4 ms·

Current research shows that the previously infected’s antibodies are equal-to or better than the vaccine. So previously infected should be sufficient, yet I exp

Current research shows that the previously infected’s antibodies are equal-to or better than the vaccine. So previously infected should be sufficient, yet I expect these companies not to care about that

hexa22 5y ago
Is there any research showing that these people should not get vaccinated? At worst it does nothing, at best it helps. I don’t see why google should bother with an exception here.
- colechristensen 5y ago
  At worst it can do worse than nothing. For a big chunk of the population vaccinating is very safe because the virus is very dangerous. A vaccine doesn’t have to be very safe for a disease that kills on the order of one in a thousand off otherwise healthy adults. Being very young or already having contracted the virus significantly alters it’s risk profile. With a virus several orders of magnitude less deadly you have to start being much more careful that the vaccine is provably considerably safer than doing nothing. That’s not hard when you’re trying to beat 1 in 1000. It is very hard when you’re trying to beat a one in millions risk. There have been concerns and side effects. Much less amplitude in signal compared to the virus, but still big enough to halt briefly a few of the vaccines, still enough that small children don’t get emergency authorization, still enough for a few warnings about immune reactions. It is very rational to take a one in a million risk to prevent a one in a thousand risk. It is very rational to pause before taking a one in a million risk that could very well prevent nothing.
- yobbo 5y ago
  The worst case is pretty terrible. From my experience, the immune reaction to the vaccine after having had the infection is an order magnitude worse than what the brochures and previously uninfected people say.
ksec 5y ago
Oh that is interesting. Most Data have shown previous infection tends to have much better Anti-Bodies than all vaccines. And I was under the impression that previous infection automatically equaled to have vaccinated, at least in the few countries I know of. So that is not the case in US and you still have to get a vaccine? Or is it simply because there is no "proof" that you have been previously infected?
- tomp 5y ago
  The EU limits “recovery certificate” to 6 months (after infection, as proven by PCR teat) vs possibly longer validity of vaccination. So the US is not the only “science denying” country. Most EU countries (that I checked - Austria is an exception) don’t even recognise the presence of antibodies as proof of past infection.
adamors 5y ago
Then how are multiple infections possible? I know several people who have been sick with COVID 2 times already.
- Pozzuh 5y ago
  This is anecdotal. There are people getting infected (and even sick) whilst being vaccinated as well. The vast majority of people however, are not.
  - Pyramus 5y ago
    You are correct, but that doesn't mean it's anecdotal. At this point we don't know whether natural immunity is 'better' than vaccine induced immunity, and it could go either way. There are many disease (including viral ones!) for which the vaccines are orders of magnitude more effective [1]. The simple reason being that the vaccines have the spike protein as a marker - the part of the virus that we expect is least likely to change significantly. What we do know is that the current Delta variant, which is a fitness escape but also partly an immune escape, has infected a number of people that had the vanilla variant. [1] https://twitter.com/ENirenberg/status/1412865782862725125 https://twitter.com/ENirenberg/status/1412865782862725125
    - zajio1am 5y ago
      > You are correct, but that doesn't mean it's anecdotal. At this point we don't know whether natural immunity is 'better' than vaccine induced immunity, and it could go either way. There is this study: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01377-8 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01377-8 saying that natural immunity seems to be slightly worse than Pfizer or Moderna vaccine, but better than AstraZeneca or Johnson vaccine.
  - adamors 5y ago
    The claim was > previously infected’s antibodies are equal-to or better than the vaccine Better how? If they still get reinfected (and they do) then how is this quantified?
joshuamorton 5y ago
This is directly contradictory to the evidence I've seen (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34103407/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34103407/ for a publication, this article based on a similar study: https://directorsblog.nih.gov/2021/06/22/how-immunity-generated-from-covid-19-vaccines-differs-from-an-infection/ https://directorsblog.nih.gov/2021/06/22/how-immunity-genera..., and this https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.25.21256049v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.25.21256049v... which suggests that you get a boost from the vaccine even if you've had the virus). In other words, there's strong evidence that you get a stronger immune response, for longer, that is more effective against variants with the vaccine than with a natural infection. The paper I think you're referring to (https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.01.21258176v2.full.pdf https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.01.21258176v...) states "It is not known how well these results will hold if or when some of the newer variants of concern become prominent. However, if prior infection does not afford protection against some of the newer variants of concern, there is little reason to suppose that the currently available vaccines would either. Vaccine breakthrough infections with variants have indeed been reported [17]", but this is directly contradicted by some of the other studies I cited, that to show better protection against variant re-infection.

