In a report published by the CDC on January 28, he goes to show that the natural infection had a good protection against the brand-new coronavirus. In fact, this seems to be the first time that the CDC has published a relatively positive make report on the effect of natural infection. So can you ask Dr. Lin to analyze what kind of good bulletin the results of the report bring us? Well, the CDC still has a little bit of this in this regard. There is no special emphasis on this, whether it is the director of the CDC or some relevant public health officials, I think there are some reservations in presenting the information collected, but in fact, I repute the information presented in this data is very important. Strongly, let’s take a look at this. The CDC made a statistical similarity of the data from California and New York from May to November 2021. So this is before the Omicron variant materialized. It chiefly analyzed the Delta variant after it materialized and At this stage when the U.S. became the most dominant variant, the data of these two states in almost half a year, then he found that first of all, he will give you a simple and irrefutable outcome, which meant that if you have a natural infection before , no matter what If “youre ever” vaccinated or not, before Delta looms, it means that you have natural infection, and your infection frequency can still be relatively high, but when Delta seems, your natural infection charge is relatively low and the hospitalization rate is relatively low, but If “youre ever” injected and have not yet been natural infection, then your infection rate can be relatively low before Delta, and then after Delta shows, the illnes proportion is higher, which means that although you have been injected, you have no natural infection.Your infection frequency is actually on the high side in front of Delta. On the whole, this is indeed a very important data. If we look at this situation, we are able to further get some more intuitive feelings. This photo is The data from the CDC has been adjusted a little, because his data is relatively convoluted because he use the unvaccinated person who did not have the natural infection as a comment, and then he went to fight against the vaccinated and uninfected person. Those who have been inoculated, fouled, etc. are compared, so he uses the uninfected and unvaccinated parties as the numerator and then removes the other cases as the denominator for comparison, so this is a bit reversed. This portrait is that we reverse it. It is for reference. That is to say, people who have not been naturally fouled and had still not been inoculated are used as the denominator to equate, so this is an inverse comparison, but it may be easier for everyone to understand when it is presented, so here you can see the blue line. The green course is natural infection and inoculated, so the light-green text is natural infection and unvaccinated, so the infection peril rate of the two is actually very close.That is to say, I have had a natural illnes before, whether I can get vaccinated or not. In fact, my risk of being infected by the risk of being infected by Delta is almost the same, and the swerve is basically the same for the whole half year, so this In fact, it is very, very illustrative, so it does not mean that, for example, my data for a certain month is particularly consistent, it is for the entire half-year period. In September and October last year, it was already in line with the needs of the government to promote the mandatory vaccine order, but in fact, it is reasonable to say that the CDC should collect this information from the states faster. I think there should be a according response even in September and October. This data comes out because you don’t need to wait for half a year, you should understand the signs of this thing after 3 months, so the orange in this picture is not naturally infected and has been vaccinated. In fact, it meant that if “youre ever” vaccinated, it will have a certain protective effect, but your illnes peril rate is actually higher than that of people with natural illnes, right, so the orange path is better than the dark-green course and the blue line. Of trend, there are not too many increases, so the data on the Y-axis is basically the mutate between 6% and 12% to 14%. It is not too big, but it is obvious that there is still natural illnes. The defence pace is a very critical factor.To a certain extent, vaccination is not as good as the protection brought by natural illnes. From the mechanism of the virus and immunology, reports should also understand that it is because you After a natural infection, you are sensitive to many proteins of the virus, whether it is a structural protein or a non-structural protein, etc. You may have a memory for epidemic avoidance, right? You will organize a correspond recall B cell in this mechanism of epidemic avoidance. T cells, etc ., then it is helpful to prevent re-infection, and the vaccine is only against this S protein.Of course, its protective power is equivalent to unilaterally targeting a certain virus protein, like saying that this virus There are many artilleries, so after you get this inoculation, you simply develop your special shield for one artillery, but you do n’t have this protection ability for other viruses, so I think it should be said from this moment. The mechanism is relatively easy to understand. It means that if there is a natural illnes, it will have a little or a thorough protection for the human body. The big difference here is that it may depend on, for example, the remembering brought by the vaccine.How long does it last for B cells and T cells? Then after beings are naturally polluted, how long will these storage BT cells last? How long does it have a protective outcome, so in general, it was better involves the issue of immune potential, then I contemplate This is another way of looking at this issue, but in general I feel the CDC is The data came out late, but anyway, after it comes out now, I think there are still less reports on this aspect in the media. From this relatively positive position, it is still too much to look at the protective superpower brought by natural illnes. Without even the final conclusions and discussions in the CDC’s own report, I think it’s still emphasizing the role of inoculations, but about the natural infection, I don’t think it’s included in his epitome. I think it’s a pity that this is shown in the abstract, and then the data is further equated, that is to say, the hospitalization proportion is, of course, very important to everyone, because everyone knows that they are emphasizing that they are fighting. After the inoculation, he has a relatively self-evident protective gist on the hospitalization rate, the severe frequency and the mortality rate, right? Everyone knows that later, everyone no longer emphasizes that vaccination can prevent infection and prevent transmission, so the emphasis is that after vaccination, it can be reduced. The severe frequency and mortality rate, but in fact, it can be seen from this report that it is the risk fraction of hospitalization. In fact, if you have natural illnes, whether you are injected or not, it is still lower, and it will be lower than without natural infection. Illness that have only been inoculated are even lower. Although the difference is not that big-hearted, it is still lower. Or you are in a position to even say that it is relatively