Data shows vaccine risk outweighs benefits for those with natural immunity

I've spoken very little about whether or not vaccines are overall good or bad. This question is sort of irrelevant to me because I think it should be up to each individual to chose whether or not they would want to get the vaccine. I am against mandates, plain and simple.

Also, i hesitate to weigh in on complicated matters such as vaccine effectiveness vs. side effects, as I am not a doctor. have plenty to say on the politics of mandates, claims of the effects of natural immunity, etc, but Ill save that for another thread.

In light of the recent controversy surrounding Joe Rogan, I realized that what Rogan actually said about vaccines was similar to my take. That is what prompted me to do this research.

When deciding on any medical treatment (or for that matter almost anything in life) we must try to weigh the benefits that would come from that treatment, vs. the downsides or risks that come with it.

Take a non controversial procedure like gastric bypass. This could cause a person to lose weight, which us good for health, image, etc. However it could cost a lot of money, and bring risks with the surgery.

So for a person only slightly overweight, the risks and costs would far outweigh the benefits. However, to someone morbidly obese, the calculus changes and the benefits may in fact outweigh any risk.

This is how I viewed vaccines for Covid. So perhaps the data would show If a person is over 80, has plenty of comorbidities, covid is likely to be very significant if its contracted. Therefore any potential side effects from the vaccine may be outweighed by the benefit. In other words, your risk of having a serious consequence from covid is much higher than your risk of serious adverse reaction from the vaccine

However, this calculus may in fact change if we look at people in risk categories that are much lower from covid, such as children, or those with natural immunity.

So the question Rogan asked, as did I, was is the vaccine worth the risk fro a young healthy person, or a child, or someone with natural immunity?

For far too long, the official narrative from the Biden administration and folks in the democratic party and media was this was a pandemic of the unvaccinated, and all unvaccinated should get vaxxed or be tested weekly, or all unvaccinated people should not be allowed in resteraunts, etc., depending on the particular location. They seemed to ignore the evidence of the effectiveness of natural immunity. Many people that looked at the early data, especially the Israeli study, saw that it seemed to show natural immunity was superior to vaccinated immunity. And yet we were called conspiracy theorists, anti vaxxers, and sometimes, like myself on Youtube, even censored.

Now it is the official stance of the CDC that in regards to the Delta variant, natural immunity was in fact about 6 times more effective than vaccinated immunity.

Natural immunity was six times stronger during the delta wave than vaccination, according to a new report from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

kdvr.com...

Aside from the problems with censoring and attacking people who were right all along while natural immunity was ignored or downplayed by this administration, it raises another serious question; how can the Biden administration try to force vaccines or punish people with natural immunity if they are MORE protected than the vaccinated?

To this, I saw two arguments made from people pushing the mandates. First, I was supporting people to get intentionally infected. This is so nonsensical it hardly mentions responding to, but suffice it to say being honest about the effects of natural immunity and why they shouldn’t be punished or forced to be vaxxed if they are more protected than the vaccinated is not telling people to intentionally get infected.

The second response is more serious. That was “well although natural immunity is better, getting both natural immunity and vaccinated is best, so therefore everyone should get vaxxed”

So I decided to see what the data said about this.

First off, in order for this argument to hold any weight, the benefit of double immunity from forcing the naturally immune to get vaccinated would have to be very significant. In other words, we wouldn’t force them to get vaxxed or fire them, not allow them in restaurants, etc unless it would save many many people.

I decided to use the most recent CDC paper on this point, the very one that showed natural immunity was six times better vs. Delta.

www.cdc.gov...

As you can see from their chart on page 5, the difference between natural immunity, and natural immunity plus vaccine is hardly noticeable.

But lets look at the number themselves.

Table one on page 3 shows a comparison in California and New York of 4 groups, among them those with natural immunity and those with natural immunity plus vaccine.

