Preprint available here:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.04.21267114v1.full.pdf

1) People who had already had Covid once had better protection from the virus more than a year later than people who had been vaccinated only three months before.

2) Vaccinated people were more than five times as likely to develop severe infections than people with natural immunity.

3) The difference did not result from gaps in age between vaccinated and recovered people. People over 60 benefitted even more from natural immunity relative to vaccination than did younger people.

4) Giving people who had natural immunity a vaccine dose did little to lower rates of infection for them, raising the question of why they should ever be vaccinated.

5) The vaccination may ultimately interfere with the development of lasting immunity in people who are infected after being vaccinated.

6) A booster shot did lower the risk of infection about to the level of peak protection from natural immunity - but because the study ended in September, it is impossible to know how long that protection may last.

Gordo14 said:

---

This data is inherently flawed. Vaccinated people are substantially more likely to be immunocompromised, older, and/or of poor health than recovered Covid-19 infection people are. Largely because if a person is immunocompromised they likely had a very poor outcome. These immunocompromised people are also the most likely to not mount a strong immune response to the vaccine. It does not appear this data was normalized for this survivorship bias.

---

The problem is this: the popular belief that sick people are more likely to be vaccinated than healthy people is entirely wrong. People who receive vaccines are healthier overall than those who do not. They care more about avoiding sickness, and they have the time and energy and money to find their way to a vaccination site. They are not healthier because they get vaccines; they get vaccines because they are healthier.

Older people who receive flu vaccines die - of both the flu and all causes - at much lower rates than unvaccinated people after they receive flu shots. But they also die at much lower rates BEFORE they receive the vaccines.

http://vaccinepapers.org/healthy-user-bias-why-most-vaccine-safety-studies-are-wrong/

Please show your data that "vaccinated people are substantially more likely to be immunocompromised or in poor health than recovered Covid-19 patients". I'd be interested to see it.

Gordo14 said:

---

This data is inherently flawed. Vaccinated people are substantially more likely to be immunocompromised, older, and/or of poor health than recovered Covid-19 infection people are. Largely because if a person is immunocompromised they likely had a very poor outcome. These immunocompromised people are also the most likely to not mount a strong immune response to the vaccine. It does not appear this data was normalized for this survivorship bias.

---

A vaccine tricks your body into thinking that you were infected. How could that possibly be better than your body fighting off an infection? In both cases your body is making natural antibodies. The difference is the vaccine is for a single part of the virus. It's very limited in scope. A natural response to an actual infection is much more broad.

You can keep worshiping the vaccine if you want, but it's not better than natural immunity. The vaccine probably helps to lesson symptoms and is good for elderly people that don't have natural immunity already, but it's pointless to get if you've already recovered.

The narrative to vax and mask and we can eliminate this virus is a fools game.

Gordo14 said:

---

This data is inherently flawed. Vaccinated people are substantially more likely to be immunocompromised, older, and/or of poor health than recovered Covid-19 infection people are. Largely because if a person is immunocompromised they likely had a very poor outcome. These immunocompromised people are also the most likely to not mount a strong immune response to the vaccine. It does not appear this data was normalized for this survivorship bias.

---

Survivorship bias? Is that a real thing?

Quote:

---

2) Vaccinated people were more than five times as likely to develop severe infections than people with natural immunity.

3) The difference did not result from gaps in age between vaccinated and recovered people. People over 60 benefitted even more from natural immunity relative to vaccination than did younger people.

---

broken out by age group:
16-39 yo demographic, for recovered i'm calculating about .05 severe cases per 100k person days. For vaccinated, 0.04 severe cases per 100k person days. Not much difference
40-59 yo demographic, for recovered i'm calculating 0.22 severe cases per 100k person days. For vaccinated, 0.467 per 100k person days. so about 2x diff
60+ demographic, for recovered i'm calculating .6 per 100k person days. For vaccinated, 4.6 per 100k person days. Almost 8x diff

These numbers are ignoring time since event (vaccine or original infection), not sure how much that would skew things if normalized. My guess is the difference would be a little larger since the recovered population has more people with longer duration since original event.

Quote:

---

4) Giving people who had natural immunity a vaccine dose did little to lower rates of infection for them, raising the question of why they should ever be vaccinated.

---

I think it's silly to require vaccination after infection (edit: or require at all, i'm pro-vaccine but anti-mandate), but the data does look to support much lower infection rate in the age 16-39 crowd if "recovered+vaccinated" instead of just recovered.
Running for ages 16-39: in recovered group I see 28 infections per 100k person-days, in recovered then vaccinated I see 9.8 infections per 100k days.
Running out of time, but just eyeballing the data for 60+ there doesn't seem to be any real benefit at all.

