No vaccine needed for those who've had COVID-19, Cleveland Clinic study says
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
CLEVELAND (WJW) — The Cleveland Clinic recently studied the effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccination among people who caught the virus and those who haven't.
The study finds that anyone who previously tested positive for a SARS-CoV-2 infection did not get additional benefits from the vaccine, which suggests the vaccines should be prioritized to people who haven't gotten the infection.
The clinic says this research provides insight into how the immune system protects the body once a COVID-19 infection is confirmed.
During the study that was conducted on 52,238 employees in the Cleveland Clinic, the clinic says "not a single incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection was observed in previously infected participants with or
without vaccination."
The clinic still recommends that anyone who can get the vaccine, should.
The Cleveland Clinic tells FOX 8, "We don't know how long the immune system will protect against reinfection or protect against variants. We still recommend those eligible receive the vaccine."
The statement goes on to say, "This data could guide vaccination efforts should there be a shortage of vaccine supply and in areas where vaccine supply is limited."
Tags
Who is online
422 visitors
"Great news! Cleveland clinic study of 52,238 employees shows unvaccinated people who have had COVID 19 have no difference in re-infection rate than people who had COVID 19 and who took the vaccine."...Sen Rand Paul
How many have had the virus and recovered in this country?
Could we already be at herd immunity?
That's a question I had asked previously and been shot down for it. When we ask questions around this, there are too many who like to point out this cannot be true because we still have thousands of new cases daily. They have to keep pushing the fear and ignore the science. Herd immunity doesn't mean nobody can catch the virus, it just means that the potential for the virus to continue to be out there still exists. You don't get rid of a virus until everybody is vaccinated against the virus and enough time has gone by to eradicate the virus. How many years did it take for the WHO to eradicate smallpox?
But this study backs up an earlier report from the NIH that basically said the same thing, that lasting immunity was being found in people after recovery from Covid-19.
This is good news for the country and for the world that will help us get this virus under control.
It is still recommended that those people get vaccinated.
Antibody levels induced by mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are much higher than those induced by natural infection and confer cross-reactivity that could be effective against new variants, a new study from the University of California, Irvine, found.
So Nobody including the CDC knows the answer.
And this study counters your study. Of course, the Cleveland Clinic study also makes sense:
"During the study that was conducted on 52,238 employees in the Cleveland Clinic, the clinic says "not a single incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection was observed in previously infected participants with or without vaccination."
Also known as the building of natural immunity.
We must be careful not to question or dispute anything our health bureaucrats tell us/s. As Josef Mengele occasionally reminded people "I am a scientist!"
Note how the CC never said those already infected do not need the vaccine!
Yes, and the CC also recommended such individuals do get the vaccine when able to. It's unknown how long natural immunity will last.
Quite the hyperbole there! I'll listen to actual scientists over political bureaucrats any day!
Actually, I believe they did. Are you actually going to keep putting forward political positions over science?
"which suggests the vaccines should be prioritized to people who haven't gotten the infection."
Yes, and the CC also recommended such individuals do get the vaccine when able to.
Three times for the normal mind:
"which suggests the vaccines should be prioritized to people who haven't gotten the infection."
I'll listen to actual scientists over political bureaucrats any day!
It seems you have done just the opposite.
No Vic, they never said " said those already infected do not need the vaccine!" Specify precisely where they said that! Otherwise, it's a lie! They said vaccines can be prioritized for people who have not yet been infected. They also said, "we do not know how long the immune system will protect itself against re-infection after COVID-19. It is safe to receive the COVID-19 vaccine even if you have previously tested positive, and we recommend all those who are eligible receive it."
So they are saying people who had Covid should get the vaccine anyway. They are simply not high up on the priority list since they already have a degree of immunity to it.
In other words you are saying that they are recommending that someone previously infected get the vaccine anyway, even though there is no evidence (via their own study) to support that recommendation. Got it!
All of the studies on this issue seem to show the same thing - that those who were infected have just as much immunity as the people who’ve been vaccinated.
Good news for everyone but bureaucrats
Now you're being obtuse. That's not what I'm saying. That's what the CC says!
