Posted on 07/11/2021 1:01:08 PM PDT by Meah
People who have contracted COVID-19 and recovered should know that the risk for re-infection is very low, a doctor said after a study he worked on was published.
Researchers analyzed records from Curative, a clinical laboratory based in San Dimas that specializes in COVID-19 testing and has during the pandemic been conducting routine workforce screening. None of the 254 employees who had COVID-19 and recovered became re-infected, while four of the 739 who were fully vaccinated contracted the disease.
“The big takeaway was that if you are not vaccinated, and were not previously infected, one, you have a very high risk getting infected—24 percent of employees over a year tested positive. However, on the flip side, if you were vaccinated or previously infected your risk was near zero,” Dr. Jeffrey Klausner, clinical professor of preventive medicine and medicine at the University of Southern California’s Keck School of Medicine, told The Epoch Times.
Klausner and Dr. Noah Kojima of the University of California, Los Angeles’ Department of Medicine joined with Curative workers to analyze the records. They released a pre-print, or pre-peer reviewed version of the study online this week.
Researchers found that of the 4,313 employees who were not previously infected or fully vaccinated, 254 became infected.
The findings add to the growing body of research that indicates people who had COVID-19 and recovered enjoy a similar level of protection as those who have gotten a vaccine, following a study in the United Kingdom and one by Cleveland Clinic researchers.
“It should give confidence to people who have recovered that they are at very low risk for repeat infection and some experts including myself believe that protection is equal to vaccination,” Klausner told The Epoch Times.
“And we’re trying to update policy such that people who have recovered have the same privileges and access as people who are vaccinated.”
According to federal guidance, vaccines should be administered to people irrespective of whether they’ve had COVID-19 in the past.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has said officials are aware of evidence suggesting natural immunity among those who have been infected but has not altered its recommendations to incorporate that evidence.
“We do not comment on non-CDC authored papers. We continually evaluate the science that leads to our guidance, and if it needs to be changed, we will be base that on our own research and studies,” a spokesman told The Epoch Times in an email last month. The limitations of the new study, which has been submitted to a journal and is being peer reviewed, include the possibility employees could have tested positive for COVID-19 outside of the routine screening, or employee testing program.
The group plans to conduct more analysis on the Curative data.
Dr. David Boulware, professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, told The Epoch Times via email that the study “adds to the body of literature that generally healthy adults <65 years old with prior COVID-19 infection are generally not at risk of recurrent SARS-CoV-2 infection in short term after initial symptomatic infection.”
SARS-CoV-2 is another name for the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus, which causes COVID-19.
Boulware, who was not involved in the research, noted that the median age of those tested was 29 years old and very likely included few people 65 years old or older, or many people without immune system problems.
“Thus, this may not apply to elderly persons or persons with substantial co-morbidities—but does likely apply to adults 18-65 years of age without major medical problems,” he said, adding that because the follow-up time period of those studied was relatively short, the paper does not give insight into longer-term protection.
“Long term protection is more unknown, which is why persons with prior infection still are recommended to receive at least 1 vaccine dose, but there is not any urgency to receive the vaccine (and waiting ~3 months likely would be fine),” he said.
Klausner said that besides bolstering the idea of natural immunity, the study shows that vaccination in the workplace is important.
“We need to continue to promote workplace vaccination requirements. Businesses have the authority and have the ability and have the legal power to require employees get vaccinated,” he said. “And I think our study supports that benefit.”
Had the WuFlu last fall and have not gotten sick since. My ex got vaccinated and caught the bug. She was much sicker from it than was I.
The government pushing the vaccine so hard even on recovered patients should make us very suspicious.
I’m immune for like, 7000 years. Maybe even skip the flu shot this time around.
There are no cases of reinfection from the Fauci Flu, however there are a lot of cases of vaccinated people getting it.
Duh. You get an infection then subsequently you are immune. Everyone knows this for decades and decades if not centuries.
