3 ms·

> 15 weeks is rather short. Additionally, it's not really 15 weeks. You're right. It's the lower bound, based on the duration of the experiment. There have no

by timr 5y ago

> 15 weeks is rather short. Additionally, it's not really 15 weeks. You're right. It's the lower bound, based on the duration of the experiment. There have now been many, many studies all pointing in the same direction. A small selection: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(2100675-9/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... Natural infection protects against Covid (incl. Alpha variant). Adjusted incidence rate ratio for covid infection - 0.159 (84% protection) and symptomatic covid - 0.074 - (93% protection) - 7 month follow up https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2780557 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullar... Patients who had 1 PCR positive tests had Hazard ratio 0.06 of further positive PCR - 94% protection - 12 month follow up. https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciab234/6170939 https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid... After 1 positive PCR, Protection against any COVID - 81.8%, symptomatic COVID - 84.5% - 6 month follow up - protection increased over time. https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciab495/6287116 https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid... seropositive patients had 94% reduction in hazard of testing positive - 8 month follow up https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034545 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034545 Adjusted risk ratio of covid infection for antibody positive healthcare workers was 0.11 (89% less likely) - 7 month follow up period. All reinfections were asymptomatic. At this point, claiming that immunity to Covid (even against "the variants") is less than a year is an extraordinary claim. There is no reason, prima facie to presume that the results will be different for vaccines.

superkuh 5y ago
Right. The experiment was far too short to make any claims about long term B cell mediated antibody levels. Establishing 7 weeks post fully vaccinated being good is not a "lasting immunity". I'm not sure I agree with just assuming protection will last that long as a default. This study does not establish it but it is a good stepping stone to proving that theory. re: your edits, the tangential bit from this paper about sars-cov-2 positive cases wasn't the main thrust and from the graphs it looks like their neutralizing antibody levels actually are multiple logs below mRNA vaccinated people at the same 15 week point. I'm not sure what all these citations about naturally infected people add to the topic being debated.
- timr 5y ago
  > re: your edits, the tangential bit from this paper about sars-cov-2 positive cases wasn't the main thrust and from the graphs it looks like their neutralizing antibody levels actually are multiple logs below mRNA vaccinated people at the same 15 week point. I'm not sure what all these citations about naturally infected people add to the topic being debated. These are all real-world studies of actual duration of immunity. They trump any theoretical concerns based on lab measurements of neutralizing antibody levels. Observing that the vaccines induce responses lasting as long as 15 weeks is completely unsurprising, based on what we already know from real-world observation of natural infection. Ignoring contextual evidence and concluding that this specific paper didn't provide reasonable evidence is losing the forest for the trees. Could it be possible that the vaccines don't confer immunity lasting as long as what we're observing from natural infection? Sure, I guess. Is it likely? No.

by timr 5y ago

superkuh 5y ago

Right. The experiment was far too short to make any claims about long term B cell mediated antibody levels. Establishing 7 weeks post fully vaccinated being good is not a "lasting immunity". I'm not sure I agree with just assuming protection will last that long as a default. This study does not establish it but it is a good stepping stone to proving that theory. re: your edits, the tangential bit from this paper about sars-cov-2 positive cases wasn't the main thrust and from the graphs it looks like their neutralizing antibody levels actually are multiple logs below mRNA vaccinated people at the same 15 week point. I'm not sure what all these citations about naturally infected people add to the topic being debated.

timr 5y ago
> re: your edits, the tangential bit from this paper about sars-cov-2 positive cases wasn't the main thrust and from the graphs it looks like their neutralizing antibody levels actually are multiple logs below mRNA vaccinated people at the same 15 week point. I'm not sure what all these citations about naturally infected people add to the topic being debated. These are all real-world studies of actual duration of immunity. They trump any theoretical concerns based on lab measurements of neutralizing antibody levels. Observing that the vaccines induce responses lasting as long as 15 weeks is completely unsurprising, based on what we already know from real-world observation of natural infection. Ignoring contextual evidence and concluding that this specific paper didn't provide reasonable evidence is losing the forest for the trees. Could it be possible that the vaccines don't confer immunity lasting as long as what we're observing from natural infection? Sure, I guess. Is it likely? No.