close. From this perspective, it means that after you have been inoculated, the hospitalization rate is affected. In fact, “were not receiving” obvious difference between this protection and this natural infection, so I think this is just to raise a question again, that is, this inoculation commission actually has its unfair neighbourhood, especially for those who have already If you have natural illnes, you dont need to force other people to go, just get inoculated again.Here, particularly in the United State, Britain, and countless western countries are faced with this. That is to say, this vaccine injunction bring along countless medical staff to resign, so because numerous medical organization Of trend, from his professional point of view, he notes the fact that I have a natural infection and I don’t need to take this inoculation, and some people will feel these long-term side effects of this inoculation from the perspective of their own professional knowledge. There are too few of them, so there are concerns in this regard, etc. So countless medical staff are indeed countless medical faculty. He does not want to take this vaccine, so some people will even think about it or even resign, etc. So this actually brings the medical care The deficit of personnel is come about by this policy.I can say that it is a serious side effect of their own policies. So I think this is actually a matter of being very, very careful when formulating a plan, because you may formulate a programme based on the one-sidedness you get in the short term. The decision made by the data and you turn it into a obligatory prescribe to implement the whole society, the risk that this actually accompanies is a multi-faceted social aftermath, the pros and cons. It is likewise multi-faceted and sometimes long-term, right? If beings give up their well-paid activities because of this inoculation, then this may have a great impact on the livelihood of the whole family, so I think this is as a Policy manufacturers must be very, very cautious. Thank you Dr. Lin for your analysis. I conclude the CDC report has actually created some aid to these people who have been naturally infected. At the same time, we likewise hope that this report from the CDC It can be provided to the governments of various countries, and then these the officers who constitute policies can reconsider the fact that natural infectivity actually frisks a potent capacity in the immunity of their own bodies. I also mentioned this policy maker, then in fact, from the perspective of the entire medical industry, what you are involved in is the issue of medical ethics, that is, how do you present your report when you write their respective reports? Then how your statistical data presents these aspects should be based on the principles of medical morals, and the media reports should also follow this neutrality, that is, you cannot deliberately stifles certain aspects of information. Just like you mentioned at the beginning of the program about This research report on ivermectin, then this report is from Brazil, but how many beings in this mainstream media will pick up in this European and American mainstream media, that is, they will notice this news or actively report this news, right? This ivermectin is currently not recommended by the CDC and the FDA, but in fact, there are quite a number of front-line physicians, family doctor, etc.In the United Nation who are recommending the use of this ivermectin. In fact, this aspect involves our overall It’s not just government agencies, authority health organizations, but too beings in the medical industry. Whether you can still abide by this medical ethics in the face of a big epidemic is objective, right? We are not about what the pharmaceutical fellowship misses, but what we want Think about how it is beneficial for cases, how to treat cases in a timely and effective manner, and at the same time not be dominated by the interests of this commercial company or misled by some government policies, so I think there are all It is related to the issue of medical ethics.Thank you Dr. Lin for his mentions, because in fact, this program is also hoped to bring the general public, extremely the general public, to pay attention to their own health. Especially in the epidemic, we will try our best to provide more More terminated and more specific, there are more complete data and faster story to bring you. At the same time, I also are reminded not to forget that our health is our own business.We will continue to discuss with Dr. Lin because the Lancet has an article The commodity also addresses the issue of the transmission of Omicron variants in the perfectly injected person. What are the characteristics of Omicron’s transmission? Should we worry about it? This part is good, then let’s take a look at the corresponding data. If it’s good, this is actually further sign. What we just mentioned is whether you will be vaccinated or not After the illnes, the issue of how to the transfer power is. Actually, I think this result is quite intuitive. It is likewise true-blue that the media does not pay special attention to this. This is actually a question of comparing the amount of the virus because everyone knows that it means you. After infection , no matter whether “youve had” indications or not, the quantities of virus in your body, specially the amount of virus on the surface of your respiratory tract, specifies how strong your communication is, right? Will you readily pollute others? When the quantities of virus in the respiratory tract is relatively high, you can easily bring the virus out during the process of talking and coughing, right? The amount of virus is quite indicative of the problem, so the CT value is used to detect the amount of virus.A commonly used indicator of this nucleic acid test, the highest the CT value, the less the virus. It is these relationships. Then you can see this picture, which means that the two sits on the right are compared. The comparing between indications and asymptomatic means that you have been completely injected and not inoculated. If you have indications, you will find that the average difference between the two is not too big.The divergence is not too big. The range of change The divergence is not too big. If you are asymptomatic, it is similar whether you have been inoculated or not. Overall, the quantities of virus will be lower than that of symptomatic people, but there is no difference in this population without this vaccine. So On the whole, it meant that whether you have symptoms or not, whether you are fully injected or not injected, the average amount of virus in your form is not much different from this range of change, so this is very clear. It’s not like countless media exaggerate that the current epidemic is completely caused by people who are not injected, so the spread caused by people who have not been injected, I meditate just such a report can actually be basically Let do some proof for this thing. I imagine numerous media have played a very bad role in these aspects, including some government officials who are exaggerating that this epidemic is caused by people who have not been vaccinated.I dont think this is wrong. To is equitable, it is still necessary to speak objectively based on data. Thank you Dr. Lin for this remark, because many friends do have such thoughts. I hope to be able to be able to digest each other during this process, especially during the epidemic.
