New York Hospital to Pause Delivering Babies After Unvaccinated Workers Resign En Masse

[Avnger]

Name any other paper the CDC cites for natural immunity then. It's only the one.

30 second search results:

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)

CDC provides credible COVID-19 health information to the U.S.

www.cdc.gov

Jones, J., Percent population with antibodies due to vaccination only, vaccination and infection, or infection only (unpublished). 2021, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Cromer, D., et al., Prospects for durable immune control of SARS-CoV-2 and prevention of reinfection. Nature Reviews Immunology, 2021. 21(6): p. 395-404.

Grigoryan, L. and B. Pulendran, The immunology of SARS-CoV-2 infections and vaccines. Semin Immunol, 2020. 50: p. 101422.

Post, N., et al., Antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 infection in humans: A systematic review. PLoS One, 2020. 15(12): p. e0244126.

Shrotri, M., et al., T cell response to SARS-CoV-2 infection in humans: A systematic review. PLoS One, 2021. 16(1): p. e0245532.

Cervia, C., et al., Systemic and mucosal antibody responses specific to SARS-CoV-2 during mild versus severe COVID-19. J Allergy Clin Immunol, 2021. 147(2): p. 545-557 e9.

Roltgen, K., et al., Defining the features and duration of antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection associated with disease severity and outcome. Sci Immunol, 2020. 5(54).

Gudbjartsson, D.F., et al., Humoral Immune Response to SARS-CoV-2 in Iceland. N Engl J Med, 2020. 383(18): p. 1724-1734.

Dan, J.M., et al., Immunological memory to SARS-CoV-2 assessed for up to 8 months after infection. Science, 2021. 371(6529).

Wang, H., et al., Dynamics of the SARS-CoV-2 antibody response up to 10 months after infection. Cell Mol Immunol, 2021. 18(7): p. 1832-1834.

So there's the first 10 referencing immunity and antibodies due to infection (ie: 'natural') from just that one brief. There's more from that brief, and there's God knows how many briefs/press releases/info pages/etc from the CDC over the past 1.5+ years.

Where are you planning on moving the goal posts now?

 

[Agema]

Name any other paper the CDC cites for natural immunity then. It's only the one.

Well, the CDC list at least a dozen papers relevant to natural immunity on this page, so my conclusion is that you're probably not looking at the CDC webpages effectively.

Edit: ooh, ninjaed

 

[Phoenixmgs]

30 second search results:

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)

CDC provides credible COVID-19 health information to the U.S.

www.cdc.gov

So there's the first 10 referencing immunity and antibodies due to infection (ie: 'natural') from just that one brief. There's more from that brief, and there's God knows how many briefs/press releases/info pages/etc from the CDC over the past 1.5+ years.

Where are you planning on moving the goal posts now?

And why would someone previously infected NEED to get a vaccine based on data from that article?

In these studies, primary RT-PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection decreased risk of subsequent infection by 80–93% for at least 6–9 months.

When natural immunity is brought up, the only paper cited as an argument to say previously infected need the vaccine is the Kansas paper. The vaccines are doing worse than that now in that same time frame.

Well, the CDC list at least a dozen papers relevant to natural immunity on this page, so my conclusion is that you're probably not looking at the CDC webpages effectively.

Edit: ooh, ninjaed

I'm talking about the narrative that previously infected NEED to get the vaccine and the Kansas paper is the only one brought up in said argument because the other papers don't help the argument. Based on the data on that CDC argument, why would previously infected be mandated to get the vaccine? And don't give me antibody titer bullshit. Guess what? Previously infected people with measles get an increase to antibody titers from the measles vaccine, but they have never been told or forced to get the measles vaccine. Antibody titers is short-term, long-term is what matters. Getting a shot every 2 or 3 months probably gives you the best possible protection all the time but that's a ridiculous thing to do.

 

[Avnger]

snippy snip

Don't you get tired of moving those goalposts around so often?

Even if we accept your narrative that those previously infected with COVID-19 don't "NEED to get the vaccine," vaccine recommendations and mandates are still following the science when it comes to public health (the raison d'etre of the CDC).

Simply put, proving individuals have "natural immunity" is unworkably difficult when looking at a population of 360+ million people; proving individuals are vaccinated, on the other hand, is child's play as the records are easy to create, store, and verify. Since we know the rate of actual "vaccine injuries" is negligible (and those with proven poor vaccine reactions can be opted out via existing mechanisms), there's absolutely no downside to taking the latter path. The mild inconvenience of those who could potentially prove their "natural immunity" is vastly outweighed by the reduction of healthcare costs, healthcare system strain, and people getting sick/injured/killed by the virus.

TLDR: The science says you're wrong, but even if the science said you were right, the best interests of the public at large mean you're wrong regardless.