gunan01 said:

---

coolerguy12 said:

---

Why do you need a vaccine after having Covid? That would be like wearing a condom after having a vasectomy.

---

This is completely wrong and I just wanted to make sure that people understand this is wrong.

The recent Nature article on the other thread (among other research) makes it clear vaccine immunity is superior to the "natural" immunity from the virus itself. It's exhausting having to correct this misconception over and over.

---

It is not completely wrong. Current recommendations are to wait 90 days after infection before vaccination.

I've gone longer than that, still have active antibodies and am not vaccinated. I'm good. That isn't a misconception or a knuckle dragging dumb statement. I don't need the vaccine right now, my blood tests show that.

Please show me evidence of reinfection rates skyrocketing. Or common. Where are the screaming headlines?

Flagged for false information

gunan01 said:

---

coolerguy12 said:

---

Why do you need a vaccine after having Covid? That would be like wearing a condom after having a vasectomy.

---

This is completely wrong and I just wanted to make sure that people understand this is wrong.

The recent Nature article on the other thread (among other research) makes it clear vaccine immunity is superior to the "natural" immunity from the virus itself. It's exhausting having to correct this misconception over and over.

---

This is completely wrong and I just wanted to make sure that people understand this is wrong.

Several recent studies make it clear natural immunity from the virus itself is equal to/superior to the vaccine immunity . It's exhausting having to correct this misconception over and over.

That's amazing. Got any links? I need to share this with my daughter. Thanks

gunan01 said:

---

coolerguy12 said:

---

Why do you need a vaccine after having Covid? That would be like wearing a condom after having a vasectomy.

---

This is completely wrong and I just wanted to make sure that people understand this is wrong.

The recent Nature article on the other thread (among other research) makes it clear vaccine immunity is superior to the "natural" immunity from the virus itself. It's exhausting having to correct this misconception over and over.

---

Thank you for the correction and providing a source (something not included in any of the counter arguments). It's exhausting but needed.

This is a very helpful article on the topic from directorsblog.nih.gov

Quote:

---

By closely examining the results, the researchers uncovered important differences between acquired immunity in people who'd been vaccinated and unvaccinated people who'd been previously infected with SARS-CoV-2. Specifically, antibodies elicited by the mRNA vaccine were more focused to the RBD compared to antibodies elicited by an infection, which more often targeted other portions of the spike protein. Importantly, the vaccine-elicited antibodies targeted a broader range of places on the RBD than those elicited by natural infection.

These findings suggest that natural immunity and vaccine-generated immunity to SARS-CoV-2 will differ in how they recognize new viral variants. What's more, antibodies acquired with the help of a vaccine may be more likely to target new SARS-CoV-2 variants potently, even when the variants carry new mutations in the RBD.

---

Jmiller said:

---

Quote:

---

These findings suggest that natural immunity and vaccine-generated immunity to SARS-CoV-2 will differ in how they recognize new viral variants. What's more, antibodies acquired with the help of a vaccine may be more likely to target new SARS-CoV-2 variants potently, even when the variants carry new mutations in the RBD.

---

---

Old Buffalo said:

---

Jmiller said:

---

Quote:

---

These findings suggest that natural immunity and vaccine-generated immunity to SARS-CoV-2 will differ in how they recognize new viral variants. What's more, antibodies acquired with the help of a vaccine may be more likely to target new SARS-CoV-2 variants potently, even when the variants carry new mutations in the RBD.

---

---

---

Correct. There are no absolutes in science like there are in politics and religion.

coolerguy12 said:

---

Why do you need a vaccine after having Covid? That would be like wearing a condom after having a vasectomy.

---

I don't think your analogy means what you think it means .

Jmiller said:

---

gunan01 said:

---

coolerguy12 said:

---

Why do you need a vaccine after having Covid? That would be like wearing a condom after having a vasectomy.

---

This is completely wrong and I just wanted to make sure that people understand this is wrong.

The recent Nature article on the other thread (among other research) makes it clear vaccine immunity is superior to the "natural" immunity from the virus itself. It's exhausting having to correct this misconception over and over.

---

Thank you for the correction and providing a source (something not included in any of the counter arguments). It's exhausting but needed.

This is a very helpful article on the topic from directorsblog.nih.gov

Quote:

---

By closely examining the results, the researchers uncovered important differences between acquired immunity in people who'd been vaccinated and unvaccinated people who'd been previously infected with SARS-CoV-2. Specifically, antibodies elicited by the mRNA vaccine were more focused to the RBD compared to antibodies elicited by an infection, which more often targeted other portions of the spike protein. Importantly, the vaccine-elicited antibodies targeted a broader range of places on the RBD than those elicited by natural infection.

These findings suggest that natural immunity and vaccine-generated immunity to SARS-CoV-2 will differ in how they recognize new viral variants. What's more, antibodies acquired with the help of a vaccine may be more likely to target new SARS-CoV-2 variants potently, even when the variants carry new mutations in the RBD.

---

---

Right, and check. In a lab the vaccine looks to be more protective.

Now how about the huge natural lab we've got going on in the world. If there was an actual risk for the recovered, one would expect worldwide to see reports - lots of them - of reinfections. That would be alarming, that would be news, and by God the media would be all over it.

