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.
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.
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.
just wasting my time here. wonder why I do it. okay, try this:
in one group you would find you had 'an increased susceptibility to one mutation as against another'
Hence increased risk of that variant.
End of story
"in one group you would find you had 'an increased susceptibility to one mutation as against another' "
Only when compared to OTHER PEOPLE IN THAT GROUP.
"Hence increased risk of that variant."
Not necessarily.
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...
"after vaccination" -- means they are comparing the same person before and after vax
No it doesn't and that's not what they did.
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.