This is an interesting article, that I think has some limitations by design. I would like to highlight some issues
https://twitter.com/andrew_croxford/status/1430799815693250562
Because re-infection in previously infected must distinguish persistently positive PCR to re-infection, the authors lag analysis of outcomes between the groups 3 months after index event.
This means that all fully vaccinated must have been so by february 28th. *despite* this, due to matching, the average age of the vaccinated cohort is 36 years old.
By 28th of february, Israel had fully vaccinated 36% of the population.
Here's the thing: do you think a vaccinated 36 year old who got vaccinated relatively early will have the same exposure risk/health risk than a recovered 36 year old?
It seems to me that such a young person has a double risk of everything: more exposure and more frequent testing due to higher exposure risk (HCW!). Conversely, this average person may have more residual than an age matched counterpart.
That being said, in general I think the finding that natural immunity is longer living is credible, but not sure about the effect sizes found.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
