COVID infection gives similar immunity to vaccination: study

The authors nevertheless emphasized that their findings should not discourage vaccination, which remains the safest way to get immunity.

This is a very important part of the report, antivaxxer propaganda will endlessly repeat that natural immunity is better, but that makes absolutely no sense because to get it a person is exposed to the full risks you want to prevent with that immunity.

It is also telling that the author of the study quoted in this article says the vaccine is important for everyone, not just for a segment of the population, that is the best way to have a protected population.

Hopefully the prediction at the end, with people getting mild infections because of the immunity of the vaccine will end up being accurate, risk may never disappear, but having a risk comparable with other human coronaviruses is a perfectly good goal.

At the end of the day, it boils down to personal choice whether or not to vaccinate. Don’t use the term “antivaxxers propaganda “ because they could quite easily throw it back and say that you are a member of the “provaxxers propaganda “. Whichever side of the fence you decide to sit on, you have a right to choose. Time has revealed the vaccines have not proven to be as effective as promised to let people make their one decisions when it comes to health.

antivaxxer propaganda will endlessly repeat that natural immunity is better, but that makes absolutely no sense because to get it a person is exposed to the full risks you want to prevent with that immunity.

And provaxxer propaganda will endlessly and wrongly repeat that a natural infection has more risks than the vaccine. It took the MSM this long to finally acknowledge the benefits of natural immunity, how long will it take them to acknowledge the risks of the vaccines and their lack of mucosal immunity, and the IgG4 issue, and...

So vaccines DO work? That's a surprise.

Indeed.

Provaxxers propaganda

No, that is actually science. Something antivaxers obviously failed at, you know, in school.

That makes this natural immunity "at least as durable, if not more so" than two doses of Pfizer or Moderna vaccines, the study said.

I had a look at the paper's data, and it clearly shows that natural immunity is much more durable than the vax.

It took the MSM this long to finally acknowledge the benefits of natural immunity,

Natural immunity has always been regarded as highly beneficial, as has the vaccine.

The difference is, the vaccine lets the medical professionals control infection. Vaccines are also proven to reduce the severity of infection (as a recently infected and recovered medical professional relative of mine will testify to).

At the end of the day, it boils down to personal choice whether or not to vaccinate.

Indeed. At the end of the day. But back in the dark days when things were seriously out of control, the vaccines were a god send and have saved countless lives and put us in this position now. People shouldn't forget that.

More so China, and it pains me to say that an unknown number of people have been needlessly killed by being unvaccinated, have scrambled for an improved vaccination program in response to the covid policy flip-flop as vaccines are proven to work.

So, I belong to a closed group of roughly 10,000 people. Well, just around 9.500 but that is a rounding question.

-- None of the group, nor their immediate family, meaning spouse or minor children, have taken the COVID jab.

-- ALL have taken HCQ, Ivermectin and / or a mix of Quercetin, Zinc, Vitamin D supplements as a proactive protective (prophylactic).

Guess what?!

NONE have gone to hospital with a serious COVID-related condition.

NONE have required medical care for anything related to a respiratory ailment.

And...

Here's the kicker....

NONE HAVE DIED SUDDENLY FROM SOME UNKNOWN REASON!!

Not one adult.

Not one child.

Our kids are going to bed at night knowing they won't die suddenly!! Because of something THAT NO KID SUDDENLY DIED FROM MORE THAN TWO YEARS AGO!!

It took the MSM this long to finally acknowledge the benefits of natural immunity,

One has to be infected and become sick, maybe really sick, deathly sick, to gain natural immunity. Being vaccinated avoids being really sick while offering similar levels of immunity. I've had it both ways. Just me but I'll take the needle over the real thing any day of the week. The needle doesn't leave you with a nagging cough that lasts for more than a year like getting sick did to me.

Don’t use the term “antivaxxers propaganda “ because they could quite easily throw it back and say that you are a member of the “provaxxers propaganda “.

Why not? people that willingly use fase information to mislead others can be validly qualified this way, they are not people in search for good information but the opposite, as soon as they are identified doing it they can and should be criticized for putting in risk the health and lives of others.

And provaxxer propaganda will endlessly and wrongly repeat that a natural infection has more risks than the vaccine.

