5 ms·

Is this something we should wish for? It’s my understanding that for SARS-CoV-2 a lot of people seem to have t-cell immunity because they’ve been infected with

Is this something we should wish for? It’s my understanding that for SARS-CoV-2 a lot of people seem to have t-cell immunity because they’ve been infected with other families of coronavirus. Correct me if I’m wrong but wouldn’t vaccinating against all of the coronavirusus prevent this from happening? Thus, eradication of all viruses would result in a new virus being much more deadly in a population when no one has had a “previous” less deadly “version”

keithwhor 6y ago
There's very little functional difference between being immune to a virus because of previous infection and being immune to a virus because of vaccination. The latter basically co-opts the body's response to the former to generate a lasting adaptive defense.
- ibn-alfatal 6y ago
  That is old definition, now in accordance to the new definition immunity can only be achieved through vaccination. https://twitter.com/simondolan/status/1341306917076021248 https://twitter.com/simondolan/status/1341306917076021248
  - detaro 6y ago
    A random Q&A page is not "a new definition" as an universal standard. Also, quoting from that page today https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/coronavirus-disease-covid-19-serology https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/coronavirus-disease... > 'Herd immunity', also known as 'population immunity', is the indirect protection from an infectious disease that happens when a population is immune either through vaccination or immunity developed through previous infection. WHO supports achieving 'herd immunity' through vaccination, not by allowing a disease to spread through any segment of the population, as this would result in unnecessary cases and deaths.
  - COGlory 6y ago
    That's herd immunity. Individual immunity is different.
  - onethought 6y ago
    Guess they never thought world leaders of world leading nations would need to be told: “don’t intentionally spread a deadly pandemic”.
    - highmastdon 6y ago
      Well a deadly pandemic wouldn’t need immunity, they’d all die. Regarding parent; I believe it was known that the measles vaccine wouldn’t protect for life but for a fair amount of time where having to go through the disease would’ve given life lasting immunity.
  - andi999 6y ago
    The new def has a problem though:'protected from ... passing it on'. In my country we are told even after gotten the vaccine we should continue with the measures, because one can still pass it on (meaning it is supposed that the corona vaccine doesnt prevent infection, but prevents all severe cases)
    - astrange 6y ago
      Each different vaccine may or may not give sterilizing immunity (whether or not you can pass it on without symptoms). It has to be proven for each one and this hasn't been done yet. The nasal vaccines, which aren't approved yet, seem more likely to do this.
      - andi999 6y ago
        Sentence is a bit ambigous. Are the nasa vaccines likely to give sterilizing immunity or the opposite?
        astrange 6y ago
        They're more likely to work, because they go in the places (your nose) that need to be sterilized. But it's only theoretical.
        dragonwriter 6y ago
        > They're more likely to work, because they go in the places (your nose) that need to be sterilized. That doesn't make much sense; vaccines aren't topical treatments for current infections but systemic preparation against future infections.
        astrange 6y ago
        There's special antibodies for the nose and other membranes. The immune system is incredibly complicated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immunoglobulin_A https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immunoglobulin_A
- logicchains 6y ago
  For influenza, immunity due to a previous infection is apparently broader than immunity due to vaccination: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2870374/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2870374/.

keithwhor 6y ago

There's very little functional difference between being immune to a virus because of previous infection and being immune to a virus because of vaccination. The latter basically co-opts the body's response to the former to generate a lasting adaptive defense.

ibn-alfatal 6y ago
That is old definition, now in accordance to the new definition immunity can only be achieved through vaccination. https://twitter.com/simondolan/status/1341306917076021248 https://twitter.com/simondolan/status/1341306917076021248
- detaro 6y ago
  A random Q&A page is not "a new definition" as an universal standard. Also, quoting from that page today https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/coronavirus-disease-covid-19-serology https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/coronavirus-disease... > 'Herd immunity', also known as 'population immunity', is the indirect protection from an infectious disease that happens when a population is immune either through vaccination or immunity developed through previous infection. WHO supports achieving 'herd immunity' through vaccination, not by allowing a disease to spread through any segment of the population, as this would result in unnecessary cases and deaths.
- COGlory 6y ago
  That's herd immunity. Individual immunity is different.
- onethought 6y ago
  Guess they never thought world leaders of world leading nations would need to be told: “don’t intentionally spread a deadly pandemic”.
  - highmastdon 6y ago
    Well a deadly pandemic wouldn’t need immunity, they’d all die. Regarding parent; I believe it was known that the measles vaccine wouldn’t protect for life but for a fair amount of time where having to go through the disease would’ve given life lasting immunity.
- andi999 6y ago
  The new def has a problem though:'protected from ... passing it on'. In my country we are told even after gotten the vaccine we should continue with the measures, because one can still pass it on (meaning it is supposed that the corona vaccine doesnt prevent infection, but prevents all severe cases)
  - astrange 6y ago
    Each different vaccine may or may not give sterilizing immunity (whether or not you can pass it on without symptoms). It has to be proven for each one and this hasn't been done yet. The nasal vaccines, which aren't approved yet, seem more likely to do this.
    - andi999 6y ago
      Sentence is a bit ambigous. Are the nasa vaccines likely to give sterilizing immunity or the opposite?
      - astrange 6y ago
        They're more likely to work, because they go in the places (your nose) that need to be sterilized. But it's only theoretical.
        dragonwriter 6y ago
        > They're more likely to work, because they go in the places (your nose) that need to be sterilized. That doesn't make much sense; vaccines aren't topical treatments for current infections but systemic preparation against future infections.
        astrange 6y ago
        There's special antibodies for the nose and other membranes. The immune system is incredibly complicated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immunoglobulin_A https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immunoglobulin_A
logicchains 6y ago
For influenza, immunity due to a previous infection is apparently broader than immunity due to vaccination: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2870374/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2870374/.