> some participants routinely swabbed themselves for SARS-CoV-2 testing, even if they weren’t showing symptoms. Differences in infection rates between people who received the placebo and those who got the Oxford vaccine suggest the vaccine blocks transmission, says Ewer. (The Pfizer and Moderna trials tested only people who showed symptoms.)
Unless you've got an academic study with a clinical trial of two sets of populations one with natural antibodies, one with vaccination, and perhaps a third without it, you don't know and NYT doesn't know. The vaccine was rushed, showed maybe a 90% efficacy. There's not evidence of widespread Covid relapses after natural immunity is achieved. There's also literally no long term data on this vaccine, because it's brand new.
Why is a correctly summarized answer, from a link to the CDC that directly states and answers the grandparents question, with source, being downvoted so heavily? Is there something I’m missing?
Maybe because this forum, as any other forum with significant impact, is influenced by third parties with commerical or political agendas through "bots" or cheap click workers.
Exactly.
"BREAKING—95%—new data from Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine shows 95% efficacy & is “100% effective” in preventing severe
Hospital illness, says AZ CEO. That’s on par w/ Moderna & Pfizer. No official data yet, but UK said to likely approve in days." https://twitter.com/DrEricDing/status/1343047055078551554?s=...
