLY.

https://boldly.cma.ca/blog/sars-cov-2-reinfection

---

that study has to be missing a lot. this study which was only on inbound flights to Qatar during a 2 month period had at least 93 re-infections.



also from that link you provided:

Quote:

---

To the contrary, a surveillance study among healthcare workers in England estimated SARS-CoV-2 reinfection to be nearly two percent magnitudes higher than the BNO tracker.

---

---

Way to crop out a really big caveat on that second study cited.

Quote:

---

However, there were limitations to this study that help to explain the higher rate. First, the genetic makeup of the virus was not evaluated. Instead, the definition of reinfection in this study was two positive PCR tests more than 90 days apart, making it unclear whether all second positive tests represented true reinfection. Additionally, all persons in the study were screened with PCR and antibody tests, and reinfection without symptoms occurred in nearly half. This is important because it likely represents evidence of immunologic protection (infection with the virus without developing symptomatic COVID-19). Understanding the asymptomatic reinfection rate could still be useful as there may still be a risk of transmission, but these individuals should not be classified as true SARS-CoV-2 reinfection cases.

---

And the Qatari study doesn't appear to differentiate between positive PCR results (or the sensitivity) and being symptomatic. Which is the entire point of immunity and antibodies- you may be carrying the virus itself and not remotely be sick because your acquired immunity from prior infection is fighting off the new exposure.

TarponChaser said:

---

bay fan said:

---

I know 3 who had Covid a year or so ago who have had it again in the last month (only assuming it's Delta) and 1person who had J&J and one Who had an MRNA vaccine who have had it in last month. Keep in mind, I know about 100-1 vaccinated people over unvaccinated or post covid.

---

Unless all 3 of those Covid reinfections were in people with severe immune problems or other exceedingly high risk factors I'm calling BS. Either these people weren't actually covid positive in the past or they didn't get it the second time.

According to the Canadian Medical Association and a global tracker out of the Netherlands there have been only 72 confirmed reinfection cases GLOBALLY.

https://boldly.cma.ca/blog/sars-cov-2-reinfection

---

I think that study is off, or outdated. Either way, it's extremely rare, and would be close to statistically impossible to know of 3 people in my opinion, but not impossible.

I haven't heard a single person get it twice in my real life circle. Anecdotally, I've heard a couple with cold like symptoms the 2nd time around. But I don't know them personally, nor do I know if they were officially confirmed both times around.

Either way, natural infection either fights it off altogether, or statistically turns it into less than the flu

88planoAg said:

---

BlackGoldAg2011 said:

---

also from that link you provided:

Quote:

---

To the contrary, a surveillance study among healthcare workers in England estimated SARS-CoV-2 reinfection to be nearly two percent magnitudes higher than the BNO tracker.

---

---

I don't understand the meaning of the bolded part above. This is from the surveillance study hyperlinked in the above quoted sentence:

I

Quote:

---

Interpretation

A previous history of SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with an 84% lower risk of infection, with median protective effect observed 7 months following primary infection. This time period is the minimum probable effect because seroconversions were not included. This study shows that previous infection with SARS-CoV-2 induces effective immunity to future infections in most individuals.

---

---

in the bolded sentence my best guess was that there is supposed to be comma, making it read:
"estimated SARS-CoV-2 reinfection to be nearly two percent, magnitudes higher than the BNO tracker."

i can't speak much to the rest because i haven't read it really, but it seems to be saying the same thing, that natural antibodies are good but reinfections do seem to happen, but mostly aren't bad

TarponChaser said:

---

Way to crop out a really big caveat on that second study cited.

Quote:

---

However, there were limitations to this study that help to explain the higher rate. First, the genetic makeup of the virus was not evaluated. Instead, the definition of reinfection in this study was two positive PCR tests more than 90 days apart, making it unclear whether all second positive tests represented true reinfection. Additionally, all persons in the study were screened with PCR and antibody tests, and reinfection without symptoms occurred in nearly half. This is important because it likely represents evidence of immunologic protection (infection with the virus without developing symptomatic COVID-19). Understanding the asymptomatic reinfection rate could still be useful as there may still be a risk of transmission, but these individuals should not be classified as true SARS-CoV-2 reinfection cases.

---

And the Qatari study doesn't appear to differentiate between positive PCR results (or the sensitivity) and being symptomatic. Which is the entire point of immunity and antibodies- you may be carrying the virus itself and not remotely be sick because your acquired immunity from prior infection is fighting off the new exposure.

---

that bolded part doesn't change the statement. and this applies to the Qatar study too. The originally posed question was about infections so the answers provided relate to infections. What you are talking about now is disease which has a distinctly different definition than infection. from mayo clinic:

Quote:

---

There's a difference between infection and disease. Infection, often the first step, occurs when bacteria, viruses or other microbes that cause disease enter your body and begin to multiply. Disease occurs when the cells in your body are damaged as a result of the infection and signs and symptoms of an illness appear.

---

so while i agree with you that the distinction matters, disease isn't what you asked about so it wasn't the answer given.

Natural immunity: CDC

All you need to know about the corrupt CDC statement.

Basically a CYA statement on the lie and then the reason for the lie.

Quote:
Even though the study examined only a small number of people in Kentucky.

The study authors cautioned that much is still not known on how long natural immunity to the virus lasts and that genomic sequencing to confirm reinfections among those in the study was not conducted.

The C.D.C. and the Biden administration have been aggressively campaigning to increase vaccinations in recent weeks

Sequencing is required to determine the Delta variant.

From the data we do have we know that the delta variant has become predominant across the US.

Vaccine immunity is superior to natural immunity

The Delta variant is twice as infectious and twice as severe in hospitalization and ICU visits as the original wild-type.


https://www.factcheck.org/2021/08/scicheck-sequencing-used-to-identify-delta-other-coronavirus-variants/



Navy, NSC Vet, lifelong Republican above with the tutorial and Q&A.

nm

First 2 minutes

Gotlieb now hedging bets...



4.05 mark

Gotlies is asked about durability/effectiveness of natural immunity vs vaccines.

Gotlies says:

Quote:

---

"We DO believe that the vaccines offer broader immune protection, but we DONT know about the durability of immunity induced by natural infection."

---

(So it's a "belief" with incomplete info, spun into "expert opinion")

Quote:

---

"Natural immunity is protective and durable and close to being on par with vaccine, especially since the vaccine wears off and requires booster. But that said, vaccine protection seems to be broader."

---

The science and 2nd gen vaccine developers disagree. These 1st gen vaccines do a great job at softening blow of natural immunity, but there is no objective data that proves they offer "broader protection." Just feelings and beliefs from "experts" whose priority is to promote vaccines above all else.

The natural nucleocapsid protein is the most overlooked aspect of COVID immunity. The reason is that current 1st gen vaccines only utilize the Spike protein. Next gen vaccines will likely incorporate both S & N, and then looking back, everyone will accept natural immunity was superior to first gen vaccines.

5.40 mark

Quote:

---

1) Nucleocapsid protein enhances exposure to RBD, which enhances immunogency.
2) More protein produced as RNA transcribers.
3) Induces CD4 cells, for improved memory T Cells.

---

Totally anecdotal, but my antibodies were negative two days ago with a finger ***** test. I had very mild COVID back in January 2021, so perhaps that's why I was negative. Wife (who ended up with pneumonia), was positive.

So antibodies do wane in some .... but my understanding is that I would still have robust T-cell immunity, which essentially keeps you from fatal results. WTS, I got my first vaccine shot yesterday and will do one more since I travel a lot in the fall for work and will be Aggie games this fall.