Mentions
Extended reach
Total likes
Video views
AI synopsis
The overall discussions reflect a strong alignment with the article’s conclusions, supported by numerous references to studies from Portugal and other sources about immunity effects, such as '75% protection' and 'substantial protection.' The tone is data-driven and confident, emphasizing research evidence, which underscores the high interest and perceived importance of the findings in shaping our understanding of COVID-19 immunity dynamics.
Most comments strongly support the study’s findings on immunity and reinfection, emphasizing evidence from reliable sources like the NEJM, indicating broad consensus.
Discussions are highly relevant to current public health concerns, with many posts citing specific data and studies, demonstrating high engagement with the topic.
Numerous posts analyze the data, referencing figures and multiple research articles, reflecting active involvement beyond just passing mentions.
The emphasis on immunity, reinfection rates, and studies influencing public perceptions highlights high potential influence on understanding COVID-19's trajectory and policy implications.
We previously showed that BA.1/BA.2 infection in a highly vaccinated population (Portugal) provides substantial protection against subsequent omicron BA.5 infection: https://t.co/3hbTokMqGd Similar results reported in Denmark and Qatar. What about the waning of protection? 2/12
@JReinerMD But the reduction of infection in the masking districts was almost certainly caused by their immune responses to previous infections. We know that from many studies, including this one: https://t.co/cvWmgNSsNG
@JReinerMD https://t.co/cvWmgNRUY8
@maosbot People who have been previously infected and vaccinated are not likely to get long covid. Heck, they're not even likely to get covid. Vaccine + BA.1 or BA.2 is 75% protective against BA.4 or BA.5. https://t.co/cvWmgO9vPG
@narkosedoc https://t.co/c6QXKGCiyM
@tobiasmoehlen @narkosedoc
This study examines the likelihood of contracting the BA5 variant of COVID-19 in people previously infected with earlier virus versions, providing insights into immunity and informing public health strategies.
This video explores how previous SARS-CoV-2 infections affect susceptibility to the BA5 variant, with a focus on Portugal's experience. It provides insights into natural immunity, transmissibility of variants, and…
@TaliDavid88 @pelagicbird Ich ging davon aus, dass Sie sie kennen. https://t.co/m7k49hyyS0
@PetersonChris @Lord_grimz @atRachelGilmore Still thinking it's a political issue? No real data, real studies. In fact you were believing fake data from scientist with conflict of interest, and you still do. https://t.co/ryHe8pODth https://t.co/rx6MEMwsEO
@KateBatt1 @LibDemPatrick Wrong. There is a study from Portugal showing that people who had the Wuhan variant had more than 50% immunity against BA.5 more than 2 years later. https://t.co/kTjRJXSR0B https://t.co/xnN7mJkyDV
@IPizza666 @kevinnbass People do reinfect. But there is massive literature showing that prior infection reduces future infection. https://t.co/cvWmgNRUY8
@AltenbergLee @CollignonPeter Given that people who had the Wuhan strain still had around 50% immunity to BA.4/5, the effect of prior immunity is still relevant. https://t.co/kTjRJXSR0B
single test tweet https://t.co/Y3jZiH1SF8
@Rogthefluff @spindezine @friendlycovid19 https://t.co/cvWmgNSsNG
