Almost a year after the virus appeared, 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. However, while the government and the media continue to push the vaccine (and masks, of course) with religious fervor, they act as if the natural infection itself confers 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 scientists in the UK tracked the antibody levels of 12,541 health workers in Oxford University hospitals for six months. A total of 1,265 were tested positive for antibodies at one time during the study period, of which 68% recalled having symptoms associated with SARS-CoV-2. They specifically observed the period of the second wave of infection to see if health workers, who are disproportionately exposed to the virus to others, would be re-infected.
The outcome? No symptomatic reinfection and only two individuals who had previously tested positive for antibodies completed positive tests by PCR testing for an alleged asymptomatic reinfection.
The important thing to remember is that immunity does not necessarily mean that you cannot have the virus detected in your body afterwards. What this usually means is that someone who is infected, especially if they have had at least one moderate case of it, will not suffer any significant or severe symptoms due to a reinfection. This is probably true for most viruses – whether the immunity was transmitted through infection or vaccine – but we do not test 1 million people a day for other viruses. If we did this, we would probably discover rare, but measurable, cases of asymptomatic “reinfection.”
Earlier this week, Texas Congresswoman Kay Granger tested positive for the virus, despite having the first round of the Pfizer vaccine. He showed no symptoms. It is true that it has not yet been dealt a second blow, however, in the same way that such findings should not be alarming about a vaccine, it should not be alarming about its natural immunity. In any case, this study shows a higher rate of immunity transmitted to people with natural infection than that demonstrated so far by the vaccine. But the government refuses to distract even the idea of natural immunity from what has become an almost inevitable transmission of the virus anyway.
These results coincide with another recent British study by researchers at the University of Newcastle published last week in the Journal of Infection. They detected 1,038 confirmed infections (through a mixture of antibodies and PCR tests) in a group of 11,103 health workers during the first wave of the virus from March 10 to July 6.
During the second wave of autumn, they retested 128 of the health workers who had previously confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and 2115 who did not. While the sample size of this study is smaller, they discovered zero new infections among those previously infected. At the same time, they observed an infection rate of 13.7% among the group of people who were not previously infected.
None of the 1,038 health workers who confirmed previous infections showed 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 end point of the test period confirmed with a negative test, which would again show approximately six months of immunity and counting.
Obviously, it will take longer to study the problem of long-term immunity, especially for those who have only received the virus asymptomatically or who take it again asymptomatically, but the notion that someone could have a serious case twice is unfounded. this point and is very unlikely.
So far, the assumption is that because antibodies appear to decline after three months and are non-existent for others who have been infected, there is no immunity. However, there is strong evidence that the body produces memory T cells that transmit long-term immunity long after antibodies have been depleted. Yes, it will take longer to finally prove this, but why do our political leaders continue to make negative assumptions that always seem to defy the known precedents of immunobiology, while promoting draconian and devastating policies based on those unproven hypotheses and all less likely?
“Oh, asymptomatic individuals are the ones who drive the spread, even if they don’t usually do it, so we have to assume that everyone is sick and quarantine the world.”
“Oh, this virus doesn’t transmit immunity, so we have to do this forever.”
“Oh, the masks stop the spread of respiratory viruses, despite universal belief, they failed and despite 9 months of not being able to stop the spread.”
Why is it up to us to conclude with certainty that these premises are wrong, instead of having to prove that their premises are correct? What happened to the innocent until he was found guilty? It is based on social conditioning, making sure that a lie repeated enough times becomes true, regardless of science.