7 ms·

Interesting that they only studied vaccine-induced immunity. Not a single word about natural immunity.

js290 5y ago
cha-ching! there's no money to be made in "natural immunity"
tstrimple 5y ago
You're more than twice as likely to be reinfected if you have immunity through previous infection. Vaccine protection is significantly better. https://www.news-medical.net/news/20210811/COVID-19-vaccines-offer-better-protection-than-natural-immunity-alone.aspx https://www.news-medical.net/news/20210811/COVID-19-vaccines...
- js290 5y ago
  https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1420130581426364416.html https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1420130581426364416.html
  - tstrimple 5y ago
    Cool, you counter a news article backed by a study with a tweet backed by screenshots of headlines. Seems totally reasonable.
    - raphlinus 5y ago
      Not only that, but a tweet from someone who has earned the title, "the pandemic's wrongest man". ETA: And to critique the substance and not the messenger, I have tried to track down any publication of the Israeli Health Ministry that contains data supporting this claim, and have failed to do so. All traces lead to a story in the Israel National News, which gives no specifics about the source of the data, just lots of numbers to support the conclusion that vaccines don't work well. There's a good chance all this is just fabricated. If you can cite a report by the Israeli Health Ministry and provide an analysis supporting the claim that doesn't contain an obvious statistical error (wrong denominator being the one I suspect), then I will apologize abjectly and donate $1000 to the charity of your choice. [1]: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/04/pandemics-wrongest-man/618475/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/04/pandemics-...
      - JPKab 5y ago
        Thank you for recognizing the ad-hominem nature of your initial sentence and moving on to engaging on the argument. This is far more convincing and made your comment far more credible.
    - js290 5y ago
      you're a "hacker"... use the interwebz to find the original study... or do you need Snopes to do that for you?
- hccgh 5y ago
  Who is the one linking sketchy sources and implying people do their own research, now?
- mattowen_uk 5y ago
  I seriously doubt this is correct. Covid has 3 protein markers. After you get infected your antibodies will continue to recognise all three. However the vaccines don't have all three, so the antibodies generated are not as all encompassing as they would be if you contracted Covid. Therefore, if it doesn't kill you, having Covid puts you in a better position to fight off variants. At least that's how I understand it from all the articles I read about the various vaccines, that said, IANAD, so don't take this post as medical advice.
  - tstrimple 5y ago
    Speculation from a random stranger on the internet, or a study showing results? I'll take the study with the results. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm?s_cid=mm7032e1_w https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm?s_cid=mm...
    - joshuakelly 5y ago
      After this legitimation crisis, sorry, but articulate strangers are often the best way to "read the headlines upside down" - a necessary fact of life now.
    - vaidhy 5y ago
      This study talks about reinfection for vaccinated patients and not about reinfection of unvaccinated patients. This does not seem to contradict the parent comment.
    - JPKab 5y ago
      You might want to look at the multiple peer reviewed studies I posted in a different reply, because you are spreading misinformation. There is a big public health motivation (completely understandable) for why they don't talk much about natural immunity. A lot of people, my lovable but dumb as a rock sister included, who had some symptoms after socializing with people who end up testing positive, who never got the test themselves. They just assume they were infected. We definitely don't want these people to skip the vaccines. But again, managing the behavior of morons is a separate activity from determining the actual truth of the matter.
- sp332 5y ago
