It's interesting that you don't mention one of the conclusions of the study: getting a shot after having recovered from COVID gives you the best immunity, and that is confirmed by all the studies, with all measures of immunity. And that's even more true with Delta variant.
Oh, and your conclusion: "more harm than good" is obviously false. I'm glad you recovered well, but many didn't. Without even talking about the deaths, just the number of people with long-haul makes your statement wrong.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
"just the number of people with long-haul makes your statement wrong"
It makes your opinion at odds with mine, but it doesn't prove me wrong or you right.
"you don't mention one of the conclusions of the study: getting a shot after having recovered from COVID gives you the best immunity"
You appear to be misunderstanding or mischaracterizing the data.
This is a simple comparison of numbers, but if you want to call it an opinion, that's fine.
That is not my interpretation, but the conclusion of the authors of the study you based your post on. It is written in plain English in their conclusions: "Individuals who were both previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta variant"
If that is not sufficient, it's repeated at least a couple of times in the main study text in various forms and details. In case you want to check their findings yourself, it is all there in the Model3 data.
"additional protection"
That's not data, it's somebody's subjective opinion. But even if it's true that natural immunity plus Pfizer (just a single dose) is better than just natural immunity, by how much? Because we know Pfizer is killing and harming a LOT of people. We need to know by how much it's better than just natural immunity, so we can start to weigh it against the cost, which is being downplayed and hidden, and still years from being fully tabulated.
Also... just a single dose? Not 2 or 3 (or more) doses, which is what it takes to be considered fully vaccinated, and be granted an "immunity passport". Only an insignificant fraction of the public is going to have natural immunity, and then later, receive only a single dose of Pfizer. Not worth mentioning.
Did you even read the study you cited as the main source for your post? First, you tell me I misunderstood the data, then that it doesn't exist when it's obviously there. The paper is only about 30 pages with fairly big fonts and plenty of graphs, this is not that long and I even indicated where the data was. And I mean it's one study, there are dozen, all with similar results. So, the data is definitely out there but it's like you don't care to look for it, complain it's not available, and form an opinion with no data. But here it is: previously infected with a single dose are 1.85 times less likely to get reinfected than the previously infected with no vaccine. And as we all know, less reinfection means less transmission and replication, and less opportunity for new variant to emerge. But it is true that many reinfections should not be too severe, at least not if they're not too long after the first one, before the immunity starts waning.
Now, why a single dose, because that's what is recommended by many countries (like France, Germany, Italy...) for people with previous confirmed infection. Several studies show a second dose boosts the immunity even further, but the gains are not so much compared to the single dose. So no, it's not an insignificant fraction of the public, but actually the majority in these countries. But maybe not your country, I do not know.
Please, anybody that understand the VAERS database (or its equivalent in other country) knows it's one big lie started by a few ill-intentioned people and parroted by thousand of people who don't (or don't want to) understand it. Adverse reactions, including deaths, can occur. Nobody (at least no doctors or scientists) denies it. They're of course tragic, but the numbers are extremely low. Of course, nobody should take my word for it, but there is a very simple test anybody can do. It doesn't rely on governments sanctioned data, or right/left wing talking heads' non-sense, it's just your local doctors and hospitals. Go and ask them this very straight forward question: how many beds are used by patients with severe COVID complications, and how many with vaccines injuries. Even after removing all the cases of people older or with comorbidities from the former, the latter number will always be so much smaller. You can repeat for as many hospitals as needed, to reach a statistically significant sample.
I have plenty of relatives working in healthcare, from nurses to ICU doctors. I asked them and also several people working in local hospitals around here. Between all of them, it covers at least several hundred thousands vaccinated people. Their answers were all similar: plenty of patients in the first group, very little, if any, in the second...
@manuvert We believe that one should look at all the available data and then go one step further and ask who FUNDED the data? Follow the money trail and it will lead you to the truth.
A book well worth reading is called "How to Lie with Statistics."
ISBN-13: 978-0393310726
ISBN-10: 0393310728
Absolutely, and that is why one should try and not rely on only one study for anything. And in this particular case, there are at least half a dozen studies independently funded, all with similar results.
Regarding statistics, for any serious study, the raw data is always available and easy to check out. But for some reason, many people claim the data is hidden or doesn't exist.
And finally, "follow the money" needs to be done by everybody. There's a few people getting very rich from spreading easily debunked lies about vaccines, tests, etc... I was mentioning just that in a different comment.