4 ms·

The Power of Natural Immunity

2 points by throwkeep 5y ago

1cvmask 5y ago
You are in a sense naturally vaccinated if you already healthily recovered from Covid and now be a part of the herd immunity. Still better to get vaccinated even after getting Covid.
- pbak 5y ago
  I'm not certain I get how it is better. As far as I understand the mechanics of immunity, and what was recently published : - Natural immunity in this case means recognizing at a minimum the particular coronavirus of Covid. It also means probably having antigens for what we now know is a toxin in addition to being a key to enter cells - the spike proteins. Moreover, Covid's "fingerprint" is recorded in long-term "memory" Lymphocyte T cells. - immunity programmed by the "vaccine" mRNA treatments, as far as I understood the various vulgarization articles and videos published, only give the immune system recognition of the spike proteins (ACE receptors, and so on). Moreover, these treatments contains potential allergens, and they make your whole body produce with said spike proteins, risking damage on both cases (hence the reported side effect). Sadly, it also seems it doesn't get recorded in Lymphocite T cells, according to recent publications, giving no long term immunity, needing booster shots. If you are already naturally immune, aren't you risking some side effects for absolutely no functional benefit at all ? Or have I understood the whole thing wrong ? Could somebody with more cred in the matter than me correct me (no formal education in these matters, just a lot of reading) ? Thanks in advance.
  - manwe150 5y ago
    I see nobody answered, so I'll take a brief shot at giving my understanding. It seems like natural immunity is good enough, if you indeed have built successful defenses. But eventually this hope was probably going to be tested (particularly in the absence of vaccines, or if you like to travel). Therefore, you are risking side-effects with or without vaccination, simply by being alive, as this is just the baseline of risk profile. But getting the vaccination gives your body a test for preparedness that has a very very low risk of side effects (demonstrated), instead of waiting until the next time you are in the same room as someone infectious and your immune system gets tested with the virus itself, which has a fairly low risk of side effects (demonstrated), but is much riskier. This is a tricky argument, as both the benefits and risks are small, so it can be especially hard to accurately weigh them. One could perhaps as transfer this understanding to to the flu shot: it is inconvenient to remember, it might have mild side effects, and it might not help. Or it could save your life. Thus it seems overall positive for most people (tiny risk, moderate benefit) and just easier to say everyone should get the shots, unless their doctor advises they have a rare underlying condition that makes it unadvisable.
    - pbak 5y ago
      Thank you for your answer. I think I got it. I propose an anectode from personal experience, with an actual risk realized and my understanding in conclusion, to see if I got what you wrote clearly : It is advised not to drink at all before driving, nor to be a passenger of such a driver as you risk death. But, there are still seat-belts. While most national laws allows you to drive fine with one glass of wine (people generally drive just fine in such circumstances), they don't allow you not to have your seat-belt on. That's law, even if those belts might sometimes hurt you while acting (broken rib, chafing). I followed the first and second rule from years 18 -> 26 accident free. The first time I broke the first, I got into a bad accident, but with seat-belts on. We were extirpated from a frontal collision with a very solid static object at 80 mph. Myself and my passenger didn't literally even have a scratch on us. The car had become a contemporary art sculpture. The police on the scene couldn't believe their eyes. So, risk tiny enough for laws to allow it (your risking an accident no matter what while driving, even without alcohol) but once realized (driving with alcohol without a seat-belt), you have a higher probability of morbidity or lethality without the second protection measure, the seat-belt. Hence, in the case of natural immunity and mRNA treatments, two protection measures are better than one at giving you that slight edge against higher risks morbidity or lethality from catching a new Covid variant, which are greater than the risk of morbidity coming from second measure. Did I understand you correctly ?
      - manwe150 5y ago
        I think it shares aspects of defense-in-depth with your example. I am not sure the other details are quite as similar, since testing your immunity response with vaccination also typically strengthens your response, while getting into once accident doesn't much change your future probability of an accident. To offer another example inspired by recent news, some companies were recently attacked by ransomware (a "virus") which cost them money and time. Many companies advocate for regularly simulating attacks on themselves periodically (a "vaccine" trial), though that test also carries a risk of real damage to their company. In theory, the company might have already been making backups to protect against that risk (a "natural immunity" assumption), but until that was tested, they didn't know. Hence taking a slight risk, by getting a vaccination shot, to test your body's protection measures, gives you a slight edge in the reduction of the potential for harm from later re-exposure.

