Vaccine

[GoldenGate]

Results
Overall, 673,676 MHS members 16 years and older were eligible for the study group of fully vaccinated SARS-CoV-2-naïve individuals; 62,883 were eligible for the study group of unvaccinated previously infected individuals and 42,099 individuals were eligible for the study group of previously infected and single-dose vaccinees.

Model 1 – previously infected vs. vaccinated individuals, with matching for time of first event
In model 1, we matched 16,215 persons in each group. Overall, demographic characteristics were similar between the groups, with some differences in their comorbidity profile (Table 1a).

• Collapse inline
• View popup

• Collapse inline
• View popup

During the follow-up period, 257 cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection were recorded, of which 238 occurred in the vaccinated group (breakthrough infections) and 19 in the previously infected group (reinfections). After adjusting for comorbidities, we found a statistically significant 13.06-fold (95% CI, 8.08 to 21.11) increased risk for breakthrough infection as opposed to reinfection (P<0.001). Apart from age ≥60 years, there was no statistical evidence that any of the assessed comorbidities significantly affected the risk of an infection during the follow-up period (Table 2a). As for symptomatic SARS-COV-2 infections during the follow-up period, 199 cases were recorded, 191 of which were in the vaccinated group and 8 in the previously infected group. Symptoms for all analyses were recorded in the central database within 5 days of the positive RT-PCR test for 90% of the patients, and included chiefly fever, cough, breathing difficulties, diarrhea, loss of taste or smell, myalgia, weakness, headache and sore throat. After adjusting for comorbidities, we found a 27.02-fold risk (95% CI, 12.7 to 57.5) for symptomatic breakthrough infection as opposed to symptomatic reinfection (P<0.001) (Table 2b). None of the covariates were significant, except for age ≥60 years.

Nine cases of COVID-19-related hospitalizations were recorded, 8 of which were in the vaccinated group and 1 in the previously infected group (Table S1). No COVID-19-related deaths were recorded in our cohorts.

Why is it that anti-vaxxers claim vaccines are unsafe despite every study imaginable telling them otherwise because "only time will tell" and the future is "unknowable", yet they claim that natural immunity is safer for us in the long term because a study tells us that? Why is it that the future is knowable to them only if they think it supports their narrative, but is not when it doesn't?

Regardless, this study is a perfect example of the lengths to which anti-vaxxers will go to misrepresent what something means, or they're just too stupid to understand what a study does and doesn't mean. Yes, those with natural immunity have longer lasting protection against infection, just like pretty much everyone who develops natural immunity from an illness that doesn't kill them, like polio and smallpox had stronger immunity than a vaccine could provide. Do you see where this is going?

The other thing about this study is that it compares people who got vaccinated with a sample of those who got Covid, excluding the approximately 700,000 unvaccinated people who have died from it plus all the others who have suffered debilitating long term complications. I guess we don't need seatbelts, because if you exclude all the people who died not wearing them, no one dies from not wearing seatbelts. I guess we don't need penicillin because if you just exclude all the people who die from infections because they did not take penicillin, no one dies from infections.

None of this changes the unquestionable conclusion that acquired immunity through vaccination is safer overall than natural immunity. If you get vaccinated, it is much less likely you will get Covid than if you aren't, and there is virtually a 0% chance that you will get seriously ill let alone die from Covid. If you rely on natural immunity, however, you'll only be in much better shape unless it kills you or you become seriously ill from it of course. Natural immunity has a 100% chance of saving your life if you aren't like one of the approximately 700,000 so far for whom it didn't work at all. And if you're vaccinated, you are a much lower risk to transmit it to someone else, whereas if you rely on "natural immunity", you only become a reduced risk to transmit it to others after you've already given it to everyone around you when you got it.

 

[Bruddah IZ]

How, exactly, does doing a gastric bypass operation prepare someone to understand medical research papers on coronavirus immunity?