Risk of BA.5 Infection in Persons Exposed to Previous SARSCoV2 Variants: previous SARSCoV-2 infection had protective effect against BA.5 infection;protection was maximal for previous infection with BA.1 or BA.2. https://t.co/PZPIv9x4Fl
@WeeTimorous @0bj3ctivity @Marc_Veld He posted recently the following paper, which suggests that COVID-19 has long lasting hybrid immunity: https://t.co/L1gOOOZpD0
Malato's paper suggests that natural immunity can be quite long lasting https://t.co/lE79m10Uu4 https://t.co/YUG3uyGqJl
@EladSharonMD Protection from severe disease was extremely robust among survivors and even against symptomatic infection it did okay: https://t.co/3evqmQuXJw Infection should never be used as a public health strategy but immunity from SARS-CoV-2 isn't terrible
RT @BagaiDr: Risk of BA.5 Infection among Persons Exposed to Previous SARSCoV2 Variants: previous SARSCoV2 infection had protective effect…
Risk of BA.5 Infection among Persons Exposed to Previous SARSCoV2 Variants: previous SARSCoV2 infection had protective effect against BA.5 infection; this protection was maximal for previous infection with BA.1 or BA.2. https://t.co/PZPIv9x4Fl
@RichardWWard1 @afugate We no it works for a large majority of people. https://t.co/cvWmgNRUY8
@forlornfollower @PandoWhisperer @stonehenge2500 @friendlycovid19 We also have test survey data from entire nations, like Portugal, showing our massive immune responses. https://t.co/cvWmgNRUY8
@stonehenge2500 @friendlycovid19 Your anecdote is obviously not data. https://t.co/cvWmgNRUY8
Risk of BA.5 Infection among Persons Exposed to Previous SARS-CoV-2 Variants | NEJM https://t.co/ZgYH4xU40D
RT @lgraca: We previously showed that BA.1/BA.2 infection in a highly vaccinated population (Portugal) provides substantial protection agai…
Risk of BA.5 Infection among Persons Exposed to Previous SARS-CoV-2 Variants. SARSCoV2 infection had a protective effect against BA.5 infection, and this protection was maximal for previous infection with BA.1 or BA.2. https://t.co/PZPIv9x4Fl
We previously showed that BA.1/BA.2 infection in a highly vaccinated population (Portugal) provides substantial protection against subsequent omicron BA.5 infection: https://t.co/3hbTokMqGd Similar results reported in Denmark and Qatar. What about the waning of protection? 2/12
@SHEEPDOGSROCK @leaderpost https://t.co/cvWmgNRUY8
@lweisenthal @jannamoen https://t.co/cvWmgO9vPG
@FollowTheScien4 @i_petersen @JeromeAdamsMD Immunity dramatically reduces infection rates. https://t.co/cvWmgNRUY8
@carey123570 @Monxingla @biantaiguotiao 个体差异是客观存在的，不是特异事件。比如这篇论文https://t.co/8Wu53GEU1q 得过武汉毒株的对BA5感染都有50%的保护，得过BA1/2的差不多有80%。要是稍微变异一下人类免疫系统就都不认识了的假设，不会是这样的结果。保守点说，有比较强的cross immunity的人在人群里也并不是可以忽略的小一部分。
@PandoWhisperer @alexmeshkin https://t.co/cvWmgNRUY8
@BennyisHere_215 @PandoWhisperer @alexmeshkin The reduced rates of infection may be near 75%. https://t.co/cvWmgNRUY8
@mysteriousrona @Bigwigg221 @sandram94160756 @friendlycovid19 https://t.co/cvWmgNSsNG
@jershaw01 @NealR17998412 @friendlycovid19 https://t.co/cvWmgNSsNG
@Margarethelenm @dougjmcmillan @RubinReport https://t.co/cvWmgNSsNG
@sue_ecampbell @maosbot The whole comparison is nonsensical. The mechanisms are entirely different. It is in no way similar to airborne HIV. https://t.co/cvWmgO9vPG
@DaveAus23503512 @beantowndancer @JReinerMD https://t.co/cvWmgNSsNG I don't think your numbers are well out of context of what I'm arguing, it's just different interpretations of subjective terms. Covid isn't over, but it's not pandemic anymore. Immunity matters a lot.
@RealSteveCox @ohJuliatweets https://t.co/cvWmgNSsNG Look at figure 1b.
