You dropped a bomb and walked away. Oh, of course that's not what you meant to imply.Once again I simply gave a timeline, what you read into that was on you.
Once again we should do the numbers. What level of death in primary infection makes up for the 416% increase in death risk from vaccination?
Is that lower than the known risk of primary infection, bearing in mind that it's unlikely to be 75.75% from the other study?
From the article:
The overall adjusted HR for severe, critical, or fatal COVID-19 after previous natural infection versus BNT162b2 vaccination was estimated at 0·24 (95% CI 0·08–0·72; table 2). The wide 95% CI reflected the rarity of severe or critical COVID-19 in both the natural infection and BNT162b2-vaccinated cohorts (figure 1).
The authors are saying that the protection of both natural immunity and vaccination was such that the study wasn't strong enough (confidence limits overlapped) to look at that. Does that help?
They weren't looking at baseline expected mortality in a matched population. I don't think it is intellectually honest to compare with other studies.
Last edited: