Repeat COVID infections increase risk of health problems: study

The reason reinfection is happening is that our current vaccine strategy does not block transmission," he said. "I think reinfections will continue to happen until we have vaccines that block transmission, offer more durable protection, and are variant proof.

Re-infection is not preventable with those masks. Everyone in japan is masked to the teeth, at least 4x vaccinated and yet still catching covid is alarming. Is shows just how effective the mask and vaccines are.

"The reason reinfection is happening is that our current vaccine strategy does not block transmission,"

I guess that all the vaccine addicted people don't want to hear that.

But I hope these people finally wake up and see and understand this reality, and finally do also understand that when this was and is mentioned here before from some posters, that this was and is no missinformation.

And I also hope that the vaccine addicted people do also understand now, that the high numbers of cases, reported every day, are not because some people do not take the vaccine.

our current vaccine strategy does not block transmission,"

until we have vaccines that block transmission, offer more durable protection,

That says it all!

Re-infection is not preventable with those masks. Everyone in japan is masked to the teeth, at least 4x vaccinated and yet still catching covid is alarming. Is shows just how effective the mask and vaccines are.

That is incorrect, for that you need a comparable population in demographics that is not using the masks and vaccines and that has no higher amount of cases, without that parameter it is impossible for you to know if not using those measures would end up with 2, 3 or 10 times more cases than right now.

I guess that all the vaccine addicted people don't want to hear that.

You are confused, the people that try very hard to live in denial are those with strong anti-scientific bias and that think their own personal experience is the only evidence that is valid. For the rest of the people that can be rational and open the scientific evidence is nothing to avoid, on the contrary is the only thing that will let us make better decisions.

But I hope these people finally wake up and see and understand this reality, and finally do also understand that when this was and is mentioned here before from some posters, that this was and is no missinformation.

What has been called misinformation is when people say vaccines (or masks, or other measures) have absolutely no effect on transmission, which is false. That vaccines by themselves are not enough to completely stop transmission has been openly recognized by the experts without any problem.

And I also hope that the vaccine addicted people do also understand now, that the high numbers of cases, reported every day, are not because some people do not take the vaccine.

Who has said this? not being vaccinated increases the risk for infection, but it is obviusly not the sole reason for having cases, specially because the vaccination is principally meant to reduce the risks from infection, whic is included in the article here, in the last part that you are obviously trying very hard not to mention.

At this point we have to options.

One is to listen to the experts and do everything that reduces the risks, both of infection and after it.

Another is to reject the advice of the experts and do whatever you think is right according to your personal experience, which for many means not taking covid seriously and even refuse vaccination because of an irrational belief that things can only be 100% effecitve or else 0%.

A correction, vaccination and medication are the ones that can help reducing both kinds of risks (infection and complications) as included in the last part of the article.

It's not clear to me if this includes asymptomatic reinfection. I mean to say, if you have no symptoms then are you at much less risk of subsequent health problems?

It's not clear to me if this includes asymptomatic reinfection. I mean to say, if you have no symptoms then are you at much less risk of subsequent health problems?

The primary source says the cases were collected from a medical data base, this would mean that the positive cases come not from random or universal testing but from people that had some reason to be selectively tested (had symptoms). This means that the results of the article would apply to symptomatic patients (both for infection and reinfections) without being able to know if the same conclusions could be applied to people that never got any symptoms.

That vaccines by themselves are not enough to completely stop transmission 

Do you understand the meaning of "does not block" ?

*"The reason reinfection is happening is that our current vaccine strategy *does not block transmission,"

It has nothing to do with "not enough to completely stop transmission",

It clearly says:* "does NOT block transmissions." *

This sentence here clearly debunks everything what you and all the vaccine addict people are telling here since many months.

Ahead of a feared COVID spike during the holiday season, he called on people to wear masks to protect themselves.

I imagine the au naturel people don't want to hear that. And this:

earlier this week Al-Aly published a pre-print study, which has not been peer-reviewed, which found that people who took Pfizer's drug Paxlovid within five days of testing positive had a reduced risk of getting long COVID.

You rest your beliefs on one sentence

This sentence here clearly debunks everything what you and all the vaccine addict people are telling here since many months.

Proof you cherrypick what to believe.

Do you understand the meaning of "does not block" ?