There is nothing wrong with that, every respected institution of science and medicine agrees with this conclusion, obviously nameless people on the internet saying the scientific community of the whole world is wrong because they want to believe the opposite are irrelevant.

I had a look at the paper's data, and it clearly shows that natural immunity is much more durable than the vax.

If the authors of the paper say your personal conclusion about their findings is wrong they are a much better reference. What evidence did you find that would contradict them, the people that actually did the study?

None? well, that is expected.

So, I belong to a closed group of roughly 10,000 people. Well, just around 9.500 but that is a rounding question.

Hearsay is not evidence, it is as much wishful thinkin. Present your data well validated and characterized, use proper statistical methods and you would have a point. Else anybody can say they belong to a group 10X bigger that found out exactly the opposite than you (lets say, that only unvaccinated people died, and 99% of them) and that would be "evidence" that you are wrong.

COVID infection gives similar immunity to vaccination

They are just crazy. It gives no immunity as the death toll numbers prove. Admitted, the people who have died can’t contradict that so-called ‘study’ anymore.

One has to be infected and become sick, maybe really sick, deathly sick, to gain natural immunity.

One has to be injected and become sick, maybe really sick, deathly sick, to gain short-term protection.

The studies have been published showing the risks from the vax being higher than from covid for anyone below 60.

One has to be injected and become sick, maybe really sick, deathly sick, to gain short-term protection.

Which is a tiny fraction of the risk that comes from the infection.

The studies have been published showing the risks from the vax being higher than from covid for anyone below 60.

No, they have not, that is just another lie from antivaxxer groups.

You have not answered what evidence from the paper can lead to the authors (of the report) to be wrong on their conclusions. Does that mean you are retracting this baseless claim you made?

Infection of the bubonic plague also gave you natural immunity… if you survived.

You can’t make big money off of natural immunity.

It seems that once an argument gets into a corner, big money and pharma are mentioned.

That is beside the point

You actually can money from naturally immunity. Money making was one of the main reasons why China chose NOT to vaccine it's population. All that testing, quarantining, intensive care and phone apps etc created a very lucrative business in natural immunity.

One has to be injected and become sick, maybe really sick, deathly sick, to gain short-term protection.

Which is a tiny fraction of the risk that comes from the infection.

No, many peer-reviewed studies say you are wrong. One example:

https://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2022/12/05/jme-2022-108449

"per COVID-19 hospitalisation prevented, we anticipate at least 18.5 serious adverse events from mRNA vaccines, including 1.5–4.6 booster-associated myopericarditis cases in males (typically requiring hospitalisation)"

I had a look at the paper's data, and it clearly shows that natural immunity is much more durable than the vax.

If the authors of the paper say your personal conclusion about their findings is wrong they are a much better reference. What evidence did you find that would contradict them, the people that actually did the study?

What? Exactly as I wrote: their data *clearly shows that natural immunity is much more durable than the vax.*

Have a look at the data, it's very clear. My guess is that they had to word it the way they did in order to get their paper accepted.

@virusrex

Provaxxers are keeping with the rhetoric to push their agenda.

In a few years, we will be told that natural immunity protects better than the vaccine.

Vaccine has always been seen vital for old and risky persons, not the general population. I was sicker after having that vaccine than catching covid, although the Covid symptoms did last longer.

Natural immunity is the best for an healthy and not at risk person

Natural immunity is the best for an healthy and not at risk person

One goal of vaccinations is to prevent getting sick.

You have to get sick first to get your natural immunity.

If your logic says natural immunity is better can't help you there.

Tell you what, why don't you ask the doctor you trust the most which is better for you?

Of course antivaxers no longer go to the doctors because they know better than the doctors right?

Or do you still consult regarding other medical matters because it's only with the veccines and covid that you know better?

You have to get sick first to get your natural immunity.

You need to get infected to get natural immunity.

And based on text I quoted above from a peer-reviewed study:

per COVID-19 hospitalisation prevented, we anticipate at least 18.5 serious adverse events from mRNA vaccines

You can’t make big money off of natural immunity.

Yes you can, lots of amoral people do by pushing false information for profit even when it means putting the lives of people at risk.

