It's always been assumed that how much virus you are exposed to mattered, and now we have evidence.

We really should be doing what we can to filter indoor air, mask in common public areas, and generally try to lower our exposure to this virus even if vaccinated. We should be encouraging people to make a CR box, or buy a good hepa filter, and run it if a houshold member is sick. It's infectious as hell, but you aren't guaranteed to get infected if you take measures to reduce the amount of virus you are exposed to.

But instead of having a comprehensive plan to do any of this, our leaders have decided to just infect people as much as possible to build "immunity", or cull the herd, or whatever the fuck is most profitable for shareholders.

Question being asked: What is the risk of becoming infected with SARS-CoV-2 after developing immunity following a vaccine, prior infection, or both if exposure to the virus is very high, moderate, or low? They did not study the severity of symptoms. (2/)

How? The authors used the existing database of the Connecticut Department of Correction, where infection data based on high frequency of testing for SARS-CoV-2 on ~9300 residents across 13 facilities were available. (3/)

What did they find? Prior infection, vaccination, or both provided significant protection against infection when the exposure was moderate (index case was within their cellblock) or low (no exposure was documented in cellblock co-residents) against Delta or Omicron. (4/)

However, when the viral exposure was intense (with infected cellmate - exposure is 24/7), none of these groups had enough immunity to protect against infection with Delta or Omicron virus. (5/)