JohnStOnge wrote: ↑Mon Jan 31, 2022 7:31 pm
SeattleGriz wrote: ↑Sun Jan 30, 2022 5:22 pm
Yes it is. Natural immunity confers 55 epitopes of coverage plus mucosal IgA secretion. Whereas vaccine immunity only provides 5 epitopes.
You can stop shilling for the vaccines. They did their job, although they were unfortunately oversold by everyone except the vaccine makers. They told everyone they would only reduce risk of mild to moderate illness if infected. Nothing more, nothing less.
They acted just like Flu vaccines. They helped to lower hospitalizations and deaths, but didn't prevent spread. It's okay. A shit ton of people will now live that pre vaccine would not have.
If you look at the paper (
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/ ... 04e1-H.pdf), you can see that they reported relative rates for two weeks that came at different points of the pandemic. Here is a description of the first week:
During the week beginning May 30, 2021, compared with COVID-19 case rates among unvaccinated persons without a previous COVID-19 diagnosis, COVID-19 case rates were 19.9-fold (California) and 18.4-fold (New York) lower among vaccinated persons without a previous diagnosis; 7.2 fold California) and 9.9-fold lower (New York) among unvaccinated persons with a previous COVID-19 diagnosis; and 9.6-fold California) and 8.5-fold lower (New York) among vaccinated persons with a previous COVID-19 diagnosis
So, during that week, the numbers said vaccination was substantially more protective than being previously infected was.
Here is a description of the second week:
By the week beginning October 3, compared with COVID-19 cases rates among unvaccinated persons without a previous COVID-19 diagnosis, case rates among vaccinated persons without a previous COVID-19 diagnosis were 6.2-fold (California) and 4.5-fold (New York) lower; rates were substantially lower among both groups with previous COVID-19 diagnoses, including 29.0-fold (California) and 14.7-fold lower (New York) among unvaccinated persons with a previous diagnosis, and 32.5-fold (California) and 19.8-fold lower (New York) among vaccinated persons with a previous diagnosis of COVID-19.
During that week, natural infection offered greater protection. As an aside, it's kind of weird that, if we forget about vaccines and just look at natural immunity, it looks like natural immunity offered better protection against the Delta variant than it did against the set of variants that were dominant in May. For example: In May the case rate for previously infected people in California was 9.6 fold lower than it was for people in California who had not been previously infected. In October it was 29 fold lower.
Also, the data were generated before the effect of boosters could be assessed. Thus the authors wrote:
Similar data accounting for booster doses and as new variants, including Omicron, circulate will need to be assessed.
The study does no support making the blanket statement, "Natural immunity acquired via getting infected with COVID-19 provides more protection than getting a COVID-19 vaccine does."
Now, if you think something you read that "Natural immunity confers 55 epitopes of coverage plus mucosal IgA secretion" means natural immunity is more protective, you may or may not be correct. I don't think you really know. I think you read that in an argument for the proposition you saw somewhere. But the numbers in the report we are discussing does not support the proposition. They reported one set of circumstances under which the vaccines were more effective and another set of circumstances where natural immunity was. And they noted that more study is needed to assess what happens with other variants and booster effects.
I'll trust the multitude of studies that show natural immunity derived from recovery is better than vaccination rather than a CDC study. The CDC has been proven wrong too many times to trust and doesn't release all their data for review. If you're afraid to release all your data, no thank you, you're not serious.
Do you even understand what I am saying by mucosal IgA secretion? Until you can tell me what that is, I won't correct your thinking.
In regards to the 55 epitopes, I got those numbers from a study that analyzed all the immunogenic epitopes on the SARS CO2 virus. They were doing that because they wanted to see if any of the genetic sequences in the epitopes matched our immunity proteins genetic sequences.
The point of the study was to make sure in the future when they tweak the vaccines, they remove those sequences, so your antibodies don't attack your own proteins because they match the Covid genetic sequences.
If these proteins are integral for proper immune functioning, you don't want your own antibodies attacking them because they think they are Covid.
