in ,

Report: COVID Natural Immunity Offers Similar Level Of Protection As Jab

Videos by OutKick

Recovering from COVID provides a similar level of protection as two doses of either Pfizer-BioNTech or Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccines, official figures suggest.

An Office for National Statistics report published Monday found unvaccinated Britons who catch the Delta variant are around 71% less likely to test positive for a second time, Daily Mail reports.

The full report published by the Office for National Statistics can be read here.

It is estimated the risk of infection is slashed by approximately 67% in people given two doses of Pfizer or AstraZeneca’s jabs, according to the report.

The ONS report states there was ‘no evidence’ vaccines offered more immunity than catching COVID itself, despite a number of other studies showing the opposite. Daily Mail reports the findings are based on more than 8,000 positive tests across Britain between May and August, when the Delta variant became dominant.

Samples were collected from unvaccinated and fully vaccinated participants, some of whom had previously had the virus already.

Figure 5 shows the risk ratios for testing positive by vaccine exposure group during the Delta-dominant period, irrespective of vaccine type, according to the report.

The report found those who received two doses of either vaccine had reduced the risk of testing positive by between 64% to 70% during the Delta period.

The report states there was no evidence that the reduction in risk of infection from two vaccine doses differed from that of previous natural infection with a 71% risk reduction.

The full report published by the Office for National Statistics can be read here.

Figure 6 shows the risk ratios for testing positive by vaccine exposure group during the Delta-dominant period, split by vaccine type. The report, again, states there was no evidence that the reduction in risk of infection from two doses of either vaccine differed from that of previous natural infection.

The full report published by the Office for National Statistics can be read here.

The full report published by the Office for National Statistics can be read here.

Written by Meg Turner

Meg graduated from the University of Central Florida and writes and tweets about anything related to sports. She replies to comments she shouldn't reply to online and thinks the CFP Rankings are absolutely rigged. Follow her on Twitter at @Megnturner_ and Instagram at @Megnturner.

7 Comments

Leave a Reply
  1. Not remotely true over a period of time based on the number of hospitalizations. Number of cases don’t mean dog poo. They are unreliable and cannot tell the difference between the flu, Covid or a cold. You take this study and wipe your ass I’m with it. That’s the only use you will get out of it.

    • No kidding. The media barely mentioned that influenza cases MIRACULOUSLY went from 38 million cases in 2019-2020 to 2,000 (No, not a typo, two THOUSAND) between September 2020 and April 2021. That’s not statistically improbable, it’s statistically absurd. That should have been front page headlines for weeks showing obvious lying going on with covid numbers. That statistic alone should make everyone immediately stop trusting covid stats, but on we go thinking somehow the numbers can now be trusted if we stare at them long enough. It’s all hiding in plain view. Insane.

  2. This isn’t even close to accurate and anyone who’s analyzed ANY of the actual real-world data knows it. We need to stop being shills for big pharma who pay for, and produce, tiny, non-relevant and non-statistically significant studies where they control the variables and call them “science.”

    Any trust that EVER existed in the COVID shots should have gone out the window the minute it was realized that their own trails didn’t randomize testing to identify COVID. They based testing on “symptom display”… now, why would they do that/ These people are purposefully signing up for a trial – how hard would it be to coordinate that they test themselves 3 times a week to see if the virus is detected? Correct, very, very simple. But they didn’t, because that would have proven the shot doesn’t reduce viral load, doesn’t reduce replication, and doesn’t reduce transmission. What it does is mask symptoms over a limited window of time while the immune system is on overdrive… These shots are essentially a steroid targeting a very specific gene mutation, that, once cycled off of, actually reduces immune response to the virus.

    I’d say we’ll all learn eventually, but if the last 18 months have proven anything it’s that most people prefer ignorance and alarmism over awareness and practicality

  3. F big pharma. They care about profit only, period. They lie and withhold bad data all the time. And pay millions or billions in fines because of it. They don’t care because they make money hand over fist off of us.

Leave a Reply

to comment on this post. Not a VIP? Signup Here