STUNNING - No Reinfection in Previously Infected (Harvard Preprint Study)

all this is dr mobien say yes welcome to one more show i hope you had a great weekend let's start our discussion today is a very interesting study a study from harvard medical college and university plus is a university from taiwan it is a combination of their teams that did the study in healthcare workers in massachusetts beautiful study what is interesting what is stunning for me to see in that is that the healthcare workers who were previously infected during the observation time of the study they did not develop any infection then they got vaccinated as well as i think there are mandates for that and they still did not have any infection not that vaccine was then needed to get the vex infection but they were continuing to be observed while other folks who were vaccinated were getting infected so that is a very very interesting thing so the authors say that we are proving or demonstrating a robustness of the naturally acquired immunity and again this does not mean that we should go out and start getting nationally acquired immunity because the infection itself can be deadly however those who have become infected and recovered this is a very important news and i still do not understand why our healthcare authorities do not take this into account that somebody who was previously infected and has recovered so let's start a discussion beautiful study let's look at it so here's the study all of these links are going to be in the description as well i have this pdf open here are the links and references this is drbin.com this is the study it is a pre-print continued continued effectiveness of 19 vaccination among urban healthcare workers during delta variant predominance so this is the study we'll discuss this this is their pdf i have the link to this as well then during this discussion you would see that they talk about person days or person can be person years and others they have used person days so if you wanted to study more that what does it mean to say person days and how do we calculate that and how does it contribute you can read these articles over here generally the basic idea is imagine if there are 10 people who are part of some observation and they are they are being observed so they are contributing their time for being observed and there is some mechanism some objective that we want for example let's say we are looking for them to get infected so out of those 10 people every day that they are not infected but they are at risk for example they tend collectively have contributed 10 percent days another day another 10 percent days then imagine if one person becomes infected that person will be removed their total number of days they have contributed so far will be used but no no further because the objective for the studies observation met and then others would continue to provide the percentage of the data so then we would we would talk about it by saying this particular disease incidence or the rate of occurrence of that in a duration in a in a window of time was following in this many person days so that's what we're going to talk about but it's not a big deal just see that they look at the comparison of the incidence rate forget about the percentage itself okay so let's start with my illustrations so here is the painting i did over this weekend the painting's title is lion's mane and now let's continue with our discussion further this is gifts for humanity and here is the study this is the study pdf so if you see here occupational medicine cambridge health alliance harvard medical school cambridge department of environmental health harvard university t.h chan school of public health boston national then this is national chiang kong university hospital college of medicine national university team tainan taiwan so these are the here are the authors from these universities this is the discussion that we are going to have so i'm gonna show you this study through my illustrations so what we'll do is this first we'll go over the studies summary and then if you just wanted to hear the summary you can then stop there i would go over some of the details as well so here is the study's properties number one it is still a preprint so it's not a published peer-reviewed studies study i think it would pass so this is a preprint number two this study was done in two windows of times one window of time was from december 16 2020 till september 30th 2021 so a large window of time during this bigger window there were multiple variants remember there was uk variant and south african variant and then there was delta and so on then the authors also processed the data from july 1st till september 30th that was the time of predominance of delta variant so they kind of calculated data for both to see vaccine efficacy they were actually set out to figure out what is the vaccine efficacy over multiple months when we compare healthcare workers who were vaccinated versus unvaccinated in this whole discussion they actually or observation they actually also found out that those who were previously infected did not develop any infection that doesn't mean that nobody who is infected would never develop an infection but this is a very interesting observation of the robustness of the naturally acquired immunity okay continuing this study was done in massachusetts healthcare workers luffy is here luffy what happened wow wow 45 [Music] luffy is singing the songs of his people so 45 are non-white let me if you give me one second i'm gonna open the door for him okay so he came in the door and he closed the door okay back here so study was done in massachusetts healthcare worker were observed in this one this was a healthcare facility in which they did the study 45 percent were non-white which included african-americans hispanics and asians they were all healthcare workers the total number was 4615 and they all together from december 2020 to september 2021 they collectively contributed 1 million 152 486 risk-free person days not risk-free at