Article A case study in groupthink: were liberals wrong about the pandemic?

[confused2]

Either Syne truly believes that what is known now has an effect on what was known in the past or it's something he read in his rhetoric book as being likely to fool some of the people some of the time. My guess is it's a bit of both.

[Syne]

^Another scientific illiterate.

Early data always tends to be incomplete. This is exactly why longitudinal studies exists.
So here's another moron effectively arguing against all longitudinal studies.

[Magical Realist]

Oh look! Here's a longitudinal study now!

Objective:
This study aimed to assess the risk of new SARS-CoV-2 infections based on the number of vaccine doses, prior infections, and other clinical characteristics.

Methods:
We defined a cohort of 800 health care workers in a 24-month study (March 2020 to December 2022) in northern Barcelona to determine new infections by SARS-CoV-2. We used extended Cox models, specifically Andersen-Gill (AG) and Prentice-Williams-Peterson, and we examined the risk of new infections. The AG model incorporated variables such as sex, age, job title, number of chronic conditions, vaccine doses, and prior infections. Additionally, 2 Prentice-Williams-Peterson models were adjusted, one for those individuals with no or 1 infection and another for those with 2 or 3 infections, both with the same covariates as the AG model.

Results:
The 800 participants (n=605, 75.6% women) received 1, 2, 3, and 4 doses of the vaccine. Compared to those who were unvaccinated, the number of vaccine doses significantly reduced (P<.001) the risk of infection by 66%, 81%, 89%, and 99%, respectively. Unit increase in the number of prior infections reduced the risk of infection by 75% (P<.001). When separating individuals by number of previous infections, risk was significantly reduced for those with no or 1 infection by 61% (P=.02), and by 88%, 93%, and 99% (P<.001) with 1, 2, 3, or 4 doses, respectively. In contrast, for those with 2 or 3 previous infections, the reduction was only significant with the fourth dose, at 98% (P<.001). The number of chronic diseases only increased the risk by 28%‐31% (P<.001) for individuals with 0‐1 previous infections.

Conclusions:
The study suggests that both prior infections and vaccination status significantly contribute to SARS-CoV-2 immunity, supporting vaccine effectiveness in reducing risk of reinfection for up to 24 months after follow-up from the onset of the pandemic. These insights contribute to our understanding of long-term immunity dynamics and inform strategies for mitigating the impact of COVID-19."

https://publichealth.jmir.org/2024/1/e56926

[Syne]

Notice how MR can't even cite his source. 9_9

---

But thank you, MR and C2, for so readily demonstrating leftist groupthink.
It is apparently so powerful that you will both deny the value of longitudinal studies.

[Magical Realist]

And another longitudinal study. Are you ready to apologize and admit you were wrong?

Objectives
"To assess the immunity of healthcare and non-healthcare workers in the Alcoy health area (Spain) after completing three doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine and how it relates with individual factors.

Methods
We conducted a prospective, observational, longitudinal, analytical study to observe immunogenicity in healthcare and non-healthcare workers at Virgen de los Lirios Hospital following administration of three doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike protein IgG antibody concentrations were determined, while COVID-19 infections were identified by qualitative detection of IgG against the nucleocapsid protein. Samples from volunteers were analyzed 15 days, 3 months, and 6 months after receiving the second vaccine dose, and 12 months after receiving the third (booster) dose. A questionnaire was used to collect demographic data, risk factors, and use of immunosuppressive drugs. Statistical analyses were performed with SPSS software, and mean antibody levels over time were compared using ANOVA.

Results
Participation was 99.5 % (199/200). The IgG concentration was higher in men and in obese individuals. No significant changes were noted in factors such as smoking.

Conclusions
All participants developed humoral immunity, except for three subjects who were receiving immunosuppressive treatment. Participants with previous COVID-19 infection had higher antibody levels."

https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/...AUVmJTWV2D

[Syne]

Oh, now that I'll taught you what longitudinal studies are, you want to use them... even though you ignorantly mocked the idea:

No...I've never heard the "theory" that scientific studies become more unreliable with the passage of time. Do you have any evidence supporting this or are you just pulling it out your ass?

Conclusions:
The study suggests that both prior infections and vaccination status significantly contribute to SARS-CoV-2 immunity, supporting vaccine effectiveness in reducing risk of reinfection for up to 24 months after follow-up from the onset of the pandemic. These insights contribute to our understanding of long-term immunity dynamics and inform strategies for mitigating the impact of COVID-19."

https://publichealth.jmir.org/2024/1/e56926

800 is a relatively small sample size and healthcare workers are not representative of the general public.
That said, it clearly states that "both prior infections and vaccination status significantly contribute to SARS-CoV-2 immunity." But we know that vaccine protection wanes over time... perhaps why they only covered 2 years.

"Moreover, the time-dependent variable was also significant; the hazard ratio for “number of infections” was 0.25. This means that each additional previous infection, in combination with the other variables, reduced the infection risk 75%.
...
The findings of this study suggest that both prior infections with SARS-CoV-2, regardless of the variant, and vaccination play a significant role in providing immunity against SARS-CoV-2."
- https://publichealth.jmir.org/2024/1/e56926

Conclusions
All participants developed humoral immunity, except for three subjects who were receiving immunosuppressive treatment. Participants with previous COVID-19 infection had higher antibody levels."

https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/...AUVmJTWV2D

199 people is even a smaller sample size, and only one year after the third booster is a shorter time period.

"Limitations may include the following: 1) the sample size was too small to draw definitive conclusions on response in the production of IgG antibodies against the S protein after vaccination; 2) our results cannot be extrapolated to the general population due to both age and the increased risk of exposure to the disease; and 3) since it is a new virus, there are many issues that are still unknown and, therefore, there could be other factors influencing the results that have not been analyzed."
- https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/...AUVmJTWV2D

Neither showed a quantifiable difference in immunity between prior infection (natural immunity) and vaccination.

[Magical Realist]

Oh, now that I'll taught you what longitudinal studies are, you want to use them... even though you ignorantly mocked the idea:

Longitudinal studies don't show that conclusive studies are more unreliable with the passage of time. In fact all the longitudinal studies on Covid vaccine effectiveness have only confirmed earlier studies. You should've studied up on this before stupidly shooting your mouth off about it. All the studies I've posted totally refute your claim that the vaccine doesn't prevent infection.

[Syne]

You're the one who obviously didn't know what a longitudinal study was, moron.

No, your cited longitudinal studies do not confirm the immunity percent conferred by vaccine, as neither mention any immunity percent at all. You should really trying reading what you cite, dipshit.

And now you're lying. I never "vaccine doesn't prevent infection." I literally said, "they can't really tell you how effective it is at protecting against infection." Big difference. Again, learn to read, moron.

[Magical Realist]

I literally said, "they can't really tell you how effective it is at protecting against infection." Big difference. Again, learn to read, moron.

All the studies I've posted so far report that the vaccine is very effective at preventing infection, and one even giving a percentage of 90 %. So again you're just lying. How hard is to just admit you fucked up? In fact here's the one survey based on 42 studies:

"A comprehensive systematic literature search was performed using several databases to identify studies reporting the effectiveness or the efficacy of the vaccines. Only 42 studies met our inclusion criteria, which revealed that the COVID-19 vaccines have successfully reduced the rates of infections, severity, hospitalization, and mortality among the different populations. The full-dose regimen of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine is the most effective against infections with the B.1.1.7 and B.1.351 variants."

[Syne]

One non-longitudinal study during the pandemic. And no longitudinal studies that support that claim. @_@
Hell, your other conclusive studies don't even confirm 90%.

Do I need to educate you on replicability too?