Quote:

---

5) The vaccination may ultimately interfere with the development of lasting immunity in people who are infected after being vaccinated.

---

This one seems to be a reach. It can't really be ruled out statistically, especially in the olds, but i imagine at worst it is "doesn't help" rather than "interferes". Note that the 60+ crowd is a much larger representative of the vaccinated-then-recovered group than the recovered group. My guess would also be that the vaccinated-then-recovered group in general has poorer health and immune system than the recovered group.

No dog in the hunt at this point, but I've never really understood what the purpose of these studies are if not just scientific curiosity or (occasionally) arguments against vaccination. Any way you slice it, vaccination is a safer and/or less risky course to developing antibodies than through infection…especially so when dealing with whole national and global populations.

Whether a natural infection course yields a more multi-pronged immune response than a vaccine becomes a moot point at the large population scale if you have to actually contract the bug to get that benefit, especially as you look at the demographics that would be essentially rolling a dice cube on severe issues.

So it's neat and all I guess if someone got sick and recovered, but that really doesn't mean jack squat for the overall looking back a year or so ago.

Nonetheless, you are in a better position if you had it and recovered then if you have only been vaxed.

Fitch said:

---

No dog in the hunt at this point, but I've never really understood what the purpose of these studies are if not just scientific curiosity or (occasionally) arguments against vaccination. Any way you slice it, vaccination is a safer and/or less risky course to developing antibodies than through infection…especially so when dealing with whole national and global populations.

Whether a natural infection course yields a more multi-pronged immune response than a vaccine becomes a moot point at the large population scale if you have to actually contract the bug to get that benefit, especially as you look at the demographics that would be essentially rolling a dice cube on severe issues.

So it's neat and all I guess if someone got sick and recovered, but that really doesn't mean jack squat for the overall looking back a year or so ago.

---

I think your analysis is correct insofar as it relates to prior covid variants. If Omicron is more contagious and far milder than previous variants and if it is much more vaccine resistant (all of which early data suggests), then the case for natural immunity becomes much stronger, especially for healthy young adults. It does not necessarily show that "any way you slice it vaccination is less risky than infection" and could mean the end of vaccination efforts if Omicron avoids vaccinations with little risk of death.

Gordo14 said:

---

This data is inherently flawed. Vaccinated people are substantially more likely to be immunocompromised, older, and/or of poor health than recovered Covid-19 infection people are. Largely because if a person is immunocompromised they likely had a very poor outcome. These immunocompromised people are also the most likely to not mount a strong immune response to the vaccine. It does not appear this data was normalized for this survivorship bias.

---

I thought this board was supposed to be a place for factual information sharing. This is completely b.s. especially with the push for everyone including children to be vaccinated. Flagged for false information.

Natural Immunity is the best.

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


137 Research Studies Affirm Naturally Acquired Immunity to Covid-19: Documented, Linked, and Quoted. Plenty of comparisons as well in that list.

14TheRoad said:

---

Gordo14 said:

---

This data is inherently flawed. Vaccinated people are substantially more likely to be immunocompromised, older, and/or of poor health than recovered Covid-19 infection people are. Largely because if a person is immunocompromised they likely had a very poor outcome. These immunocompromised people are also the most likely to not mount a strong immune response to the vaccine. It does not appear this data was normalized for this survivorship bias.

---

I thought this board was supposed to be a place for factual information sharing. This is completely b.s. especially with the push for everyone including children to be vaccinated. Flagged for false information.

---

While I don't think there is a way to normalize this data, he is 100% correct. The "recovered" group benefitted because some of its weakest members have already be eliminated. Since vaccines work, the "vaccinated" group has sick fatties in it.

Fitch said:

---

NicosMachine said:

---

Fitch said:

---

No dog in the hunt at this point, but I've never really understood what the purpose of these studies are if not just scientific curiosity or (occasionally) arguments against vaccination. Any way you slice it, vaccination is a safer and/or less risky course to developing antibodies than through infection…especially so when dealing with whole national and global populations.

Whether a natural infection course yields a more multi-pronged immune response than a vaccine becomes a moot point at the large population scale if you have to actually contract the bug to get that benefit, especially as you look at the demographics that would be essentially rolling a dice cube on severe issues.

So it's neat and all I guess if someone got sick and recovered, but that really doesn't mean jack squat for the overall looking back a year or so ago.

