4 ms·

We know based on past corornaviruses that natural infection can lead to durable immunity up to 20 years, and like you mentioned with T-cells and more. We also h

We know based on past corornaviruses that natural infection can lead to durable immunity up to 20 years, and like you mentioned with T-cells and more. We also have data showing the current ones so far last as long as we’ve tested them, while vaccines have waned once near a year out. The consensus hasn’t been reached, by my current beliefs strongly tend towards (based on many past similar viruses and all current studies) that vaccine is far less efficacious. https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/309762 https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/309762 Note: that’s 6.7 times stronger immunity from natural vs vaccinated! If anything we should have “previously-infected” cards that confer far greater privileges than vaccination cards, if we’re going to be playing that silly game. Here’s a citation showing stronger T cell immunity from naturally infected: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/372/6549/1418 https://science.sciencemag.org/content/372/6549/1418 Natural infection stronger across the board: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.news-medical.net/amp/news/20210719/Thai-study-looks-at-CoronaVac-vaccine-vs-natural-immunity-to-SARS-COV-2-variants.aspx https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.news-medical.net/amp/news/2... Natural immunity holds across even previously known coronavirus variants: https://news.emory.edu/stories/2021/07/covid_survivors_resistance/index.html https://news.emory.edu/stories/2021/07/covid_survivors_resis...

raphlinus 5y ago
Antibodies wane, but B-cell and T-cell response is important for longer term protection. Fortunately, we have results (including [B] and [T]) that vaccines also induce these memory cell responses. Also, the durability of immunity from coronavirus probably depends on the exact coronavirus. It does seem to be true for SARS, but possibly less so for the seasonal coronaviruses that cause a respectable fraction of common colds[3]. We don't really know yet where SARS-CoV-2 falls on that spectrum. [B]: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.12.21259864v1.full https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.12.21259864v... [T]: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.30.21259787v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.30.21259787v... [3]: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-1083-1 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-1083-1
- nwienert 5y ago
  While they may stimulate some B and T, they aren’t close to the levels from infection. From what I’ve seen many coronavirus have durable immunity from infection, you’d need to cite that they vary. Also, from what I’ve seen the T and B cell response is not nearly the same effect, nor as durable. Further, like the Israeli report, there are a handful more reports of previously infected not getting reinfected at nearly the same rates. The Israeli report has hard numbers in the article you ignored.
  - raphlinus 5y ago
    I think you added the links in an edit? The Science cite shows something that's very different than what people might take from your comment. Briefly, prior infection plus one mRNA dose induces a very good immune response, much better than a single dose without prior infection. It does not compare two mRNA doses against prior infection. I believe the cite I provided does support the idea that coronaviruses vary, in particular that HCoV-229E exhibits continuous genetic drift. But here's an excellent paper that goes into a lot more detail on that: https://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article?id=10.1371/journal.ppat.1009453 https://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article?id=10.1371/j...
    - dsyrk 5y ago
      The idea that two mRNA dose immunity is superior on average to those recovered with natural immunity is absurd. I haven’t reviewed your sources yet, but if you have such a source then you are cherry picking among numerous other results that disagree. Antibody levels can be lower but effective protection against re-infection is very high because memory cells can generate antibodies on demand. Natural antibodies target numerous areas of the virus and are more resilient to variants. Additionally recovered individuals who receive an mRNA dose have the highest levels of measured antibodies. Why are you trying to arguing something that is clearly false? Do you have a political objective of some sort?

raphlinus 5y ago

Antibodies wane, but B-cell and T-cell response is important for longer term protection. Fortunately, we have results (including [B] and [T]) that vaccines also induce these memory cell responses. Also, the durability of immunity from coronavirus probably depends on the exact coronavirus. It does seem to be true for SARS, but possibly less so for the seasonal coronaviruses that cause a respectable fraction of common colds[3]. We don't really know yet where SARS-CoV-2 falls on that spectrum. [B]: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.12.21259864v1.full https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.12.21259864v... [T]: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.30.21259787v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.30.21259787v... [3]: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-1083-1 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-1083-1

nwienert 5y ago
While they may stimulate some B and T, they aren’t close to the levels from infection. From what I’ve seen many coronavirus have durable immunity from infection, you’d need to cite that they vary. Also, from what I’ve seen the T and B cell response is not nearly the same effect, nor as durable. Further, like the Israeli report, there are a handful more reports of previously infected not getting reinfected at nearly the same rates. The Israeli report has hard numbers in the article you ignored.
- raphlinus 5y ago
  I think you added the links in an edit? The Science cite shows something that's very different than what people might take from your comment. Briefly, prior infection plus one mRNA dose induces a very good immune response, much better than a single dose without prior infection. It does not compare two mRNA doses against prior infection. I believe the cite I provided does support the idea that coronaviruses vary, in particular that HCoV-229E exhibits continuous genetic drift. But here's an excellent paper that goes into a lot more detail on that: https://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article?id=10.1371/journal.ppat.1009453 https://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article?id=10.1371/j...
  - dsyrk 5y ago
    The idea that two mRNA dose immunity is superior on average to those recovered with natural immunity is absurd. I haven’t reviewed your sources yet, but if you have such a source then you are cherry picking among numerous other results that disagree. Antibody levels can be lower but effective protection against re-infection is very high because memory cells can generate antibodies on demand. Natural antibodies target numerous areas of the virus and are more resilient to variants. Additionally recovered individuals who receive an mRNA dose have the highest levels of measured antibodies. Why are you trying to arguing something that is clearly false? Do you have a political objective of some sort?