Thread by @YossiGestetner

I read the latest study by the CDC of the difference between natural immunity (NI) vs immunity through a vaccine. (ITV).

For starters, most news about this are blatant lies to just misleading. But I am not going to debunk it all. Ill present a few points. cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/7…

First, the time frame of the study is 90 to 179 days after vaccination which is month 4 through 6 which is flawed because boosters are needed only at various points after this time frame, so what’s the news that the vaccines work at day 90-179? Show us numbers of post day 180.

Secondly, the numbers yelling how much better immunity through vaccine (ITV) is versus natural immunity (NI) are mostly marginal. For example, before Delta, 8.4% previously infected people tested positive again for Coronavirus versus only 1.6% among vaccinated people.

Meaning, ITV is 5 times stronger than NI, but in raw numbers, 91.6% previously-infected people were not reinfected and 98.4% vaccinated were not reinfected. Quite close and this, again, counts people who were vaccinated only 0-6 months earlier; a time that the vaccine works.

During Delta, the gap between vaccined and previously-infected was much closer: 5.9% vaccinated people were reinfected while 10.1% previously-infected were reinfected. I wonder what the data would be if it counted only those who were vaccinated at least 6 months before the study.

I want to stress again that the authors of the CDC study admit that a key limit is not tracking the time between taking the jab and the study. Meaning, if they isolated those who took the vaccine more than 6 months ago, the ITV numbers would potentially be lower.

One more point:

For the study, Coronavirus testing was done on 94,264 hospitalized people with symptoms, but only 7,348 had tests before hospitalization: 1,020 of those were “previously infected and unvaccinated persons, and 6,328 were among fully vaccinated and previously uninfected patients.”

Most of the study’s findings are based on the 7,348 people who tested 14 days before hospitalization. The study is not based on all COVID-19 related hospitalizations in the study and it is sure not based on a random pool of the population.

Despite this game and despite, again,

not differentiating between recent vaccinated people and longer-vaccinated people (who need boosters), the findings are what they are as explained in this thread which is robust natural immunity numbers. Thank you for reading and stay healthy.

P.S. I am glad that the CDC study focuses on hospitalized people because that is what matters most, but the study is mostly based on hospitalized people who tested 14 days before being hospitalized. No idea what kind of baseline/pool of people this is supposed to be.

P.P.S. In Oklahoma, the infection rate among previously-infected people in May was 9.5 times worse than among the vaccinated.

In Sep however it was only 2x worse likely due to the rapid waning of vaccine effects, so why did the CDC study not adjust for time-since-vaccinated?

Oklahoma: May through Sep, 14,034 people among 442K previously-infected were reinfected. Meaning, 96.8% never got reinfected.

22,119 among 1.6 mill vaccinated had infections. 98.6% did fine (this before the need for boosters).

(The 442K and 1.6 mm are the middle months)

Michigan: In the last 4 weeks of available data, 27% of Michigan’s Coronavirus deaths were fully vaccinated. Since 1/15 of this year, 10.7% of Coronavirus deaths are fully vaccinated.

Point?

Studies that don’t differentiate the early vaxxed from newly vaxxed are dishonest.