You haven't refuted any specific claims that I've made. The links you posted don't refute what I've stated. In fact, they actually reinforce it. From your last link, for example:
"In SARS-CoV-2 vaccinees and COVID-19 patients within the first weeks after vaccination or infection, respectively, antibody responses to SARS-CoV S increased. Vaccinees and severely ill patients developed similar concentrations of anti-SARS-CoV S IgG, whereas those of moderately ill patients were significantly lower."
And there's fun pictures to that effect as well:
(Source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666634021000350)
I've never said that recovery from infection doesn't provide protection. In fact, I said the opposite. But the literature is clear: vaccination and recovery from severe COVID-19 provide the most protection, while recovery from mild or asymptomatic infection provide less. Certain variants impact this protection. We've seen that already in places like Brazil and South Africa. Reinfection with the same variant appears exceedingly rare. Breakthrough infection following vaccination is also exceedingly rare.
And no, I'm not "pushing the vaccine". I'm passing along factual information. If factual information feels like "pushing the vaccine", that may be because the vaccines have a lot of benefits to them. But if you don't want to get vaccinated, don't. I don't care what choice you make. I care that everyone has the facts in hand to make an informed decision for themselves.
Incorrect. Your post made two claims (without evidence.)
Claim 1: The current numbers in Brazil are all people who had COVID before, and who caught the “new variant.”
Claim 2: People who had mild or asymptomatic infection and recovered aren’t protected against variants and must rush out to get the vaccine.
The links that I provided include scientific data that people who were infected prior do indeed have neutralizing antibodies for new variants.
You completely ignored that in the response.
Instead, you try to shift the focus on the claim that people who had a mild infection have less antibodies than people who had a severe infection, and by implication you want to suggest that you need the higher number to “be protected.”
The problem with that, is that you have absolutely zero evidence for that claim.
In fact, you apparently can’t understand that the antibodies that they are measuring in these studies are focused on the spike protein AND that someone who has natural immunity has broad immunity to more than just the spike protein.
You also just assume, without evidence, that someone with lower antibodies is somehow less protected and the science doesn’t support that at all.
So, I’ll pose a simple question to you. Until you can answer this with a concrete number, I will continue to pose it to you over and over again. So be prepared. You will get no other response from me.
What specific antibody level in U/ml is sufficient to protect against reinfection. Please cite your sources with peer reviewed research.
Now, I’ll leave you with this, I had a very mild case of China flu. It was an absolute joke. (Full disclosure, I did dose with ivermectin horse paste on Day 1 and Day 3.)
Despite people like you who seem to think that its a death sentence for anyone that gets it, it was nothing more than a cold. It was such a joke that 2 days in I was running and working out. Short of having a strange headache for two days and losing my smell for about a week, it was nothing.
I recently had my antibodies tested, I have DOUBLE the antibody level that the average non-infected person gets after getting their first shot of the mRNA vaccine. Double. The data indicates that the antibody levels increase over time before plateauing and then dropping to a slightly lower level, with the understanding that my T cells will create NEW antibodies if I’m ever exposed again.
So why on earth would I go out and get one of the vaccines that you are peddling, when 1. My immune system worked fine. 2. I have antibodies.