solarbird | (Reply)

From:

Okay. You needn't dread, I hope.

Last October, a friend texted me with a (and this is a quote) "neener neener." I had told him about an Israeli study demonstrating that previous infections seemed to provide more robust protection than non-infected but vaccinated status. He, in turn, saw a CNN story that put that into question, based on a CDC MMWR.

They even have added a nice graphic.

Here's the "value added" paragraph:

Among COVID-19–like illness hospitalizations among adults aged ≥18 years whose previous infection or vaccination occurred 90–179 days earlier, the adjusted odds of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 among unvaccinated adults with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection were 5.49-fold higher than the odds among fully vaccinated recipients of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine who had no previous documented infection (95% confidence interval = 2.75–10.99).

Thing is, I read through it, and in the tables we see the numbers. Unvaxxed, but previously sickened: 1,020 people. Vaxxed and infection naive: 6,328.

This seems to show me only that testing is pretty hit-and-miss. (Anecdata: co-worker is just recovering from long-term covid. She tells me she had 9 tests; all were negative. Seems supportive.)

Furthermore, I would hardly accuse the Israeli pre-print of being in any way "anti-vax." Just read the final sentence of the Conslusion:

Individuals who were both previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta variant.

This is hardly my only example of CDC ????, but it's the one I spent the most time reading, due to my friend's text.