Posted on 04/25/2021 8:57:16 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.04.20.21255670
This article is a preprint and has not been certified by peer review [what does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice.
Understanding the level of protection of previous infection compared to that of vaccination is critical for policy making.
We analyze an updated individual-level database of the entire population of Israel to assess the protection efficacy of both prior infection and vaccination in preventing subsequent SARS-CoV-2 infection, hospitalization with COVID-19, severe disease, and death due to COVID-19.
Vaccination was highly effective with overall estimated efficacy for documented infection of 92.8% (CI: [92.6, 93.0]); hospitalization 94.2% (CI: [93.6, 94.7]); severe illness 94.4% (CI: [93.6, 95.0]); and death 93.7% (CI: [92.5, 94.7]). Similarly, the overall estimated level of protection from prior SARS-CoV-2 infection for documented infection is 94.8% (CI: [94.4, 95.1]); hospitalization 94.1% (CI: [91.9, 95.7]); and severe illness 96.4% (CI: [92.5, 98.3]).
If only the media and governments would say this.
Interesting and not a surprise that the prior infected are just as protected as those who were not infected and got the vaccine. That does make sense - your contribution to herd immunity is conferred either way, because you recovered from an infection, or you got the vaccine; but there seems very little need for both.
I suspect the reason we’ve been told that recovered COVID people should be vaccinated was nothing more than that running an antibody test on some 200 million people before vaccination was too cumbersome to carry out efficiently. Not to mention there would be some number of people who had a false positive test in the past and would think they have immunity but don’t.
That’s how Fauci and company role.
I suspect the reason is that nobody really know who was actually infected with COVID because the tests were grossly inaccurate. A positive test by no means meant that you actually were infected.
The unbelievable bullshit now being pressed is that if you were infected prior, you have ZERO immunity.
Furthermore, they claim that children need to be ‘vaccinated’ to “protect others.” Sound familiar?
No effing way I’m being shot up with that crap for a virus with a 0.0057% fatality rate for ages 1-49.
This is a fraud and fraudster trolls are rampant on FR.
ps...I’m making a list.
And then there are folks that had the virus before any tests were available.
All they can do is go for an iGg test, and check for antibodies.
And push back on anyone making the claim that having had the virus didn’t cause immunity.
I agree with you. It’s beyond ridiculous how many people are being cowed into getting vaccinated. If you are under 55 and relatively healthy there is zero need to inject yourself.
That’s what I attempted to do last week, and was coerced into getting the shots after being initially lied to about the availability of both the blood draw and the antibody test.
It was a pathetic, frustrating experience (I stormed out in anger) and I’m concerned now that clinics are being financially rewarded for every dose they administer. If you heard/experienced what I did last week, you would agree.
Trying to verify the ‘reward’ aspect (akin to the $35k for hospitals filling an ICU bed with a virus patient).
Some folks have tried to come up[ with excuses why they want to jab everyone even if they had the bug - it seems like it would make more sense to see how well those who acquired natural immunity do when compared against those trusting souls who took the jab...
What did they do to coerce you?
It was a psychological dance. Staff were obviously engaging a ritual well-practiced from training and repeated engagement with customers.
For example, the clinic I walked into initially lied to me about the availability of the antibody test (I was on the phone that morning and confirmed both its availability and the fact that my insurance would cover it). Then, under that guise they kept offering me ‘guidance’ from a ‘medical adviser’ (a nurse) in the back. This ‘guidance’ was offered on 3 separate occasions as she kept coming out to me in the public waiting area to discuss my situation re the test, a violation of HIPPA, btw.
Suddenly - once they realized that I’d already done a ‘telemedicine’ appointment - I was told that I could get my blood drawn for the test (again, in the public waiting area). When I was led in the back, the male nurse who was to do the draw was ‘innocently’ querying ‘why’ I wanted the test (this offended me). He then orated that it was likely that the test may not detect any antibodies after a year (true; I knew that) and then stated that under such a situation I have no immunity whatsoever (a lie).
It was clear that his questions were not idle chit-chat: It was training. I’m not stupid. Furthermore, I was never asked if I’d had the vaccine; it was an assumption on their part simply for having requested the test.
Multiple times, he queried incredulously, “Are you sure you want to pay for this?” followed by the statement, “CDC still recommends that you get the vaccine.”
It was the last time he asked the the prior question - after I’d already told him that my insurance would pay for it - at which point I’d had enough and stormed out, making an appointment to donate blood that afternoon (antibody test is part of the blood donation process).
‘Pissed off’ doesn’t begin to quantify my anger over this.
Woah, I would’ve walked out after the nurse came out and blabbed to everyone your medical situation.
Thanks for posting that the antibody test is part of the blood donation process.
Now I’m wondering why they check for antibodies; maybe to be sure to give that blood to a covid-positive person to combat the virus?
Or the other way round, to be sure the antibodies don’t harm someone that just got the shot?
Begs the question:
When donating blood, do they ask questions pertaining to the 'vaccine' administered prior? Know what I mean, Vern? /s
As well, are blood supplies recorded with what 'experimental vaccine' was administered to the donor?
As far as it goes for me, I'll have the answer on the 3rd in regards to the questions.
As well, it was another bizarre part of my clinic experience last week when they were denying that they draw blood/offer the antibody test: They literally told me that I could go to Bloodworks and get the antibody test for free. I'd heard that anecdotally, but that's what they said. Before, of course, that they realized I'd been through their silly 'telemedicine' crap and happily shuffled me in the back to bill my insurance.
Very, very odd experience.
Hi—sorry to hear about the way you were treated. I’m not clear on whether or not you actually got the shot? “Coerced” sounds like you did, but “stormed out” sounds like you did not.
Thanks.
And I am going to check it twice, and maybe add a couple. LOL
This has never been about the virus. It is about the vaccine and a way to control you in the future. Many, many vaccines.
Did NOT get shot (I am immune and have a standing challenge to anyone to pit my life against theirs in an infectious environment, i.e. the ‘vaccinated’, winner take all).
Great, thank you! From your opening statement it sounded like maybe you had. Thank you for standing up to them.
Yepper - else they would be using common sense instead of gong all Frankenstein on us.
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.