There is this thing called med school. Maybe you've heard of it?

I don’t doubt whether he is qualified to remove colon polyps. I doubt whether he is qualified to write an article on covid immunity.

There is this thing called med school. Maybe you've heard of it? But to your point, you'll notice he cites a study that you didn't read. Or worse, you did read it and did comprehend it but can't bring yourself to admit that there is an Army of doctors out there that are smarter than you

The medarxiv article itself is interesting. It does not, however, say what Makary claimed it said. ( 1 versus 8 hospitalizations is not the same as “27 times as much protection.” )

Okay. You got me there. 27.02 is what it said. Happy?

 

[dad4]

Funny how Dad goes after the Surgeon rather than the data that the surgeon links where virologist, epidemiologist, or vaccine researchers do interpret the data that is referenced in the post. Poor guy. He's getting peppered with facts that he is ill qualified to refute since he is not a virologist, epidemiologist, or vaccine researcher himself.

I still don’t get what you are advocating. You seem to think that the best way to reduce covid infections is for everyone to get infected with covid.

That’s like solving alcoholism by getting so drunk you can’t walk to the liquor cabinet.

 

[GoldenGate]

Listening to the testimony of the gymnasts molested by Nassar should remind us all that the government, particularly bureaucrats, don't have our best interests in mind when it comes to public health. Bureaucrats are only interested in covering their own ass. And when bureaucrats fail, other bureaucrats circle the wagons to protect them. The fact that the Justice Department refuses to prosecute the FBI employees who failed to investigate the abuse is very troubling.

If a Michigan State employee covered up molestation by Nasser, that definitely means we should not listen to what medical experts say about vaccines, or anything for that matter.

You should ask a mental health expert about paranoid personality disorder, the essential characteristic of which is "a relentless mistrust and suspicion of others without adequate reason to be suspicious." Be careful, however, because the mental health expert may be in on the conspiracy.

 

[watfly]

If a Michigan State employee covered up molestation by Nasser, that definitely means we should not listen to what medical experts say about vaccines, or anything for that matter.

You should ask a mental health expert about paranoid personality disorder, the essential characteristic of which is "a relentless mistrust and suspicion of others without adequate reason to be suspicious." Be careful, however, because the mental health expert may be in on the conspiracy.

I wish it had only been a Michigan State employee that covered it up. Unfortunately, the FBI participated as well and now the Justice Department refuses to prosecute. I hope that the might change given the Democrats strong worded objections to lack of prosecution.

You're again barking up the wrong tree. I'm pro-Vax, but you're gaslighting by claiming vaccines are better than natural immunity from prior infection. My point is trust but verify when it comes to vaccines. You want us to ignore any criticism of the vaccines. "Nothing to see here, just obey".

 

[EvilGoalie 21]

The other thing about this study is that it compares people who got vaccinated with a sample of those who got Covid, excluding the approximately 700,000 unvaccinated people who have died from it plus all the others who have suffered debilitating long term complications.

This particular study has been linked and/or regurgitated out of twitter feeds several times now. If you look more broadly it is clearly a talisman link for the anti-vaxx crowd. I posted a critique of it many pages back but maybe worth repeating a few points. A cohort study like they did is a fine approach to examine the issue of sustained immunity, but it does come with some associated problems. One problem is if the outcome of interest (in this case delta infection) is rare within the cohorts. Then you can get statistical artifacts with how the outcome bins between the two groups. That is a possibility in this study where there are only ~250 cases of delta infection. In some ways, the main conclusion of the study is that, regardless of immune priming by viral infection vs vaccination, subsequent reinfection is rare. The next question becomes what's different about the small ~250 people that had acquired immunity but were re-infected? From a biological standpoint, that's interesting and, from my back and forth with the editors at Science, that's why they decided to do a highlight of it (even prior to completion of peer review). It's known that different people maintain different levels of circulating antibodies post infection or vaxx. It can vary widely. Examples of that phenomenon have even been posted on this site. The why of that probably has to do with lots of stuff that are of interest to immunologists and epidemiologists. At any rate, if those factors are in effect a "comorbitity" that was not accounted for in setting up the original cohorts, and vaxxed represent something like 70-ish percent of the study population, you will also tend to see biased binning between the cohorts.