risk person days so this is the number of person days that were observed so that is the quality of the study now results after these three slides of results the summary is done and and keep an eye on it the vaccinated versus unvaccinated is different look at the third slide which would have the previously infected as well so here the part a of the results this is the study duration all with all the whole window that is december to september what they saw was those care workers that were not vaccinated in them the incidence rate for incidence of covert 19 was 5.2 per 10 thousand percent days five point true per ten thousand percent days was the incidence in unvaccinated or 114 incidents or cases over 219 812 percent days generally just let's just summarize it this much 5.2 per 10 000 percent days that is sufficient to keep in mind we vaccinated individuals healthcare workers contributed or had 0.6 0.6 cases per 10 000 percentage so the incidence was really low compare this 5.2 versus 0.6 so very low so the first outcome or observation was that in vaccinated individuals the incidence was very low the efficacy because of this was 82.3 percent now keep in mind this is the whole duration of the of the study so that is december to september that includes multiple variants then what they did was they took the data for the time when delta was predominant and so they they processed the data from july 1st 2021 to september 30 2021. delta predominance and here what they found was 5.8 per 10 000 percent days was the incidence 5.8 cases per 10 000 percentage in unvaccinated healthcare workers 1.3 this is increased 1.3 per 10 000 percent days remember with all the variants it was 0.6 so more than doubled 1.3 for 10 000. so the vaccine efficacy was 76.5 and the confidence interval is 40.9 percent that is the lower range to 90.6 percent that is the upper range that 95 confidence of this this range so that is also very interesting but here is the big one this is the big one this is what actually made me take a pause and appreciate what they observed out of all the people 4 000 some 423 were previously infected and when the vaccine mandates were given they were healthcare workers so there was a vaccine mandate so these folks who were previously infected were then later on vaccinated as well so the researchers observed them before the vaccine and after the vaccine now please remember these are previously infected i got infected and i recovered and now they're observing me that am i going to have an infection or not so reinfection and then i got vaccinated as well and they are observing me still to see would i get infection or not so here is what what happened 423 people were observed from the 10th day of their infection covered recovery tenth day not not recovery from the infection tenth day from the infection and they had zero cases and seventy four thousand five hundred and fifty seven percent days were observed if you can see here i made this little rhona virus under his feet and then second part these folks then became vaccinated as well and so they continue to observe them after the vaccination two and look at this zero breakthrough cases zero breakthrough cases compared to other folks who were vaccinated and they had the breakthrough cases here zero breakthrough cases these are the folks who were previously infected then they were also vaccinated they didn't have cases before they didn't have cases after this was not the case in the in these two results here is vaccinated folks vaccinated only folks and they had breakthrough infections it is unvaccinated folks who got infected but here this is very interesting all right i'm going to continue now this is it that is a summary of the of this topic we are 15 minutes in it if you just wanted to finish here this is the summary we had done now i'm gonna go into some of the details of the of the the study number one the researchers were trying to figure out what drives infection rate is infection rate only controlled this was in their mind and i'm adding words to them is it is infection rate only controlled by let's say vaccine or not vaccine so they added a third variable how about previously infected does that affect the infection rate and they saw yes i would say mask yes or no social distancing yes or no hygiene yes or no kind of work environment yes and no exposure yes or no risk factors yes or no there are so many variables to be looked at to understand who will stay protected or not but they looked at three instead of two they said we wanted to see is there something more than just the vaccine that can change the infection rate and of course they found previously infected the second thing is they thought that the vaccine efficacy data in healthcare working settings was less available so they wanted to do a study to see what that data may look like and what their objective was they were going to observe healthcare workers until the healthcare workers either develop an infection or the study's duration is over normally there is a third exit point as well and that is if somebody dies or leaves or lost to to the follow-up anyways this is what they were trying to observe the vaccines that they observed were pfizer that had been given since december 16th of 2020 through the individuals in this study buddha now started on december 23rd so some of them got madonna yeah j j i should have said j and j instead of j and n since feb 2020. there was one person with the mixture as well he had johnson and johnson first one dose and then they got i believe modern now they said that we didn't have sufficient data size to calculate vaccine efficacy throughout this time for individual vaccines and compare them to the not vaccinated so this was a pooled vaccine result and they called a case that was pcr positive and was verified by the massachusetts health department or the appropriate agencies so that is one then as we saw before the number of healthcare workers were 4615 it age was 45 median age plus minus 13.3 years so 58 and and 32. 