hexa22 5y ago

Is there any research showing that these people should not get vaccinated? At worst it does nothing, at best it helps. I don’t see why google should bother with an exception here.

colechristensen 5y ago
At worst it can do worse than nothing. For a big chunk of the population vaccinating is very safe because the virus is very dangerous. A vaccine doesn’t have to be very safe for a disease that kills on the order of one in a thousand off otherwise healthy adults. Being very young or already having contracted the virus significantly alters it’s risk profile. With a virus several orders of magnitude less deadly you have to start being much more careful that the vaccine is provably considerably safer than doing nothing. That’s not hard when you’re trying to beat 1 in 1000. It is very hard when you’re trying to beat a one in millions risk. There have been concerns and side effects. Much less amplitude in signal compared to the virus, but still big enough to halt briefly a few of the vaccines, still enough that small children don’t get emergency authorization, still enough for a few warnings about immune reactions. It is very rational to take a one in a million risk to prevent a one in a thousand risk. It is very rational to pause before taking a one in a million risk that could very well prevent nothing.
yobbo 5y ago
The worst case is pretty terrible. From my experience, the immune reaction to the vaccine after having had the infection is an order magnitude worse than what the brochures and previously uninfected people say.

ksec 5y ago

Oh that is interesting. Most Data have shown previous infection tends to have much better Anti-Bodies than all vaccines. And I was under the impression that previous infection automatically equaled to have vaccinated, at least in the few countries I know of. So that is not the case in US and you still have to get a vaccine? Or is it simply because there is no "proof" that you have been previously infected?

tomp 5y ago
The EU limits “recovery certificate” to 6 months (after infection, as proven by PCR teat) vs possibly longer validity of vaccination. So the US is not the only “science denying” country. Most EU countries (that I checked - Austria is an exception) don’t even recognise the presence of antibodies as proof of past infection.

adamors 5y ago

Then how are multiple infections possible? I know several people who have been sick with COVID 2 times already.

Pozzuh 5y ago
This is anecdotal. There are people getting infected (and even sick) whilst being vaccinated as well. The vast majority of people however, are not.
- Pyramus 5y ago
  You are correct, but that doesn't mean it's anecdotal. At this point we don't know whether natural immunity is 'better' than vaccine induced immunity, and it could go either way. There are many disease (including viral ones!) for which the vaccines are orders of magnitude more effective [1]. The simple reason being that the vaccines have the spike protein as a marker - the part of the virus that we expect is least likely to change significantly. What we do know is that the current Delta variant, which is a fitness escape but also partly an immune escape, has infected a number of people that had the vanilla variant. [1] https://twitter.com/ENirenberg/status/1412865782862725125 https://twitter.com/ENirenberg/status/1412865782862725125
  - zajio1am 5y ago
    > You are correct, but that doesn't mean it's anecdotal. At this point we don't know whether natural immunity is 'better' than vaccine induced immunity, and it could go either way. There is this study: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01377-8 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01377-8 saying that natural immunity seems to be slightly worse than Pfizer or Moderna vaccine, but better than AstraZeneca or Johnson vaccine.
- adamors 5y ago
  The claim was > previously infected’s antibodies are equal-to or better than the vaccine Better how? If they still get reinfected (and they do) then how is this quantified?

joshuamorton 5y ago

This is directly contradictory to the evidence I've seen (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34103407/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34103407/ for a publication, this article based on a similar study: https://directorsblog.nih.gov/2021/06/22/how-immunity-generated-from-covid-19-vaccines-differs-from-an-infection/ https://directorsblog.nih.gov/2021/06/22/how-immunity-genera..., and this https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.25.21256049v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.25.21256049v... which suggests that you get a boost from the vaccine even if you've had the virus). In other words, there's strong evidence that you get a stronger immune response, for longer, that is more effective against variants with the vaccine than with a natural infection. The paper I think you're referring to (https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.01.21258176v2.full.pdf https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.01.21258176v...) states "It is not known how well these results will hold if or when some of the newer variants of concern become prominent. However, if prior infection does not afford protection against some of the newer variants of concern, there is little reason to suppose that the currently available vaccines would either. Vaccine breakthrough infections with variants have indeed been reported [17]", but this is directly contradicted by some of the other studies I cited, that to show better protection against variant re-infection.