2 points by throwkeep 5y ago

You are in a sense naturally vaccinated if you already healthily recovered from Covid and now be a part of the herd immunity. Still better to get vaccinated even after getting Covid.

pbak 5y ago
I'm not certain I get how it is better. As far as I understand the mechanics of immunity, and what was recently published : - Natural immunity in this case means recognizing at a minimum the particular coronavirus of Covid. It also means probably having antigens for what we now know is a toxin in addition to being a key to enter cells - the spike proteins. Moreover, Covid's "fingerprint" is recorded in long-term "memory" Lymphocyte T cells. - immunity programmed by the "vaccine" mRNA treatments, as far as I understood the various vulgarization articles and videos published, only give the immune system recognition of the spike proteins (ACE receptors, and so on). Moreover, these treatments contains potential allergens, and they make your whole body produce with said spike proteins, risking damage on both cases (hence the reported side effect). Sadly, it also seems it doesn't get recorded in Lymphocite T cells, according to recent publications, giving no long term immunity, needing booster shots. If you are already naturally immune, aren't you risking some side effects for absolutely no functional benefit at all ? Or have I understood the whole thing wrong ? Could somebody with more cred in the matter than me correct me (no formal education in these matters, just a lot of reading) ? Thanks in advance.
- manwe150 5y ago
  I see nobody answered, so I'll take a brief shot at giving my understanding. It seems like natural immunity is good enough, if you indeed have built successful defenses. But eventually this hope was probably going to be tested (particularly in the absence of vaccines, or if you like to travel). Therefore, you are risking side-effects with or without vaccination, simply by being alive, as this is just the baseline of risk profile. But getting the vaccination gives your body a test for preparedness that has a very very low risk of side effects (demonstrated), instead of waiting until the next time you are in the same room as someone infectious and your immune system gets tested with the virus itself, which has a fairly low risk of side effects (demonstrated), but is much riskier. This is a tricky argument, as both the benefits and risks are small, so it can be especially hard to accurately weigh them. One could perhaps as transfer this understanding to to the flu shot: it is inconvenient to remember, it might have mild side effects, and it might not help. Or it could save your life. Thus it seems overall positive for most people (tiny risk, moderate benefit) and just easier to say everyone should get the shots, unless their doctor advises they have a rare underlying condition that makes it unadvisable.
  - pbak 5y ago
    Thank you for your answer. I think I got it. I propose an anectode from personal experience, with an actual risk realized and my understanding in conclusion, to see if I got what you wrote clearly : It is advised not to drink at all before driving, nor to be a passenger of such a driver as you risk death. But, there are still seat-belts. While most national laws allows you to drive fine with one glass of wine (people generally drive just fine in such circumstances), they don't allow you not to have your seat-belt on. That's law, even if those belts might sometimes hurt you while acting (broken rib, chafing). I followed the first and second rule from years 18 -> 26 accident free. The first time I broke the first, I got into a bad accident, but with seat-belts on. We were extirpated from a frontal collision with a very solid static object at 80 mph. Myself and my passenger didn't literally even have a scratch on us. The car had become a contemporary art sculpture. The police on the scene couldn't believe their eyes. So, risk tiny enough for laws to allow it (your risking an accident no matter what while driving, even without alcohol) but once realized (driving with alcohol without a seat-belt), you have a higher probability of morbidity or lethality without the second protection measure, the seat-belt. Hence, in the case of natural immunity and mRNA treatments, two protection measures are better than one at giving you that slight edge against higher risks morbidity or lethality from catching a new Covid variant, which are greater than the risk of morbidity coming from second measure. Did I understand you correctly ?
    - manwe150 5y ago
      I think it shares aspects of defense-in-depth with your example. I am not sure the other details are quite as similar, since testing your immunity response with vaccination also typically strengthens your response, while getting into once accident doesn't much change your future probability of an accident. To offer another example inspired by recent news, some companies were recently attacked by ransomware (a "virus") which cost them money and time. Many companies advocate for regularly simulating attacks on themselves periodically (a "vaccine" trial), though that test also carries a risk of real damage to their company. In theory, the company might have already been making backups to protect against that risk (a "natural immunity" assumption), but until that was tested, they didn't know. Hence taking a slight risk, by getting a vaccination shot, to test your body's protection measures, gives you a slight edge in the reduction of the potential for harm from later re-exposure.