As reported here, a fact key to the above-mentioned lawsuit is strongly in favor of the plaintiff. A slice:
A new study has found that individuals that have previously contracted COVID-19 show a more potent antibody response than those who were solely vaccinated for the respiratory virus.
Conducted by a research team at Rockefeller University in New York, the analysis found “that between a first (prime) and second (booster) shot of either the Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna vaccine, the memory B cells of infection-naïve individuals produced antibodies that evolved increased neutralizing activity against SARS-CoV-2,” but also that “no additional increase in the potency or breadth of this activity was observed thereafter.”
Meanwhile, researchers determined that not only do recovered COVID-19 patients possess neutralizing antibodies up to a year after infection, but that such infection simultaneously assists in offering protection against developing variants.
And see also this tweet, from Martin Kulldorff.
Requiring the vaccine in people who are already immune with natural immunity has no scientific support. While vaccinating those people may be beneficial – and it’s a reasonable hypothesis that vaccination may bolster the longevity of their immunity – to argue dogmatically that they must get vaccinated has zero clinical outcome data to back it. As a matter of fact, we have data to the contrary: A Cleveland Clinic study found that vaccinating people with natural immunity did not add to their level of protection.
Additionally, mask orders have the effect of keeping the public in a state of emergency. As Stanford Professor of Medicine Dr. Jay Bhattacharya recently told FEE, there seems to be a reluctance on the part of many to admit the pandemic is all but over.
“We should be declaring a great and resounding success,” Bhattacharya told FEE’s Brad Polumbo. “The COVID emergency is over. We still need to take COVID seriously, and there are still vulnerable people here and abroad left to vaccinate. But we can start to treat it as one disease among many that afflict people rather than an all-consuming threat.”
Sarah Knapton reveals yet another instance of poorly understood statistics surrounding Covid.
Wall Street Journal columnist James Freeman senses impending doom. A slice:
Until the Supreme Court slaps down this latest assault on the property rights of landlords, Dr. Walensky’s order asserts that Americans who violate her directive [against evictions] may be subject to criminal penalties including up to a year in jail. Imprisoning people on such dubious grounds is bound to give Americans a sense of impending doom about due process. And for the record, the alleged emergency is a sham, and not just because daily Covid deaths are fortunately far below their levels of early January.
The American consumer is not in crisis. Someday the fiscal and monetary excesses of this era will be borne by America’s children. But for now, the vast government assistance programs have left U.S. households brimming with cash.
