It's time for apologies, for those harmed criminal charges against those issuing coercion, and if they are refused then its time to decide whether you're going to put up with so-called "medical people" and "politicians" who are more interested in money and fear than facts.
This is such a huge data set that its statistical power is undeniable. It comes from a nation we claim to have first-world status, and where medical records are cohesive and thus very hard to run into accidental or intentional hiding. And while it is not (yet) peer-reviewed unless serious statistical problems are found the data damn well ought to be paid attention to.
It also includes and in fact is almost exclusive to Delta, which if you remember was going to be the death of everyone not-vaccinated, even if previously infected with another strain. And finally, and most-germane here, it includes the cohorts that nobody else has reported on -- those who had both vaccination and infection as immunity-generating events.
It turns out the claims that "you must get jabbed", especially if you were previously infected, were a damned lie.
Due to the nearly-universal vaccination in this nation (Israel) there is no longer a control group of unvaccinated people of sufficient size to provide good data. How convenient!
In addition there's a very important statistical fact in here that is the point of this article -- severe cases, which can progress to critical or fatal outcomes and are the only ones that matter. None of the others do. Not only are PCR tests known unreliable but in addition who cares if you sneeze? We've known for decades that coronaviruses run on a roughly four-year cycle in the population and this means that reinfection is, unless this virus is somehow not really a coronavirus, a near-certainty. Just as in gunfights where only the hits count when it comes to respiratory viruses only the severe (or worse) cases count.
In addition there is enough internal data in the tables to tease apart whether the expected patterns are there; specifically, whether the younger people get hammered less-frequently, and if so, is the cohort matching reasonable. The answer to both, which is a reasonable check on the base claims, is "Yes."
So let's get to it.
If you were infected and recovered your risk of a severe outcome, if you got infected, was 0.18% under 39, 1.1% if 40-59 and 7.8% if you were over 60. This doesn't sound very good for the old people, does it?
Ah, but if you were vaccinated and boosted (best case, right?) what were the odds if you got infected?
0.1% if under 39 (too few events for good statistical power; there was only one), 0.6% if 40-59 (looks pretty good) but 6.2% if over 60. In other words even if boosted the infection rate that went sour on you if you're old means the jabs are basically worthless compared against prior infection.
And if just vaccinated but not boosted? Comparatively you're ****ed, right? Or are you?
Uh, for 16-39 your risk there was 0.05% (!!!), for 40-59 it was 0.6% (!!) and for 60+ it was 8.1%.
In other words among infections that matter being boosted had negative or no efficiency when it comes to severe outcomes for everyone under 60!
What if you got jabbed after being infected? This is data I've been looking for, and while the data points are thin and thus I'm not happy with the lack of statistical power, well, read it for yourself. Under 40 the risk of severe reinfection was 0.2%, from 40-59 it was 2.4% and for 60+ it was a stunning 10%.
IN OTHER WORDS BEING JABBED AFTER RECOVERING INCREASES YOUR RISK OF A SEVERE OUTCOME.
For the other way around, where you got jabbed and then got infected, there were too few events except in one cohort, 60+, to draw good conclusions as there were lots of zeros -- but small infection counts. However, the news there isn't good either in that in the 60+ cohort the severe risk if you got infected was 12.5% (!!!)
Ok, ok you say, but being vaccinated drops the infection risk. Indeed. But it drops it less, except in the 0-2 months since jabbed, than being recovered does. Indeed the loss of immunity from vaccination is nearly linear while for those infected the loss appears to taper significantly after the first six months and residual protection may be of very long duration or even permanent.
Indeed, someone who has been infected (but not jabbed) has a lower person-day risk of reinfection by more than half at one year post-event than someone who has been vaccinated has at four to six months.
The bad news does not end here. While being jabbed after recovery is claimed to produce "superior" results ("hybrid immunity") the data says that's flat-out bull****. At 4-6 and 6-8 months the error bands for vaccination after recovery and pure recovery without it cross; there is no statistical evidence that being jabbed after recovery helps and evidence it HARMS BY AS MUCH AS A DOUBLE in terms of the risk of severe outcome.
The other way around is even worse; the evidence is that if you get infected after being jabbed you do not get the same protection as natural infection in that your immunity wanes faster; at 6-8 months you have a LOWER risk of infection if you were not vaccinated before the infection as opposed to being vaccinated and then infected.
In other words this data provides direct evidence of VEI.
To summarize:
- Natural immunity is more-protective than vaccination and not a little either. It is more than double the effective protection beyond the first two months after being vaccinated. In other words being jabbed not only is a poor second choice in terms of generating immunity it cannot be considered comparable in any way.
- In the younger cohorts being jabbed beats being recovered for severe outcomes if you get infected. But when adjusted for odds of infection it loses, badly, beyond the first two months. This is very important because the odds of a severe outcome for a young person are quite low in the first place. In short there is a clean argument that a young person, due to the decay of immunity from the jabs, is better off being infected as their immunity is more-durable and on an infection-risk adjusted basis if previously infected they are less-likely, by quite a lot, to have a severe outcome on a second encounter. This of course ignores early treatment that may reduce severe outcome risk -- which nobody who is other than desirous of a large body count would ignore. We haven't ignored early treatment on purpose have we?
- While it is is true that being jabbed after or before infection does indeed reduce the risk of being infected with a third immunity-generating event if you do get infected it has demonstrated negative effectiveness in the recovered cohort when it comes to severe outcomes. It will be very interesting to see how this plays as time goes on because many of these infections occurred quite-recently with Delta and given the known much slower decay of immunity from infection than vaccination there is a confounding factor that, in combination with the low event count, leaves us with a jury that is still out in this specific case.
- Given that vaccination after infection increases the risk of severe outcomes over someone with natural immunity if you get a second infection being vaccinated after infection is likely harmful, and not a little either. Getting infected again after infection and then vaccination is a third immunity-generating event. There is no data on this via the natural route (that is, infected, recovered, infected again and recovered, and then infected a third time.) Given the deterioration in protection from severe outcome if infected after recovery and then vaccination, which is quite significant for all except the youngest cohort, it is likely that being infected twice not only produces superior resistance to infection it also avoids the severe outcome risk increase.
Note that none of this includes the risk from the jabs themselves. To the mortality and morbidity ("severe" outcomes) you must also add that which comes directly from the medication, since no drug is ever without said risks.
What is clear is that natural immunity is superior both in terms of protection from repeat infection and from severe outcomes. In addition being boosted had negative or no effectiveness in preventing severe outcomes among everyone except those under 40, where there were too few events to get clean statistical evidence. This implies that vaccinated immunity, when "refreshed", does not alter the course of a breakthrough infection yet that was the remaining leg on which the argument rested, that it prevented severe outcomes. That should be evident in the data with a significant decrease in severe outcomes across all cohorts and it is not.
What's worse is that a third event (infection) after recovering and then being jabbed led to increases in severe disease risk if you got a breakthrough, and quite-materially so, over simple recovery.
This argues that jabbing a recovered person, while it may produce apparent superior resistance to infection, is in fact worthless or worse because when adjusted for the severe event risk the reinfection and severe outcome risk is actually HIGHER if you got vaccinated after being infected.
And finally this data also demonstrates that being infected after vaccination produces a materially faster immunity decay than infection alone which is solid evidence that vaccination in fact materially impairs the natural immunity process. That is, aside from direct side effect risk it screws your natural immunity duration when, not if, you get infected after being vaccinated anyway.
Nobody cares if you sneeze and indeed sneezing, that is, a mild infection, boosts immunity naturally and thus is a positive event both personally and for society as a whole.
Only severe and worse outcomes count.
