5 ms·

I’m sorry you got sick, and I’m glad to see this study suggesting you have durable immunity! I worry that since it’s dated July 14 it may not have enough data o

I’m sorry you got sick, and I’m glad to see this study suggesting you have durable immunity! I worry that since it’s dated July 14 it may not have enough data on the Delta variant to be useful in considering your risk going forward. I hope you remain in good health.

anonuser123456 5y ago
The immunity acquired from infection may be more robust against variants since a broader set of antibodies are produced.
- tchalla 5y ago
  May be not. > The new evidence shows that protective antibodies generated in response to an mRNA vaccine will target a broader range of SARS-CoV-2 variants carrying “single letter” changes in a key portion of their spike protein compared to antibodies acquired from an infection. 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...
  - acituan 5y ago
    You can’t compare a longitudinal study with a cross sectional study. This study doesn’t account for the time dependent decay of vaccines’ immunity. There is more than one dimension to optimize for.
  - mikem170 5y ago
    Same source you quoted also says: >Our findings show that most COVID-19 patients induce a wide-ranging immune defense against SARS-CoV-2 infection, encompassing antibodies and memory B cells recognizing both the RBD and other regions of the spike, broadly-specific and polyfunctional CD4+ T cells, and polyfunctional CD8+ T cells. Meaning that natural immunity may be better, because it targets not just the spike protein like the vaccine, but also other parts of the virus.
- jjtheblunt 5y ago
  right : the article points out CD* killer cells target shared across variants nucleotide protein sequences, which the vaccines don't?
- _Microft 5y ago
  A broader set of antibodies does not necessarily have to be beneficial. They might be targeting parts of the virus that could change without it losing its function. The spike protein seems to be close to indispensable for this virus. Targetting it specifically instead of just 'something', might therefore be the preferable thing.
  - anonuser123456 5y ago
    Right, but it is harder for an organism to make multiple adaptations at once. Natural infection produces antibodies that target the spike protein as well as other sites. To evade immunity, the virus would need to change both sites. It is very clear that the vaccine is putting selective pressure on spike protein evolution. Having alternative targets makes it harder to escape. We currently don’t know if those other sites are beneficial or not. Sometimes they can even be counter productive (ADE, but we don’t really see that yet?)
    - ithkuil 5y ago
      (genuine question) What does prevent us from creating mRNA vaccines that target multiple sites and not only the spike protein?
      - raphlinus 5y ago
        https://theconversation.com/covid-vaccines-focus-on-the-spike-protein-but-heres-another-target-150315 https://theconversation.com/covid-vaccines-focus-on-the-spik... is probably relevant to your question. The short answer (this was also discussed recently on TWiV) is that spike is the earliest interaction with cells, so focusing on it hopefully causes the immune response to mount earlier as well. But, as described in the link, other proteins may be viable targets as well.
        anonuser123456 5y ago
        Another issue is, other targets may not provide neutralizing immunity and may facilitate ADE. I don't think we've seen ADE in natural infection yet, so it may just be a theoretical issue, but I also don't know if we've really looked for ADE in natural infection either. We do know that other similar coronavirus vaccine candidates (a candidate for SARS-COV-1) exhibited ADE in primate studies. So since the spike protein appears effective currently, maybe it's best to stick with that.

anonuser123456 5y ago

The immunity acquired from infection may be more robust against variants since a broader set of antibodies are produced.

tchalla 5y ago
May be not. > The new evidence shows that protective antibodies generated in response to an mRNA vaccine will target a broader range of SARS-CoV-2 variants carrying “single letter” changes in a key portion of their spike protein compared to antibodies acquired from an infection. 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...
- acituan 5y ago
  You can’t compare a longitudinal study with a cross sectional study. This study doesn’t account for the time dependent decay of vaccines’ immunity. There is more than one dimension to optimize for.
- mikem170 5y ago
  Same source you quoted also says: >Our findings show that most COVID-19 patients induce a wide-ranging immune defense against SARS-CoV-2 infection, encompassing antibodies and memory B cells recognizing both the RBD and other regions of the spike, broadly-specific and polyfunctional CD4+ T cells, and polyfunctional CD8+ T cells. Meaning that natural immunity may be better, because it targets not just the spike protein like the vaccine, but also other parts of the virus.
jjtheblunt 5y ago
right : the article points out CD* killer cells target shared across variants nucleotide protein sequences, which the vaccines don't?
_Microft 5y ago
A broader set of antibodies does not necessarily have to be beneficial. They might be targeting parts of the virus that could change without it losing its function. The spike protein seems to be close to indispensable for this virus. Targetting it specifically instead of just 'something', might therefore be the preferable thing.
- anonuser123456 5y ago
  Right, but it is harder for an organism to make multiple adaptations at once. Natural infection produces antibodies that target the spike protein as well as other sites. To evade immunity, the virus would need to change both sites. It is very clear that the vaccine is putting selective pressure on spike protein evolution. Having alternative targets makes it harder to escape. We currently don’t know if those other sites are beneficial or not. Sometimes they can even be counter productive (ADE, but we don’t really see that yet?)
  - ithkuil 5y ago
    (genuine question) What does prevent us from creating mRNA vaccines that target multiple sites and not only the spike protein?
    - raphlinus 5y ago
      https://theconversation.com/covid-vaccines-focus-on-the-spike-protein-but-heres-another-target-150315 https://theconversation.com/covid-vaccines-focus-on-the-spik... is probably relevant to your question. The short answer (this was also discussed recently on TWiV) is that spike is the earliest interaction with cells, so focusing on it hopefully causes the immune response to mount earlier as well. But, as described in the link, other proteins may be viable targets as well.
      - anonuser123456 5y ago
        Another issue is, other targets may not provide neutralizing immunity and may facilitate ADE. I don't think we've seen ADE in natural infection yet, so it may just be a theoretical issue, but I also don't know if we've really looked for ADE in natural infection either. We do know that other similar coronavirus vaccine candidates (a candidate for SARS-COV-1) exhibited ADE in primate studies. So since the spike protein appears effective currently, maybe it's best to stick with that.