Anyway, it was an interesting exchange with the editors at Science. The issue becomes, in a raging infodemic, to what extent do scientists bear a responsibility to insulate their work from being mis-appropriated. Or is that not a responsibility that should be placed up them. There is no bright line, but editorial policies probably need to change to address the issue. Unfortunately, the outcome in this case is that how ~250 cases bin one way or another gets expressed as an odds risk of 13X which is then talisman linked to mean that there is now indisputable evidence that "natural immunity" (as if there is any other kind) due to viral infection much better than vaccination. It's rediculous, and a silly argument anyway. But that's a extbook example of the infodemic in action.

 

[dad4]

There is this thing called med school. Maybe you've heard of it?

There is this thing called med school. Maybe you've heard of it? But to your point, you'll notice he cites a study that you didn't read. Or worse, you did read it and did comprehend it but can't bring yourself to admit that there is an Army of doctors out there that are smarter than you

Okay. You got me there. 27.02 is what it said. Happy?

Which thing is 27.02 times which other thing?

From the study:
“After adjusting for comorbidities, we found a 27.02-fold risk (95% CI, 12.7 to 57.5) for symptomatic breakthrough infection as opposed to symptomatic reinfection (P<0.001)”

From your unqualified yokel:
“ On Aug. 25, Israel published the most powerful and scientifically rigorous study on the subject to date. In a sample of more than 700,000 people, natural immunity was 27 times more effective than vaccinated immunity in preventing symptomatic infections.”

Can you see the difference? Your yokel saw that one infection rate was 27.02 times another, and thought it meant that one reduction is 27.02 times the other. Not the same at all.

Still claiming that your guy got it right?

 

[dad4]

I wish it had only been a Michigan State employee that covered it up. Unfortunately, the FBI participated as well and now the Justice Department refuses to prosecute. I hope that the might change given the Democrats strong worded objections to lack of prosecution.

You're again barking up the wrong tree. I'm pro-Vax, but you're gaslighting by claiming vaccines are better than natural immunity from prior infection. My point is trust but verify when it comes to vaccines. You want us to ignore any criticism of the vaccines. "Nothing to see here, just obey".

what do you suggest we do with the information on natural immunity?

Clearly, it is not enough that someone thinks they already had covid.

Are you saying that a positive test for covid antibodies should count towards vaccination requirements? Or only those who have a prior positive PCR test result?

 

[espola]

A large proportion of the world's population thinks this guy is always right, so...

Pope urges COVID inoculations, says vaccines are humanity's friends

Pope Francis said on Wednesday he was puzzled why so many people, including some cardinals in Roman Catholic Church hierarchy, have refused to get inoculated against COVID-19.

www.reuters.com

 

[Bruddah IZ]

Why is it that anti-vaxxers claim vaccines are unsafe despite every study imaginable telling them otherwise because "only time will tell" and the future is "unknowable", yet they claim that natural immunity is safer for us in the long term because a study tells us that? Why is it that the future is knowable to them only if they think it supports their narrative, but is not when it doesn't?

Lol! Why is it that anti-immune system folks make the false claim that pro-immune system folks claim that vaccines are unsafe despite every study imaginable telling them that vaccines marginally protect folks compared to natural infection? It is true that "only time will tell" if you bothered to look at the data from previous respiratory pandemics. The future is "knowable" enough if you are willing to look at the past. Natural immunity has been safer for us in the long term because the data is consistent with past respiratory pandemics, even in the absence of NPI and SIP policies. The future is predictable to pro-immune system folks. And CDC data driven too. Your accusations of a narrative that you disagree with is a Strawman.

