Hate to break up the Schadenfreude, but infection provides quite good protection against reinfection. Supposed reinfections coming right after one another are more likely just the first one.
But he's also not symptomatic, so how much of this is simply "measuring something we've never measured before" (evidence of viral infection of someone who isn't symptomatic)?
If it was a cold or flu he'd be told "stay in bed until you don't feel like crap anymore, then once you feel better give it a day or two for good measure", and no one would care anything about whether or not the virus is technically still detectable in his system at the end. But since it's WuFlu we do for some reason.
After testing negative Tuesday evening, Wednesday morning, Thursday morning and Friday morning, the President tested positive late Saturday morning by antigen testing.
This is definitely "measuring something we've never measured before".
Viral antigen testing for outpatients was barely done for anything prior to COVID.
When it was, it was done once for diagnostic purposes.
Testing someone daily after symptom resolution with a faulty test to surveil for "rebound" is madness.
The same CDC numbers that showed that natural immunity is better than the vaccine, showed that vaccine and natural immunity is the same or maybe a hair's breadth better.
That's if you get infected first. The order makes a difference. OAS is the problem with training the immune system against the shots first, as opposed to the broad package of the virus itself.
Even then the 'hair's breadth' bit was their spin to try and persuade the least appropriate people to go and get jabbed when it was specifically not needed.
It depends. Natural immunity is much better than vaxx against later variants, because those variants evolved to defeat the vaxx. There is a wider disparity there.
Natural immunity is also far longer lasting. Vaxx shots lose effectiveness very quickly, which is why the government pushes for lots of boosters.
Vaxx shots lose effectiveness very quickly, which is why the government pushes for lots of boosters.
I feel like you're being generous here. With how ineffective the alleged vaccines are, who's to say they gave any protection in the first place? The whole "protection wears off" thing feels more like CYA for a product that never actually worked in the first place.
You are assuming a static virus-host interaction. It's not a static system, it's dynamic. The virus is evolving to escape vaccine-induced immunity because that immunity is narrow and very similar across all vaccinated individuals. Newer variants are better at infecting and reinfecting vaccinated individuals. These individuals are poorly able to improve their immunity due to immune imprinting/OAS.
Hate to break up the Schadenfreude, but infection provides quite good protection against reinfection. Supposed reinfections coming right after one another are more likely just the first one.
Depends, it sounds like Paxlovid has a known issue of “secondary positive” testing.
But he's also not symptomatic, so how much of this is simply "measuring something we've never measured before" (evidence of viral infection of someone who isn't symptomatic)?
If it was a cold or flu he'd be told "stay in bed until you don't feel like crap anymore, then once you feel better give it a day or two for good measure", and no one would care anything about whether or not the virus is technically still detectable in his system at the end. But since it's WuFlu we do for some reason.
This is definitely "measuring something we've never measured before".
Viral antigen testing for outpatients was barely done for anything prior to COVID.
When it was, it was done once for diagnostic purposes.
Testing someone daily after symptom resolution with a faulty test to surveil for "rebound" is madness.
The same CDC numbers that showed that natural immunity is better than the vaccine, showed that vaccine and natural immunity is the same or maybe a hair's breadth better.
That's if you get infected first. The order makes a difference. OAS is the problem with training the immune system against the shots first, as opposed to the broad package of the virus itself.
Even then the 'hair's breadth' bit was their spin to try and persuade the least appropriate people to go and get jabbed when it was specifically not needed.
Are these the numbers from Pfizer? Was that before or after they deliberately destroyed their own control group?
Your blind spot for the clot shots is honestly embarrassing.
Not sure what is so confusing. I said 'CDC', not Pfizer.
A little bit of objectivity wouldn't hurt you, you know.
Look at Walgreens data. The more shots you have, the more likely you are to test positive.
It depends. Natural immunity is much better than vaxx against later variants, because those variants evolved to defeat the vaxx. There is a wider disparity there.
Natural immunity is also far longer lasting. Vaxx shots lose effectiveness very quickly, which is why the government pushes for lots of boosters.
Write up on some studies about how natural immunity is better here: https://intellectualtakeout.org/2022/07/study-natural-immunity-offered-more-protection-against-omicron-than-three-vaccine-doses/
I feel like you're being generous here. With how ineffective the alleged vaccines are, who's to say they gave any protection in the first place? The whole "protection wears off" thing feels more like CYA for a product that never actually worked in the first place.
You are assuming a static virus-host interaction. It's not a static system, it's dynamic. The virus is evolving to escape vaccine-induced immunity because that immunity is narrow and very similar across all vaccinated individuals. Newer variants are better at infecting and reinfecting vaccinated individuals. These individuals are poorly able to improve their immunity due to immune imprinting/OAS.