Starting with California, when it comes it all cases (which could be asymptomatic and upward)

Vaccinated w/ Previous COVID-19 diagnosis 968,167 amount of ppl they looked at/ 3,471 amount of cases
Unvaccinated w/ Previous COVID-19 diagnosis 1,370,782 amount of ppl they looked at/ 6,805 amount of cases

In other words, if you have natural immunity and are unvaccinated, there were only 6805 total cases which could be asymptomatic or more, out of over 1.3 million. That puts your chance of ever getting covid, even an asymptomatic case, if you are unvaccinated with natural immunity at .4964%.

If you have natural immunity AND gets vaccinated, your chance slightly decreases of ever getting a covid case to .3585%.

So the argument being used to justify forcing the naturally immune to get vaccinated is that you go from an already miniscule less than half a percent chance of getting covid, to a slightly less .35 percent of a chance from getting covid.

If the government can justify this much coercion and force for something you have so little of a chance of getting to only slightly reducing your odds, what wouldn’t they be able to justify mandating.

The New York numbers are not much better, with the naturally immune that aren’t vaccinated having a .6165% chance of getting covid, vs the naturally immune with the vaccine having a .4849% chance.

That’s only part of the story though. As mentioned, these were all cases confirmed, meaning even asymptomatic cases. Even the Biden administration has started to acknowledge the importance of determining the difference between asymptomatic cases and others.

6000 cases of covid mean almost nothing if none of them were serious. And we are repeatedly told that even though vaccines don’t prevent contracting covid, they prevent serious cases of it, so we should look at that metric as well.

New York didn’t have the data available on cases in these groups that required hospitalization. But California did.

(continued next page)

a reply to: Grambler

So back to those same groups, and this time looking at cases within those groups that required hospitalization of any kind.

Vaccinated w/ Previous COVID-19 diagnosis 968,167 amount of ppl they looked at/ 273 amount of cases requiring hospitalization
Unvaccinated w/ Previous COVID-19 diagnosis 1,370,782 amount of ppl they looked at/ 378 amount of cases requiring hospitalization

Yes you read that right. Out of over 1.3 million people with natural immunity in California, according to the CDC’s own numbers, 378 had to be hospitalized with covid. And this is the group we are going to force vaccines on?

What’s even more astonishing is that this means that over the course of this study, those unvaccinated with natural immunity had a .0276% chance of being hospitalized with covid. And if you forced those people to get vaccinated, then they had a .0282% of being hospitalized. Although that difference is so small its meaningless, yes, you read that right; the chances of being hospitalized with covid over the course of this study in California INCREASED when you forced those with natural immunity to be vaccinated.

How can anyone in their right mind then justify mandates or punishment on those with natural immunity?

And just to be thorough, we can look at another study, the Israeli study on natural immunity.

www.medrxiv.org...

I wont go through it all, but when we look at the 14,029 people who had natural immunity vs. those who were vaccinated with natural immunity, we see they found

Symptomatic disease was present in 16 single dose
vaccinees and in 23 of their unvaccinated counterparts. One COVID-19-related
hospitalization occurred in the unvaccinated previously infected group. No COVID-
19-related mortality was recorded.

Out of over 14 thousand people, only 23 cases of symptomatic covid for natural. That number decreases to 16 if they are vaccinated. Again, numbers so small that it shouldn’t warrant government mandates, especially when we see the benefit is so negligible (lowering 24 cases to 16).

However, this is only half of the story.

This alone shows the justification for mandates on the naturally immune is absurd. However, what happens when we factor it potential side effects from the vaccines?

Now it should be noted companies like Pfizer are fighting very hard not to release the results on their testing on potential adverse effects. And there are many sets of data out there showing potential harm being inflicted on people, such as the VAERS database. However, for now we will avoid looking at them.

Instead we will look at two studies that seemed to show the adverse effects of the vaccine were not overly serious.

The first study is this UK study.

www.medrxiv.org...

I sought to see if people who had been previously infected with covid (have natural immunity) were more likely to have side effects from the vaccine.