Regardless, this study is a perfect example of the lengths to which anti-vaxxers will go to misrepresent what something means, or they're just too stupid to understand what a study does and doesn't mean. Yes, those with natural immunity have longer lasting protection against infection, just like pretty much everyone who develops natural immunity from an illness that doesn't kill them, like polio and smallpox had stronger immunity than a vaccine could provide. Do you see where this is going?

Regardless, your response is a perfect example of the lengths to which you anti-immune system folks will go to misrepresent what something means, or are just too stupid to understand what means to your false narrative. Yes, those with natural immunity have longer lasting protection against infection, just like pretty much everyone who develops natural immunity from an illness that doesn't kill them. Is this your mea culpa?

The other thing about this study is that it compares people who got vaccinated with a sample of those who got Covid, excluding the approximately 700,000 unvaccinated people who have died from it plus all the others who have suffered debilitating long term complications. I guess we don't need seatbelts, because if you exclude all the people who died not wearing them, no one dies from not wearing seatbelts. I guess we don't need penicillin because if you just exclude all the people who die from infections because they did not take penicillin, no one dies from infections.

Lol! I cant imagine why they would have excluded 700,000 DEAD people from the study. You sound desperate.

None of this changes the unquestionable conclusion that acquired immunity through vaccination is safer overall than natural immunity. If you get vaccinated, it is much less likely you will get Covid than if you aren't, and there is virtually a 0% chance that you will get seriously ill let alone die from Covid. If you rely on natural immunity, however, you'll only be in much better shape unless it kills you or you become seriously ill from it of course. Natural immunity has a 100% chance of saving your life if you aren't like one of the approximately 700,000 so far for whom it didn't work at all. And if you're vaccinated, you are a much lower risk to transmit it to someone else, whereas if you rely on "natural immunity", you only become a reduced risk to transmit it to others after you've already given it to everyone around you when you got it.

So much for Science.

 

[watfly]

Are you saying that a positive test for covid antibodies should count towards vaccination requirements? Or only those who have a prior positive PCR test result?

Well I'm opposed to mandates in most cases, but if vaccinations are mandated, natural immunity should be considered as an acceptable alternative since it provides superior immunity. All that should be necessary would be proof of an infection, which would be easily attainable from your healthcare provider, just as a vaccination card is. Antibody tests aren't being required for the vaccinated so it shouldn't be required for the naturally immune. In both cases immunity likely wanes over time, but there doesn't appear to be any substantive evidence of which one provides longer protection.

I would still suggest that its preferable to get a vaccine even if you've been infected. However, having natural immunity is a good faith objection to not getting vaccinated.

 

[Bruddah IZ]

I still don’t get what you are advocating. You seem to think that the best way to reduce covid infections is for everyone to get infected with covid.

I think you're avoiding the Science, past and present.

 

[Bruddah IZ]

Which thing is 27.02 times which other thing?

From the study:
“After adjusting for comorbidities, we found a 27.02-fold risk (95% CI, 12.7 to 57.5) for symptomatic breakthrough infection as opposed to symptomatic reinfection (P<0.001)”

From your unqualified yokel:
“ On Aug. 25, Israel published the most powerful and scientifically rigorous study on the subject to date. In a sample of more than 700,000 people, natural immunity was 27 times more effective than vaccinated immunity in preventing symptomatic infections.”

Can you see the difference? Your yokel saw that one infection rate was 27.02 times another, and thought it meant that one reduction is 27.02 times the other. Not the same at all.

Still claiming that your guy got it right?

Lol! Please continue.

 

[what-happened]

Maybe "they" can't figure out the cause because it isn't actually true.

Mr. Makary provides no link for his "27 times" claim.

He does link to a CDC study. The study says that vaccination after an infection improves your immunity. (Natural + vax is better than natural alone.)

Makary misreads this to mean natural immunity is better than vaccinated.

