STRUCTURAL DELUSION, RELIGIOUS ANXIETY, AND A MELODRAMATIC PRIEST: EXPLORING MACRO AND MICRO INFLUENCES ON THE CÓRDOBAN MARTYRS

After escaping the assassination of the Umayyad royal family in Damascus, a member of this family, Abd al-Rahman I, fled to the Iberian Peninsula to establish a new Umayyad Empire (756-1492 AD). Famous for its pluralistic polity, unparalleled scholarship, artistic prowess, and more, this empire rightfully established itself as a powerful political force. Many scholars emphasize the unique convivencia, or coexistence, that characterized Islamic Spain during these centuries while others thoroughly question this reality, concerned that it ignores the cultural strain that is inevitable in such a diverse society. In this essay, we find ourselves balancing a middle position, recognizing that both perspectives offer truth and are essential in order to glean meaningful lessons on what it means to shape a society that thrives amidst diversity. Serving as a tangible example of the cultural tension in Andalusia is a group of radical Christians known as the Córdoban martyrs. These 48 Christians experienced structural restraints primarily as a result of Islamic law as well as individual religious anxiety, which led them to seek the unprecedented act of “voluntary martyrdom”. In order to fully understand the tension they experienced and how it contributed to the eventual dissolution of Umayyad Spain, both the micro and macro influences on their decision must be explored. Through their story, we witness the power that inhabits both their individual narratives and macro structures. Their experience offers meaningful contributions to the macro-micro discussion present across all disciplines and highlights the importance of the micro perspective that is often discounted, especially in sociological inquiry. Scholars from every discipline need to acknowledge and consciously wrestle with this relationship in order to engage in truly robust research. With more knowledge of the interaction between structural and the individual, we can better understand how to use both micro and macro sources of power to build a world where social structures are more just, and a diversity of individuals and groups can flourish

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health