The New York Times Concedes Natural Immunity Lasts for Years, Maybe Forever

Based on a new report by the New York Times, it appears very likely the national media is ready to concede what scientists have known for a long time. People who have been naturally infected with coronavirus have natural immunity that will likely last for years, and maybe forever.

“After infection, most people who have recovered still have enough immune cells to fend off the virus and prevent illness, the new data show. A slow rate of decline in the short term suggests, happily, that these cells may persist in the body for a very, very long time to come,” the New York Times reports.

It is strange however that the New York Times and many other outlets are just now announcing this in unison, while referring to two studies, defining them as “new data.”

It is anything but new.

Not only have studies suggested that this was the case going back to last year, but it has been well-known by scientists that our bodies have lasting immunity after infection because that is exactly what herd immunity is. Additionally, the Times previously reported on this exact topic back in November.

It is extremely odd though that the newer version of the New York Times article claims that “Immunity to the coronavirus lasts at least a year, possibly a lifetime, improving over time especially after vaccination,” while the main study their article references says nothing about vaccination and focuses exclusively on natural infection in the abstract. The older version of the article does not contain this manner of references to vaccination at all.

For most viruses it is generally the scientific consensus that natural infection provides a better and more robust immunity than vaccines are able to. One of the only viruses where we know definitively this is not the case, is the Human papillomavirus infection or HPV.

For example, a recent SIREN study conducted in the UK at the Public Health England (PHE) involving over 20,000 healthcare professionals has discovered that immunity derived by natural COVID-19 infection is stronger and more effective at warding off the novel coronavirus than the vaccine developed by Oxford-AstraZeneca. 

A U.S.-based vaccine company, MERK, also announced on Jan. 25th that they will stop developing vaccines for the coronavirus since natural infections are better than vaccines in producing results leading to herd immunity.

The Great Barrington Declaration – a statement authored by three highly qualified epidemiologists from the universities of Harvard, Oxford, and Stanford – also declared similar findings while calling for an end to the widespread lockdown policies.

“(A)s immunity builds in the population, the risk of infection to all – including the vulnerable – falls.” the authors wrote.

“Our goal should therefore be to minimize mortality and social harm until we reach herd immunity,” they added.

Some scientists even suggest that people who have been naturally infected already, should completely avoid any possible future plans for vaccination altogether.

According to all available data, the virus itself has an infection fatality rate that is either equivalent to, or far less than the influenza for most age groups.

The Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) is the total number of deaths divided by the total number of people that carry the infection, regardless of them having clinical symptoms or not. The IFR is the chance of death once you have the virus.

Table 3 of the CDC’s data on deaths between February 2 and August 22, shows that only 6 percent of the 161,392 reported COVID deaths were listed as COVID-19 alone. All other U.S. deaths had on average, 2.6 additional medical conditions including influenza and cardiac arrest. Other conditions included sepsis, diabetes, renal failure, and Alzheimer’s disease.

The question then becomes, if you have a less than 1% chance of dying from COVID-19, lasting and more robust immunity from natural infection, and an extremely low chance of having a serious reaction especially if you have high vitamin D, then why would you need to take the vaccine at all?

More salient, if the CDC’s own vaccine adverse event reporting system, VAERS, historically only reports 1% of actual adverse events, but yet shows hundreds of thousands already, why would anyone even consider vaccination to begin with?

Like this post?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Posts