76 were females 45 were non-white in them 20 were african-american 13 so this 45 breakdown 13.5 percent were hispanic nine percent variations vaccine detail by the end of the study so of course when the study started december 2020 very few people were vaccinated and then as the study continued to go and then the mandate came in as well for healthcare worker more and more people got vaccinated so by the end of this study september 2021 95.7 percent of the individuals in the study were at least one doors vaccinated the vaccines breakdown was 58.3 percent had received moderna 39.4 pfizer 2.3 johnson johnson and 0.02 percent of one person had mixture of johnson and johnson in modern so this is the study this is the second part the detail is done as well so now i'm going to do the third part and that is just very quickly go over the document itself my takeaway previous infection is a robust factor in helping people having said that please my none of my discussions ever suggest anyone to go get infected that is it there is a deadly outcome possible and so don't look for the infection this is what they observed in the people who unknowingly became infected okay so here this is a study so i went over the first part so here this is the summary of it i would request you to read it of course i summarize in the illustrations but there is a large number of pages and text so the study period is here and then the incidences that we discussed they are there look at this independently we found no reinfection among those with prior covet 19 contributing to 74 557 reinfection free person days adding to the evidence base for the robustness of naturally acquired immunity this is one then if i go to their discussion and near the end of it you would see once again check this out when we examined healthcare workers number 423 with infections occurring before vaccination before so this is the folks who had the infection before the vaccination was done no reinfection was observed accumulating 74 557 re-infection-free person days starting 10 days after initial infection and censoring at the date of receiving the first vaccine dose so that is where they would stop and now they would consider them to be vaccinated further after vaccination previously infected healthcare workers did not contribute any breakthrough infection events among the vaccinated healthcare workers now i want to share one more thing one final comment and then we stop for today for this discussion i had the same comment i made with the kentucky study as well which made many people very angry with me and that the result of those angers are still i'm going through a lot of things but i want to make this comment here as well a person who gets infected in december develops antibodies would have their immune system ramped up for five six months so this this study goes from december till september so let's say december till may june is six months immune system is ramped up and because they were healthcare workers they had to get the vaccine as well somewhere in there they got the vaccine as well that means their immune system wrapped up again so it actually makes sense that these healthcare workers who were previously infected and then also got vaccinated they just kept having their immune system ready and running and because of that they were able to handle the reinfection better maybe they even actually got exposed but they didn't even know that their active immune system just took care of the infection or reinfection they didn't even know maybe they didn't because they didn't develop any symptoms they didn't get any pcrs i don't think that they were doing a pcr on weekly basis or monthly basis so that is an interesting observation now those folks who got vaccinated again the time window is still the same december till september is not a very large time window depending upon when somebody was vaccinated at least four five six months after that they would have proper antibodies ramped up immune system and they would be attacking the pathogen much better the folks who were not vaccinated at all they were just kind of exposed and open to it now i wanted to make sure that i clarify one more thing instead of saying unvaccinated or anti-vaxxers they are all different things and anti-vaxxer is used as dergatory term i started using the term vex sarskoff to naive for spike protein naive somebody made a very angry comment that you are calling us naive who did not get the vaccine and that itself is just a insult to us so that was not meant to be an insult actually that was out of respect that your immune system is not aware of the virus itself and that in technical terms is called let's say scope too naive any infection that you have never gotten your immune system is naive about that and it's actually a more respectful term than to say unvaccinated or anti-vaxxer so with this i'm going to stop here thank you very much for listening please do me a favor please like subscribe and share this is definitely a stunning study i wish this study is sent to folks in cdc and fda and other countries healthcare ministers as well or ministries as well so that they can figure out that hey there is a benefit in accepting the protection that people have after getting naturally after getting after acquiring immunity from the natural infection so with this thank you very much and do me a favor if you would like to support this work there are links in the description you can buy me a coffee you can use paypal to support it or you can become a patron as well so thank you very much and i would join again in a few minutes and we'll do some chit chat

Channel: Drbeen Medical Lectures

Views: 235,900

Keywords: drbeen, medicine, nursing, med school, microbiology, sars-cov-2, covid-19, coronavirus, usmle, mbbs, nclex, cytokines, Health (Industry), Medicine (Field of Study), Pathology (Medical Specialty), what is, nursing (field of study), Nursing school (organization), reinfection, vaccine, robust natural immunity, naturally acquired immunity

Id: SGNf1IjX6ck

Length: 25min 14sec (1514 seconds)

Published: Tue Nov 23 2021