Posted on 04/12/2021 5:16:45 PM PDT by Republican Wildcat
“The researchers found the prevalence of B.1.351 among patients who received two doses of the vaccine was about eight times higher than those who were unvaccinated. “
*********************************************
Please read post 40 above.
“If the Pfizer vaccinated subjects are showing more prevalence of the African variant as opposed to wuhan infected and recovered subjects doesn’t that imply there is something not as effective about the Pfizer vaccine as opposed to natural immune response antibodies?”
*****************************************************
There’s apparently a misunderstanding about the Israeli study going around. The below is copied from a comment I made yesterday to another with that misunderstanding.
You are COMPLETELY misrepresenting what the Israeli study looked at and what it found. Apparently, MATH IS HARD for some of our Agendanista anti-vaxxers. Following is my summary of the study:
The folks who conducted the study picked 400 UNVACCINATED people who TESTED positive for COVID-19. They may or may not have been symptomatic. Of these 400 COVID-19 “cases”, 0.7% (probably 3 cases) were of the South African variant and 99.3% (probably 397 case) were of other COVID-19 variants as determined by molecular testing. These 400 cases represent the “control” and should roughly show the size of the South African variant circulating in Israel as a percentage of COVID-19 cases. As the “control” population of 400 COVID-19 infected people UNAFFECTED BY PRIOR VACCINATION it will be what is used to “measure” how effective the vaccine is for both South African and non South African variants. If the vaccine is equally effective against both variants we’d expect to see similar breakdown (i.e., 99.3% and 0.7%) in the vaccinated group below.
The folks who conducted the study ALSO picked 400 VACCINATED (not necessarily fully vaccinated with 2 shots) people who also had TESTED positive for COVID-19 subsequent to their vaccination. They also may or may not have been symptomatic. Of this 2nd group of 400 COVID-19 “cases”, 5.4% (probably 22 cases) were of the South African variant and 94.6% (probably 378 case) were of other COVID-19 variants. This study (well designed, IMHO) has results that CLEARLY show that the South African variant is clearly much more likely to “breakthrough” than are the non South African variants. THAT’S ALL IT SHOWS AND THAT WAS WHAT IT WAS DESIGNED TO LOOK FOR. It certainly does NOT show you’re more likely to get infected by the South African variant if you’re vaccinated than if you were NOT vaccinated as some of the MATH CHALLENGED are alleging.
I apologize for any misspellings, grammatical mistakes or lack of clarity that may exist in the above.
I read it but how is the statement ““The researchers found the prevalence of B.1.351 among patients who received two doses of the vaccine was about eight times higher than those who were unvaccinated. “ not correct?
I have all my other vaccines, I am just questioning the efficacy, speed and non-approved emergency use nature of the batflu vaccines for a disease that has a 99.97% recovery rate.
Because if you randomly take 1,000 people who are not vaccinated and randomly take 1,000 people who have had both doses of the vaccine and track them over time what do you expect to find?
What you will find is that MANY more of those 1,000 vaccinated individuals will have become infected with COVID-19 than will the 1,000 fully vaccinated individuals. As a matter of fact, in such a small (i.e., 1,000) sample perhaps none of the vaccinated will have become infected.
I think you need to clarify this statement. You may have left out a word or two.
“I think you need to clarify this statement. You may have left out a word or two.”
****************************************
LOL - Sure did. Below, I corrected the one ‘vaccinated’ word to correctly read ‘UNvaccinated’. Thanks for catching that CRITICAL (to my meaning) error.
“Because if you randomly take 1,000 people who are not vaccinated and randomly take 1,000 people who have had both doses of the vaccine and track them over time what do you expect to find?
What you will find is that MANY more of those 1,000 UNvaccinated individuals will have become infected with COVID-19 than will the 1,000 fully vaccinated individuals. As a matter of fact, in such a small (i.e., 1,000) sample perhaps none of the vaccinated will have become infected.”
But your statement is misleading. The 1000 subjects may be unvaccinated but they have had COVID and recovered so they have natural antibodies which is the point of the study. They have specifically called out people who were not vaccinated but have antibodies from recovery from COVID. My observation and what the study is indicating is that natural antibodies don't seem to exhibit the breakthru rate for the African variant like the antibodies developed from the Pfizer vaccination.
Sorry, I guess I don’t know how to make you understand. Perhaps someone else can try.
That actually makes sense but the article did not say that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.