Thread by @YossiGestetner

Mark, we know that vaccine immunity crashes to 40-50 percent 6-8 months after taking it which is why boosters are needed. We don’t know that natural immunity drops this low even after 12 months. The latest CDC study includes people infected a half year ago and NI is still 89.6%.

https://twitter.com/mcuban/status/1454819884202962948

Mark is a waste of time on this: I show him that in Oklahoma

A) vaccine immunity went from being 9 times better than natural immunity to only 2 times better, and

B) Natural Immunity in Oklahoma is in the high 90% range.

Yet he answers “operative word being better.”

The above data showing the vaccine working in the high 90% includes recently-vaccinated people because we know from other studies that after 6-8 months immunity crashes. Mark is a vaccine fanatic who refuses to accept the data of natural immunity’s relavance and durability.

Folks, Oklahoma data (which includes the recently-vaxxed among whom it’s no news that they have immunity), has 1.6% infections among the vexed and 3.2% among the previously/ infected.

Instead of saying “wow,
natural immunity is THAT high?” Cuban says ha, vaccines are better.

This is worse than I thought: Cuban posted a chart showing natural immunity being high but he didn’t notice. When I pointed it out, he first said vaccine is still better (marginal of course). Then he makes up a notion that the chart does not count dead people. When I challenge

him to this claim, he says ‘well, 10K people in OK died with Coronavirus since the start of the year; add those to your calculations.’

HELLO? The chart run May-Sep, why should we add earlier data and why count deaths extra when the dead are already in the infection column?

Cuban is a science-denying vaccine fanatic! I worked off of a state chart that he posted but insted of looking at the data he claims the date isn’t complete and that we need to add more people and more months (but only on the reinfection side; not breakthroughs.