---

I think your analysis is correct insofar as it relates to prior covid variants. If Omicron is more contagious and far milder than previous variants and if it is much more vaccine resistant (all of which early data suggests), then the case for natural immunity becomes much stronger, especially for healthy young adults. It does not necessarily show that "any way you slice it vaccination is less risky than infection" and could mean the end of vaccination efforts if Omicron avoids vaccinations with little risk of death.

---

Not following what's meant by 'the case for natural immunity'. If that means a choice between a likelihood of cold symptoms for a couple days or week-plus and a low-but-nonzero chance of losing taste/smell vs. getting a shot and maybe being groggy for a day, that still seems weighted towards getting vaxxed.

I don't think there's a strong likelihood that anyone is going to come along and say "go try and catch this one variant, we think it might get you better immunity and you won't have to get a shot, but just make sure to get the one, not the others..."

---

We don't have to make a "case for natural immunity" for various cold viruses because nobody thought it cost effective or necessary to develop a vaccine. Why? Because the cold virus was low risk. As Covid approaches the common cold in terms of risk, there is little to no need for a vaccine and its associated risks. We are getting close to "live your life and forget Covid". Nobody will try to catch Covid and nobody will beg for a vaccine. It just won't matter.

Another Doug said:

---

14TheRoad said:

---

Gordo14 said:

---

This data is inherently flawed. Vaccinated people are substantially more likely to be immunocompromised, older, and/or of poor health than recovered Covid-19 infection people are. Largely because if a person is immunocompromised they likely had a very poor outcome. These immunocompromised people are also the most likely to not mount a strong immune response to the vaccine. It does not appear this data was normalized for this survivorship bias.

---

I thought this board was supposed to be a place for factual information sharing. This is completely b.s. especially with the push for everyone including children to be vaccinated. Flagged for false information.

---

While I don't think there is a way to normalize this data, he is 100% correct. The "recovered" group benefitted because some of its weakest members have already be eliminated. Since vaccines work, the "vaccinated" group has sick fatties in it.

---

He's definitely not 100% correct. He states his opinion based on an unjustified assumption:

"Vaccinated people are substantially more likely to be immunocompromised, older, and/or of poor health than recovered Covid-19 infection people are. "

This assumption is factually incorrect, while there are immunocompromised, older and poor health people in the vaccinated population there are also plenty of young, healthy non-immunocompromised people as well. It's a blanket statement that just isn't true. If the boards purpose is to disseminate factual information it has to cut both ways.

14TheRoad said:

---

Another Doug said:

---

14TheRoad said:

---

Gordo14 said:

---

This data is inherently flawed. Vaccinated people are substantially more likely to be immunocompromised, older, and/or of poor health than recovered Covid-19 infection people are. Largely because if a person is immunocompromised they likely had a very poor outcome. These immunocompromised people are also the most likely to not mount a strong immune response to the vaccine. It does not appear this data was normalized for this survivorship bias.

---

I thought this board was supposed to be a place for factual information sharing. This is completely b.s. especially with the push for everyone including children to be vaccinated. Flagged for false information.

---

While I don't think there is a way to normalize this data, he is 100% correct. The "recovered" group benefitted because some of its weakest members have already be eliminated. Since vaccines work, the "vaccinated" group has sick fatties in it.

---

He's definitely not 100% correct. He states his opinion based on an unjustified assumption:

"Vaccinated people are substantially more likely to be immunocompromised, older, and/or of poor health than recovered Covid-19 infection people are. "

This assumption is factually incorrect, while there are immunocompromised, older and poor health people in the vaccinated population there are also plenty of young, healthy non-immunocompromised people as well. It's a blanket statement that just isn't true. If the boards purpose is to disseminate factual information it has to cut both ways.

---

he never said there wouldn't be "plenty of young, healthy non-immunocompromised people as well", he said there would be more unhealthy type people compared to the recovered group.

With nothing to corroborate it

Gordo14 said:

---

This data is inherently flawed. Vaccinated people are substantially more likely to be immunocompromised, older, and/or of poor health than recovered Covid-19 infection people are. Largely because if a person is immunocompromised they likely had a very poor outcome. These immunocompromised people are also the most likely to not mount a strong immune response to the vaccine. It does not appear this data was normalized for this survivorship bias.

---

It's difficult to square this claim with the claims that vaccines greatly reduce risk of poor outcomes, especially among the sickest and oldest people. Do you have any data whatsoever to support your claim that 1) vaccinated people are substantially more likely to be immunocompromised and/or in poor health than recovered Covid patients and; 2) that vaccinated immunocompromised persons are likely to have had worse outcomes than the remaining population.

Your entire premise rests on those two unsubstantiated statements. In fact, previous vaccine studies show a healthy user bias.