Their answer, yes.

Figure 1A shows frequencies of each symptom by COVID-19 status. The proportion of participants reporting at least one moderate-to-severe symptom was higher in the previous COVID-19 group (56% v 47%, OR=1.5 [95%CI, 1.1–2.0], p=.009)

So not only did having natural immunity make you more likely to have moderate to severe adverse reactions to the vaccines, a whopping 56% reported it. Now although these effects were most often things like pain, myalgia and so forth, they are still SYMPTOMATIC and considered moderate to severe.

Now lets go back to CDC paper.

If you have natural immunity, you have only a .0276% going to the hospital with covid. The Israeli study says you have a .16% of getting covid with ANY symptom. And if you get vaccinated, it lowers those numbers so little its statistically almost insignificant. And yet for odds that small, and for a potential benefit even smaller, you have to take a medication that 56% percent of people with natural immunity experience moderate to severe side effects from?

Clearly this data shows that the risk of serious covid is so low with natural immunity, and the benefit to vaxxing on top of natural immunity even smaller, that the cost to the vaccine of having a 56% chance of having a moderate to severe adverse reaction far outweighs the benefit to the vaccine. So to force them to take it seems monstrous.

But it gets worse. Lets look at another study done recently. jamanetwork.com...

These study is also claiming horrible side effects of the vaccine are rare. Yet just like the Israeli study, it says adverse effects are very common.

After 1 dose of BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273, 8680 or 8682 participants completed the adverse effects survey and 5629 of 8682 (64.9%) reported adverse effects. After 2 doses of BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 or 1 dose of JNJ-78436735, 11 140 of 11 141 participants completed the adverse effects survey and 8947 (80.3%) reported adverse effects. The most common vaccine adverse effects were fatigue, muscle pain, headache, chills, redness/swelling at the injection site, joint pain, and fever (Figure 1 and Figure 2)

That’s a huge amount of people reporting adverse effects (over 80% after the second dose) for a vaccine that does next to nothing for those with natural immunity.

What is said when I bring this up is “well but those effects aren’t that serious” To which I respond, neither is the risk for covid from those with natura immunity, and these effects are far more prevalent.

However, this is the final nail. The most serious effects from the vaccine, allergic reaction or anaphylaxis, are indeed rare. But how rare?

Allergic reaction or anaphylaxis was reported in 26 of 8680 participants (0.3%) after 1 dose of BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 and 27 of 11 140 participants (0.2%) after 2 doses of BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 or 1 dose of JNJ-78436735.

So to sum this all up.

According to the CDC latest paper, those with natural immunity have about a .0276% chance of being hospitalized with covid, but according to another paper, if they get the vaccine, they have an up to .3% chance of having an allergic reaction. That means the risk is ten times worse youll get an allergic reaction from the vaccine than youll be hospitalized with covid if you have natural immunity!

On top of this according to the CDC paper forcing those with natural immunity to get the vaccine doesn’t even lower their chance of being hospitalized with covid!

All of this adds up to not only is their so little benefit from vaccines for those with natural immunity that forcing them is incredibly immoral and authoritarian, but the risks to adverse affects far outweigh any benefit from the vaccine for those with natural immunity.

The Biden admin and those cheering on mandates are attempt to punish and force people to make medical decisions that will be far worse for themselves.

Thanks for all the work you have put into this Grambler.

It is this, as you say, immoral and authoritarian approach, to try and force the naturally immune to take the shots that is the biggest indicator there is something seriously amiss with the whole covid thing. And absolute proof what a lying bunch of puppets all our governments and their moronic henchmen are.

a reply to: Grambler

As you said, it must be a cogent cost-benefit analysis. I am all for people choosing to get the vaccine, and for high risk individuals, it is a different cost-benefit analysis. I do not support the mandates, given the characteristics of disease, risk levels, and danger to freedoms.

The vaccines do not prevent infection nor transmission, but rather are asserted to lessen symptoms.