What you conveniently ignore (or don't understand) is the fact that the CC does not know how long natural immunity is effective for and therefore, recommends the previously infected to get the vaccine anyway, as i pointed out in bold above!
From the article.
Yes, all true. Nobody knows how long the immune system will protect against reinfection because this virus is too new. To know these answers requires long-term studies which is one of the reasons why vaccine development takes so much time. And they have tested, there are no real problems with someone who had the virus and recovered and then gets the vaccine also.
I suspect we will know so much more about this virus in about 20 years.
Exactly, we are still very much in the infant age of this virus.
Well I must have had a false positive last October when my wife contracted it and gave it to me. Becasue as some here may know, it kicked my ass and I almost didn't make it in the month of April and I am still not back to 100%. My doctor thinks it was one of the mutations that I got.
Got a Moderna shot this last Monday as he told me why not. I won't go into the side effects details I had Tuesday but I just don't know about this conclusion.
October was probably a false positive. I was asymptomatic.
I was told yesterday that personal experience doesn't equate to overall fact. Shared it anyway. Your decision what you do with it.
That is nonsense, of course it does. All personal medical decisions are based on an individual's health not on what the government is pushing them to do. Everyone needs to consult their doctor for any questions or concerns and decide what is best for them. No different than any other medical decision.
Sorry you have suffered through this. My daughter and 12 year old grandson caught it too and luckily it was only like a bad flu for them.
I have been thinking about this since I had it before they really knew what it was.
I got the shot as soon as I could in early March
I think I would still go for the immunization no matter what. You just might end up with a broader spectrum of immunity to variants that are constantly being generated.
Bottom line is.... it's going to take years of additional studies to get the details of this virus nuked out.
The title of the article is misleading, if not an outright lie. Cleveland Clinic NEVER said "no vaccine needed for those who've had Covid-19." Here is what the Cleveland Clinic actually said [emphasis mine]:
We recently shared research that provides insight into how the immune system protects the body after a confirmed COVID-19 infection. The study followed Cleveland Clinic caregivers over five months as the vaccination process was beginning. The data showed that the vaccine was extremely effective in preventing COVID-19 infection. In addition, we found that none of the previously infected employees who remained unvaccinated were re-infected over the duration of the study. This information could help guide vaccination efforts should there be a shortage of vaccine supply and in countries where vaccine supply is limited.
This is still a new virus, and more research is needed. It is important to keep in mind that this study was conducted in a population that was younger and healthier than the general population. In addition, we do not know how long the immune system will protect itself against re-infection after COVID-19. It is safe to receive the COVID-19 vaccine even if you have previously tested positive, and we recommend all those who are eligible receive it.
Here is the limitations associated with the Cleveland Clinic study:
The authors acknowledged an obvious limitation in their work. Because there was not a policy of asymptomatic employee screening, “previously infected subjects who remained asymptomatic might have been misclassified as previously uninfected. Given this limitation, one should be cautious about drawing conclusions about the protective effect of prior asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection." Also, 12% of the caregivers classified as previously infected did not have a symptom onset date recorded, suggesting that at least some who were classified as having been previously infected might have had asymptomatic infections. The authors said the five-month duration of the study was short, but that it was longer than the published mRNA vaccine efficacy studies to date. The study also did not include any children and few elderly subjects, and the majority of those studied would not have been immunosuppressed. It’s also not known how this study would hold up with newer variants.
It's fair to include the strengths of the study too:
The study also cited some of its strengths, including the large sample size and length. The follow-up of up to five months provided researchers with an “ample degree of confidence in its findings.” Researchers chose the employee cohort at the Clinic because of documentation of their COVID-19 vaccination. A hospital is a place any COVID-19 infection would be recorded.
"Given that was this a study among employees of a health system, and that the health system had policies and procedures in recognition of the critical importance of keeping track of the pandemic among its employees, we had an accurate accounting of who had COVID-19, when they were diagnosed with COVID-19, who received a COVID-19 vaccine, and when they received it," the authors wrote. The findings have important implications globally, the authors said. In countries where vaccine supply is limited, it would make the most sense to give the vaccine first to those who have not been infected.
That's all they ever post.
I've noticed.