5 ms·
> vaccination is thought to cause a much broader and more durable immune response than natural infection Why? Is there any data to support this assertion? If
by tomp 5y ago
> vaccination is thought to cause a much broader and more durable immune response than natural infection
Why? Is there any data to support this assertion?
If anything, being ill (symptomatic) means the viral load was high in the body, so the immune system response should be as well, and in addition, infection should cause the immune system to produce antibodies to all parts of the virus, not just the spike protein, as with mRNA vaccines.
- jjgreen 5y ago"it is thought" I guess comes from nonsense like this: https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/does-the-vaccine-give-better-protection-than-having-fought-off-the-virus_uk_601c0663c5b62bf30754c563 https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/does-the-vaccine-give...
- mlyle 5y agoIt comes from nonsense like this: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2032195 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2032195
- akomtu 5y agoIf there was evidence, that "is thought to" would've been replaced with "is proven to".
- mlyle 5y agohttps://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2032195 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2032195 Shows a slow decay in neutralizing antibody titers in those vaccinated, with a greater degree of viral inhibition months later than convalescent plasma at a month. "At day 119, the binding and neutralizing GMTs exceeded the median GMTs in a panel of 41 controls who were convalescing from Covid-19, with a median of 34 days since diagnosis (range, 23 to 54)." There's also data showing much higher neutralization titers against variants in those vaccinated vs. those naturally infected. Of course, this is only one measure of immune response. Many other things are more difficult to measure, so we don't know too much about e.g. T cell responses from natural infection vs. vaccination. So it's hardly proven but there is some highly suggestive evidence.
- mlyle 5y agoYes! https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2032195 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2032195 Shows a slow decay in neutralizing antibody titers, with a greater degree of viral inhibition months later than convalescent plasma at a month. "At day 119, the binding and neutralizing GMTs exceeded the median GMTs in a panel of 41 controls who were convalescing from Covid-19, with a median of 34 days since diagnosis (range, 23 to 54)." Note that antibodies to all parts of the virus aren't necessarily equally beneficial, because only a few functional areas are neutralizing.
- rolph 5y agoneutralizing antibodies will give protection against cell entry to the degree they saturate the binding kinetics between receptor and ligand. non neutralizing does not mean ineffective, as ^any^ antibody is a lable that will provoke a complement based immune response, further leading to Tcell based production of antibodies that also include Ab that will bind to domains of spike that are essential to cell entry
- mlyle 5y agoSure, non-neutralizing binding antibodies are also useful. I think you maybe meant to respond to the parent of my comment. The paper shows high binding affinities and high neutralization titers in comparison to convalescent plasma.
- mlyle 5y agoJust a little more data-- For a long time (from the phase 2 trials of the vaccines) we knew that they generated a very large immune response compared to natural infection: https://www.nejm.org/na101/home/literatum/publisher/mms/journals/content/nejm/2020/nejm_2020.383.issue-20/nejmoa2022483/20201106/images/img_xlarge/nejmoa2022483_f2.jpeg https://www.nejm.org/na101/home/literatum/publisher/mms/jour... And recent research shows vaccination far outperforming past history of natural infection wrt: variants--https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03324-6/figures/1 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03324-6/figures/1