  among people who were previously infected This says that a combination of having been infected and vaccinated is better than just having been infected.
- JPKab 5y ago
  There are multiple longitudinal studies with large cohorts whose conclusions completely disagree. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.20.21255670v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.20.21255670v... https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.01.21258176v2 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.01.21258176v... https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)00675-9/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/341241 https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/341241 The meta-conclusion is that natural immunity is at least as effective as the Pfizer/Moderna, and more protective than the J&J vaccine. There isn't a collection of billion dollar multi-national pharma companies pushing studies on natural immunity, nor are public health experts talking about it, creating a false impression in the mind of the public. Trust me, I got the "redneck vaccine" in February, before I was eligible for the real vaccines. I still haven't recovered all of my sense of smell, and don't recommend it. That being said, I am also at increased risk of complications from the vaccine due to having a sky-high level of antibodies in my blood according to my doctor. I visit him monthly, and at his recommendation I will be getting the shot as soon as the antibodies wane. Edit: Here is clinical evidence of worse side effects for previously infected individuals getting vaccinated https://www.google.com/url?q=https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33803014/&sa=D&source=editors&ust=1628183637212000&usg=AOvVaw3UReVK7UIK0Xd9WEMdxMsE https://www.google.com/url?q=https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... Really obnoxious that my comment is getting downvoted with no rebuttals.
xienze 5y ago
> Not a single word about natural immunity. There’s major, major hesitance to giving natural immunity any credibility. The reason for that is an exercise left up to the reader.
- api 5y ago
  The irony is that if it weren't for quacks and anti-vax idiots we would not have to exercise such hesitancy. Sort of like how we could talk about genetics and IQ if it were not for racists. I could list a dozen more like this. We now have to whisper about certain topics for fear of providing anything that can be quoted out of context and twisted by bad faith actors to promote destructive nonsense. I personally think the best option might be to slather these topics with such thick academic and technical jargon that papers and messages about them contain nothing that can be quoted in a meme and shared on Facebook.
- ASalazarMX 5y ago
  Immunity is complex. If it were simple, a single flu/cold would make you immune to all.
- DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
  Because the virus is dangerous. If you have the choice of getting immunity though a vaccine or by catching the virus, you should pick the vaccine. The whole point of immunity is not to get infected/sick in the first place. Getting infected so that you can become immune makes no sense at all.
  - jaywalk 5y ago
    A very large number of people got infected before they even had the opportunity to be vaccinated, so it's not just a simple choice of catching the virus or getting vaccinated.
    - Hasu 5y ago
      A not as large but still significant number of people (including myself) also got vaccinated, then got infected anyway. It's certainly not a simple choice between the two, taking the vaccine reduces your risk, it does not eliminate it. Note, I am NOT saying that the vaccine isn't worth getting, I am very glad I got vaccinated, the infection sucked as it was with my immune system primed to fight it off. I don't think I would want to experience the counterfactual where I had been infected without vaccination.
guscost 5y ago
Naturally-acquired cell-mediated immunity is probably broad (works against variants) and durable (lasts a long time): https://www.cell.com/cell-reports-medicine/fulltext/S2666-3791(21)00203-2 https://www.cell.com/cell-reports-medicine/fulltext/S2666-37...
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

