El Gato, thank you so much for "ALL" of this. I realize this is off topic, and maybe you have addressed this in the past, but I cannot seem to find any serious analysis of previously infected people who also got the vaccine (either by choice or pressure) and how they account for any analysis of vaccine efficacy. In my mind, this should…
El Gato, thank you so much for "ALL" of this. I realize this is off topic, and maybe you have addressed this in the past, but I cannot seem to find any serious analysis of previously infected people who also got the vaccine (either by choice or pressure) and how they account for any analysis of vaccine efficacy. In my mind, this should be a major consideration. What if any or the majority of efficacy occurred in those who already had natural immunity? Would this not greatly decrease the "actual" efficacy? I'm curious about your take on that concept and if you or anyone you know of has included that in any analysis. Thank you again.
I agree with you and Dan and have posted the same question. Given that natural immunity confers a 27x lower risk of infection than Pfizer vaccine (Israeli study) and that combo natural plus vaccine was the same or perhaps even a tick better, it seems certain that the vaccine outcomes data is poisoned by this variable - except for the rare instances when it has been controlled. In the cases when this has not been controlled (almost all the data reviewed here and elsewhere, to my knowledge), the VE is certainly overstated, and possibly by a wide margin.
Let's not forget, we are not talking about a 4% or 10% benefit from prior infection (numbers that would be paraded around in normal times), but a 27x benefit (that is discounted as irrelevant...)! For argument's sake, and this is not a stretch, it seems likely that 30% or more of those in the "vaccinated" bucket also have natural immunity. Consider the implications! Further, it seems likely, though still theoretical, that those with prior immunity are better protected from this 7-10d window of immune suppression as their immune response may be robust enough to rise above the risk. Would love to see that data...
I would argue that VE is likely overstated and immunosuppression after the first dose is likely understated. And both to a significant degree.
I'm just an average Joe, but that certainly seems like a metric worth tracking. Yet seeming the "experts" are not. And yet they wonder why many of us don't trust them.
Production of spike proteins (during the worry window) turn off signalling for the toll like receptors that control the innate immune system regardless of previous immunity. So your concerns are not justified.
This question has been presented by myself as well as many others much smarter than I. As far as I can tell there is no good accounting for those previously infected + vaxed. My guess is that if we had that data then the VE would be much lower than presented.
That were my thoughts too. It seems that vaccines "success" will be announced in the countries which allowed the natural immunity. Sweden comes to mind..
El Gato, thank you so much for "ALL" of this. I realize this is off topic, and maybe you have addressed this in the past, but I cannot seem to find any serious analysis of previously infected people who also got the vaccine (either by choice or pressure) and how they account for any analysis of vaccine efficacy. In my mind, this should be a major consideration. What if any or the majority of efficacy occurred in those who already had natural immunity? Would this not greatly decrease the "actual" efficacy? I'm curious about your take on that concept and if you or anyone you know of has included that in any analysis. Thank you again.
I agree with you and Dan and have posted the same question. Given that natural immunity confers a 27x lower risk of infection than Pfizer vaccine (Israeli study) and that combo natural plus vaccine was the same or perhaps even a tick better, it seems certain that the vaccine outcomes data is poisoned by this variable - except for the rare instances when it has been controlled. In the cases when this has not been controlled (almost all the data reviewed here and elsewhere, to my knowledge), the VE is certainly overstated, and possibly by a wide margin.
Let's not forget, we are not talking about a 4% or 10% benefit from prior infection (numbers that would be paraded around in normal times), but a 27x benefit (that is discounted as irrelevant...)! For argument's sake, and this is not a stretch, it seems likely that 30% or more of those in the "vaccinated" bucket also have natural immunity. Consider the implications! Further, it seems likely, though still theoretical, that those with prior immunity are better protected from this 7-10d window of immune suppression as their immune response may be robust enough to rise above the risk. Would love to see that data...
I would argue that VE is likely overstated and immunosuppression after the first dose is likely understated. And both to a significant degree.
I'm just an average Joe, but that certainly seems like a metric worth tracking. Yet seeming the "experts" are not. And yet they wonder why many of us don't trust them.
Production of spike proteins (during the worry window) turn off signalling for the toll like receptors that control the innate immune system regardless of previous immunity. So your concerns are not justified.
layman terms please. or rephrase
Start here https://www.ukcolumn.org/index.php/article/stabilising-the-code
This question has been presented by myself as well as many others much smarter than I. As far as I can tell there is no good accounting for those previously infected + vaxed. My guess is that if we had that data then the VE would be much lower than presented.
That were my thoughts too. It seems that vaccines "success" will be announced in the countries which allowed the natural immunity. Sweden comes to mind..