There is no evidence of that occurring. I cannot prove a negative, so I have no source other than my eyeballs. But there you go.

Sorry to hear about the diagnosis.

A good friend is from Bogata and now lives in Germany.

Back to subject - per CDC ( yes I understand the distrust)

People with COVID-19 who have symptoms should wait to be vaccinated until they have recovered from their illness and have met the criteria for discontinuing isolation; those without symptoms should also wait until they meet the criteria before getting vaccinated. This guidance also applies to people who get COVID-19 before getting their second dose of vaccine.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/if-you-are-sick/end-home-isolation.html

The criteria for seems to vary from 10-20 days post covid depending on severity etc.

As noted above - confirm with doc if possible.

88planoAg said:

---

Jmiller said:

---

gunan01 said:

---

coolerguy12 said:

---

Why do you need a vaccine after having Covid? That would be like wearing a condom after having a vasectomy.

---

This is completely wrong and I just wanted to make sure that people understand this is wrong.

The recent Nature article on the other thread (among other research) makes it clear vaccine immunity is superior to the "natural" immunity from the virus itself. It's exhausting having to correct this misconception over and over.

---

Thank you for the correction and providing a source (something not included in any of the counter arguments). It's exhausting but needed.

This is a very helpful article on the topic from directorsblog.nih.gov

Quote:

---

By closely examining the results, the researchers uncovered important differences between acquired immunity in people who'd been vaccinated and unvaccinated people who'd been previously infected with SARS-CoV-2. Specifically, antibodies elicited by the mRNA vaccine were more focused to the RBD compared to antibodies elicited by an infection, which more often targeted other portions of the spike protein. Importantly, the vaccine-elicited antibodies targeted a broader range of places on the RBD than those elicited by natural infection.

These findings suggest that natural immunity and vaccine-generated immunity to SARS-CoV-2 will differ in how they recognize new viral variants. What's more, antibodies acquired with the help of a vaccine may be more likely to target new SARS-CoV-2 variants potently, even when the variants carry new mutations in the RBD.

---

---

Right, and check. In a lab the vaccine looks to be more protective.

Now how about the huge natural lab we've got going on in the world. If there was an actual risk for the recovered, one would expect worldwide to see reports - lots of them - of reinfections. That would be alarming, that would be news, and by God the media would be all over it.

There is no evidence of that occurring. I cannot prove a negative, so I have no source other than my eyeballs. But there you go.

---

If anything there seems to be way more news of vaccine "breakthrough" cases than natural reinfections. During the height of the covid spread, there were maybe a few cases in global news of reinfections, yet we see many more vaccine breakthroughs and people defend the vaccines saying "well it's 95% effective that's the facts."

Seems to be my natural immunity is 99.9% effective. Yet all we hear from media and liberals is "vaccine vs. no vaccine."

Where are all the store-front signs that say "Unless you have immunity, wear a mask."??? That alone should tell you how political this has been the entire time.

gunan01 said:

---

This is great news. Can you please post the links of the studies showing immunity post-infection is the same as vaccine immunity?

---

Can you please post the numbers of people who have been reinfected?

TxCity,

I hope you get over it quick. It effects everyone differently and I hope your case is mild.

First, let us define reinfection as someone that tests positive for the virus with or without becoming symptomatic. Then we get to the question of 'how much of a vector are reinfections?' There is no worldwide effort to track reinfections so the media would not be all over it and your eyeballs won't see it. Studies provide the best evidence that reinfection, with or without symptoms, does occur in individuals, vaccinated and unvaccinated, and they can carry significant amounts of the virus without showing any symptoms providing further vectors for spread and mutation. But those studies do not tell us how much of a vector are reinfections. Since that question is still an unknown, but we still have a goal of wanting to reduce the rapid global spread of this mutating virus, and we know that mRNA vaccinations looks to be more protective than natural immunity and are safe, it is only reasonable for medical professionals to recommend the vaccination to unvaccinated people that had been previously infected.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/wjla.com/amp/news/nation-world/natural-covid-infection-provides-similar-protection-to-vaccines-israeli-study-shows

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.news-medical.net/amp/news/20210426/Prior-SARS-CoV-2-infection-and-Pfizer-BioNTeche28099s-COVID-19-vaccine-provide-similar-immunity.aspx

I can keep going. Let's stop telling people to get something they don't need. If you haven't had it then get it, if you have don't.

Cleveland Clinic just did a study but I guess that's not peer-reviewed yet. But it wasn't just some whackos with an agenda.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.01.21258176v2.full.pdf

Since we like Nature so much:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03647-4

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01557-z

Quote:

---

Clinical studies now indicate that immunity will be long-lasting.

---

You're kidding right? Ok well show me the numbers on how many reinfections there have been.

No, but apparently over 600,000 dead Americans and over 4,000,000 people dead world wide is not beyond the scope of snark or belittlement these days.

Jmiller said:

---

No, but apparently over 600,000 dead Americans and over 4,000,000 people dead world wide is not beyond the scope of snark or belittlement these days.

---

Neither are the other ~3,900,000 American deaths from other causes over the same period.

Oh, I'm sorry - do you not care about those because it doesn't support your narrative?