[aimkey]

This message has been brought to you by Pfizer.

Source or GTFO

EDIT: Your downvotes are delicious as you provide no source. The notion of vaccine immunity being stronger than natural immunity, especially with mRNA vaccines, is absurd. You are generating response to a single surface protein of the virus. The virus has many surface proteins and a natural infection will tune the immune system to respond to all of them. There is no evidence of vaccine immunity being stronger than natural.

[ghop02]

There have been numerous studies showing that 2 doses elicits higher antibody responses than natural immunity alone, here's an example of one:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01325-6

[criticaltinker]

From the paper you cited:

> circulating antibody levels alone are not definitive measures of immune status

This is well established in the literature.

The paper you have cited absolutely does not support the claim that the "vaccine is more effective than antibodies from a previous infection".

[aimkey]

Useless paper. Measuring arbitrary antibody levels. The antibody levels produced by natural exposure could be sufficient to protect against hospitalization, and the additional vaccine dose could be unnecessary. Also, 21-day follow up (laughable).

Show me some real-world data of previously infected individuals getting severe reinfections at significantly higher rates than the fully vaccinated. That's the metric needed to make your claim and those data have not been produced. Also, the staying power of the vaccine is already in question BY ITS OWN MANUFACTURER just via the prospect of boosters. They admit implicitly that the immunity their drug produces does not last.

[ryan_lane]

Says the person that's also providing no source? Why is your statement somehow more trustworthy?

[aimkey]

Because before 2020, natural immunity to virtually any infectious disease was considered sufficient and superior to immunization. The entire concept of natural immunity being "not good enough' is brand new. It was never uttered before COVID, and it has never been proven even during COVID. It's an absurdity, that nobody in the realm of infectious disease even entertained before government started acting forcefully on behalf of pharmaceutical companies in the past 18 months.

Go look for yourself. "Do I need varicella vaccine if I had chickenpox?" The answer is NO.

>Oh, this is a different disease

Okay, then produce a single study indicating that those with prior COVID infection are hospitalized with a reinfection at higher rates than the fully vaccinated. That study doesn't exist. It's all just arbitrary anti-body level response studies, which are useless. If you can't produce a study to show why this infectious disease should be treated differently than all the others, then we'll go with the default position: natural immunity is enough.

[ryan_lane]

Again, where is your source?

[aimkey]

"Don't take the unproven, unjustified drug" is the default position in medicine. You are trying to shift the burden of proof here and it's embarrassing.

YOU are making at least 3 positive claims when advocating vaccination for those with prior COVID infections:

1) COVID natural immunity breaks historical patterns of natural immunity in similar infectious disease 2) People with "only" natural immunity are at significant risk of severe reinfection 3) There is a risk-adjusted, significant benefit for those with "only" natural immunity to get vaccinated