Do you? your assumption that something not working perfectly means they it has no use for the purpose is invalid as demonstrated by the data the experts use to conclude vaccines can reduce transmission, even if not completely. There is clear data the prove vaccines importantly reduce transmission.

It has nothing to do with "not enough to completely stop transmission",

Yes it does, it means the vaccines by themselves are not enough to eliminate transmission, but not as you mistakenly conclude that they do not help at all.

This sentence here clearly debunks everything what you and all the vaccine addict people are telling here since many months.

No, that is still your own personal bias trying to change something very clear to mean what you want to believe. Nothing in the article means vaccines do not help, it is the same as it has been said since the variants appeared and that is that previous immunity (from all kinds) is not enough to prevent infection or reinfection in every case.

The sad thing is that people who are only focused on studies and always ignoring the reality, ...and even now there is a study which conclusion is clearly shown in front of their eyes as, *"our current vaccine strategy does not block transmission," ... e*ven so, these people are still looking for excuses to keep the bubble in which they are living in function.

And that is one of the reasons why so many missinformation are still around the population about the vaccines and their help against the spread of the virus.

Because these people will never accept what is clearly shown and demonstrated in front of their eyes because it puts wholes in their bubbles, and they will never admit to the truth and will continue nonstop looking for any kind of excuses.

But yeah, these are the times we are living in...

The sad thing is that people who are only focused on studies and always ignoring the reality

If a smoker says the same to you so you will not refuse to let him smoke all day long while in presence of your child, would you accept this argument?

e*ven so, these people are still looking for excuses to keep the bubble in which they are living in function.

that applies more to people that try to force a meaning even when the argument is clear and they could do nothing about it, insisting on the same debunked argument does absolutely nothing to make it less invalid. Vaccines have demonstrated effect reducing transmission, nothing in the article contradicts this.

And that is one of the reasons why so many missinformation are still around the population about the vaccines and their help against the spread of the virus.

Misinformation is easily recognized, it goes against the scientific consensus. When you can't find any official communication that says vaccines do nothing to reduce transmission, only one person that says "not blocking" can only mean "completely useless against this purpose" that is enough to see it is against what can be proved objectively.

Because these people will never accept what is clearly shown and demonstrated in front of their eyes

Exactly, so they will insist on a forced meaning of a word, and putting personal conclusions on the mouth of experts that have not said such thing in an effort to validate their own personal bias in an invalid appeal to authority. Is the same as someone saying that having a healthy diet helps reducing the chances of getting cancer and another person saying the diet is useless, because it does not "eliminate" this possibility.

And @Elvis...

I hope you understand now, that what we were talking about yesterday about the 60000 infected persons, that the "probably" we mentioned, has now changed to "almost sure".

You can now be almost sure, that many of the 60000 infected people are vaccinated.

Because, offer more durable protection, and are variant proof and current vaccine strategy does not block transmission,".

Thanks for your reply, virusrex. I wonder why it prompted a bunch of thumbs-downs.

From the paper:

"The risks were evident regardless of vaccination status." So much for these products offering protection...

"The reason reinfection is happening is that our current vaccine strategy *does not block transmission,"

It has nothing to do with "not enough to completely stop transmission",

It clearly says:* "does NOT block transmissions."

Indeed, the "not enough to completely stop transmission" give the false impression that the reduction in transmission is still very high, when in fact all data shows that it is very close to 0% reduction.

From the paper:

"The risks were evident regardless of vaccination status." So much for these products offering protection...

Since the benefits from vaccination include reducing and eliminating the symptoms that would eliminate those benefited in such a way from being included (since the detection is not random or systematic independently of sytmptoms)

So your conclusion is completely invalid, If the vaccines reduced at the same time the risk of health problems and symptoms of covid this study would be completely unable to detect it, so no, as the authors clearly says in the limitation of the study this report can't be used to reach the conclusion you make.

Repeat infections... Despite all those promises that vaccination will stop the virus in its tracks

You mean all these promises you always mention but can never prove because they were actually never made? well since those are not actual things said by the experts you are refuting only your own false argument. The vaccines are very effective doing what what actually promised from them, and even better, because they still have an effect reducing risks even when the infection is done by variants that were not present when the vaccines were developed, something that was clearly said may not happen.