https://twitter.com/profshanecrotty/status/1455263624730087424?t=YkLL6jMRFwheES9dbhiV4A&s=19

Tldr - prior infected but not vaccinated individuals 5x more likely to be hospitalized with a second infection than vax only or natural immunity + vax

To add.....there seems to be a lot of research pointing to some individuals with natural immunity producing a lot of antibodies that do not neutralize the spike protein, which are not all that useful.

I think you should take a peak into the study and not read a VERY misleading tweet

You really should have reviewed the study better: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7044e1.htm?s_cid=mm7044e1_w#T1_down

Only 89 of the unvaccinated people with previous infection that are hospitalized for COVID actually tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Meanwhile there are 324 fully vaccinated people in the hospital for COVID.

I wonder why there are so many fewer people hospitalized with natural immunity rather than vaccination immunity?

waitwhat? said:

---

You really should have reviewed the study better: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7044e1.htm?s_cid=mm7044e1_w#T1_down

Only 89 of the unvaccinated people with previous infection that are hospitalized for COVID actually tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Meanwhile there are 324 fully vaccinated people in the hospital for COVID.

I wonder why there are so many fewer people hospitalized with natural immunity rather than vaccination immunity?

---

Perhaps because the population tested had more than 6X greater vaccinated versus unvaccinated people?

waitwhat? said:

---

You really should have reviewed the study better: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7044e1.htm?s_cid=mm7044e1_w#T1_down

Only 89 of the unvaccinated people with previous infection that are hospitalized for COVID actually tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Meanwhile there are 324 fully vaccinated people in the hospital for COVID.

I wonder why there are so many fewer people hospitalized with natural immunity rather than vaccination immunity?

---

. A much higher number of people were vaccinated than had covid before, which is why the raw numbers are higher.

Quote:

---

Among COVID-19like illness hospitalizations in persons whose previous infection or vaccination occurred 90179 days earlier, the odds of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 were higher among previously infected, unvaccinated patients than among fully vaccinated patients (aOR = 5.49; 95% CI = 2.7510.99)

---

That being said, furthers studies are needed before any doubts are really raised against natural immunity from prior covid.

Out of 1000 unvaccinated people with a prior covid infection, 100 were positive for covid. Out of >6000 vaccinated people, 100 were positive for covid.

This is pretty straightforward.

I swear, some people want COVID to be so destructive and have the vaccine the only answer, it's scary.

And here's a comprehensive list of 102 studies that indicate natural immunity is as good as or better than vaccination.

https://brownstone.org/articles/79-research-studies-affirm-naturally-acquired-immunity-to-covid-19-documented-linked-and-quoted/

Old Buffalo said:

---

I swear, some people want COVID to be so destructive and have the vaccine the only answer, it's scary.

---

Big Pharma and Big Government just want vaccines to be the only answer for $$$$ reasons.

Average COVID person wants vaccines to be the only answer, in my opinion, because "I did it and so should you and that way we are all in the same boat if this vaccine does something funky down the road".

After me and my wife both got Covid I gotta say that "vaccine immunity" wasn't that great either.

My only real world example of this: both my wife and youngest daughter came down with Covid in 2020 with the alpha variant. The other four people in our house did not catch it. Fast forward to six weeks ago when the Delta variant ran through our house. Everyone else got the Delta variant except my wife and daughter who previously had Covid in 2020. Seems like their natural immunity worked fairly well in this particular circumstance. None of us have been vaccinated. Thankfully, we all had fairly mild cases.

Quote:

---

Out of 1000 unvaccinated people with a prior covid infection, 100 were positive for covid. Out of >6000 vaccinated people, 100 were positive for covid.

This is pretty straightforward.

---

It is a bit depressing that people can't pick up on this very basic mathematical deduction while trying to debunk a research piece put forth by highly educated and experienced research professionals.

Times we live in I suppose.

