I read both the Clark County Today article, which horribly misrepresents the science, and the actual NEJM article, which also does not support the argument you are making.
The NEJM article says the following:
The effectiveness of previous infection alone against symptomatic BA.2 infection was 39.5-51.9%
The effectiveness of vaccination with two doses of BNT162b2 and no previous infection was negligible (−1.1%; 95% CI, −7.1 to 4.6), but nearly all persons had received their second dose more than 6 months earlier.
The effectiveness of three doses of BNT162b2 and no previous infection was 48.1-55.9%
The effectiveness of previous infection and two doses of BNT162b2 was 50.9-58.9%
The effectiveness of previous infection and three doses of BNT162b2 was 72.4-81.4%
They are defining effectiveness as being against “symptomatic COVID” for these numbers, so you cannot draw any conclusions about disease severity from these numbers (which is where your conclusions are inaccurate). In terms of disease severity in these populations, this is what the paper had to say:
“Even though the five forms of immunity investigated showed large differences in protection against symptomatic infection that ranged from 0 to 80%, they all showed strong protection against Covid-19–related hospitalization and death, at an effectiveness of more than 70%. This suggests that any form of previous immunity, whether induced by previous infection or vaccination, is associated with strong and durable protection against Covid-19–related hospitalization and death.”
So, in conclusion, I read your source, as well as the actual scientific data the article is supposedly pulling from, and the argument you are trying to make based on this data is specious and unsupported.
whoskey t1_isjrdrc wrote
Reply to comment by PDaniel1990 in The Race to Make a Vaccine for Breast Cancer by AdmiralKurita
I read both the Clark County Today article, which horribly misrepresents the science, and the actual NEJM article, which also does not support the argument you are making.
The NEJM article says the following:
The effectiveness of previous infection alone against symptomatic BA.2 infection was 39.5-51.9%
The effectiveness of vaccination with two doses of BNT162b2 and no previous infection was negligible (−1.1%; 95% CI, −7.1 to 4.6), but nearly all persons had received their second dose more than 6 months earlier.
The effectiveness of three doses of BNT162b2 and no previous infection was 48.1-55.9%
The effectiveness of previous infection and two doses of BNT162b2 was 50.9-58.9%
The effectiveness of previous infection and three doses of BNT162b2 was 72.4-81.4%
They are defining effectiveness as being against “symptomatic COVID” for these numbers, so you cannot draw any conclusions about disease severity from these numbers (which is where your conclusions are inaccurate). In terms of disease severity in these populations, this is what the paper had to say:
“Even though the five forms of immunity investigated showed large differences in protection against symptomatic infection that ranged from 0 to 80%, they all showed strong protection against Covid-19–related hospitalization and death, at an effectiveness of more than 70%. This suggests that any form of previous immunity, whether induced by previous infection or vaccination, is associated with strong and durable protection against Covid-19–related hospitalization and death.”
So, in conclusion, I read your source, as well as the actual scientific data the article is supposedly pulling from, and the argument you are trying to make based on this data is specious and unsupported.