Which claim is contradicted? This seems pretty clear: “We find evidence for an increased risk of infection by the Beta (B.1.351), Gamma (P.1), or Delta (B.1.617.2) variants compared to the Alpha (B.1.1.7) variant after vaccination. … In contrast to vaccine-induced immunity, no increased risk for reinfection with Beta, Gamma or Delta variants relative to Alpha variant was found in individuals with infection-induced immunity.“
"We find evidence for an increased risk of infection by the Beta (B.1.351), Gamma (P.1), or Delta (B.1.617.2) variants **compared to the Alpha (B.1.1.7) variant after vaccination**." They weren't comparing likelihood of infection between vaccinated and unvaccinated, they were comparing likelihood of infection of the different strains among vaccination groups.
So one group (vaxxed) have an increased risk and the other group (unvaxxed) does not. How is that not an advantage for the unvaxxed?
At the very least it shows that there is no advantage to being vaxxed for the variants which is what one would expect given the over specificity of the vax to just the original (alpha) spike protein.
It doesn't show "an increased risk" of infection. It showed that if infected it's more likely to be with a variant. We don't know from this study the overall odds of infection of each group.
Read it again: “In contrast to vaccine-induced immunity, no increased risk for reinfection with Beta, Gamma or Delta variants relative to Alpha variant was found in individuals with infection-induced immunity.”
So what? The unvaccinated are just as likely to catch all strains, that doesn't mean they are less likely to catch covid than vaccinated. The study didn't compare rush of infection in vaccinated vs unvaccinated.
So what? The unvaccinated are just as likely to catch all strains, that doesn't mean they are less likely to catch covid than vaccinated. The study didn't compare rush of infection in vaccinated vs unvaccinated."
If you believe that, can you therefore explain the benefit of getting vaxxed?
Okay, so you are just willfully missing the point then. It matters because naturally acquired immunity In unvaccinated is better than vaccine induced immunity.
"Of note is that these analyses do not aim to determine the probability of getting infected after vaccination or previous infection, but rather calculate the likelihood of getting infected with specific VOCs."
No, that's not what the study shows and the abstract you quoted clearly contradicts your claims.
Which claim is contradicted? This seems pretty clear: “We find evidence for an increased risk of infection by the Beta (B.1.351), Gamma (P.1), or Delta (B.1.617.2) variants compared to the Alpha (B.1.1.7) variant after vaccination. … In contrast to vaccine-induced immunity, no increased risk for reinfection with Beta, Gamma or Delta variants relative to Alpha variant was found in individuals with infection-induced immunity.“
"We find evidence for an increased risk of infection by the Beta (B.1.351), Gamma (P.1), or Delta (B.1.617.2) variants **compared to the Alpha (B.1.1.7) variant after vaccination**." They weren't comparing likelihood of infection between vaccinated and unvaccinated, they were comparing likelihood of infection of the different strains among vaccination groups.
If vaxxed you have an increased risk of infection by the variants compared to the original.
If unvaxxed you had no increase risk of infections by the variants compared to the original.
Seems like a win for unvaxxed.
The study didn't compare rush of infection if vaccinated compared to risk of infection if unvaccinated.
So one group (vaxxed) have an increased risk and the other group (unvaxxed) does not. How is that not an advantage for the unvaxxed?
At the very least it shows that there is no advantage to being vaxxed for the variants which is what one would expect given the over specificity of the vax to just the original (alpha) spike protein.
It doesn't show "an increased risk" of infection. It showed that if infected it's more likely to be with a variant. We don't know from this study the overall odds of infection of each group.
"At the very least it shows that there is no advantage to being vaxxed for the variants"
Not at all.
Read it again: “In contrast to vaccine-induced immunity, no increased risk for reinfection with Beta, Gamma or Delta variants relative to Alpha variant was found in individuals with infection-induced immunity.”
So what? The unvaccinated are just as likely to catch all strains, that doesn't mean they are less likely to catch covid than vaccinated. The study didn't compare rush of infection in vaccinated vs unvaccinated.
"Andrew4 hr ago
So what? The unvaccinated are just as likely to catch all strains, that doesn't mean they are less likely to catch covid than vaccinated. The study didn't compare rush of infection in vaccinated vs unvaccinated."
If you believe that, can you therefore explain the benefit of getting vaxxed?
Whether or not the vaccine is beneficial is outside the scope of this study since it did not look at vaccine effectiveness.
Okay, so you are just willfully missing the point then. It matters because naturally acquired immunity In unvaccinated is better than vaccine induced immunity.
That was not indicated by this study but if you have data to prove that please submit it.
That’s literally what the quote from the abstract said that I have directed you to twice. Maybe you should read more carefully.
No, it literally was not.
1) if you're vaccinated and you get covid the likelihood that it is a variant is X (and X > 50%).
2) if you're unvaccinated and recovered-sick and get covid it's an equal chance to be a variant and alpha.
That says nothing about the odds of either group catching covid in relation to reach other.
Here's a quote you obviously missed:
"Of note is that these analyses do not aim to determine the probability of getting infected after vaccination or previous infection, but rather calculate the likelihood of getting infected with specific VOCs."
The context is that studies which have looked at probability of reinfection have shown much greater durability in naturally acquired immunity.
But that has nothing to do with this study or it's results and you can't infer anything of that sort from this study like the OP is claiming.