Not surprised that this study on natural immunity isn't getting any media attention

[bmw]

As a preliminary disclosure, this study has not yet been peer-reviewed; it is only in pre-print status. This from the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio who followed roughly 52,000 employees of the Cleveland clinic health system for 6 months between Dec 2020 and May 2021:

Among the 52238 included employees, 1359 (53%) of 2579 previously infected subjects remained unvaccinated, compared with 22777 (41%) of 49659 not previously infected. The cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection remained almost zero among previously infected unvaccinated subjects, previously infected subjects who were vaccinated, and previously uninfected subjects who were vaccinated, compared with a steady increase in cumulative incidence among previously uninfected subjects who remained unvaccinated. Not one of the 1359 previously infected subjects who remained unvaccinated had a SARS-CoV-2 infection over the duration of the study

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101 ... 2.full.pdf

That's quite astounding. NOT ONE of the 1,359 previously infected people who remained unvaccinated got sick again during the 6 month study.

Yet, the media will NEVER, EVER talk about natural immunity in a positive light. Why is that?

[TC Talks]

Because Pharma doesn't profit

My sister is a homeopathic doctor in Washington. Preventative medicine only because covered by insurance 3 years ago there. It will never be covered in Michigan.

None of this is a valid reason to not get the vaccination though.

[bmw]

So you disagree with the study's conclusion that "Individuals who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection are unlikely to benefit from COVID-19
vaccination"? On what basis? Do you have evidence that the vaccine gives significant additional immunity to those who have been previously infected?

[bmw]

Here's another one:

https://medicine.missouri.edu/news/stud ... re-illness

University of Missouri School of Medicine and MU Health Care study. Looked at just over 9,000 severe cases of Covid in the early days of the pandemic. Re-infection rate? 0.7% over 11 months. Only 63 people got re-infected.

https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-ar ... 45/6251701

Now granted, this only looked at severe cases, but those numbers are even better than vaccinated immunity. That means that 99.3% of those who got infected didn't get infected again. Efficacy equivalent of roughly 98 percent (assuming non-infected people had a 40% chance of getting infection over that year).

[Matt]

Because Pharma doesn't profit

My sister is a homeopathic doctor in Washington. Preventative medicine only because covered by insurance 3 years ago there. It will never be covered in Michigan.

None of this is a valid reason to not get the vaccination though.

Didn't you get the Pfizer AND J&J vaccines? I think that would make you a big pharma cuck.

[MotorCityRadioFreak]

So you disagree with the study's conclusion that "Individuals who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection are unlikely to benefit from COVID-19
vaccination"? On what basis? Do you have evidence that the vaccine gives significant additional immunity to those who have been previously infected?

Wrong. Infections have only given 6 months of immunity on average. For those sick at the height of the crisis in Michiganduring March 2020, that ran out last September. Get vaxxed or get ready for your oxygen again.

[bmw]

So you disagree with the study's conclusion that "Individuals who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection are unlikely to benefit from COVID-19
vaccination"? On what basis? Do you have evidence that the vaccine gives significant additional immunity to those who have been previously infected?

Wrong. Infections have only given 6 months of immunity on average. For those sick at the height of the crisis in Michiganduring March 2020, that ran out last September. Get vaxxed or get ready for your oxygen again.

Did you even read my most recent post? That study followed people over ELEVEN MONTHS and found a re-infection rate of 0.7 percent.