To prove the point you are making about natural immunity versus vaccination, children under 18 exemplify these points best. 700 or less children died of Covid in the US, the vast majority having severe comorbidities. For healthy children, the risk of severe covid and death is extremely low, virtually zero.

The risk of severe side effects quite literally may be equal or greater for healthy youth from the vaccines, than Covid 19 itself. Myocarditis especially in young males.

When you add in naturally-acquired immunity, then healthy children's risk of covid unvaccinated is functionally zero, for all intents and purposes. However, in California they are mandating vaccines for public school children!

The same cost-benefit analysis is true to a strong, but lesser extent, for low-risk adults. Before the vaccine and natural immunity, their survival rate was easily 99.9% from covid. Add in natural immunity, and now what is their risk from reinfection? EXTREMELY low.

Regarding the point you cited where people say "well you should get vaccinated because you are even MORE immune." That is in doubt, but, let's assume it's true for sake of argument. It's one thing if someone chooses to get vaccinated after infection, without any pressure or mandate. However, what is not just is forcing people who already were infected and recovered to also get vaccinated and be even more immune than those who did not recover but got vaccinated. This is putting an undue burden, and should not be required.

Those pushing these mandates for all people are not following the data or a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis, including the negative impacts on society and economy.

originally posted by: teapot
Thanks for all the work you have put into this Grambler.

It is this, as you say, immoral and authoritarian approach, to try and force the naturally immune to take the shots that is the biggest indicator there is something seriously amiss with the whole covid thing. And absolute proof what a lying bunch of puppets all our governments and their moronic henchmen are.

Short term revenue due to vaccine distribution and injection. Long term revenue due to the illnesses that come with a weakened immune system. It's simple if you don't overthink it.

Agreed, if this was solely about reaching herd immunity and protecting individuals from severe covid, it would only focus on those individuals who have neither recovered from covid or been vaccinated.

Moreover, they would cease the mandates once herd immunity was reached. In Ottawa I think they originally stated the mandate would cease at 70% or so, which is a reasonable herd immunity target. However, they moved the goal post to 90%.

Until 2020, the WHO definition of herd immunity stated it was the combination of naturally acquired immunity and vaccinated immunity, not the latter. They changed it in 2020...

originally posted by: teapot
Thanks for all the work you have put into this Grambler.

It is this, as you say, immoral and authoritarian approach, to try and force the naturally immune to take the shots that is the biggest indicator there is something seriously amiss with the whole covid thing. And absolute proof what a lying bunch of puppets all our governments and their moronic henchmen are.

Bravo Grambler! Good analysis, star and flag for you.

It goes to show how far they will twist the facts into their argument to get everyone vaccinated regardless. We are not being given good medical advice in the form of these mandates obviously, so what is the real reason for this? What are these vaccines suppose to accomplish? We don't have the information on what this is really all about, but many people in many governments around the world must have it.

That puts your chance of ever getting covid, even an asymptomatic case, if you are unvaccinated with natural immunity at .4964%.

That isn't your chance of ever getting covid, it's your chance of getting covid over the time period of the study (which was predominantly summer months)

There is a reason vaccine effectiveness is judged by relative not absolute risk.

a reply to: ScepticScot

So the CDC is wrong and natural immunity Isn't superior to vaccination?

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: ScepticScot

So the CDC is wrong and natural immunity Isn't superior to vaccination?

Has absolutely nothing to do with what I posted.

a reply to: ScepticScot

just trying to understand your opposition to the OP.

it seems much like pointing out a spelling mistake.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: ScepticScot

just trying to understand your opposition to the OP.

it seems much like pointing out a spelling mistake.

Only if the spelling mistake completely changed to meaning of the sentence.

