It’s a good point. I’ve repeated this data point but it’s interesting to me. The Red Cross tests donated blood for antibodies. They test vaccinated and unvaccinated people. Some 20% of unvaccinated people who donated blood showed presence of antibodies. So if that extrapolates out to the general population it suggests the actual infection rate is twice the official number.
Take that a little further, though, and probably front line people are a bit more likely to be blood donors. Which would suggest they were (also) more likely to be previously infected. Considering their occupation is literally walking around sick people and those who care for sick people for 12 hours a day it makes sense.
So, did they test for presence of natural antibodies before they allowed these people to be vaccinated? Because as you said, though they do try to control the arms of a trial, this study looked at health care workers. It makes some sense that a large number already had some form of immunity before the shot.
I recall early in the pandemic seeing interviews with various doctors, one in NYC stands out, he said it was his job so he was there to help, worn out, over worked, stressed, and overwhelmed and very sad - but that he was also taking some various medications in the hopes it would give him some protection. This was before HCQ and Ivermectin were really even in the news. I would wager a large number of HC workers were trying something, anything, to keep from an infection or to prevent serious disease progression from infection. Did they control for this in the trial? What good is a vaccine study if the participants are all taking a cocktail of drugs that more or less do the same thing as the vaccine? It would make the study worthless.
So, did they test for presence of natural antibodies before they allowed these people to be vaccinated?
I would wager a large number of HC workers were trying something, anything, to keep from an infection or to prevent serious disease progression from infection. Did they control for this in the trial? What good is a vaccine study if the participants are all taking a cocktail of drugs that more or less do the same thing as the vaccine? It would make the study worthless.
Good questions.