I understand how this process works and still find the data incredibly compelling. It is a massive and very thorough study from a country that tracks data related to covid far better then we do. Twice people have posted a study made up (I believe) of 232 people in Kentucky as surefire evidence lol. But I'm willing to roll with it because it's irrelevant to my point.
I provided some excellent data showing that Natural Immunity is not just equal to the current batch of vaccines but is Drastically superior. I'm not surprised that multiple people here are eager to ignore it.
I won't go any further with it, as these type of discussions rarely go anywhere as people are often entrenched idealogically into one position or another.
I wouldn't go so far as saying that it is drastically superior. There are some problems with the data if you read the comments. If you don't want to go further fine, I will. But keep in mind, this was your assertion to begin with so I'm responding to your assertion.
This is a first glance off what I read.
1. Some demographics are hit much harder than others and the US is more of a melting pot, therefore the data does not cross apply because the US has more of a mix of people who are of different genetic make up and this was not included in the study. According to the CDC peer reviewed data, hispanics and asians and Indians are more likely to get sick and die than Whites which are higher in population in the US compared to Israel. So basically, if you're white, good for you. If you're not, then this data may not apply but that public safety should not be delineating based on origin and if so, how effective are we going to be in determining who should get the vaccine if they are going to get a pass based on a prior infection?
2. This did not take into account comorbidities and how that plays through in reinfection nor does it reference immune compromised. It says it takes them into account but basically means it tweaked its numbers so the question is, did they cut the patients with commorbidities or create a separate algorithm? What happened there? It renders the conclusion too narrow in scope or unexplained and is a gap in the data submitted as it is, nor are breakdowns provided.
3. This only studied one vaccine insofar as a 2 dose regimen. It did not study a 3rd. Note that some vaccines require 3 doses like Hep B. The first two are 30 days apart, the next one six months after. We don't have the data yet and this is only up to present so it is easy to determine this is inconclusive or limited in scope based on the information provided and further study is needed since we are entering a 3rd phase based on Pfizer's and Moderna's recommendation.
Furthermore, there was another study that the same authors of this preprint did referencing boosters and how they are much significantly effective but does not compare that with the prior study, you can start with Sivan Gait.
4. This only studies the Delta variant post infection. There are other mutant variants out there that are unaccounted for and unexplored. What happens with the other variants if they become dominant? How does that play into the decision making since this is an evolving virus, keeping in mind that it is possible to get Covid more than once and each variant has a different degree of separation from the original.
5. The conclusion also acknowledged that getting one dose of the vaccine provided strong immunity after infection when combined but never quantified that data. 2 follow up questions.
5a Why not? Is one dose post infection perhaps stronger than natural immunity? It blew right past that which makes me wonder why they stopped there. It just ended like a bad joke. I characterize it that way because you are hinging your entire argument on that it is not necessary if one is post infection and this study fails to not only examine it deeper, but it acknowledges it and then sweeps the info under the rug.
5b Why did it not study 2 dose vaccination post infection and it studied only one? What would the data show if it did? Why is it posting a side by side and not doing a study on post infection and post 2 dose vaccination to determine if there was an even better method for increased immunity. As current data suggests outside of this study, 2 dose vaccination post infection is much higher.
I can go on but this is exactly why peer review exists.
These are simple questions asked during a peer review process that should be answered before making a policy decision or guiding policy for government entities to consider. Just looking at it and saying well the data is massive really doesn't cut it when people's lives are at stake. We don't lick our fingers and stick it in the air when it comes to public health but for some reason we do that with individual patients sometimes. However, in this case, we're talking populations of people who could/would suffer if your idea was enacted because it hasn't been vetted. There are questions attached to a peer review that study the data collection, analysis and conclusions and then the raw data which would bring even more questions. I could never show up with a preprint and expect to role out a new policy and have it fly without it going through the proper steps. Everything has to be peer reviewed in both medicine and public health, otherwise you get Hydroxychloroquine causing your patients to got into VTAC because someone saw it on TV and demanded to put their family member through it even though it was already shown not to stand up.
So basically, the information is interesting at best but does has some gaps at first glance. It's not about personal bias, it's about making sure that decisions keep people safe and moreover, help this country move forward. Public safety is the highest priority.
Going back to your original argument now, the FDA approval is in place, private businesses are going to have employees demanding a safe working environment and there will be lawsuits when it can be shown that a company did not do enough to protect its employees. They will also pay with attrition at work as well as having to rehire new employees, which costs a lot of money and irreplaceable time and resources. In addition, the costs from health insurance companies and life insurance companies will go up on those who are unvaccinated since they will be more expensive to treat as COVID patients require more resources in the hospital and frankly they should be because the costs to take care of them are overwhelming. My patient last night was on 3 drips, noncovid. My neighbor's patient was on 12 drips, COVID. Some of those drips have to be compounded and double checked in pharmacy and that costs a ton of money that someone is going to have to pay for and the hospitals are not going to take it up the rear here because they have investors to answer to and employees to pay. So if you're asking why vaccine mandates should exist, it is basically difficult to verify prior infection and we have already seen the public in their openness to share public health info. They stand on top of it like a rock and then hide in its shadow. Basically we don't trust people to do the right thing which is why we have vaccine cards to prove it to begin with to attend school, college, certain jobs etc. This is no different.
I apologize if this comes across as harsh but I wanted to be thorough and also, I just finished my 2nd night shift and I have one more to go. No malintention on my part or hard feelings your way, I'm just answering the argument as dry as I can and sticking to the points of the argument itself. No personal attack intended.
