Claiming 25 year old BAs in economics and history he fearlessly debates about health science against experts with genuine infectious disease and public health backgrounds. In this case he's presenting a not yet peer-reviewed paper which concludes "Individuals who were both previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection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." (https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1.full.pdf)
In other words: your protection is better IF you survive the virus, and you should still get vaccinated.
What a doofus.
But I guess it gets him web traffic and speaking fees, so he's got that going for him, which is nice.
OK. A few minutes on the Internet produced this study, in which people previously infected with respiratory syncytial virus were exposed to the same virus again after varying periods ranging from 2 to 26 months after their recovery.
Berenson has not discovered anything except a study confirming what everyone who was paying attention already knew.
First, that people who get the virus hardly ever get re-infected. This has been acknowledged to be very rare right from the early days.
Second, the vaccines are not 100% effective. Here are some numbers about the effectiveness of the common vaccines: Pfizer - 95%, Moderna - >90%, Johnson & Johnson - >72% ... more details here: https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/covid-19-vaccine-comparison
So there's no surprise, no big secret revealed, just an apparently proper study from Israel confirming what was already suspected - and it's worth repeating: that the vaccines are not as effective at preventing infection by the virus, compared to the protection given by surviving the virus. I'll put that another way: people who died from the virus are not represented in this study. The authors talk about having 16,000 people in their study but don't forget that about 7,000 Israelis have died from covid, and they don't figure into this paper.
To use this study in a rant about being lied to is ludicrous.
And I note that while this pre-print (not peer reviewed) study came out 4 days ago you are suggesting that people should have been making different decisions a year ago based on Berenson's silly interpretation of it.
Alex Berenson, AKA "The Pandemic's Wrongest Man":
Claiming 25 year old BAs in economics and history he fearlessly debates about health science against experts with genuine infectious disease and public health backgrounds. In this case he's presenting a not yet peer-reviewed paper which concludes "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." (https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1.full.pdf)
In other words: your protection is better IF you survive the virus, and you should still get vaccinated.
What a doofus.
But I guess it gets him web traffic and speaking fees, so he's got that going for him, which is nice.
OK. A few minutes on the Internet produced this study, in which people previously infected with respiratory syncytial virus were exposed to the same virus again after varying periods ranging from 2 to 26 months after their recovery.
The results were: "Within 26 months 73% had two or more and 47% had three or more infections." https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2010624/
So your statement that "your immune system always gives you 100% immunity against an illness you've previously gotten" is not universally correct.
Does that help?
Not my field, so I can't respond off the top of my head. Are you an authority? I don't have time to research it at the moment...
?
Meanwhile: it sounds like re-infection is possible but pretty uncommon, except for the variants of course. They change things a bit.
"In general, reinfection means a person was infected (got sick) once, recovered, and then later became infected again. Based on what we know from similar viruses, some [covid] reinfections are expected." (https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/your-health/reinfection.html)
I see you haven't read the pre-print he's referring to.
Hey, border_humper! Nice to see you sober for a change! Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
Or was that too subtle for you?
My post was about his continued mis-representation of research. Racism was brought up by you in an attempt to change the subject.
Berenson has not discovered anything except a study confirming what everyone who was paying attention already knew.
First, that people who get the virus hardly ever get re-infected. This has been acknowledged to be very rare right from the early days.
Second, the vaccines are not 100% effective. Here are some numbers about the effectiveness of the common vaccines: Pfizer - 95%, Moderna - >90%, Johnson & Johnson - >72% ... more details here: https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/covid-19-vaccine-comparison
So there's no surprise, no big secret revealed, just an apparently proper study from Israel confirming what was already suspected - and it's worth repeating: that the vaccines are not as effective at preventing infection by the virus, compared to the protection given by surviving the virus. I'll put that another way: people who died from the virus are not represented in this study. The authors talk about having 16,000 people in their study but don't forget that about 7,000 Israelis have died from covid, and they don't figure into this paper.
To use this study in a rant about being lied to is ludicrous.
And I note that while this pre-print (not peer reviewed) study came out 4 days ago you are suggesting that people should have been making different decisions a year ago based on Berenson's silly interpretation of it.