Malibuflyer wrote:
but it doesn’t say at all, that “previous infections give no protection against Omikron”.
Look at the graphs.
LeSving wrote:
Look at the graphs.
Of course I did (in addition to reading the text, of course):
Figure 5 on page 20 is the most relevant for this question. It clearly shows, that even with Omicron the “hazard coefficient”* for reinfection is still in the ballpark of <1e-08 while the very same coefficient for primary infection is >2.5e-8.
The “hazard ratio” is about 0.3 – reinfection is more than 3 times less likely as primary infection. This is rendering the statement:
LeSving wrote:
Latest studies from SA show that previous infection gives no protection against omikron.
as completely wrong. It actually delivers data demonstrating the exact opposite of what you claim.
*one needs to read the entire paper to understand what this number really says and what model is behind it but it is a measure for risk of infection
Malibuflyer wrote:
It might finally turn out that all the surgeons, dentists, etc. who have been wearing masks for more than a century now to avoid infections are not just stupid morons… ;-)
LOL, yes, and those who said “masks don’t make a difference” because they did not have enough for everyone are finally proven naught by dirty little lyers.
The worst ones are those who perpetuate wrong explanations why masks don’t work – e.g. “The virus particles are too small” when they are contained in water droplets which are NOT too small…
However, that study is based on mathematical modelling and idealised assumptions, so I would take the percentages with a huge grain of salt; I would consider it more “directionally correct” than exact.
But randomised control trials with live viruses are unethical, so that’s probably the best we can get, alongside with “observational” stuff that relies on people’s lies self reported behaviour.
Here’s a thought, though – why don’t we ask all ultra-deniers (those who think the virus itself is a hoax, or not worse than a bad cold despite all the evidence) to take part in such a trial? After all, they should happily volunteer…. that will sort the problem, one way or the other ;-)
Cobalt wrote:
After all, they should happily volunteer….
Not really as those ultra deniers would think that the reptiloids camouflaged as scientists apply some evil alien technology on them that makes them feel like being sick although they are not …
well, they are injecting technology alien to our cells into our bodies, with the sole purpose of programming the nanobots in our cells to produce stuff they are not supposed to. This stuff – also alien to our bodies – then deceives other unsuspecting cells into mounting an unnecessary response. So they are not entirely wrong.
reinfection is more than 3 times less likely as primary infection.
You have to factor in the time variable. This is like the flu. Just after you have had the flu, you are not likely to get it again – untill next year when a slightly different strand comes. But, with Omicron you are likely to get it again, 30% chance. The next year, after a few mutations (and a new name), you are almost guaranteed to get infected.
This doesn’t mean you necessarily get very sick, but all these measures and even vaccines doesn’t really help all that much.
LeSving wrote:
You have to factor in the time variable.
This is exactly what the authors of the paper you quoted exactly do: they include a 60 day time lag.
LeSving wrote:
Just after you have had the flu, you are not likely to get it again – untill next year when a slightly different strand comes
No, it’s not like a flu – flu is a family of viruses. The difference between the different flu viruses is order of magnitude larger than the difference between the different Covid variants
LeSving wrote:
But, with Omicron you are likely to get it again, 30% chance. The next year, after a few mutations (and a new name), you are almost guaranteed to get infected.
Sorry, but this move from “here is a paper that shows that prior infection brings no protection against omicron” to “well, yes, I have to admit that the paper actually says the opposite which is that prior infection reduces the risk of getting Omicron by 70% – but for next year (where I have no data at all) it is almost guaranteed to get infected” starts to get ridiculous.
And just to put these 70% into perspective: The paper you quote has a surprisingly high number of cases with triple infections as well. If you take these patients out (where the immune system seems to have a significant challenge to cope with the virus response at all), the reinfection risk is even much smaller than those 30%.
LeSving wrote:
but all these measures and even vaccines doesn’t really help all that much.
There is no data and no evidence for that. All the data that you cited yourself indicates the exact opposite!
Malibuflyer wrote:
All the data that you cited yourself indicates the exact opposite!
No, not the exact opposite, only the paper is detailed, I used more “street talk” 
Anyway, it looks now like Omicron is some kind of final solution to the problem. It’s highly contagious (even though some mean it’s the opposite…) and it has shown to be pretty harmless. This is perfect. It will take over within weeks, and that’s that.
I read some place that 8% of our DNA is in fact virus DNA. Received through infections over millions of years. Hmm
LeSving wrote:
No, not the exact opposite, only the paper is detailed, I used more “street talk”
Could you explain to me (and perhaps some others here), how one can perceive “it will protect you in 70% of the cases” as just a more detailed version of “It doesn’t protect you at all” ?!?
Is “If you run out of fuel in a piston airplane you have to do a forced landing that has a likelihood to result in a crash” also just a detailed version of “Fuel doesn’t matter at all for flying”. ? ;-)