cha-ching! there's no money to be made in "natural immunity"

You're more than twice as likely to be reinfected if you have immunity through previous infection. Vaccine protection is significantly better. https://www.news-medical.net/news/20210811/COVID-19-vaccines-offer-better-protection-than-natural-immunity-alone.aspx https://www.news-medical.net/news/20210811/COVID-19-vaccines...

js290 5y ago
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1420130581426364416.html https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1420130581426364416.html
- tstrimple 5y ago
  Cool, you counter a news article backed by a study with a tweet backed by screenshots of headlines. Seems totally reasonable.
  - raphlinus 5y ago
    Not only that, but a tweet from someone who has earned the title, "the pandemic's wrongest man". ETA: And to critique the substance and not the messenger, I have tried to track down any publication of the Israeli Health Ministry that contains data supporting this claim, and have failed to do so. All traces lead to a story in the Israel National News, which gives no specifics about the source of the data, just lots of numbers to support the conclusion that vaccines don't work well. There's a good chance all this is just fabricated. If you can cite a report by the Israeli Health Ministry and provide an analysis supporting the claim that doesn't contain an obvious statistical error (wrong denominator being the one I suspect), then I will apologize abjectly and donate $1000 to the charity of your choice. [1]: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/04/pandemics-wrongest-man/618475/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/04/pandemics-...
    - JPKab 5y ago
      Thank you for recognizing the ad-hominem nature of your initial sentence and moving on to engaging on the argument. This is far more convincing and made your comment far more credible.
  - js290 5y ago
    you're a "hacker"... use the interwebz to find the original study... or do you need Snopes to do that for you?
hccgh 5y ago
Who is the one linking sketchy sources and implying people do their own research, now?
mattowen_uk 5y ago
I seriously doubt this is correct. Covid has 3 protein markers. After you get infected your antibodies will continue to recognise all three. However the vaccines don't have all three, so the antibodies generated are not as all encompassing as they would be if you contracted Covid. Therefore, if it doesn't kill you, having Covid puts you in a better position to fight off variants. At least that's how I understand it from all the articles I read about the various vaccines, that said, IANAD, so don't take this post as medical advice.
- tstrimple 5y ago
  Speculation from a random stranger on the internet, or a study showing results? I'll take the study with the results. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm?s_cid=mm7032e1_w https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm?s_cid=mm...
  - joshuakelly 5y ago
    After this legitimation crisis, sorry, but articulate strangers are often the best way to "read the headlines upside down" - a necessary fact of life now.
  - vaidhy 5y ago
    This study talks about reinfection for vaccinated patients and not about reinfection of unvaccinated patients. This does not seem to contradict the parent comment.
  - JPKab 5y ago
    You might want to look at the multiple peer reviewed studies I posted in a different reply, because you are spreading misinformation. There is a big public health motivation (completely understandable) for why they don't talk much about natural immunity. A lot of people, my lovable but dumb as a rock sister included, who had some symptoms after socializing with people who end up testing positive, who never got the test themselves. They just assume they were infected. We definitely don't want these people to skip the vaccines. But again, managing the behavior of morons is a separate activity from determining the actual truth of the matter.
sp332 5y ago
among people who were previously infected This says that a combination of having been infected and vaccinated is better than just having been infected.
JPKab 5y ago
There are multiple longitudinal studies with large cohorts whose conclusions completely disagree. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.20.21255670v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.20.21255670v... https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.01.21258176v2 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.01.21258176v... https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)00675-9/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/341241 https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/341241 The meta-conclusion is that natural immunity is at least as effective as the Pfizer/Moderna, and more protective than the J&J vaccine. There isn't a collection of billion dollar multi-national pharma companies pushing studies on natural immunity, nor are public health experts talking about it, creating a false impression in the mind of the public. Trust me, I got the "redneck vaccine" in February, before I was eligible for the real vaccines. I still haven't recovered all of my sense of smell, and don't recommend it. That being said, I am also at increased risk of complications from the vaccine due to having a sky-high level of antibodies in my blood according to my doctor. I visit him monthly, and at his recommendation I will be getting the shot as soon as the antibodies wane. Edit: Here is clinical evidence of worse side effects for previously infected individuals getting vaccinated https://www.google.com/url?q=https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33803014/&sa=D&source=editors&ust=1628183637212000&usg=AOvVaw3UReVK7UIK0Xd9WEMdxMsE https://www.google.com/url?q=https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... Really obnoxious that my comment is getting downvoted with no rebuttals.

xienze 5y ago

> Not a single word about natural immunity. There’s major, major hesitance to giving natural immunity any credibility. The reason for that is an exercise left up to the reader.

api 5y ago
The irony is that if it weren't for quacks and anti-vax idiots we would not have to exercise such hesitancy. Sort of like how we could talk about genetics and IQ if it were not for racists. I could list a dozen more like this. We now have to whisper about certain topics for fear of providing anything that can be quoted out of context and twisted by bad faith actors to promote destructive nonsense. I personally think the best option might be to slather these topics with such thick academic and technical jargon that papers and messages about them contain nothing that can be quoted in a meme and shared on Facebook.
ASalazarMX 5y ago
Immunity is complex. If it were simple, a single flu/cold would make you immune to all.
DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
Because the virus is dangerous. If you have the choice of getting immunity though a vaccine or by catching the virus, you should pick the vaccine. The whole point of immunity is not to get infected/sick in the first place. Getting infected so that you can become immune makes no sense at all.
- jaywalk 5y ago
  A very large number of people got infected before they even had the opportunity to be vaccinated, so it's not just a simple choice of catching the virus or getting vaccinated.
  - Hasu 5y ago
    A not as large but still significant number of people (including myself) also got vaccinated, then got infected anyway. It's certainly not a simple choice between the two, taking the vaccine reduces your risk, it does not eliminate it. Note, I am NOT saying that the vaccine isn't worth getting, I am very glad I got vaccinated, the infection sucked as it was with my immune system primed to fight it off. I don't think I would want to experience the counterfactual where I had been infected without vaccination.

guscost 5y ago

Naturally-acquired cell-mediated immunity is probably broad (works against variants) and durable (lasts a long time): https://www.cell.com/cell-reports-medicine/fulltext/S2666-3791(21)00203-2 https://www.cell.com/cell-reports-medicine/fulltext/S2666-37...

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]