So you don't have those numbers on hand? It seems crucial, if 100% of unvaccinated have already recovered then what is to be gained by vaccinating now?
> It seems crucial, if 100% of unvaccinated have already recovered then what is to be gained by vaccinating now?
Except we know this isn't the case at all lmao
Elsewhere in the thread it's stated in AUS that 50% of COVID admissions are from the 8% unvaccinated population, that's about enough to prove the point here and I don't need to go any further
Just wanted to make sure we were on the same page about numbers mattering.
I guess you are in Australia? Australia may well have successfully suppressed natural immunity. In my own country we have large swaths pre-omicron who have natural antibodies: https://covid19serohub.nih.gov/
Now you seem to be expecting these folks to be vaccinated with a drug that has specifically excluded them from the trials. Drug recommendations ought to be coupled with safety testing on the impacted group.
If you can find me Pfizer/Moderna trial studies which show specific impact on recovered individuals I will never post again.
> In my own country we have large swaths pre-omicron who have natural antibodies
It's funny this one, as that's not what this should tell you, the page uses antibodies to measure how many people have potentially been infected, it doesn't demonstrate effective herd immunity or that the population would be naturally immune or protected
We know that COVID is a disease where more exposure leads to more damage, so having antibodies doesn't mean anything
> Now you seem to be expecting these folks to be vaccinated with a drug that has specifically excluded them from the trials. Drug recommendations ought to be coupled with safety testing on the impacted group.
I haven't suggested anything of the sort and I'm pretty sure this doesn't work how you think it does
> If you can find me Pfizer/Moderna trial studies which show specific impact on recovered individuals I will never post again.
You know for a fact this doesn't exist because people aren't trying to measure the healthy
What we do have are studies that show the delta goes down as vaccines are introduced, along with the infection rate
I really wish you would stop commenting because this a great demonstrating of not understanding the data at all.
EDIT: someone turned off replies lol
I have addressed them, there's just clearly an understanding gap here
Antibodies are also created by vaccines, if that's your measure here you shouldn't be arguing against them, that's why it's meaningless
Any interaction with disease creates them, so having them present doesn't guarantee that there's enough being produced (or even effectively) to counteract the effects
Not sure how to address this, of course it means a great deal. As a proxy for exposure and coupled with studies that show impact of known exposure towards immunity, its great evidence. Whether someone was harmed by their infection is a moot point for those who've gone through it.
In a place like Australia with only a small fraction of the population having exposure its no wonder the statistics of their hospitalizations look as they do. In my own state hospitalizations have started decouple from vaccine status due to the high degree of natural immunity and that was before Omicron.
If the delta of whatever you are measuring is 90%+ dependent on a single age group then perhaps the guidance should reflect that. Frankly you aren't attempting to honestly address my points.
Except we know this isn't the case at all lmao
Elsewhere in the thread it's stated in AUS that 50% of COVID admissions are from the 8% unvaccinated population, that's about enough to prove the point here and I don't need to go any further
You're also seeing more and more cases like this crop up - https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/frighten...
Vaccines work. They reduce severity, transmission and the chance of death.
It's on you to prove your point with some actual facts now, instead of more questions missing the point entirely.