You have a surgeon who is having trouble reading even a basic scientific paper. Do you have anyone qualified?

I don't get you. My point isn't hybrid immunity, it's natural VS vaccine. There are studies that suggest hybrid immunity MAY be better at preventing re-infection. The jury is still out and it's something that should be studied. Talk to you dr. If you are a low risk person who's had covid, getting the vaccine could be pointless. If YOU want hybrid immunity,have at it. Fortunately, for now, we have choices. If you've had covid and in the high risk demographic, get a vaccinated. Pretty simple.

It's the mandates that are going to drive previously infected people crazy..and it should. Mandating stuff for low risk healthy people is silly.

 

[Bruddah IZ]

This particular study has been linked and/or regurgitated out of twitter feeds several times now. If you look more broadly it is clearly a talisman link for the anti-vaxx crowd. I posted a critique of it many pages back but maybe worth repeating a few points. A cohort study like they did is a fine approach to examine the issue of sustained immunity, but it does come with some associated problems. One problem is if the outcome of interest (in this case delta infection) is rare within the cohorts. Then you can get statistical artifacts with how the outcome bins between the two groups. That is a possibility in this study where there are only ~250 cases of delta infection. In some ways, the main conclusion of the study is that, regardless of immune priming by viral infection vs vaccination, subsequent reinfection is rare. The next question becomes what's different about the small ~250 people that had acquired immunity but were re-infected? From a biological standpoint, that's interesting and, from my back and forth with the editors at Science, that's why they decided to do a highlight of it (even prior to completion of peer review). It's known that different people maintain different levels of circulating antibodies post infection or vaxx. It can vary widely. Examples of that phenomenon have even been posted on this site. The why of that probably has to do with lots of stuff that are of interest to immunologists and epidemiologists. At any rate, if those factors are in effect a "comorbitity" that was not accounted for in setting up the original cohorts, and vaxxed represent something like 70-ish percent of the study population, you will also tend to see biased binning between the cohorts.

Anyway, it was an interesting exchange with the editors at Science. The issue becomes, in a raging infodemic, to what extent do scientists bear a responsibility to insulate their work from being mis-appropriated. Or is that not a responsibility that should be placed up them. There is no bright line, but editorial policies probably need to change to address the issue. Unfortunately, the outcome in this case is that how ~250 cases bin one way or another gets expressed as an odds risk of 13X which is then talisman linked to mean that there is now indisputable evidence that "natural immunity" (as if there is any other kind) due to viral infection much better than vaccination. It's rediculous, and a silly argument anyway. But that's a extbook example of the infodemic in action.

Whew! I thought you were making a case for mandating vaccines for the previously infected.

 

[Bruddah IZ]

I don't get you. My point isn't hybrid immunity, it's natural VS vaccine. There are studies that suggest hybrid immunity MAY be better at preventing re-infection. The jury is still out and it's something that should be studied. Talk to you dr. If you are a low risk person who's had covid, getting the vaccine could be pointless. If YOU want hybrid immunity,have at it. Fortunately, for now, we have choices. If you've had covid and in the high risk demographic, get a vaccinated. Pretty simple.

It's the mandates that are going to drive previously infected people crazy..and it should. Mandating stuff for low risk healthy people is silly.

The Tyranny of tiny risk

 

[what-happened]

Why is it that anti-vaxxers claim vaccines are unsafe despite every study imaginable telling them otherwise because "only time will tell" and the future is "unknowable", yet they claim that natural immunity is safer for us in the long term because a study tells us that? Why is it that the future is knowable to them only if they think it supports their narrative, but is not when it doesn't?

Regardless, this study is a perfect example of the lengths to which anti-vaxxers will go to misrepresent what something means, or they're just too stupid to understand what a study does and doesn't mean. Yes, those with natural immunity have longer lasting protection against infection, just like pretty much everyone who develops natural immunity from an illness that doesn't kill them, like polio and smallpox had stronger immunity than a vaccine could provide. Do you see where this is going?

