Nearly a year after this virus, it became clear that, after up to a third of the people in this country had already contracted it, according to some estimates, there is nothing we can do to stop it through non-pharmaceutical interventions. Although the government and media still pursue the vaccine (and masks, of course) with religious zeal, they act as if natural contamination itself confers little or no immunity. In fact, as with any virus, it probably offers more immunity than a vaccine.
A new study published by British scientists in the New England Journal of Medicine 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 some point during the study period, of which 68% remembered that they had symptoms related to SARS-CoV-2. They specifically observed the period of the second wave of infection to see if health care workers, who are disproportionately exposed to other people, would be re-infected.
The result? Not a single symptomatic reinfection and only two people who had previously tested positive for antibodies tested positive by PCR testing for a suspected asymptomatic reinfection.
The important fact to remember is that immunity does not necessarily mean that one cannot detect the virus in his body afterwards. What this usually means is that someone who is infected, especially if you have had at least a moderate case of it, does not have significant or severe symptoms as a result of a reinfection. This probably applies to most viruses – whether immunity is transmitted by infection or a vaccine – but we do not 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 experienced no symptoms. It is true that she has not yet received the second shot, but in the same way, such findings should not be frightening with regard to a vaccine, but also not frightening for natural immunity. If anything, this study shows a higher degree of immunity to people with a natural infection than has been proven so far from the vaccine. But the government refuses to even uphold the idea of natural immunity against what has in any case become a virtually inevitable transmission of the virus.
These results are based on another recent British study by researchers at the University of Newcastle published in the Journal of Infection last week. They detected 1,038 confirmed infections (through a mix of antibodies and PCR tests) among a pool of 11,103 health workers during the first outbreak of the virus from March 10 to July 6.
During the second outbreak in the fall, they retested 128 of the health workers who had previously confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, and 2115 who had not. Although the sample size of this study is smaller, there are no new infections among those previously infected. At the same time, they observed an infection rate of 13.7% among the group of people who had not been infected before.
None of the 1,038 health workers who confirmed earlier 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 until the end of the analysis period confirmed with a negative test, which would again be about six months of immunity and score tone.
It is clearly going to take more time to study the demand for immunity in the long run, especially for those who only got the virus asymptomatically or get it asymptomatically again, but the idea that someone can get a serious case twice is unfounded. this point and is very unlikely.
Until now, the assumption that after three months antibodies do not seem to exist for others who are infected, there is no immunity. However, there is strong evidence that the body produces memory T cells that transmit long-term immunity long after the antibodies have decreased. Yes, it will take longer to finally prove the fact, but why do our political leaders continue with negative assumptions that always challenge 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 do not, so we have to accept that everyone is sick and puts the world in quarantine.”
“Oh, this virus does not transmit immunity, so we have to do it forever.”
“Oh, masks stop the spread of respiratory viruses, despite the general belief that they did not and despite 9 months that they could not stop the spread.”
Why is it up to us to decide with certainty that these premises are wrong, instead of having to prove that their premises are correct? What happened to the innocent until proven guilty? They rely on social conditioning to ensure that a lie is repeated enough times, regardless of science.