No, many peer-reviewed studies say you are wrong. One example:

A well debunked article based on misrepresentation of the data, hiding deep biases on the selecetion criteria of the patients for the groups and making invalid comparisons to force an invalid point is not the kind of evidence you want to present.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9344593/

Among others, these include drawing conclusions that are not supported by the hypotheses they adduce, mischaracterising potential unintended consequences, and raising concerns related to key ethical concepts without fully articulating the rationale or justification for those concerns.

Why keep using something that has already demonstrated mistaken? is it because you have nothing actually valid to use instead? The last time you used this reference the arguments that disqualify their conclusions were also brought to the comments, you could not refute any of those comments which means you implicitcly accepted the research to be flawed and invalid, yet you tried to use it again even when fully knowing it is invalid.

What? Exactly as I wrote: their data clearly shows that natural immunity is much more durable than the vax.**

Since you failed to argue how, and since the authors of that paper, that had obviously much more an appeal to authority for their results contradict your personal conclusion that means you are simply wrong. Just repeating something you can't prove does not make it better supported, it only shows you can't support it.

Have a look at the data, it's very clear. My guess is that they had to word it the way they did in order to get their paper accepted.

The data is clear and do not support your biased interpretation, the authors in this case are right and you are wrong, even if you try to "guess" imaginary reasons.

Provaxxers are keeping with the rhetoric to push their agenda.

No, the scientific and medical communities of the world keep up with the evidence to recognize what is actually happening instead of pushing for false and debunked misinformation like the antivaxxer propaganda does.

In a few years, we will be told that natural immunity protects better than the vaccine.

Making up imaginary claims about the future means you recognize the evidence until now do not support this flawed claim, so you "hope" things will change in the future. That only evidence a lack of capacity to accept what has been clearly proved right now beyond any rational doubt.

Vaccine has always been seen vital for old and risky persons, not the general population

The vaccines mean a reduction of risk for everybody for whom they are indicated, people are simply better if vaccinated even if without extra risks, the experts coincide on this (including in this article) just claiming they must be wrong because you want to believe the opposite is not an argument.

Vaccine derived immunity is better for anybody for whom the vaccine can be used, the experts of the world are simply a much more reliable source than just a nameless person on the internet that offers no evidence to support a personal belief that can be demonstrated false.

per COVID-19 hospitalisation prevented, we anticipate at least 18.5 serious adverse events from mRNA vaccines

No interest in contesting that I suggest instead that you get vaccinated with non mRNA vaccines

And based on text I quoted above from a peer-reviewed study:

Can you at leat

And based on text I quoted above from a peer-reviewed study:

Can you at least quote the conclusion of the study? Does it say/recommend against vaccinating against covid?

It was kinda akin to a religious chant that people just repeated without question.

Eh... speak for yourself. Doctors advise it, I'll listen.

I decided to refrain from taking the Covid 19 injection.

I am very happy about the personal choice I made.

I am very happy you feel you need to state that. Again.

I decided to refrain from taking the Covid 19 injection.

I am very happy about the personal choice I made.

Of course.

You're alive and well presumably.

Millions others literally can't say that.

It has been known for decades that natural immunity is strong. The COVID vaccines have been proven to wane and there is still unknowns of the long term adverse side effects. We have seen a ton of adverse side effects of the COVID vaccines to date already.

It has been known for decades that natural immunity is strong. The COVID vaccines have been proven to wane and there is still unknowns of the long term adverse side effects. We have seen a ton of adverse side effects of the COVID vaccines to date already.

The article you are commenting on refutes every claim you make, the natural infection is much more risky than the vaccines, and the immunity obtained (at the cost of those much higher risks) still wanes in a way that is comparable to what is obtained from the vaccines. The experts that conducted the study are showing their data and methods for anybody to analyze claiming the opposite based on absolutely nothing do not refute them.

Do you know what is related to much more adverse side effects than the vaccines for covid? not being vaccinated against covid.

It's clear that many have not seen the paper and are just basing their opinions on the above AFP article.

You can read the paper here:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(22)02465-5/fulltext

No matter what metric they follow (infection, symptomatic infection, severe symptoms), their data shows natural immunity to be more durable.

Oh, and BTW, it was funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

No matter what metric they follow (infection, symptomatic infection, severe symptoms), their data shows natural immunity to be more durable.

Assuming it's true, it's still best not to get that natural immunity because it means not getting infected in the first place.

