参与研究的265K没打疫苗自然感染过一次的人里一共只有1304个人再次被感染，这些人里没有重症。当然了肯定有人会说先得保证第一次感染能活下来，第一次感染的存活率/非重症率是多少？99.7% for all ages and 99.9% for 50 below，这篇文章也提供了参与他们的研究的人第一次感染的重症/死亡率用于比较，值也很低。如果你有基础病另说，我这里讲的是身体健康的人。 “Reinfections had 90% lower odds of resulting in hospitalization or death than primary infections. Four reinfections were severe enough to lead to acute care hospitalization. None led to hospitalization in an ICU, and none ended in death. Reinfections were rare and were generally mild, perhaps because of the primed immune system after primary infection.” “Primary infection was defined as the first PCR-positive swab. Reinfection was defined as the first PCR-positive swab obtained at least 90 days after the primary infection（不看是否是变种说明是不是变种没关系）. Persons with reinfection were matched to those with primary infection in a 1:5 ratio according to sex, 5-year age group, nationality, and calendar week of the PCR test date (Fig. S1 and Table S1 in the Supplementary Appendix). Classification of severe, critical, and fatal Covid-19 followed World Health Organization guidelines, and assessments were made by trained medical personnel through individual chart reviews.” https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2108120
“Reinfections had 90% lower odds of resulting in hospitalization or death than primary infections. Four reinfections were severe enough to lead to acute care hospitalization. None led to hospitalization in an ICU, and none ended in death. Reinfections were rare and were generally mild, perhaps because of the primed immune system after primary infection.”
“Primary infection was defined as the first PCR-positive swab. Reinfection was defined as the first PCR-positive swab obtained at least 90 days after the primary infection（不看是否是变种说明是不是变种没关系）. Persons with reinfection were matched to those with primary infection in a 1:5 ratio according to sex, 5-year age group, nationality, and calendar week of the PCR test date (Fig. S1 and Table S1 in the Supplementary Appendix). Classification of severe, critical, and fatal Covid-19 followed World Health Organization guidelines, and assessments were made by trained medical personnel through individual chart reviews.”
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2108120
这篇文章里 reinfection的group里，median age 是32岁，50岁以上群体占比5%。
1300人里即使50岁以上只有5%那也65人了，也没一个重症，更何况265K里只有这1300个人再次感染，没有再次感染的那么多人里边50岁以上的有多少？
4个重症啊，只是没有死亡。而且这篇文章的数据分析做的非常的crappy。
高风险组纳入样本不够。 Reinfection选择的时间段是 今年2月到4月。但如果你去看下Qatar的统计数据，你就发现，Qatar 全时段疫情最低峰就在 这个时间段。 两次感染是用的大于90天间隔。这个时间段太短。 一系列研究显示，康复者血液里IgG抗体在 4-6个星期内升高到平台期，显著下降都是半年后的事情了。
Acute care hospitalization 不是ICU，这个也算重症？就算是，26万人里只有4个“重症”，这个比例很高？
我说过了，这篇文章就是针对健康人群的，为啥要纳入高风险人群？高风险人群占所有人口的多少？要是有人感兴趣，可以再专门针对高风险人群做研究啊。参与辉瑞疫苗的实验的也没几个是高风险的尤其是小孩子但是疫苗照样给高危人群使用，你咋不质疑？
人家说的是至少90天。疫苗所谓的有效期能撑多久？6个月有吗？
对，人家数据做得垃圾还能发在top journal 看来这journal 也是够垃圾的了，review 这篇文章的所有peers也很垃圾。你做数据肯定很厉害，请问你发了几篇关于这病毒的文章在top journal ？还是说你觉得这些top journal 很垃圾都不屑去上边发表文章？
第一，90天不够自然产生的抗体衰减的。以90天作为时限，根本就是设计师的失误，或者说赶时间。 第二，疫苗产生的抗体比自然免疫产生的抗体要多得多。 第三，NEJM 是很牛的期刊，但这篇文章之所以能发表到 NEJM上，是因为热点话题+第一手材料。除此之外，这篇文章的统计学数据分析水准 就是一个美国生统硕士入门的水平。看过你发的这些帖子，一看既不是搞这行的，大概不知道医学领域 影响因子最高，也是最虚高的就是各种统计年鉴，尤其是癌症的。
听起来你是搞这行的而且特别牛所以在这儿说人家专门搞这行的这不行那不行。那么我还是那个问题，请问你发了几篇关于新冠或者新冠疫苗的文章在这样的top journal 上啊？或者你帮top journal peer review 过几篇这种文章啊？可以给大家看看吗？如果你啥都没有也不是干这行的那你跟我有啥区别？呵呵。
还有，你以为生物啊病毒啊这种领域写科研文章的博士们的统计水平也是博士级别？这些人拿的博士都不是统计学博士好吧，绝大部分自然科学医学博士的统计学水平也就是硕士水平，所以你要挑这个的话没几篇文章能合格的。
疫苗产生的抗体比自然免疫产生的抗体要多得多，请给出出处。而且疫苗副作用也可能很大，你觉得值得冒险去打疫苗那你就去打，每天打10针都没人管你，我不觉得值得我就不去打，希望不要强制。
至于90天，现在英国都开始说你疫苗打了90天就可以打第三针了，why? 说明疫苗的效果很有可能撑不过90天，这篇文章用90天作为临界点有啥不可？
https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/29/uk/uk-booster-vaccine-expansion-omicron-gbr-intl/index.html