Only with a politicized hyped epidemic used and distorted to affect an election fraud of massive proportions would this even be brought up or a question.
“24 percent of employees over a year tested positive.”
Someone care to explain how he got that number when the stats provided show 5.8% infected?
How can they project an annual infection rate when the virus varies widely over the course of a year, and they only measured a few months? If you measure on the upward slope (ie, January of this year) you’d get one project, and quite another on the downward slope of June.
This study is bogus.
“The big takeaway was that if you are not vaccinated, and were not previously infected, one, you have a very high risk getting infected—24 percent of employees over a year tested positive. However, on the flip side, if you were vaccinated or previously infected your risk was near zero,”
*************************************************************
I guess it’s good to have studies confirm this but most people with an 8th grade education probably thought that was almost certainly the case.
“And we’re trying to update policy such that people who have recovered have the same privileges and access as people who are vaccinated.”
************************************************************
I hope that’s a successful effort although, thanks to Fauci, the CDC and DemocRATS in general, it’s likely to take a court case in front of a Trump judge to implement that right.
Don’t forget there is another extremely low-risk group:
People who have never been infected with covid19 and whose natural immunity is yet untested.
Why are they low risk?
It’s simple. Even if they do catch it, they have a better than 99% chance of having a case so mild that they will never even know they had it.
And let’s face it; the 99% plus survival rate is WAY understated.
In an obvious effort to build up the covid19 case numbers and death statistics for political and financial advantage, hospitals and other healthcare providers received generous no-strings insurance reimbursements for listing Covid19 as the primary cause of sickness or death - even though other far more likely causes were present.
As a result of this data manipulation, we really have no idea if Covid19 ever killed a single person all by itself.
You mean people who have had the disease are IMMUNE?
I thought only the vax could do that.
Imagine that......
Exactly. No one should trust anything that the PtB say about this colossal scam...
Let’s make a list:
1) If it is an artificial virus, and it probably is, then there is not only no natural immunity, but immunity developed by an immune system designed for natural infections likely won’t work.
2) Testing employees as a sample of a population is not valid because it is the old who are at risk, and they aren’t working anymore. Getting great results with no elderly in the sample means nothing. That’s like celebrating a low pregnancy rate among a sample consisting of all males.
3) There is a perpetual hand wave over heads about elderly PLUS comorbidity. Hypertension is a comorbidity, treated or not. 75% of all people over age 65 have hypertension. To that add diabetes. And of course dementia. So there’s really no point of “elderly PLUS comorbidity”. Elderly IS a comorbidity.
4) Roughly 20-25% more elderly died last year of all causes than the average of 4 previous years. Many did not dare go to a doc for fear of infection, which means delayed discovery of problems, and also avoided misdiagnoses leading to incorrect treatment. Note also the 20-25% number is substantially higher than the 65+ Covid death count, suggesting the old codger living alone who did not seek testing died of covid, was gathered up from the smell weeks later. He’s a Covid death that was never counted.
eople who need eople are the luckiest eople in the world.
Re: being elderly IS a co-morbidity
To class everyone over a certain age as anything, let alone, as having a co-morbidity, is ignorant, insulting, and statistically unfounded.
News flash - most of us healthy oldsters put more than half of those under 60 to shame, as a good percentage of them would love to have our blood pressure, heart rate, and other indicators of good health.
Any chance you’ll apologize for being an ass?
The numbers are the numbers. 75% of those over 65 have hypertension, treated or not. Add diabetes and dementia and you get way up around 90%. These are all on the comorbidity list for Covid.
You may have missed the point. The death odds are about age. The media always wants to tack comorbidities on there, but that’s redundant. If you’re old, as I am, as most I know are, there will be a comorbidity. There is no reason to list it as a separate risk factor when 90ish% over 65 have one.
Factoid: 54% of folks 60+ take 4 or more daily medications. They ain’t doing that for fun.
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.