And best to have vaccine protection when you do get infected to have the best chance of surviving.

After that you'll have your coveted natural protection.

No matter what metric they follow (infection, symptomatic infection, severe symptoms), their data shows natural immunity to be more durable.

also even if it's true, being vaccinated is simply better than not being vaccinated because vaccines protect you before infection whereas natural immunity protect you after infection.

basically for the first instance of covid infection it's comparing being protected by vaccine to having no protection at all.

No matter what metric they follow (infection, symptomatic infection, severe symptoms), their data shows natural immunity to be more durable.

Again, you are making a claim different from the authors of the article, you have presented zero evidence that refute their conclusions and only base your claim on repeating it as if you had any kind of authority to contradict them, you have not provided such a thing.

Pretending the own authors of the article have not read their report as well as you is obviously nonsensical.

Can you put here what is the evidence that disprove the authors? they obviously know better their data and what conclusions can and can't be made with it.

In the words of the own authors

 Our finding that the level of protection from past infection by variant and over time is equivalent to that provided by two-dose mRNA vaccines has important implications for guidance regarding the timing of vaccine doses, including boosters. 

So, instead of repeating that the authors are wrong, prove it.

Oh, and BTW, it was funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

And what is the importance of this? that the article is then not reliable? that would mean that according to you the immunity from the infection is NOT even comparable to what is adquired by vaccines as the article says, right?

I mean, pretending that the funding of the study disproves ONLY the results you don't like is deeply irrational, if according to you funding refutes the article then this also applies to the results you liked.

No matter what metric they follow (infection, symptomatic infection, severe symptoms), their data shows natural immunity to be more durable.

Again, you are making a claim different from the authors of the article, you have presented zero evidence that refute their conclusions and only base your claim on repeating it as if you had any kind of authority to contradict them, you have not provided such a thing.

Oh my!

Just look at Figure 4 of the paper, that is the evidence. My comment describes that data very well. Just because the Gates funded authors tried to downplay their own data

No matter what metric they follow (infection, symptomatic infection, severe symptoms), their data shows natural immunity to be more durable.

So you indeed acknowledge that vaccines protect you from infection.

then you should get vaccinated to protect you from the first infection.

Natural immunity can only protect you from the second and subsequent infections.

Virusx

will you stand on this hill forever? Everyday we are learning more about the negative aspects of the shot. Sudden deaths, etc. Some don’t want it and still haven’t gotten it. ITS time to stop pushing for something that we don’t know what the long term effects are by something rushed to market. Leave people to make there own choice. So many so called “conspiracy theories” are ending up to be true. The WEF, WHO and others are pushing an agenda such as passports, etc. Looking at China as a good example to control people. Some have woken up and see how this was a good example on how they want to control people and push their great reset agenda. Guess what…most don’t think that the elites have our best interests at the forefront.

Natural infection may be better protection, but think about that - you need to catch it to get better protection against it.

I'll take the vaccines thanks - protection without having to catch it.

Just look at Figure 4 of the paper, that is the evidence

Figure 4, that the authors of the paper say proves their conclusion, and that you repeatedly fail to argue how does it proves otherwise?

Repeating a baseless claim without any argument means you understand you are wrong, the authors right and that is why you keep repeating your claim without arguing to defend it. So what are the statistical analysis that prove what you say? obviously is close to impossible to make comparisons for effects in vastly different frames of time between the arms being compared, but since you keep claiming the authors are wrong that means you have that data to prove it. Else the protection is at much comparable, as the authors explicitly say.

Just look at Figure 4 of the paper, that is the evidence

What hill? refuting false claims made by people that repeatedly try to misrepresent the actual evidence is not anything rare, every scientific and medical institution of the world is doing the same, with the data to prove it.

Everyday we are learning more about the negative aspects of the shot. Sudden deaths, etc.

And what we learn is that those negative aspects are a tiny fraction of what is observed from not vaccinating, that represent a much higher risk.

This is not something "The WEF, WHO" is pushing, but something being supported by every single recognized institution of science and medicine of the world, because that is what the evidence says. This is the same group of institutions that said China was acting wrong and was condemning their population to many unnecessary deaths, which is exactly what happened.

So, what evidence do you have to disprove the scientific community of the world? without it you are just making a baseless claim that you must be right so the world must be wrong.