The CDC has finally admitted that those with natural immunity had six times the protection as those who were vaccinated when the Delta wave hit. So, obviously—it’s not shocking that those with natural immunity represented a lower percentage of deaths and hospitalizations during this wave. It’s a thing, folks. We’ve known it for months. The experts and the media are just showing up. They’re late to the party (via NYT):
By the week beginning Oct. 3, however, vaccinated people with a prior diagnosis fared best against the Delta variant. Unvaccinated people with a history of Covid also had lower rates of infection and hospitalization than those protected by vaccines alone.
The data are consistent with trends observed in international studies, the researchers said.
Waning of vaccine-derived immunity may explain why vaccinated people were less protected from infection with the Delta variant than those who had a prior diagnosis, the researchers said.
A recent study of employees at the Cleveland Clinic suggested that while vaccination does not add much benefit to a prior bout for the first many months, it may offer better protection against symptomatic illness over the long term than does immunity from a previous infection.
“The totality of the evidence suggests really that both vaccination and having survived Covid each provide protection against infection and hospitalization,” said Eli Rosenberg, deputy director for science at the New York State Department of Health.
The CDC is now admitting that starting in October people who recovered from covid had lower rates of infection and hospitalization than people who were vaccinated. Great. It only took two years for them to admit natural immunity offers tremendous protection. pic.twitter.com/WqmotoX4E7— Clay Travis (@ClayTravis) January 19, 2022
Yeah, but check out how the Times framed this piece. Look at the headline, “Post-infection immunity was very protective against Delta, the C.D.C. reports, but vaccines still offer the best defense.”
Where have I seen this before? Oh, wait—the Denmark study about the effectiveness of masks in curbing COVID. Spoiler: not much difference in stopping COVID between the people wearing masks and those not wearing them. Over 4,800 people participated in this 2020 study. What was the headline for this NYT’s piece?
“A New Study Questions Whether Masks Protect Wearers. You Need to Wear Them Anyway.”
So, yet again, two studies that question the core aspects of the COVID-expert control agenda—and the media says we should ignore the science pretty much. And these clowns wonder why everyone who isn’t insane has stopped listening to them.