Almost a year after the start of this virus, it has become clear that, after up to a third of people in this country have already contracted it, according to some estimates, there is nothing we can do to stop it through non-pharmaceutical interventions. But as the government and the media continue to push the vaccine (and masks, of course) with religious fervor, they act as if a natural infection itself grants little or no immunity. In reality, as with any virus, it probably confers more immunity than a vaccine.
A new study published in the New England Journal of Medicine by British scientists tracked the antibody levels of 12,541 health workers in Oxford university hospitals for six months. A total of 1,265 tested positive for antibodies at some point during the study period, of which 68% recalled having symptoms related to SARS-CoV-2. They specifically observed the period of the second wave of infection to see if health workers, who have been disproportionately exposed to the virus compared to other people, would be reinfected.
The result? Not a single symptomatic reinfection and only two people who had previously tested positive for antibodies were found to test positive via PCR testing for a presumed asymptomatic reinfection.
The important thing to remember is that immunity does not necessarily mean that the presence of the virus cannot be detected in his body afterward. What it usually means is that someone who is infected, especially if one has had at least a moderate case of it, will not suffer any meaningful or severe symptoms of reinfection. This is probably true for most viruses – whether the immunity was transmitted through an infection or a vaccine – but we don’t test 1 million people a day for other viruses. If we did, we would probably discover rare but measurable cases of asymptomatic ‘reinfection’.
Earlier this week, Texas Congressman Kay Granger tested positive for the virus, despite the first round of the Pfizer vaccine. She had no symptoms. It is true that she had not yet received a second injection, but as such findings should not be alarming with regard to a vaccine, they should not be alarming with regard to natural immunity. In any case, this study shows a higher degree of immunity that is transmitted to people with a natural infection than what has been proven with the vaccine so far. But the government refuses even to harbor the idea of natural immunity to what has become an almost inevitable transmission of the virus anyway.
These results are in line with another recent UK study by researchers at Newcastle University, published last week in the Journal of Infection. They discovered 1,038 confirmed infections (via a mix of antibody and PCR tests) among a pool of 11,103 health workers during the first wave of the virus from March 10-July 6.
During the second wave in the fall, they retested 128 of the health workers who had previously confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and 2,115 who had not. Although the sample size of this study is smaller, they found zero new infections among those previously infected. At the same time, they saw an infection rate of 13.7% among the group of people who had not been previously infected.
None of the 1,038 health professionals who confirmed previous infections experienced symptoms during the second wave. In those previously infected, there was a median of 173 days from the date of the first confirmed positive result to the endpoint of the analysis period confirmed with a negative test, again showing approximately six months of immunity and count.
Obviously, it will take more time to study the long-term issue of immunity, especially for those who only got the virus asymptomatic or who get it again asymptomatic, but the idea that someone could get a serious case twice is unfounded. this point and is very unlikely.
So far, the assumption has been that because antibodies seem to wane after three months and don’t exist for others who are infected, there is no immunity. However, there is strong evidence that the body is producing memory T cells that transmit long-lasting immunity long after the antibodies have disappeared. Yes, it will take longer to definitively prove that fact, but why do our political leaders keep making negative assumptions that always seem to defy the known precedents of immunobiology, while promoting draconian and devastating policies based on those unproven and increasingly unlikely assumptions?
“Oh, asymptomatic individuals drive the spread, even though they usually never do, so we have to assume everyone is sick and quarantine the world.”
“Oh, this virus doesn’t transmit immunity, so we have to do this forever.”
“Oh, masks stop the spread of respiratory viruses, despite the common belief that they didn’t and failed to stop the spread for 9 months.”
Why is it for us to conclude with certainty that these premises are false, instead of having to prove their premises are correct? What happened to the innocent until proven guilty? They rely on the social conditioning that makes a lie repeated enough times to become true, regardless of science.