3 ms·

I didn't get any shots. I had longcovid from Mar 2020 - Jun 2021. I think having the shot will ruin my robust immunity. If you train your immune system to cr

I didn't get any shots. I had longcovid from Mar 2020 - Jun 2021. I think having the shot will ruin my robust immunity. If you train your immune system to create very specific antibodies to one part of the virus, that is already being evaded by breakthrough infections btw - you will be more susceptible to variants. Anyone who had covid and takes this vaccine is ruining their existing immunity IMO - but people can do what they want, just don't force it on me.

AndrewBissell 5y ago
> Anyone who had covid and takes this vaccine is ruining their existing immunity IMO "Ruining" may be too strong a word but something like this has already been observed with the second Pfizer dose: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.22.436441v1 https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.22.436441v1
- revolvingocelot 5y ago
  I note that the parent doesn't attempt to provide a summary. I'm no immunologist but it seems to me that this study examines a third-order consequence (levels of IFN-gamma in whole blood samples) to infer a second-level consequence (levels of CD4 helper and CD8 cytotoxic T-cells, which are secreting the IFN-gamma), which is presumed to be indicative of a root-level occurance ("a detrimental effect in the overall magnitude of the spike-specific humoral response in COVID-19 recovered individuals"). It's not clear to me how the second order consequence clearly implies the root-level occurance. This [0] is the paper in the fifth citation from the parent's article. It seems to come to similiar conclusions, but, like the parent's article, doesn't assess any real world data, just lab conditions and inferences. I urge everyone reading this to remind themselves of the specific language used in these articles -- they don't actually know whether these correlates they're observing are affecting immunity, just one component of what we consider to be a single aspect of an appropriate immune response in a blood sample. Does my linked article, above and in a different thread, also measure blood sample conditions? Absolutely. But the article I linked directly analyses (spike protein) antibody levels -- an appropriate immune response in a blood sample -- while the articles here examine inferred T cell presence. One is a direct measure of something straightforward, and the other an inferential examination of something complex. [0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7885942.1/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7885942.1/
  - AndrewBissell 5y ago
    In reality we have no "real world data" and know very little about what the effects will be of piling Covid vaccinations on top of immunity from a prior infection, because it was never studied before pushing the shots to everyone including the Covid-recovered (who were explicitly excluded from the trials). Obviously spike protein antibodies are not the be-all and end-all of immunity to SARS-CoV-2, or we would not be observing relatively robust immunity even among recovered individuals who've had their antibody levels wane.
    - revolvingocelot 5y ago
      >the Covid-recovered (who were explicitly excluded from the trials) Excluding these people from the initial trials makes perfect sense to me. The various understood complications of COVID, like blood clots or minor strokes, could have been mistaken for consequences of vaccination. Why do you suppose that there aren't any papers being generated on the topic of the recovered-from-COVID who get vaccines? >Obviously spike protein antibodies are not the be-all and end-all of immunity to SARS-CoV-2, or we would not be observing relatively robust immunity even among recovered individuals who've had their antibody levels wane No, but serum antibody levels against the methods viruses use to hijack our cells is a long, storied, well-understood and widely-accepted means of assessing overall systemic immune response to whatever the antibodies are against, in a way that third-order inferences about T cells aren't.
revolvingocelot 5y ago
I appreciate your judicious use of "I think" and "IMO". I don't think that you have much justification to think that way about your natural immunity. For whatever it's worth, this preprint [0] suggests that your immunity, caused by a COVID infection, and my immunity, caused by two doses of the Pfizer vaccine, are similar, and have similar durations of functional protection. Note that, for both our cases, durable protection against Alpha and Delta was found after one year (but, interestingly, not against the dying variants Beta and Gamma). I hope that you'll be willing to get the vaccine. I've experienced long term medical complications from something unrelated to COVID, and I can't imagine why anyone would want to risk something like long COVID, especially someone who's already had it. [0] NB that I've linked to the second version uploaded https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.12.21261951v2 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.12.21261951v...

AndrewBissell 5y ago

> Anyone who had covid and takes this vaccine is ruining their existing immunity IMO "Ruining" may be too strong a word but something like this has already been observed with the second Pfizer dose: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.22.436441v1 https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.22.436441v1

revolvingocelot 5y ago
I note that the parent doesn't attempt to provide a summary. I'm no immunologist but it seems to me that this study examines a third-order consequence (levels of IFN-gamma in whole blood samples) to infer a second-level consequence (levels of CD4 helper and CD8 cytotoxic T-cells, which are secreting the IFN-gamma), which is presumed to be indicative of a root-level occurance ("a detrimental effect in the overall magnitude of the spike-specific humoral response in COVID-19 recovered individuals"). It's not clear to me how the second order consequence clearly implies the root-level occurance. This [0] is the paper in the fifth citation from the parent's article. It seems to come to similiar conclusions, but, like the parent's article, doesn't assess any real world data, just lab conditions and inferences. I urge everyone reading this to remind themselves of the specific language used in these articles -- they don't actually know whether these correlates they're observing are affecting immunity, just one component of what we consider to be a single aspect of an appropriate immune response in a blood sample. Does my linked article, above and in a different thread, also measure blood sample conditions? Absolutely. But the article I linked directly analyses (spike protein) antibody levels -- an appropriate immune response in a blood sample -- while the articles here examine inferred T cell presence. One is a direct measure of something straightforward, and the other an inferential examination of something complex. [0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7885942.1/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7885942.1/
- AndrewBissell 5y ago
  In reality we have no "real world data" and know very little about what the effects will be of piling Covid vaccinations on top of immunity from a prior infection, because it was never studied before pushing the shots to everyone including the Covid-recovered (who were explicitly excluded from the trials). Obviously spike protein antibodies are not the be-all and end-all of immunity to SARS-CoV-2, or we would not be observing relatively robust immunity even among recovered individuals who've had their antibody levels wane.
  - revolvingocelot 5y ago
    >the Covid-recovered (who were explicitly excluded from the trials) Excluding these people from the initial trials makes perfect sense to me. The various understood complications of COVID, like blood clots or minor strokes, could have been mistaken for consequences of vaccination. Why do you suppose that there aren't any papers being generated on the topic of the recovered-from-COVID who get vaccines? >Obviously spike protein antibodies are not the be-all and end-all of immunity to SARS-CoV-2, or we would not be observing relatively robust immunity even among recovered individuals who've had their antibody levels wane No, but serum antibody levels against the methods viruses use to hijack our cells is a long, storied, well-understood and widely-accepted means of assessing overall systemic immune response to whatever the antibodies are against, in a way that third-order inferences about T cells aren't.

revolvingocelot 5y ago

I appreciate your judicious use of "I think" and "IMO". I don't think that you have much justification to think that way about your natural immunity. For whatever it's worth, this preprint [0] suggests that your immunity, caused by a COVID infection, and my immunity, caused by two doses of the Pfizer vaccine, are similar, and have similar durations of functional protection. Note that, for both our cases, durable protection against Alpha and Delta was found after one year (but, interestingly, not against the dying variants Beta and Gamma). I hope that you'll be willing to get the vaccine. I've experienced long term medical complications from something unrelated to COVID, and I can't imagine why anyone would want to risk something like long COVID, especially someone who's already had it. [0] NB that I've linked to the second version uploaded https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.12.21261951v2 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.12.21261951v...