×

Loading...
Ad by
  • 最优利率和cashback可以申请特批,好信用好收入offer更好。请点链接扫码加微信咨询,Scotiabank -- Nick Zhang 6478812600。
Ad by
  • 最优利率和cashback可以申请特批,好信用好收入offer更好。请点链接扫码加微信咨询,Scotiabank -- Nick Zhang 6478812600。

如果能耐心看完全文,而不是只看一半,就可以看到文章最底部的原文链接。抄自原文。【转自:

A new pre-print Israeli study has found that people with natural immunity to COVID-19 could be 13 times less likely to contract the respiratory virus than those who were solely vaccinated
Report

Replies, comments and Discussions:

  • 枫下家园 / 医药保健 / 以色列研究表明|自然免疫力是辉瑞公司COVID疫苗的13倍 +4
    • 原文链接呢,你自己的网站里面链的推特文和主题没关系。 +3
      • 如果能耐心看完全文,而不是只看一半,就可以看到文章最底部的原文链接。抄自原文。【转自: +3
        A new pre-print Israeli study has found that people with natural immunity to COVID-19 could be 13 times less likely to contract the respiratory virus than those who were solely vaccinated
        • 一个虚幻的网站,比瑞士生物学家威尔逊·爱德华兹差不多。 +7
    • 我早就说过,印度的全民感染才是对付新冠的终极途径。现在全面放开才是正道 +4
      • 该死的要死够 +2
        • 可以确认的是如果地球人都被病毒弄死了,地球人就终极消灭新冠病毒了。这叫全民感染至全民死亡方案 +1
    • 困惑与思考🤔 +5
      自打疫情开始后,太多的信息让人困惑。似乎该用心思考了 🤔 先说说关于疫苗的困惑吧。 前两天,也就是2021年8月23日,FDA通过了COMIRNATY疫苗,现在大家打的辉瑞Pfizer仍旧是紧急情况下授权使用状态Emergency Use Authorization (EUA)。既然成分内容都一样,为什么不直接通过正在使用中的辉瑞Pfizer呢?为什么要通过一个市场上不使用的新牌子COMIRNATY呢?难道保留辉瑞Pfizer在EUA状态下仅仅是因为可以签署免责声明?🤔
      • 世上没有正式药品是用厂名出售的。正式批准了的药品,就要正式使用商标,才能在各个市场上售卖。 +3
        • 很多试验用新药不是一般人可以享受的到的 +1
    • 你那篇取自有水分的中文网站。英文网站研究表明未接种疫苗的人住院的概率是接种疫苗的 29 倍。 +11
      • 你这链接一出把 游戏 姐姐今天中午的盒饭给砸了。 +9
      • 你转的文章不是这个帖子的英文原文。和这个帖子的原文没关系。 +1
    • 本质是mRNA 技术吹的太厉害,在变种上是一堆狗屎,自然免疫抗体每个人有差异,中国灭活疫苗更有前景, +5
    • 以色列研究原文發表在medRxid,有興趣的參考連結 +4
      Background Reports of waning vaccine-induced immunity against COVID-19 have begun to surface. With that, the comparable long-term protection conferred by previous infection with SARS-CoV-2 remains unclear. Methods We conducted a retrospective observational study comparing three groups: (1)SARS-CoV-2-naïve individuals who received a two-dose regimen of the BioNTech/Pfizer mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine, (2)previously infected individuals who have not been vaccinated, and (3)previously infected and single dose vaccinated individuals. Three multivariate logistic regression models were applied. In all models we evaluated four outcomes: SARS-CoV-2 infection, symptomatic disease, COVID-19-related hospitalization and death. The follow-up period of June 1 to August 14, 2021, when the Delta variant was dominant in Israel. Results SARS-CoV-2-naïve vaccinees had a 13.06-fold (95% CI, 8.08 to 21.11) increased risk for breakthrough infection with the Delta variant compared to those previously infected, when the first event (infection or vaccination) occurred during January and February of 2021. The increased risk was significant ( P <0.001) for symptomatic disease as well. When allowing the infection to occur at any time before vaccination (from March 2020 to February 2021), evidence of waning natural immunity was demonstrated, though SARS-CoV-2 naïve vaccinees had a 5.96-fold (95% CI, 4.85 to 7.33) increased risk for breakthrough infection and a 7.13-fold (95% CI, 5.51 to 9.21) increased risk for symptomatic disease. SARS-CoV-2-naïve vaccinees were also at a greater risk for COVID-19-related-hospitalizations compared to those that were previously infected. Conclusions This study demonstrated that natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity. Individuals who were both previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta variant. ### Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest. ### Funding Statement There was no external funding for the project. ### Author Declarations I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained. Yes The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below: This study was approved by the MHS (Maccabi Healthcare Services) Institutional Review Board (IRB). Due to the retrospective design of the study, informed consent was waived by the IRB, and all identifying details of the participants were removed before computational analysis. All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived. Yes I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance). Yes I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable. Yes According to the Israel Ministry of Health regulations, individual-level data cannot be shared openly. Specific requests for remote access to de-identified community-level data should be directed to KSM, Maccabi Healthcare Services Research and Innovation Center.
      • 草山兄,你这链接一出把上面好多人中午的盒饭给砸了。 +5
        • 希望遊戲不會介意
          • 游戏的脾气好得很,最多就是和某些人群一起没午饭吃,估计没啥大问题。 +4
      • 所以, +10
        草山兄, 很多的病毒感染都是这样的,自然感染的获得的免疫力强而且持久。比如甲肝病毒, 得一次甲肝, 终身免疫, 但是甲肝疫苗的注射只能维持一段时间。所以我一直没有打covid疫苗, 我一直猜测如果我坚持戴口罩, 很可能因为接触的病毒量很小, 然后无症状自然免疫。比打疫苗的效果好而且持久 而且我不打疫苗还有一个原因。至今FDA没有给出covid 疫苗的任何药物代谢动力学pharmacokinetics 的各种指标, 以前任何药物它都会公布的。这次完全藏着不公布。那这个疫苗什么时候在什么器官代谢, 哪个器官分布最广泛,完全不公布。我虽然不是个阴谋论的支持者。但是觉得所有代谢数据都不公布,真的俺就没有打疫苗的信心了
        • 谢谢科普!👍 +5
          • 不客气😊
        • 以色列似乎已經定論,5個月是疫苗的衰退起點,尤其是60歲以上,抗體應答能力本來就不太好的中老年人,也許最後證明,妳的方法是對的 +7
          • 😊😘。因为我看过太多的人体免疫学的书了😅🤣。 +5
        • 👍 非常同意: "坚持戴口罩, 很可能因为接触的病毒量很小, 然后无症状自然免疫, 比打疫苗的效果好而且持久"。防范措施除了口罩, 还有: 勤洗手, 不要聚集扎堆, 适当保持社交距离, 等等, 都是安全可行的方法。 +3
        • 手动点赞啦👍 +2
        • 谢谢专业人士的科普,讲得很清楚👍 +2
      • 挺好的,又多了一个数据证明自身免疫系统比疫苗更有效😍😍谁也没想过要说服谁,各自安好就够了。 +3
        • 這個大比例差距的數據,原來應該是藥廠3期期中報告的一部份 +2
    • 你这是侧面的肯定中国的灭活疫苗。 +3
      • 这个文章是让大家相信自身的抵抗力,什么C19疫苗都不用打 +5
      • 辉瑞就是吹牛造假,土共现在反应过了,高喊比辉瑞还好 +1
      • 小白是那兒看出了中國滅活疫苗比較好?給大伙說說吧 +2
    • 似乎肉聯沒人真的看paper,這個研究拿今年1月,2月,從來未感染,並且完成2劑疫苗的以色列人,和相似時間感染並且恢復的病患,以5個月之後,6月到8月中的感染病例做比較,結論在Rockefeller University的Paul Bienias報告,自然感染一年內抗體仍然增加,疫苗幾個月之後,就不再增加 +4
      • 其实我贴过几次类似的信息了,并且建议低危、中低危人群考虑自身情况决定是否自然免疫。但某些人群只相信向来不怎么靠谱的政府和大媒信息,而不是自己找、看资料,哈哈。有趣的是,该人群习惯性的把不符合他们意愿的信息归类为谣媒。 +5
      • 理论上抗体效应不可能一直维持在峰值,即便是自然感染,有增加就有下降
        • 你的说法不对。很多别的疫苗的抗体产生以后, 是可以维持在一定值, 让一个人终生免疫的 +3
          • 要测滴度曲线,很多终身免疫的实现靠的不是高滴度,而是低阈值和机体的再次应激反应效果
            • 汗, 所谓再次人体应激反应效果, 这还不是人体再次产生的抗体嘛,都是抗体, 一回事儿嘛, 跟你说话真是累🤣😝。不跟你说了。你在胡搅蛮缠😅 +5
              • 我说理论上抗体滴度不可能一直维持在峰值,你说低滴度的抗体也能完成免疫反应,有矛盾吗?
        • 不是抗体浓度问题,免疫系统会记住病毒,感染后能快速产生新抗体,问题是识别变种问题,mRNA的抗体不认识变种,自然抗体能识别变种 +4
          • 是有个叫T-cell的东西,sars的患者,17年后还免疫,对sars-2(covid)也会产生抗体。 +2
          • 正确。 +2
          • 不是所有的免疫反应都是一个模式,比如破伤风,理论上近乎终生,但某些情况下需要打补强针
            • mRNA这次是不成功的,以前就从来没成功过,灭活疫苗会慢慢得到认可,智利阿联酋的数据能证明, +2
              • 成功不成功的标准不同,在我们看来能减少死亡就是成功了,在你们看来有人打针后染病就是不成功 +1
                • 很多不打针的并没有认为疫苗对防疫一点都不成功,而主要关注这个成功的代价。再如,你认为要求已经得过新冠并恢复的人继续打针是什么个思路?为什么要强迫愿意选择自然免疫的人去打针?综合看来,政治因素重还是防疫因素重? +6
                  • 因为发现了得过新冠的还会再得,新冠不是普通的感冒,致死率高,高危人群要提前防范
                    • 新冠二次感染比例非常低,这才核心, +3
                      • 对于特殊人群不一样,这不是搞发明创造,要相信主流科学研究
                        • 数据证明的,二次感染的比例极低,不是发明的 +3
                          • 请用数据说话,百人老人院里二次感染1个与万人普通人群里二次感染1个的意义是明显不一样的 +1
                    • 高危人群怎么防范都不过分,难听点说,过的一天是一天。重点是占人类大多数的低危和超低危人群,为什么要逼/诱导他们去打针。你也清楚,所谓致死率高,主要贡献部分是高危人群。对低危人群,致死率比流感强不了多少。 +2