@RealSteveCox @ohJuliatweets https://t.co/cvWmgNRUY8
@JReinerMD https://t.co/cvWmgNRUY8
@JoshHalpern5 @maosbot We know it is true because >75% of people don't reinfect with later omicrons after an original omicron infection. https://t.co/cvWmgO9vPG
@greg_travis @glirarium There is strong evidence against similar or higher case rates. e.g., https://t.co/cvWmgNRUY8 infection rates reduced by 75% (but perhaps attenuated to 50%) render such an outcome quite unlikely.
@AlineAGomez @Aww_Schmidt @sammy4723 https://t.co/cvWmgNSsNG
@D4abrightfuture @LevineJonathan https://t.co/8Wu53GEU1q
@Matt_F_Resende @Pauloc_9 @ElderDias @FanuelArthur @reporterenato Um estudo do New England Journal of Medicine mostrou q quem foi infectado pela ômicron tem uma imunidade natural d 75,3% d eficácia. Essa eficácia é surpreendente melhor do q alguns imunizantes, já q eles possuem uma baixa eficácia contra a ômicron. Fonte: https://t.co/CwTuU18BdZ https://t.co/f2gwRfuw2f
@L1964 @timmaguire42 @JReinerMD https://t.co/cvWmgNRUY8
@brigitte_d @zwergldoc @agent_alcohol Erstens gibt es diese Daten auch schon, z.B. https://t.co/3xe0YxYV6A Und zweitens gelten grundsätzliche immunologische Prinzipien bis zum Beweis des Gegenteils auch bei neuen Virus-Varianten
@nerodenc @joeolivermd https://t.co/cvWmgNRUY8
RT @PaulRoundy1: @kaypoth @friendlycovid19 I'm not lucky. It's science. https://t.co/cvWmgNRUY8
@kaypoth @friendlycovid19 I'm not lucky. It's science. https://t.co/cvWmgNRUY8
@DavidMasterson6 @RadCentrism https://t.co/cvWmgNSsNG
@filmschool789 @EpiEllie @BenMazer https://t.co/cvWmgNRUY8
@helenessex2 @strawthatbroke @GerardoRiordan8 @i_petersen Covid is a much less common cause of mass absences anymore, because of bulk immunity. See this for reference: https://t.co/cvWmgNSsNG
@thedougman @friendlycovid19 Bulk nationwide testing data in some nations shows the immunity signal boldly. e.g., https://t.co/cvWmgNSsNG
@fperrywilson @NEJM Effect of prior immunity, e.g., omicron BA.1 and BA.2 infection persists today, reducing infection rates by BA.4 and BA.5. https://t.co/cvWmgNRUY8 The protection is 75%! Earlier variants were also protective against omicron, when mandates started lifting.
@PamR03934520 @AbraarKaran @SafetyFirst____ We know that around 75% of people who had the vaccine and were exposed to either ba1 or ba2 would not even catch ba4 or ba5. https://t.co/cvWmgNSsNG
@Marsilmad @DGBassani https://t.co/cvWmgNRUY8
@greg_travis https://t.co/cvWmgNSsNG
RT @ABStewardess: @ZivaDavid78 @doc_ecmo Das stimmt so nicht, zB: https://t.co/GwiB1Xg9UA Oder https://t.co/wrq0Q7fq2d uvm. Aber zuge…
@ZivaDavid78 @doc_ecmo Das stimmt so nicht, zB: https://t.co/GwiB1Xg9UA Oder https://t.co/wrq0Q7fq2d uvm. Aber zugegebenermaßen, bei den immer wieder auftretenden neuen Varianten ist eine Prädiktion, die mehr als ein paar Wochen/ wenige Monate in die Zukunft geht, gewagt.
@PriscillaRP @BoschEyes @alexmeshkin Lol. There's bulk data that shows immunity is real. https://t.co/cvWmgNSsNG
@BoschEyes @alexmeshkin Better update your priors. https://t.co/cvWmgNSsNG
@termined_d @friendlycovid19 It's far more than a dent. https://t.co/cvWmgNSsNG Also, reduction of deaths after vaccines and prior infections, in subsequent (reduced) infections is enormous. We are far better off then in spring 2020.
