One whole day? Oh no! Also, look into this:
COVID is not the Flu. Where as antibodies for that might be produced for over 90 years your body struggles to keep making antibodies to combat COVID after just 1 year.
Now sure in thousands of years with natural evolution you will eventually find people retain such antibodies longer. But that is not something any of us will experience.
Please stop with this argument. A tiny percentage of people get hospitalized, whether they are vaccinated, or not. I was diagnosed with it, many of my friends and family were as well. None of them were hospitalized. Most severe case was running a mild fever for a couple of days. Typical cold.
A lot of people have died or suffered long term complications from it, you were just
lucky.
If it affects you badly, you require hospitalisation. If you do not get the treatment at this stage you
will die. This was seen in India where they let it run rampant, the hospitals were overloaded and people were fighting over oxygen cylinders to try and keep their loved ones alive.
Flu mutates frequently. We've lived with it for at least a century by now. So what?
Flu is not COVID. COVID is something entirely new that has only recently started affecting humans at a large scale. It did not exist in any significant way inside the human population 100s of years ago.
There already were mutations of COVID (omicron) and they were milder than the initial strain.
Which again is due to people failing to follow recommended procedures such as wearing masks and getting vaccinated. If they had, most of the lockdown would never have happened as COVID would have died out.
Of course trying to get the entirety of the world to understand this had to happen was impossible. People are seemingly too stupid...
Natural human immunity is as, or more, powerful than vaccines:
If it works, yes. Too bad it does not work very well against COVID because it is not a regular flu. If your immune system did work well against COVID then COVID would not be an issue as it would have been a mild flu and if a vaccination was required a single dose would have given you near immunity for decades.
The whole problem with COVID is that the human immune system is not very efficient at combating it.
The article you linked is flawed in that in order to get "natural" immunity you need to have caught, and survived COVID. The entire point of the vaccines is to reduce the risk of hospitalisation and death for people who have
not yet caught COVID. By having the vaccines they are much more likely to do well after their first infection than relying on
no immunity at all to help them through. Only after the first infection can the body develop "natural immunity" and the article becomes relevant.
Natural immunity only lasts a few years at best.
Moreover, the source below suggests, that vaccine-given immunity also lasts a shorter amount of time than natural immunity (Higher risk of reinfection after a time). And the more doses a person received, the faster the immunity wanes.
Again in order for a person to get natural immunity they need to have
survived COVID to begin with. Surviving it after recently having a vaccine is better than without any vaccine and just relying on the roll of the dice that your immune system combat it effectively enough to not get too sick.
Interesting... This implies, that your natural immunity is compromised after vaccines.
That is not what the authors of the article said...
This finding should be interpreted with caution because of limitations of our study, which include the inability to adjust for the complex relationships among prior infection, vaccine eligibility, and underlying conditions. Importantly, by December 1, 2021, all persons aged 12 years and older were eligible for 2 or more vaccine doses free of charge, and 71.1% of the Icelandic population had been vaccinated,
5 compared with only 25.5% of our cohort of previously infected persons.
Sure within their data they noticed such statistical evidence, but not only was it small (small can be within margin of error) but they then admit the data set was flawed.
Miocarditis risk supposedly lower overall, but higher in young men after vaccine doses... Hmm
Again not really what the article says...
Overall, the risk of myocarditis is greater after SARS-CoV-2 infection than after COVID-19 vaccination and remains modest after sequential doses including a booster dose of BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine. However, the risk of myocarditis after vaccination is higher in younger men, particularly after a second dose of the mRNA-1273 vaccine.
In other words Pfizer vaccine largely reduces the chance of myocarditis compared with naturally getting COVID-19. However Moderna vaccine could give more males below the age of 40 myocarditis than COVID-19 does after their second does. Given that this paints one company as better than another I would not be surprised if there was underlying financial motivation...
In any case the statistics are quite limited and likely flawed similar to the other article, except the authors have not admitted it. Some papers say the risk shift for COVID starts at early as 25 and not 40.
As for the scope it is referring to an event that occurs in 0.007% of the population, of which 79% of those cases were directly
linked to COVID-19. It is also possible that of those 21% there were also COVID-19 factors that were not detected or recorded.
that are potentially more dangerous the than the disease itself.
Statistics say otherwise... Especially in people over the age of 25.
www.nationalreview.com
jamanetwork.com
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
academic.oup.com
