> "With every single one of the patients we studied, we saw the same thing." The study reports data on 14 patients.
Only 14 patients, absolutely no divergence from the reported result? I hate to say it but this feels like a propaganda piece to get previously infected individuals to get vaccinated. I'm not against people doing that, but this article smells fishy.
I’m currently on my second COVID infection. My wife and I ended up in the ER last night - we had both done a monoclonal antibody infusion earlier in the day and then two hours later my wife started having a fever (for the first time) along with body shakes. It was just out of an abundance of caution as she’s pregnant and we wanted to make sure it wasn’t a reaction.
Anyways, my wife told the first nurse that this was my second infection and she was amazed. She also told the nurse that gave us the infusion the same thing, with the same reaction. Apparently this caused quite the hubbub in the hallway and our last nurse of the night came in and told us that I was the first reinfection she’d heard of. This was a COVID ward nurse.
So, I don’t know. On one hand - this is my second time and I had 7 days with a fever of 102f. I’m 33 and healthy. On the other hand, apparently it’s damned rare. I would maybe advise people that had been infected to get the vaccine or not depending on their jobs/other risk factors.
Well the article we are talking about is about the exact opposite of that being true, and while I'm not convinced by the article itself (a study of 14 people with no control group all with the same result) you're making some absolute claims, that the vaccine does the opposite of it's intent, and that unvaccinated people do not get reinfected. Do you have any information on this you could share?
> Apparently this caused quite the hubbub in the hallway and our last nurse of the night came in and told us that I was the first reinfection she’d heard of. This was a COVID ward nurse.
That would indicate that this is very very rare, more rare than hospitalization or death from COVID.
I don't advise people one way or another on getting vaccinated on principle, but particularly I wouldn't base advice on this particular experience. After that experience though I wouldn't be surprised if you decide to get vaccinated.
I'm going to get vaccinated once the monoclonal antibodies wear off. I don't know if it was just bad luck that caused me to get infected a second time or if there's something particular to me, but I want to do what I can to prevent a third time.
I didn't read the underlying papers, only the linked article so please take this with a grain of salt.
Serology has not been correlated with patient outcomes. The threshold for "success" may be much lower than what is even measurable by the lab (just as an example). Vaccines tend to produce much higher measurable antibodies than infection but we also know that infection is pretty effective at preventing repeat hospitalization. I believe this study is simply putting a microscope on the effectiveness of infection by magnifying the initial immune response with the vaccine. Put another way, I'm not yet convinced this study should be used to suggest vaccination for those prior infected because we don't yet know the threshold for success.
It's the same "eye of the needle" genetic resistance that ws seen with both Black Death and Spanish Flu. So people will be resistant in an almost magically bizarre way.
8 comments
[ 4.4 ms ] story [ 27.2 ms ] thread> "With every single one of the patients we studied, we saw the same thing." The study reports data on 14 patients.
Only 14 patients, absolutely no divergence from the reported result? I hate to say it but this feels like a propaganda piece to get previously infected individuals to get vaccinated. I'm not against people doing that, but this article smells fishy.
Anyways, my wife told the first nurse that this was my second infection and she was amazed. She also told the nurse that gave us the infusion the same thing, with the same reaction. Apparently this caused quite the hubbub in the hallway and our last nurse of the night came in and told us that I was the first reinfection she’d heard of. This was a COVID ward nurse.
So, I don’t know. On one hand - this is my second time and I had 7 days with a fever of 102f. I’m 33 and healthy. On the other hand, apparently it’s damned rare. I would maybe advise people that had been infected to get the vaccine or not depending on their jobs/other risk factors.
That would indicate that this is very very rare, more rare than hospitalization or death from COVID.
I don't advise people one way or another on getting vaccinated on principle, but particularly I wouldn't base advice on this particular experience. After that experience though I wouldn't be surprised if you decide to get vaccinated.
Serology has not been correlated with patient outcomes. The threshold for "success" may be much lower than what is even measurable by the lab (just as an example). Vaccines tend to produce much higher measurable antibodies than infection but we also know that infection is pretty effective at preventing repeat hospitalization. I believe this study is simply putting a microscope on the effectiveness of infection by magnifying the initial immune response with the vaccine. Put another way, I'm not yet convinced this study should be used to suggest vaccination for those prior infected because we don't yet know the threshold for success.