No. It found that your chances of getting infected by any of the (3) later variants INCREASES AFTER getting VACCINATED: "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." AND it found that no such increased risk exists for the UNvaccinated: " 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."
In other words, if you had Alpha you have a much better chance of avoiding the mutations than if you get vaxxed.
There is the finding that naive immunity did not differ from already once infected immunity where as the vaccinated immunity did not differ from the unvaccinated immunity although the tendency is very clear: vaxxed immunity is less effective in all comparisons. That means the study did not only falsify that vaccine immunity against infection is stable over time but also falsified that unvaccinated immunity is worse in preventing infection. Now you could come up with confounders like age, and collinearity of calendar time to vaxx status and vaxxed/unvaxxed ratios but they actually corrected and interpolated for these factors. The conclusion that immunity was taken away is not legit because it was not the question here but the signs are quite strong since this study adds up to existing data in regards to cross-immunity and the infection numbers. e.g. since testing of vaxxed and unvaxxed became somehow equivalent in Germany again, there are exponenrial rising numbers in the vaxxed but not in the unvaxxed. So that we have a linear grow curve since a couple of weeks. In Berlin at Charite university hospital they found that nurses with cross-immunity had significantly less often bad sickness after infection. And there are many studies that have shown cross-immunity in vitro. All in all, we have to admit that the crisis is more severe than last year in infections terms despite high percentages of vaccination.
False. What they found is that is you're vaccinated certain strains inject you more easily than others. They did not compare infection likelihood between vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. The compared infection likelihood of different within vaccinated groups.
"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."
Well the paper seems to be studying it. Not in such broad terms, granted, but nevertheless. They seem to be saying that in one group they found an increased susceptibility to one mutation as against another. In the other group they didn't. And the two groups were vaxxed and unvaxed.
This would seem to clearly indicate that if you got yourself into the first group you'd now have an increased risk of infection (of those particular variants).
"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 seem to be saying that in one group they found an increased susceptibility to one mutation as against another. In the other group they didn't. And the two groups were vaxxed and unvaxed."
Correct.
"This would seem to clearly indicate that if you got yourself into the first group you'd now have an increased risk of infection (of those particular variants)."
What you lack in comprehension you more than compensate for in obstinacy. The entire point of the study is to compare the vaccinated odds of getting infected by new strains to those of the unvaxxed (with naive immunity and recovered). They compare both groups odds relative to alpha, the "original" (the common denominator if you will) so that the probability comparison is apples to apples, and comparable relative to each other. They conclude that if you're vaccinated your risk of the new variants is INCREASED, if you're unvaxxed it remains the same -- this is significant because the risk of getting infected by alpha now is negligible since alpha is basically gone.
The study DOES NOT say that a vaccinated person has a higher chance of getting a variant than an unvaccinated person. You should work on your reading comprehension instead of spending so much time showing off how stupid you are.
JFC! "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."
This is completely false and the reason is because alpha is now gone, which seems completely lost on you - so the suggestion that if you're unvaxxed "there's an equal likelihood along all strains" is categorically idiotic. The entire is issue is who is more vulnerable to new strains. This is hardly a big revelation since scientists have been warning that the vax programs your immune system to produce the spike protein only, whereas your covid-recovered immune system recognizes the entire virus - ie; is better prepared to fight off any mutations - this is entirely consistent with the above study.
No, that's not what that means at all. All they found was that the Delta variant infects vaccinated people more easily than the other variants.
No. It found that your chances of getting infected by any of the (3) later variants INCREASES AFTER getting VACCINATED: "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." AND it found that no such increased risk exists for the UNvaccinated: " 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."
In other words, if you had Alpha you have a much better chance of avoiding the mutations than if you get vaxxed.
Basically, both of you are wrong.
