re: Previous Infection Just as Protective Against COVID as Vaccine

SalsaDave — 8/1/2021 4:16:24 AM

Whether you get an easy or severely symptomatic case of Covid, your immunity is the same. The immunity is long lasting.

re: Previous Infection Just as Protective Against COVID as Vaccine

LeonieZurakowsky — 7/31/2021 9:55:59 PM

I'm finding this difficult to understand since we know that the coof hasn't been isolated and no one has been able to obtain samples (supposedly). So how are they able to tell there are c-19 anti-bodies?

re: Previous Infection Just as Protective Against COVID as Vaccine

yon3943 — 7/31/2021 7:38:41 PM

The headline hints that this study might not entirely support the mainstream narrative. (A jab in every arm or we're all doomed--you evil anti-vaxxers!) But when I got to the 2nd paragraph above --I'm clueless about what this summary is saying. I scimmed through the "source" articles (reluctantly) w/ only sufficent attention to assess that those articles and their contained quotes supported all the mainstream advise about masking, "distancing", etc., leading me to look a bit askance at the studies--I.e., not close enough to look critically at what they purportedly studied, or how closely the above summary accurately conveys and summarizes those articles --let alone the studies purportedly summerized in the source articles. See what I'm getting at? I couldn't be bothered (to be honest) trying to analyse (resolve) the issues I'm raising. I'm simply confused what the meaning of the terms in the second paragraph (like "no bearing on a person’s immunity response") refer to, or how defined, if any meaning is actually there to be conveyed. If anyone can clear this up and show me what I'm missing, be appreciated.

Also wonder sometimes about where these shorter unattributed summaries are "coming from" as they sometimes only serve as an indicator of what's currently being dished out by mainstream fake news for the reader here to evaluate on their own --which is useful. But in this case I'm just left scratching my head as to what the unattributed writer(s) above are even saying, and a superficial look (as mentioned) at the sources just raised more questions. If the "meaning" of the terms in the aforementioned section above were elucidated in the source article, I missed it. Pardon if this is 'too confused" to bother responding to, but any thoughts offered would be welcome.