Preliminary results from a study of available “preprint”, meaning it has not yet been reviewed, on “The need for vaccination against COVID-19 in previously infected individuals” were recently published. The first person who might think he would weigh is Senator Rand Paul (R-KY). The senator, a medical doctor who had previously been infected, spoke at length about the natural defenses of those previously infected.
This information releases millions of doses of vaccines for those who are not yet infected in vaccine-deficient places like India. Https://t.co/V5EOqZ1CPm
– Senator Rand Paul (@RandPaul) June 8, 2021
Thus, recovered patients with COVID-19 are likely to be better protected from the variants than people who have not been infected but have only been immunized with vaccines containing thorns. Https://t.co/FRCbFYKaBQ
– Senator Rand Paul (@RandPaul) June 8, 2021
Senator Paul is also discussing the study in media appearances.
ICYMI I joined @marthamaccallum at @FoxNews earlier to talk about immunity to COVID-19. https://t.co/y9xxhzqr96
– Senator Rand Paul (@RandPaul) June 9, 2021
While Fox News presenter Martha McAllum introduced Senator Paul to History, she cited the study’s conclusion that “People with SARS-CoV-2 infection are unlikely to benefit from COVID-19 vaccination and vaccines may be safely a priority for those who have not been infected before. “
The senator suggested that the study had “significant public policy implications.” MacCallum asked about the study once again later in the segment, specifically guidelines that people previously infected receive the vaccine, even if they have natural protection.
“That’s the problem we have, “Senator Paul complained.”Nobody really wants to be an independent thinker on the subject, “who proposes a scenario for a 12-year-old child who has previously been infected to be vaccinated to go to school.”You think, “Should it really be okay?” And then they send you a report, well there are some myocarditis, heart inflammation that you can get from being vaccinated with children, but you just have to go ahead and take it and you’re like, “Well, do you really must to take it? Can’t we look at some science? “
This is, in fact, what the senator called “his biggest objection to Fauci. Paul went on to say that Fauci was.”all over TV complains wyou do not obey science. He is ignoring science. “
Senator Paul then talked about the “science” that has been around for a long time. Immunity is good from a natural infection, the vaccine probably won’t hurt you. but the thing is, we have to treat ourselves seriously, because that’s how we got there to herd immunity. We have herd immunity in our country due to a combination of vaccines and at at least 100 million people that got the disease naturally. “
During the segment, the senator too he was talking about India, which is seeing an increase in cases. He suggested India as an example of where “they i can’t handle the search so they do not have enough vaccines. “Senator Paul noted that ‘prioritizing the vaccine’ for people who have not met could mean ‘are in[ing] probably hundreds thousands of lives in India right now today. “
In addition to emphasizing the need to prioritize vaccines, Paul cites the foreign country as an example of how far Fauci’s bad advice has gone when it comes to this “universal size” where people don’t want to think about it anymore. “But c don’t think about it, people they will die because they are not prioritization of the vaccine, “the senator warned.
This has affected Americans and vaccine supplies here as well, according to Paul. “Inevitably, lives were lost in our country, because there there was some delay in receiving it. Not much for luck. But tthere was some delay here these are the right people because we vaccinated people who have already had the disease and studies show that this is not the case necessary if you need to be vaccinated if you have the disease especially at low risk category. ”
Senator Paul is not the only one to speak about the importance of prioritizing the vaccine.
Dr. Sanchari Sinha Duta, who wrote an analysis for Medical News on the study, stressed throughout the piece that prioritizing is the name of the game.
As its “Significance of the Study” states:
The shortage of vaccines, combined with the knowledge that vaccines do not provide additional protection for those who have already been infected, is the strongest argument for limiting the use of vaccines for those who have not had the infection.
In addition to occupation, age, and comorbidities, previous infection should be an important consideration in deciding who should be given priority to receive the vaccine.
A practical and useful message would be to consider that symptomatic COVID-19 is as good as receiving a vaccine, and that people who have received COVID-19, confirmed by a reliable laboratory test, do not need the vaccine.
In contrast, individuals without prior SARS-CoV-2 infection may receive maximum benefits from vaccination. Thus, based on the results of the study, COVID-19 vaccines should be prioritized in untreated individuals with no history of SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Some excerpts from the “Important Observations” section read:
The analysis of the cumulative frequency of COVID-19 revealed that during the study, SARS-CoV-2 infection occurred almost exclusively in participants who had not previously been infected or vaccinated.
Importantly, no incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection was observed in previously infected participants with or without vaccination.
Further statistical analysis showed that vaccination against COVID-19 significantly reduced the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in previously uninfected participants but not in previously infected participants.
Although the study did not directly assess the duration of protection against natural infection, it was observed that previously infected participants remained protected against COVID-19 for at least 10 months after the onset of symptoms or a positive test result.
Dr Dutta also noted that “the most vulnerable population should be given priority for vaccination” when he mentioned “fair access to vaccines worldwide” and as a “question[ting] the maximum benefits of the vaccine. “