There is the finding that naive immunity did not differ from already once infected immunity where as the vaccinated immunity did not differ from the unvaccinated immunity although the tendency is very clear: vaxxed immunity is less effective in all comparisons. That means the study did not only falsify that vaccine immunity against infection is stable over time but also falsified that unvaccinated immunity is worse in preventing infection. Now you could come up with confounders like age, and collinearity of calendar time to vaxx status and vaxxed/unvaxxed ratios but they actually corrected and interpolated for these factors. The conclusion that immunity was taken away is not legit because it was not the question here but the signs are quite strong since this study adds up to existing data in regards to cross-immunity and the infection numbers. e.g. since testing of vaxxed and unvaxxed became somehow equivalent in Germany again, there are exponenrial rising numbers in the vaxxed but not in the unvaxxed. So that we have a linear grow curve since a couple of weeks. In Berlin at Charite university hospital they found that nurses with cross-immunity had significantly less often bad sickness after infection. And there are many studies that have shown cross-immunity in vitro. All in all, we have to admit that the crisis is more severe than last year in infections terms despite high percentages of vaccination.
False. What they found is that is you're vaccinated certain strains inject you more easily than others. They did not compare infection likelihood between vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. The compared infection likelihood of different within vaccinated groups.
"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."
That doesn't contradict anything I've said.
It's a direct contradiction to your claim "They did not compare infection likelihood between vaccinated and unvaccinated groups."
No it is not a direct contraindication. Learn to read before making claims.
learn to read you say to him? he said 'contradiction' , you say 'contraindication'. vast difference in the two concepts.
All we observers want to know is the truth or otherwise of the masthead claim:
increased risk of infection for vaxxed. Right or wrong?
"increased risk of infection for vaxxed. Right or wrong?"
Wrong. That's outside the scope of what the paper is studying.
Well the paper seems to be studying it. Not in such broad terms, granted, but nevertheless. They seem to be saying that in one group they found an increased susceptibility to one mutation as against another. In the other group they didn't. And the two groups were vaxxed and unvaxed.
This would seem to clearly indicate that if you got yourself into the first group you'd now have an increased risk of infection (of those particular variants).
"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 seem to be saying that in one group they found an increased susceptibility to one mutation as against another. In the other group they didn't. And the two groups were vaxxed and unvaxed."
Correct.
"This would seem to clearly indicate that if you got yourself into the first group you'd now have an increased risk of infection (of those particular variants)."
Incorrect.
What you lack in comprehension you more than compensate for in obstinacy. The entire point of the study is to compare the vaccinated odds of getting infected by new strains to those of the unvaxxed (with naive immunity and recovered). They compare both groups odds relative to alpha, the "original" (the common denominator if you will) so that the probability comparison is apples to apples, and comparable relative to each other. They conclude that if you're vaccinated your risk of the new variants is INCREASED, if you're unvaxxed it remains the same -- this is significant because the risk of getting infected by alpha now is negligible since alpha is basically gone.
The study DOES NOT say that a vaccinated person has a higher chance of getting a variant than an unvaccinated person. You should work on your reading comprehension instead of spending so much time showing off how stupid you are.
JFC! "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."
An increased risk compared to other vaccinated people...
No, it doesn't contradict anything I've said.
The paper says:
1) if you're vaccinated and you catch covid it's more likely to be certain strains as compared to others.
2) if you're unvaccinated and you catch covid there's an equal likelihood along all strains.
It DOES NOT say that vaccinated are more likely to catch any strain of covid than unvaccinated.
This is completely false and the reason is because alpha is now gone, which seems completely lost on you - so the suggestion that if you're unvaxxed "there's an equal likelihood along all strains" is categorically idiotic. The entire is issue is who is more vulnerable to new strains. This is hardly a big revelation since scientists have been warning that the vax programs your immune system to produce the spike protein only, whereas your covid-recovered immune system recognizes the entire virus - ie; is better prepared to fight off any mutations - this is entirely consistent with the above study.
So you didn't actually read the study then? Gotcha! Thanks for letting everyone know.
The latest published data showed that Delta was basically the same as Alpha in terms of infectiousness.
My concern is over people's being taken in and the govts' responses and people being fooled; not what they claimed about anything re rowuhan.
Lessons: DON'T believe what "they" tell you. And be cautious of "studies".