Originally Posted by
slats11
Fear-mongering nonsense..
This VA study (like the VA long Covid study) is junk. An observational study looking for associations. That's it.
The group that got reinfected was way sicker at baseline.
Look at Supp table 1 and Supp table 6 (support data is where authors bury all the data they have to include, but know that the lay press will never read).
Way more lived in residential aged care (nursing homes) - 6.8 V 2.6%
More type 2 diabetes - 36% V 32%
More anxiety (23 v 15%) and depression (21 v 15%) - these are very significant comorbidities regarding propensity to report other symptoms)
During the FIRST infection, those patients who subsequently got reinfected were more likely to be admitted to hospital (18% V 9%), more likely to be admitted to ICU (5 V 2%), and more likely to receive antivirals & immunomodulators (17 V 12%) compared to those who didn't get reinfected. than those who didn't get infected.
The reinfected group also had a far poorer immunisation history than those who were not reinfected. Thus, 62% of those not reinfected had received no immunisations, while 87% of those reinfected had received no immunisations (this is historical data which is why these numbers are so low)
So those who got reinfected were sicker across a range of measures, had received fewer vaccinations. and their 1st infection was (not surprisingly) more severe than those who did not get reinfected.
This study only shows that frailer sicker non-immunised people do worse. That's it.
I haven’t read the paper in depth yet.
slats11, you seem to have read the paper in depth. Reference the published paper, can you tell us what defined being vaccinated ? For example, the minute somebody receives their first vaccine, are they considered as vaccinated ? …or might it be they are not considered vaccinated until say two weeks after they receive the vaccine ?
.