On October 29th, 2021, the CDC released a study through which it was proclaimed that fully vaccinated persons enjoyed 5.49 times greater protection from Covid than persons who enjoyed natural immunity due to recovery from a previous Covid infection. The study concluded that “all eligible persons should be vaccinated against COVID-19 as soon as possible, including unvaccinated persons previously infected with SARS-CoV-2.” However, if we dissect and analyze the elements of the study upon which this claim of increased protection for fully vaccinated persons is based, we find glaring discrepancies between the bold claims made by the CDC and the actual findings represented in the CDC data.
Parameters of the CDC study
The goal of the study was to determine who enjoys greater protection against Covid, persons who were fully vaccinated, or persons who were previously infected with Covid then recovered (natural immunity). To implement the study, hospitalized patients with “Covid-like symptoms” were studied in 187 hospitals across nine states between January 1st through September 2nd, 2021. A total of 201,269 hospital patients were identified in this time period to have had Covid-like symptoms. Using a series of factors and criteria, this patient group of 201,269 patients was narrowed down to a pool of 7,348 patients.
Study results
According to CDC data related to this study, of these 7,348 hospitalized patients, 6,328 had been fully vaccinated while 1020 had not been vaccinated but enjoyed natural immunity. Also, of these 7,348 patients, a total of 413 actually tested positive for Covid. Of these 413 patients who tested positive for Covid, 324 had been fully vaccinated while 89 were unvaccinated but enjoyed natural immunity.
Study results by age
The CDC also shared data breakdowns according to age. According to these breakdowns by age, of 7,348 hospitalized patients, 5,367 were over the age of 65. Of these 5,367 hospitalized patients over the age of 65, 4,903 of them were fully vaccinated while 464 were unvaccinated but enjoyed natural immunity. Also, of these 5,367 hospitalized patients over the age of 65, 293 tested positive for Covid. Of these 293 patients who tested positive for Covid, 253 were fully vaccinated while 40 were unvaccinated but enjoyed natural immunity.
Study results with time restriction removed
The CDC provided another important data break down. In determining that fully vaccinated persons enjoyed 5.49 times greater protection from Covid than their unvaccinated counterparts who enjoyed natural immunity, the CDC applied a time restriction. This part of the analysis only included patients whose full vaccination or previous infection had occurred 90-179 days earlier. When we remove this time restriction we are left with an interesting result.
When the 90-179 day time restriction is removed, the original pool of 7,348 patients is expanded to 20,482 patients. Of these 20,482 hospitalized patients, 18,397 were fully vaccinated while 2,085 were unvaccinated but enjoyed natural immunity. Also, of these 20,482 hospitalized patients, 672 of them tested positive for Covid. Of these 672 patients who tested positive for Covid, 542 were fully vaccinated while 130 were unvaccinated but enjoyed natural immunity.
Removing the 90-179 day time restriction is an interesting and useful exercise because viruses are organisms that do not follow calendars or stringent time constraints. Assessing the data in a way that is free of time restrictions may allow us to predict and gauge how a virus or pathogen may behave or mutate in the real world, far removed from laboratories, spread sheets, data charts, or tightly controlled clinical settings.
Study results based on Delta Variant Predominance
The next item illustrates more succinctly than any other the astonishing contrast between the CDC’s bold claims regarding vaccine protection and the actual study results. A grave concern throughout the course of the Covid pandemic has been the emergence of “variants”. A viral variant is a mutated form of an original virus that has genetically evolved in order to escape or evade functions of immunity on the part of a host. Through 2021, public health officials grew increasingly concerned about what came to be known as the “Delta variant”. As part of their study, the CDC provided a breakdown based on time frames aligned with “Delta variant predominance”.
According to this breakdown based on Delta variant predominance, of 7,348 hospitalized patients, 5,402 patients were hospitalized between June through September of 2021 (the time frame aligned with Delta variant predominance). Of the 5,402 patients hospitalized during “Delta variant predominance”, 5,213 were fully vaccinated while 189 were unvaccinated but enjoyed natural immunity. Of the total of 325 patients who tested positive for Covid during Delta variant predominance, 306 were fully vaccinated while only 19 were unvaccinated but enjoyed natural immunity.
Why did CDC claims contradict what the actual data indicated?
In all of these different breakdowns it is evident that fully vaccinated patients were hospitalized and infected at higher rates than their unvaccinated counterparts who enjoyed natural immunity. But if this is the case, how did the CDC determine that fully vaccinated patients enjoy 5.49 times greater protection from Covid than their unvaccinated counterparts who enjoyed natural immunity.? I am not sure. But I suspect it has a lot to do with terms such as “adjusted odds ratio”, “confidence interval”, standardized mean”, “proportion difference”, and “sociodemographic characteristics”. Or maybe they got their hands on the 1950s classic How To Lie With Statistics…
In reviewing all of these various CDC charts and statistics, it is obvious that there was a concerted effort on the part of both the CDC and multiple media outlets to report the finding that fully vaccinated persons enjoyed more robust protection from Covid than their unvaccinated counterparts who enjoyed natural immunity even though such a finding was not and is not based in reality, fact, or truth.
In the lengthy text of the study itself it was acknowledged that there were many limitations in terms of how the study was designed and conducted. One key concern was to do with “generalizability” (whether study findings could be applied to the general population). When the CDC and media outlets boldly proclaimed how full vaccination offered 5.49 times greater protection than natural immunity, they failed to mention any of the concerns or limitations pointed out in the study.
The data indicate that natural immunity is more protective than vaccination
All through this CDC study, and particularly when time restrictions are removed and when time frames are adjusted to align with Delta variant predominance, it is clearly shown that patients with natural immunity enjoyed much more robust, durable, and long-lasting protection from Covid than their fully vaccinated counterparts. In delving into the nuances of this published report, it is evident that the CDC knowingly reported results in a manipulative manner in order to serve some ulterior motive or agenda.
Concluding thought
In conclusion, Covid-19 has caused devastating loss of life and has hindered the normal functioning of society in ways that are incalculable. Any attempt to devote resources or to conduct studies for the purpose of more fully understanding how vaccines work and how effective they might be in protecting vulnerable populations should be welcomed and applauded. However, the claims made by the CDC as a result of this study that fully vaccinated patients enjoyed 5.49 times greater protection than their unvaccinated counterparts who enjoyed natural immunity was blatantly and categorically absurd, disingenuous, unethical, dishonest, and contrary to the public good.