There is a clear difference between chance of infection over a short period of time when rates are low anyway and your chance of ever getting infected.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Of course you are right there the over the course of the study, as are all numbers including the he risk for the unvaccinated etc

I assumed this was implied. How would Antoine ever be able to talk about risk otherwise “well we can’t say how likely a vaccine is to prevent hospitalization cause all of our data s only over the point that we looked at data. We don’t know what your risk will be 50 years from now!”

Nonetheless it doesn’t nothing to change the point of the thread; comparing cost benefit of those with natural immunity getting serious case of covid vs forcing them to be vaccinated

Because the risks of adverse affects; also over the course of the study

So for example of the course of these studies, the risk of a naturally immune person being hospitalized from covid and ver yjis yrea study was ten times less than them having an allergic reaction to a vaccine, which they ver the course of this study shows the vaccine did nothing to lower risk of covid hospitalization anyways

And every booster would add that same risk again

a reply to: Grambler

A good post sir, if a bit lengthy.

As for me, I see no sense in having graphene oxide injected into my body to "protect me" from a virus with a 99% survival rate.

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: ScepticScot

Of course you are right there the over the course of the study, as are all numbers including the he risk for the unvaccinated etc

I assumed this was implied. How would Antoine ever be able to talk about risk otherwise “well we can’t say how likely a vaccine is to prevent hospitalization cause all of our data s only over the point that we looked at data. We don’t know what your risk will be 50 years from now!”

Nonetheless it doesn’t nothing to change the point of the thread; comparing cost benefit of those with natural immunity getting serious case of covid vs forcing them to be vaccinated

Because the risks of adverse affects; also over the course of the study

So for example of the course of these studies, the risk of a naturally immune person being hospitalized from covid and ver yjis yrea study was ten times less than them having an allergic reaction to a vaccine, which they ver the course of this study shows the vaccine did nothing to lower risk of covid hospitalization anyways

And every booster would add that same risk again

There is an assumption there that your risk of reaction is equal for each injection which I.don't believe to be true.

You are also seem to be comparing allergic reactions from vaccines with hospitalisation from covid. Hardly a like for like comparison. You would need to compare hospitalisation from reactions.

The numbers you quite from the CDC suggest about a 30% reduction in hospitalization between vaccine and prev infection versions prev infection alone.

You judge vaccine effectiveness by comparing reduction between comparable population (something missing from just looking at high level numbers) over the same time period.

When approving vaccines they look at benefits v risk as standard and generally err on the side of caution against vaccines (as seen with the Astrazeneca for certain age groups).

a reply to: ScepticScot

Show me any data you have that suggests there is significant benefit to forcing the naturally immune to be vaccinated

You have none

This paper and the others I post clearly shows that the naturally immune have almost no chance of being hospitalized

The numbers you quite from the CDC suggest about a 30% reduction in hospitalization between vaccine and prev infection versions prev infection alone.

You are a liar

From the op

“ What’s even more astonishing is that this means that over the course of this study, those unvaccinated with natural immunity had a .0276% chance of being hospitalized with covid. And if you forced those people to get vaccinated, then they had a .0282% of being hospitalized. Although that difference is so small its meaningless, yes, you read that right; the chances of being hospitalized with covid over the course of this study in California INCREASED when you forced those with natural immunity to be vaccinated. ”

Show me this data showing a 30 percent reduction in hospitalization for natural immunity with vax, or admit you are wrong


The Cdc paper actually shows forcing these people to be vaccinated slightly increased their chance of being hospitalized

The chance of being hospitalized if you have natural immunity is around .02%

Given such a low rate, why force vaccinations

You say thirty percent reduction

Cool so if a disease made less than 10 people sick, but forcing everyone to be vaccinated would mean only five for sick, you would say the government should force that, because it’s a fifty percent reduction, right?

Even if the vaccine does lead to a thirty percent reduction in cases, it increased the percent hospitalized, and the numbers are baseline so low it doesn’t justify mandates

Saying we need to compare hospitalization for vaccines vs covid w natural immunity is also sort of irrelevant

One, isn’t it strange finding this data is so tough, I wonder why Pfizer won’t release their test data?

