Reinfection protection vs vaccine protection.

Share on facebook
Share on whatsapp
Share on twitter
Share on email

Professors at internationally respected institutions mislead on vaccines versus reinfection protection.

I was scheduled for a vaccination on Tuesday, 10 August. For someone my age, 31, in this country that took some initiative. I was vaccine keen. On 9 August, however, I tested positive for Covid-19, ruining my vaccine plans and the next ten days.

Bedridden, my heart rate and blood oxygen slumped, I was prescribed steroids and much else, my family was worried, and I felt kaput. I was also frustrated, being one of the relatively few “youth” in this country with a job, that I could not perform my duties for so long. I was especially miffed to drop out in the middle of legal briefings on our ConCourt submission to Save The Vote.

Trying to cheer me up, a friend said, “at least you will have more protection than if you had just been vaccinated”.

I wasn’t sure if my friend was right (he’s a gardener without matric) so I asked Google. First up came a professorial mini-lecture called “Common myths about Covid – debunked” in the UK Guardian. This is the kind of piece that is supposed to teach me and my friend a lesson.

“Having had Covid does give you reasonable protection from being infected again” the Guardian concedes, “but it’s not as good as the protection you get from being vaccinated”. Ok, should the journalist and the gardener just stick to digging up dirt?

The Guardian piece is written by Christina Pagel, (PhD, MA, double MSc) director of the Clinical Operational Research Unit at University College London (UCL). Her Wikipedia bio explains that Pagel’s father was a Reuters senior manager, that she is the “first female” clinical research director at UCL, and that she has appeared as a Covid-authority on BBC News Night, Sky, ITV, and Channel 4.

Join our
Mailing List

* indicates required
/ ( mm / dd )