I'd be interested to read that study in more detail as I'd be surprised if the conclusion was that natural immunity on its own is more effective than natural immunity + vaccination. Feel free to share the link.

Whilst you're right re. spike protein, what you're not factoring in to your own conclusion is the biology behind how the body reacts to a single covid variant naturally vs. how it reacts to a vaccine designed to counteract multiple variants, and the significant compound effect of both.

Natural infection provides strong immunity to a particular strain, but leaves you more vulnerable to other strains or future mutations. Vaccines help to produce more countermeasures both in terms of volume and variety, leaving you better prepared for future mutations and therefore infection.

Current consensus is stronger with both natural and vaccinated responses combined. I'm yet to read anything that credibly counters that.

Also re. Israel – all studies need to be funded, and I don't think it's ever possible to claim any properly run study (which are time consuming and expensive) is truly independent. I take your point on big pharma etc. as we've seen it all before with things like Oxycontin but the consensus appears to be broad and varied on this conclusion.

As for lockdowns – hindsight is a wonderful thing. But I would agree that measures went too far, looking back with a totally unqualified eye I'd have said the first one was sufficient, but ultimately that's a guess. Arguably you could say that worst case having no further lockdowns could have tipped the NHS over the edge and you'd end up with the same level of backlog anyway, operations being delayed, funding being pushed elsewhere.

I don't think it's as simple as 'no lockdowns = better outcome'. Too many factors at play there. Overly simplistic view IMO but one worth debating

Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons.

Collateral damage of lockdowns.

[Link]

We also don't know for how many years the damaging effects will be felt, both in terms of the societal damage and the hundreds of billions spent which could have been put to better use.
It might be obvious to some but not to all those whose job it is to study such matters.

Good read.

So a couple of things to highlight from that study in context of what I was saying. There’s a bit of comparing apples with pears from your side here.

1) The study only compares natural immunity vs. vaccinated immunity. Not Naturally infected + vaccinated (hybrid) which provides the greatest strength of immune protection which was my point.

2) I have already acknowledged earlier that there appears to be little difference in immune response between natural and vaccinated when focusing on one type of infection (eg. Delta). There are several studies on which of the two prevent serious illness though, which is less clear and seemingly more in favour of the vaccines (There are several factors that combine to create an immune response – antibodies, T cells etc.)

3) Which brings us to the issue with the study vs what I was saying – it only focuses on one strain, Delta. It does not investigate how long immunity lasts for between both groups and which type of immunity would provide the strongest response in case of future reinfection by different strains / mutations, which formed the basis of what I was saying.

4) Also, FYI, The conclusions made in this study do not go against the points I was making, as they're not testing for them.
.
.
.
Some quotes direct from the study that reflect my position or are worth noting…

'vaccinated individuals are more protected against severe disease than unvaccinated ones, even if a breakthrough infection (infection after vaccination) occurs'

'Our study has several limitations. First, as the Delta variant was the dominant strain in Israel during the outcome period, the decreased long-term protection of the vaccine compared to that afforded by previous infection cannot be ascertained against other strains, including the Omicron variant. Second, our analysis addressed protection afforded solely by the BioNTech/Pfizer mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine and therefore does not address other vaccines or long-term protection following a third dose, an assessment that might require more data before carrying out.'

'SARS-CoV-2-naive vaccinees had more COVID-19-related-hospitalization compared to those who were previously infected, although the numbers are too small to determine statistical significance.'

This one is interesting to me, as it's possibly more likely that vulnerable people would have taken up the vaccine, with less vulnerable people deciding to avoid it. Therefore leading to a skew of slightly more vaccinated individuals being hospitalised than unvaccinated. Hypothetical though, would need to be considered.

Although they do then say

'adjusting for obesity, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, hypertension, chronic kidney disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, cancer, and immunosuppression had only a small impact on the estimated effect as compared to the unadjusted OR. Therefore, residual confounding by unmeasured factors is unlikely.'
.
.
.
They caveat their findings heavily here

'The advantageous protection afforded by naturally acquired immunity that this analysis demonstrates could be explained by the more extensive immune response to the SARS-CoV-2 proteins than that generated by the anti-spike protein immune activation conferred by the vaccine [19, 20]. However, as a correlate of protection is yet to be proven [1, 21], including the role of B-Cell [22] and T-cell immunity [23, 24], this remains a hypothesis.'

So still very hypothetical in it would seem (in 2022 anyway).
.
.
.
'Our study matches the CDC report [10], examining cohorts in California and New York, demonstrating that infection-induced protection was more substantial than vaccine induced immunity during the Delta period. The report demonstrates an opposite trend during the previous Alpha dominant period; however, a significant limitation, addressed as such by the researchers of this report as well, pertains to the lack of addressing the varying times-since-vaccination, which could bias the result, especially in the early stages of the follow-up.'

So during the Alpha wave vaccines were judged to provide stronger immunity. Delta wave, the opposite happened. What's mentioned here is that the measuring method might have created this anomaly. Again, a fairly strong caveat.

They admit to clear limitations, which match my earlier points around immunity timescales, strength and protection against one strain vs future strains.

'Our study has several limitations. First, as the Delta variant was the dominant strain in Israel during the outcome period, the decreased long-term protection of the vaccine compared to that afforded by previous infection cannot be ascertained against other strains, including the Omicron variant.'
.
.
.
Re. funding 'There was no external funding for this project'. Great – so how was it funded and who funded it? And what are their motives? It's never as simple as 'independent = better'. For what it's worth this research appears balanced and they mention limitations and caveat where required.
.
.
.
My conclusions after reading the study

• Natural vs vaccine induced immunity for specific strains appears to be more or less the same, but it's not clear for how long.

• The added benefit of the vaccine(s) is that you don't have to go through the symptoms with no immunity whatsoever and expose yourself to the risk of a bad reaction to infection in order to achieve that immunity. This is a point that I don't often hear raised or countered from people who have refused.

• This study only covers one vaccine type, Pfizer.

• The dataset used may not be that reliable by their own admission seeing as studies on the Alpha variant produced the opposite outcome (vaccines providing more protection).

• There is nothing in the study to counter the current consensus around natural infection + vaccination (hybrid immunity) = best possible immunity which was my point. There are plenty of studies, including Israeli ones, that back this up.
.
.
.
Conclusion – your position of 'natural immunity = same protection as vaccination' to make you feel better about rejecting the vaccine eg. why would I need it then... on the surface appears true, but doesn't hold water under detailed analysis.

For clarity to you and others – My issue is not with whether you want to be vaccinated or not, it's whether the reasoning you're pushing more widely or buying into personally as to why, and whether that's actually valid or not. It's a nuance but it's an important one, and others often don't seem to get it when I counter and they then take personal offence. Usually that's the sort of reaction you get from religious people trapped in belief systems. Just saying

Edited by SW19 CPFC (05 Sep 2023 1.59pm)

Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons.

Let's remind ourselves of the danger of misinformation and mass hysteria with this arrest of a non mask wearing woman in Australia.

It's a good job I wasn't there because I don't think I could have controlled myself.

[Tweet Link]

Edited by Stirlingsays (05 Sep 2023 5.32pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Well, I remember this clip being posted right at the height of the madness so I've no real reason to doubt it.

If it's misinformation and not because of the lack of a mask I'd retract but not without.

I remember a video of a guy on the tube in the UK not wearing a mask also being arrested.....total reign of the fruitcakes.

Fruitcakes with power.

Edited by Stirlingsays (05 Sep 2023 6.36pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)