The other thing about this study is that it compares people who got vaccinated with a sample of those who got Covid, excluding the approximately 700,000 unvaccinated people who have died from it plus all the others who have suffered debilitating long term complications. I guess we don't need seatbelts, because if you exclude all the people who died not wearing them, no one dies from not wearing seatbelts. I guess we don't need penicillin because if you just exclude all the people who die from infections because they did not take penicillin, no one dies from infections.

None of this changes the unquestionable conclusion that acquired immunity through vaccination is safer overall than natural immunity. If you get vaccinated, it is much less likely you will get Covid than if you aren't, and there is virtually a 0% chance that you will get seriously ill let alone die from Covid. If you rely on natural immunity, however, you'll only be in much better shape unless it kills you or you become seriously ill from it of course. Natural immunity has a 100% chance of saving your life if you aren't like one of the approximately 700,000 so far for whom it didn't work at all. And if you're vaccinated, you are a much lower risk to transmit it to someone else, whereas if you rely on "natural immunity", you only become a reduced risk to transmit it to others after you've already given it to everyone around you when you got it.

How I wish there was a popcorn eating emoji

 

[crush]

How I wish there was a popcorn eating emoji

I heard Jim cut a deal with t and the real military and is playing Biden a 1/3 of the time with a "Biden Mask." Not sure if it's true or not, it's just a rumor from a dear friend of another friend who knows someone in the know.

 

[EvilGoalie 21]

Whew! I thought you were making a case for mandating vaccines for the previously infected.

The main point is that the purpose and conclusions of that particular study do not support the claims that you are, directly or indirectly through talisman linking, are trying to place upon it.

My personal opinion on mandating vaxx, while irrelevant, is that I don't care whether an adult chooses to do it or not. I recognize there is a public policy issue at the moment about documenting immune exposure for a viral infection versus vaxx, but I'm agnostic on it. Once the under 12 crowd has the option of the vaxx, my personal opinion, like I've said before, is that its Balfour time. There are those here that say kids have no real risk, etc. The argument for why one might consider that population, however, is precisely logically equivalent to "nobody has a crystal ball so we just don't know if the vaccine will have long term complications".

 

[Grace T.]

The main point is that the purpose and conclusions of that particular study do not support the claims that you are, directly or indirectly through talisman linking, are trying to place upon it.

My personal opinion on mandating vaxx, while irrelevant, is that I don't care whether an adult chooses to do it or not. I recognize there is a public policy issue at the moment about documenting immune exposure for a viral infection versus vaxx, but I'm agnostic on it. Once the under 12 crowd has the option of the vaxx, my personal opinion, like I've said before, is that its Balfour time. There are those here that say kids have no real risk, etc. The argument for why one might consider that population, however, is precisely logically equivalent to "nobody has a crystal ball so we just don't know if the vaccine will have long term complications".

So you'd be o.k. when 5-12 get the vaccine, or are we waiting for 1-5 (because the under 6 months quite possibly will not have the vaccine approved)? If the 1-5 you are saying you are waiting a year plus, or are you privy to a shorter time table (because Fauci said a few weeks back 5-12 was this winter)?

If I understand correctly your argument is that people are making the argument we don't know what the long term implications of a vaccine are. But you point out we don't know what the long term effects of the virus are. Therefore, aren't both risks the same? That argument would be a great one if the vaccine prevented infection, but we know now it doesn't. do that 100%. The public health authorities say it's in the 80% neighborhood, but there's some evidence it is less, perhaps even substantially so. Given that an unvaxxed under 12 has a lower risk of death or hospitalization than a vaxxed over 40, that's just not a convincing argument. It follows if we concerned about the unvaxxed under 12, we should be more worried about the vaxxed over 40. If the vaxx were bullet proof it would at least a compelling argument, but we know the vaxx isn't.