@JReinerMD But the reduction of infection in the masking districts was almost certainly caused by their immune responses to previous infections. We know that from many studies, including this one: https://t.co/cvWmgNSsNG
@keetmuise @fitterhappierAJ https://t.co/cvWmgNSsNG
@cookietrousers @AmandaKvalsvig @Klynchstuff1 @emilynz @SabiVM @DrSamiraJeimy @apsmunro I think these statements are still essentially true - that is, hybrid immunity, especially from BA.1 and BA.2, has afforded good protection against infection from BA.4, BA.5, better than that from infection or vax alone. Reinfections occur, but less likely https://t.co/IuGTmLkRIS
@DavidMasterson6 @friendlycovid19 https://t.co/cvWmgNSsNG See Figure 1b.
@SuzanneDale88 @Kellymag26 @greg_travis We know that 75% of people who had ba1 and ba2 after vaccination do not become infected when exposed to BA4 or BA5. https://t.co/cvWmgO9vPG
@v_wie_vendettaa @Burns95085638 @joaquinlife @lgoshen Of course. https://t.co/cvWmgNSsNG
@Musician1980 Schließt an an Daten aus Portugal (da noch kein 2.75) https://t.co/J5sWyYjqAZ
@ADS21817949 @v_wie_vendettaa @joaquinlife @lgoshen We know that 75% of people who were vaccinated and then infected by BA.1 or BA.2 don't get infected by BA.4 or BA.5. https://t.co/cvWmgO9vPG
@ADS21817949 @v_wie_vendettaa @joaquinlife @lgoshen We know that 75% of people who were vaccinated and then infected by BA.1 or BA.2 don't get infected by BA.4 or BA.5. https://t.co/cvWmgNRUY8
@BachmannGert @OlafGersemann @welt Zum Beispiel hier. Knapp ein Zehntel der Infektionen waren Reinfektionen: https://t.co/m7k49hz6Hy
@ADS21817949 @JReinerMD No. Immune evasive means moderate immune escape. If there was massive immune escape, this could not happen: https://t.co/cvWmgNRUY8
@HillckHill @JReinerMD https://t.co/cvWmgNRUY8
@CNHKPatriot @Oli76363166 @YanzhongHuang https://t.co/cvWmgNRUY8
@markensysteme @WDR https://t.co/J5sWyYiSLr
@kgb16133794 @sachapie @alexmeshkin You misunderstand what "immune evasive" means. https://t.co/cvWmgNSsNG
@purplecezane @maosbot https://t.co/cvWmgO9vPG Vaccination + BA.1 or BA.2 infection leads to 75% reduction of infections by BA.4 or BA.5.
@michellevacon Some people are immune because of their vaccines or previous infection. https://t.co/cvWmgNSsNG
@stonehenge2500 @DALupton https://t.co/cvWmgNRUY8
@sioneva @DALupton https://t.co/cvWmgNRUY8
@sioneva @DALupton A few people get 3-4 infections. BUT 75% of people who were vaccinated and infected by BA.1 or BA.2 don't get infected with BA.4 or BA.5. https://t.co/cvWmgNRUY8
@emily_rj Population-wide studies concur: https://t.co/cvWmgO9vPG
@emily_rj See population level data here: https://t.co/cvWmgNSsNG
Vaccines, boosters, and previous infection reduce reinfection rates by 75%. Counts of long-covid are dominated by mostly minor symptoms, but those who fear it most emphasize unusual extreme cases they think pose them high risk. They don't. https://t.co/cvWmgNSsNG https://t.co/4yLCBIUYGk
@zockoholic @FrankfurtZack Hier aus Portugal schwarz auf weiß. https://t.co/m7k49hz6Hy
@gs2010chat @SPWeston @ChuckWurster Better recheck the evidence. https://t.co/cvWmgNSsNG
@SPWeston @gs2010chat @ChuckWurster People who are constantly exposed aren't constantly infected. Immunity really does matter for this. https://t.co/cvWmgO9vPG
@SPWeston @gs2010chat @ChuckWurster Substantial data backs this up: Infection rates are 75% lower during BA.4 and BA.5 in people previously infected with BA.1 or BA.2 after vaccination. https://t.co/cvWmgNRUY8
@maosbot People who have been previously infected and vaccinated are not likely to get long covid. Heck, they're not even likely to get covid. Vaccine + BA.1 or BA.2 is 75% protective against BA.4 or BA.5. https://t.co/cvWmgO9vPG
@CT9397 @DGBassani They reduce infection rates by 75%, when combined with a previous omicron infection. https://t.co/cvWmgO9vPG
@CT9397 @DGBassani Here is the evidence on 75% immunity: https://t.co/cvWmgNSsNG
@CT9397 @DGBassani Here's the 75% data. https://t.co/cvWmgO9vPG
@BeverlyStein20 @LieslMcconchie https://t.co/cvWmgO9vPG roughly 75% of vaccinated people who had be a one or BA2 are immune to be a four or be a five.