Secondly, seeing as how the hospital rates for natural immunity is so low in both the cdc study and the Israeli study (out of 8000 only ONE person with natural immunity hospitalized) it’s safe to assume that forcing them to take a vaccine that 56% have moderate to severe adverse effects from is unethical

Also safe to assume that many of the allergic reactions to the vaccine required a hospitalization

Are you legitimately going to tell me despite all of this you still think the government should mandate those with natural immunity to take the vaccine?

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: ScepticScot

Show me any data you have that suggests there is significant benefit to forcing the naturally immune to be vaccinated

You have none

This paper and the others I post clearly shows that the naturally immune have almost no chance of being hospitalized

The numbers you quite from the CDC suggest about a 30% reduction in hospitalization between vaccine and prev infection versions prev infection alone.

You are a liar

From the op

“ What’s even more astonishing is that this means that over the course of this study, those unvaccinated with natural immunity had a .0276% chance of being hospitalized with covid. And if you forced those people to get vaccinated, then they had a .0282% of being hospitalized. Although that difference is so small its meaningless, yes, you read that right; the chances of being hospitalized with covid over the course of this study in California INCREASED when you forced those with natural immunity to be vaccinated. ”

Show me this data showing a 30 percent reduction in hospitalization for natural immunity with vax, or admit you are wrong


The Cdc paper actually shows forcing these people to be vaccinated slightly increased their chance of being hospitalized

The chance of being hospitalized if you have natural immunity is around .02%

Given such a low rate, why force vaccinations

You say thirty percent reduction

Cool so if a disease made less than 10 people sick, but forcing everyone to be vaccinated would mean only five for sick, you would say the government should force that, because it’s a fifty percent reduction, right?

Even if the vaccine does lead to a thirty percent reduction in cases, it increased the percent hospitalized, and the numbers are baseline so low it doesn’t justify mandates

Saying we need to compare hospitalization for vaccines vs covid w natural immunity is also sort of irrelevant

One, isn’t it strange finding this data is so tough, I wonder why Pfizer won’t release their test data?

Secondly, seeing as how the hospital rates for natural immunity is so low in both the cdc study and the Israeli study (out of 8000 only ONE person with natural immunity hospitalized) it’s safe to assume that forcing them to take a vaccine that 56% have moderate to severe adverse effects from is unethical

Also safe to assume that many of the allergic reactions to the vaccine required a hospitalization

Are you legitimately going to tell me despite all of this you still think the government should mandate those with natural immunity to take the vaccine?

Seriously are you actually incapable of having anything resembling a civilized discussion. Last time you called me a liar you posted a full on rant filled video which you then had to retract when it was pointed out your own video showed you to be wrong.

The 30% reduction was for cases, not hospitalization. My mistake.

Now you show where I have ever supported forced vaccination?

a reply to: Grambler
Nice work. 👍

I think ya might have hit a home run if you had reported the efficacy of zpak ivm showing how very unnecessary the clot shot is in comparison to known therapeutics. And the illicit emergency use authorization granted in favor of known therapeutics.

🙏❤

a reply to: Grambler

Let's just throw some numbers in there. who has had covid before has maybe a 1 in 200 chance of dying of covid, and a 1 in 500,000 chance of having a serious reaction to the vax.

Covid is clearly more dangerous.

Sources are in my signature.

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: ScepticScot


This paper and the others I post clearly shows that the naturally immune have almost no chance of being hospitalized

Elephant in the room time.

Shocking but ... having covid doesn't necessarily give you natural immunity. People who were asymptomatic or had it mildly may have little or no natural immunity, and people who had covid and were in poor health for other reasons, such as due to obesity or heart conditions, may have little or no natural immunity.

It's why some people get it multiple times.

From a logistics perspective it's much simpler to vax everyone than it it to check immunity levels and then only vax the people who have low immunity. It's one of the reasons why there is a one-size-fits-all policy.