Yesterday, Wendy Bell BS-boarded this:
Um, Wendy? Do you really think that this information is somehow swinging the pendulum away from vaccine usage?
I suppose our favorite anti-vaxxer's point is found somewhere in her comment on the BS board:
If your friends/family/foes tell you to get the jab… even though you’ve already HAD COVID…
This info right here is all you need to respond back.
You really haven't thought this whole thing through, have you Wendy?
The reason I ask is this found in the study itself.
(Yes, I found it. Did you really think I couldn't? or wouldn't?)
First there's this, in big bold letters across the top:
This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed [what does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice.
And the whole thing is actually a link to this important caveat:
Because [the peer review] process can be lengthy, authors use the medRxiv service to make their manuscripts available as “preprints” before certification by peer review, allowing other scientists to see, discuss, and comment on the findings immediately.
Readers should therefore be aware that articles on medRxiv have not been finalized by authors, might contain errors, and report information that has not yet been accepted or endorsed in any way by the scientific or medical community.
We also urge journalists and other individuals who report on medical research to the general public to consider this when discussing work that appears on medRxiv preprints and emphasize it has yet to be evaluated by the medical community and the information presented may be erroneous.
Didja miss that part, Wendy?
But let's just say that the study from the Cleveland Clinic DOES reflect reality. Is it really a good idea for the Covid vaccine denying Wendy Bell to quote from it?
No.
The reason why can be found in the study that Wendy promoted. This part here:
The two FDA-approved (BNT162b2 mRNA [Pfizer-BioNTech] and mRNA-1273 [Moderna]) mRNA vaccines have been shown to be very efficacious in protecting against Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) – associated Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. The effectiveness of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine in a real-world setting has also been shown to be comparable to the efficacy demonstrated in clinical trials.
And here:
In a Cox proportional hazards regression model, after adjusting for the phase of the epidemic, vaccination was associated with a significantly lower risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection among those not previously infected (HR 0.031, 95% CI 0.015 – 0.061) but not among those previously infected (HR 0.313, 95% CI 0 – Infinity).
Um, Wendy? Doesn't this say that the vaccines work?
In fact this is the framework in which to view these findings. It's also from the Cleveland Clinic study that Wendy evidently failed to read fully:
Our study’s findings have important implications. Worldwide, COVID-19 vaccines are still in short supply. As of March 9, 2021, dozens of countries had not been able to administer a single dose of the vaccine. As of May 17, 2021, only 17 countries had been able to reach ten percent or more of their populations with at least the first dose of vaccine. Given such a scarcity of the vaccine, and the knowledge that vaccine does not provide additional protection to those previously infected, it would make most sense to limit vaccine administration to those who have not previously had the infection. In addition to profession, age, and comorbid conditions, previous infection should be an important consideration in deciding whom to prioritize to receive the vaccine. A practical and useful message would be to consider symptomatic COVID-19 to be as good as having received a vaccine, and that people who have had COVID-19 confirmed by a reliable laboratory test do not need the vaccine.
Wendy, do you realize that you're now endorsing a study that supports a pragmatic plan for worldwide vaccine distribution?
Did you tell your adoring public that?