@coniinthegarden @WalkerBragman It developed continuously over the last 2 years from infections, vaccinations, and exposures. Antibodies, T&B cell, etc. https://t.co/cvWmgNSsNG
@KhrCeleste @mildanalyst "Portugal" Malato, et al. (2022) ‘Risk of BA.5 Infection among Persons Exposed to Previous SARS-CoV-2 Variants’. _New England Journal of Medicine_ 0, no. 0 (31 August 2022): null. [https://t.co/RrQwiIK54l].
@tobiasmoehlen @narkosedoc
@narkosedoc https://t.co/c6QXKGCiyM
RT @SolimutMutuelle: #ETUDESANTEDUSOIR Les personnes vaccinées contre le #COVID19 et contaminées par les 1ers sous-variants #Omicron auraie…
#ETUDESANTEDUSOIR Les personnes vaccinées contre le #COVID19 et contaminées par les 1ers sous-variants #Omicron auraient une protection 4 fois supérieure à celle des personnes vaccinées mais non infectées. Par @IMMolecular (cohorte portugaise) Via @NEJM https://t.co/Vy2J7Klx3X
Here's a question... https://t.co/wZmRDtPJL6
@EricTopol A study in the New England Journal of Medicine showed that those who were infected by the omicron have a natural immunity of 75.3% effectiveness. https://t.co/qdQEkrZkdo
DOI: 10.1056/nejmc2209479. Privacy-by-Design Environments for Large-Scale Health Research and Federated Learning from Data (opens in new ...
New England Journal of Medicine.387(10):953-954. Doi: 10.1056/NEJMc2209479. Journal. The Lancet Infectious Diseases ...
Doi: 10.1056/NEJMc2209479. Journal. The Lancet Infectious Diseases. DOI. 10.1016/S1473-3099(22)00833-7. Method of Research. Observational study ...
... (10.1056/NEJMc2209479). Τα αποτελέσματα της έρευνας. Η Πορτογαλία ήταν από τις πρώτες χώρες στις οποίες κυριάρχησε το υποστέλεχος BA.5. Με ...
https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmc2209479 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2209479. Currently rated 3.5 by 11 people. Posted in: Medical ...
1 und BA.2) infiziert hatten. Dies geht aus einer Studie im New England Journal of Medicine (2022; DOI: 10.1056/NEJMc2209479) hervor, die ein ...
... 10.1056/NEJMc2209479 https://www.nejm. org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2209479 *突破性感染 ▪️定義：「完全接種新冠疫苗後至少14天，經過採 檢後確診 ...
https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMc2209479. Article Revisions. Jun 6 2023 - The preprint preliminary research paper that this article was ...
LG
PR
DM
BB
DC
T
VG
PB
SP
EN
AC
DM
J
MP
TS
R
F
AH
JR
KK
DP
MA
SM
SL
A