Another Doug said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

With nothing to corroborate it

---

Just logic

Group 1 - Anyone can join, and old/unhealthy people really want to
Group 2 - old/unhealthy people try to avoid this group, and being somewhat healthy greatly increases your chances of joining.

Which one is going to have a higher percentage of old/unhealthy people

---

But logic does not dictate that natural immunity positive symptomatic COVID test is not as good as vaccine immunity?

Another Doug said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

With nothing to corroborate it

---

Just logic

Group 1 - Anyone can join, and old/unhealthy people really want to
Group 2 - old/unhealthy people try to avoid this group, and being somewhat healthy greatly increases your chances of joining.

Which one is going to have a higher percentage of old/unhealthy people

---

Logic says that if something were good for someone, you wouldn't have to threaten them to take it. We are asking for data, not conventional wisdom.

Another Doug said:

---

billydean05 said:

---

Another Doug said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

With nothing to corroborate it

---

Just logic

Group 1 - Anyone can join, and old/unhealthy people really want to
Group 2 - old/unhealthy people try to avoid this group, and being somewhat healthy greatly increases your chances of joining.

Which one is going to have a higher percentage of old/unhealthy people

---

But logic does not dictate that natural immunity positive symptomatic COVID test is not as good as vaccine immunity?

---

I am not saying that at all.

---

So we can both agree that natural immunity proof of prior infection should be treated the same as vaccinated and we don't need anymore studies to corroborate this point.

Gordo14 said:

---

This data is inherently flawed. Vaccinated people are substantially more likely to be immunocompromised, older, and/or of poor health than recovered Covid-19 infection people are. Largely because if a person is immunocompromised they likely had a very poor outcome. These immunocompromised people are also the most likely to not mount a strong immune response to the vaccine. It does not appear this data was normalized for this survivorship bias.

---

What a load of crap

Fitch said:

---

No dog in the hunt at this point, but I've never really understood what the purpose of these studies are if not just scientific curiosity or (occasionally) arguments against vaccination. Any way you slice it, vaccination is a safer and/or less risky course to developing antibodies than through infection…especially so when dealing with whole national and global populations.

Whether a natural infection course yields a more multi-pronged immune response than a vaccine becomes a moot point at the large population scale if you have to actually contract the bug to get that benefit, especially as you look at the demographics that would be essentially rolling a dice cube on severe issues.

So it's neat and all I guess if someone got sick and recovered, but that really doesn't mean jack squat for the overall looking back a year or so ago.

---

It means if you got it and don't want to get the vaccine than you shouldn't have to and not be locked out of society.

Gordo14 said:

---

This data is inherently flawed. Vaccinated people are substantially more likely to be immunocompromised, older, and/or of poor health than recovered Covid-19 infection people are. Largely because if a person is immunocompromised they likely had a very poor outcome. These immunocompromised people are also the most likely to not mount a strong immune response to the vaccine. It does not appear this data was normalized for this survivorship bias.

---

Double mask bro saying the data is inherently flawed...right.

Fitch said:

---

No dog in the hunt at this point, but I've never really understood what the purpose of these studies are if not just scientific curiosity or (occasionally) arguments against vaccination. Any way you slice it, vaccination is a safer and/or less risky course to developing antibodies than through infection…especially so when dealing with whole national and global populations.

Whether a natural infection course yields a more multi-pronged immune response than a vaccine becomes a moot point at the large population scale if you have to actually contract the bug to get that benefit, especially as you look at the demographics that would be essentially rolling a dice cube on severe issues.

So it's neat and all I guess if someone got sick and recovered, but that really doesn't mean jack squat for the overall looking back a year or so ago.

---

Because there is a segment of the population who caught and recovered from the virus before vaccines were available.

Because there is a segment of the population who even after the vaccines were available caught and recovered from the virus.

Because those people listed above should be exempt from all the stupid government rules that apply erroneously to them, as science is continuing to show.

It is not to encourage no vaccine/roll the dice/immunity is better so screw the shot.

It is to prove that durable immunity should be must be considered in government policy.

I should not have to have a negative test to participate in society. I should not be excluded from all of NYC. I should not have to worry about producing a negative test to go to a concert in summer of 2022.

hope this helps.

I appreciate these studies.

I am unvaccinated. I have had COVID and have Spike Protein provable through antibody tests....the same protein that vaccinated have....YET....

1) My insurance will be $3K higher than someone who is vaccinated;

2) I would be unable to go to restaurants / stores in some states;

3) I could potentially have issues finding employment in the future due to federal vaccine mandates which do not recognize natural immunity....



so that is why these studies are important.