Windy City Ag said:

---

Quote:

---

Out of 1000 unvaccinated people with a prior covid infection, 100 were positive for covid. Out of >6000 vaccinated people, 100 were positive for covid.

This is pretty straightforward.

---

It is a bit depressing that people can't pick up on this very basic mathematical deduction while trying to debunk a research piece put forth by highly educated and experienced research professionals.

Times we live in I suppose.

---

It is a bit depressing that people can't pick up on the very basic flaws in the "scientific" approach while trying to support a research piece put forth by highly influenced and politically motivated "research" professionals.

Times we live in I suppose.

Windy City Ag said:

---

Quote:

---

Out of 1000 unvaccinated people with a prior covid infection, 100 were positive for covid. Out of >6000 vaccinated people, 100 were positive for covid.

This is pretty straightforward.

---

It is a bit depressing that people can't pick up on this very basic mathematical deduction while trying to debunk a research piece put forth by highly educated and experienced research professionals.

Times we live in I suppose.

---

Agreed, although still not as disconcerting as anecdotal "it's working out fine for me" arguments. This pandemic is one giant study in cognitive bias.

Old Buffalo said:

---

Windy City Ag said:

---

Quote:

---

Out of 1000 unvaccinated people with a prior covid infection, 100 were positive for covid. Out of >6000 vaccinated people, 100 were positive for covid.

This is pretty straightforward.

---

It is a bit depressing that people can't pick up on this very basic mathematical deduction while trying to debunk a research piece put forth by highly educated and experienced research professionals.

Times we live in I suppose.

---

It is a bit depressing that people can't pick up on the very basic flaws in the "scientific" approach while trying to support a research piece put forth by highly influenced and politically motivated "research" professionals.

Times we live in I suppose.

---

A PhD at Scripps who is a world leading expert specifically in t-cells is "politically motivated"? Or is that anyone that presents data that conficts with your worldview is "politically motivated"?

small n
different populations (M/F, Age, Race, Comorbidities)
no standardization of variables
different collection dates (unvaxed over 9 months, Vaxed over 3 months)
no controls over hospital procedures
limiting analysis to 180 days (surprisingly inline with the recommended booster shot)



should i continue?

Scientists do "studies in the wild" all of the time. This is not a RCT for a drug approval, it's an observational analysis. You may think that they are p-hacking, but your evidence is weak.

Quote:

---

small n
different populations (M/F, Age, Race, Comorbidities)
no standardization of variables
different collection dates (unvaxed over 9 months, Vaxed over 3 months)
no controls over hospital procedures
limiting analysis to 180 days (surprisingly inline with the recommended booster shot)



should i continue?

---

So while we are play-acting,

- 7,000 data points is not small n

- If you read the footnotes you will see that the results were controlled for everything you mentioned:

"Odds ratios were adjusted for age, geographic region, calendar time (days since January 1, 2021), and local virus circulation (percentage of SARS-CoV-2 positive results from testing within the counties surrounding the facility on the date of the hospitalization) and balanced using inverse weights on characteristics that differed between the two groups (calculated separately for each odds ratio model) using facility characteristics, sociodemographic characteristics, and underlying medical conditions."

- What do you mean by lack of standardization in variables?

- He also controlled for different collection dates

"Three secondary analyses were also conducted. First, the impact of whether and how the time interval since previous infection or full vaccination was adjusted was examined. Specifically, any time since either previous infection or completion of vaccination was considered. Then, previously infected patients were limited to those with more recent infections (i.e., 90225 days before hospitalization [the lowest two tertiles of number of days since infection]), and fully vaccinated patients were limited to those with the longest interval since completion of vaccination (i.e., receipt of second mRNA vaccine dose 45213 days before hospitalization [the highest two tertiles of number of days since vaccination]). Then, number of days since previous infection or completion of vaccination, rather than calendar time, was adjusted in the model."

- "no controls over hospital procedures" - Fair point and the author specifically cites this as a potential shortcoming.


Do you really think you have one-upped leading medical researchers in terms of stuff like this?