16 ms·

> This study demonstrated that natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused

> This study demonstrated that natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity. Do the people who are refusing a vaccine because they were already infected have a good point now?

asveikau 5y ago
Well... Has it been studied what happens to people with natural immunity who also get vaccinated? Is it better, worse, or the same?
- prox 5y ago
  Vaccination and natural immunity seems to add to the protection according to the study.
- mikepurvis 5y ago
  Indeed, but the GP excluded the very next sentence from their sizzle quote: "Individuals who were both previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta variant."
  - _justinfunk 5y ago
    Honest question, help me understand where this argument is wrong: if those with natural antibodies are encouraged to get a vaccination in order to gain "additional protection"... those with a vaccination be encouraged to expose themselves to covid-19 in hope to get a breakthrough infection to generate natural antibodies for "additional protection"?
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - maxerickson 5y ago
      It's wrong because the risks aren't similar. Not just to the individual, people getting infected after vaccination are more likely to spread the infection to people that are immunologically naive to the virus than people getting vaccinated after recovery.
  - makomk 5y ago
    Giving a third dose of the vaccine would probably also give people in the two-dose group additional protection against the Delta variant. The question is whether that additional protection is actually worth the additional doses of vaccine required and the side effects. There are arguments in the mainstream media that giving those extra booster doses would be outright immoral because they could be used on people in the developing world who haven't been vaccinated yet; those arguments never get applied to requiring the previous-infected to get vaccinated, presumably because vaccination is a partisan political topic.
    - ScalaFan 5y ago
      It is easy to stand at a distance and claim that it would be immoral to give booster shots when many countries don't have enough first shots. However, they (WHO) are ignoring the realities of the logistics problems that these countries have in distributing and shipping these vaccines that have stringent storage and utilization requirements. Those countries need to fix their medical distribution systems first to handle the volumes that are really needed for the vaccines that they have access to.
      - babesh 5y ago
        There are multiple vaccines out there that don't have such stringent requirements. Even the J&J vaccine doesn't have those requirements.
        lern_too_spel 5y ago
        As far as I know, only Comirnaty is currently being used as a booster, and it is the most restrictive of all currently approved vaccines.
0xy 5y ago
Not according to Pfizer executives.
gHosts 5y ago
No, that isn't a conclusion from the study. > Individuals who were both previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta variant. Note also... > evidence of waning natural immunity was demonstrated, they didn't compare against 2 dose vaccinated, presumably because of lack of data.
- cannaceo 5y ago
  The study compared against 2-dose vaccinated. The three groups are as follows: 1. Two-dose vaccinated 2. Previously infected and not vaccinated 3. Previously infected and single-dose vaccinated
  - discordance 5y ago
    It would have been great to find out a fourth scenario: infected post double vaccination
    - pwarner 5y ago
      I think they are working on that, and it will be important, but they just need time. Break through cases seem to be high recently, but folks need to recover, then they need to run around in the wild and get (or not get) COVID, and then they need to write the paper... Stay tuned, I can't wait to see, since I feel like this is where most people will end up.
- rolph 5y ago
  regarding reduction of observed antibody titre == evidence of waning natural immunity. this is not evidence of waning immunity this is evidence of efficiency and conservation of function the presence of antibodies has been used as an indicator that vaccination produces an immune response, unfortunately far too many people have conflated reduction of this antibody titre over time as a reduction of immunity, when it is a modality of immunity. antibody titre is a better indicator of prophylactic efficacy than immune status. unfortunately it is very inconveinient to work with T cells and B cells as a measure of intensity of immune response. this however can be inferred by observation of changes in antibody titre following infections/challenges subsequent to reduction of post innocual antibody titre
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
chrisco255 5y ago
Yes, they always did. Natural immunity is the rule not the exception.
wahern 5y ago
They've always had a good point. This is yet another paper in a line of good (and unsurprising) research going back to vaccine trials in 2020. The discourse has become politicized, unfortunately, and for whatever reasons the voices of the pro-vaccine faction in the U.S. have become dominated by people who reflexively discount the science. This doesn't seem to be the case in Europe, where the EU-wide immunity passport treats those with prior documented infection the same as the fully vaccinated. This was pointed out to me on HN a few weeks ago, when I opined that it would be logistically impractical to verify and issue immunity passports to the previously infected. Would it be better if those with a previous infection received a vaccine? Maybe. That's a more complex question. But at this juncture that's moving the goal posts; it's scientifically and politically unreasonable to make that demand.
- foolinaround 5y ago
  > it would be logistically impractical to verify and issue immunity passports to the previously infected. If one is donating blood etc, this information is available such as in the Red Cross donor app. The push by the pro-vaccine groups in the US without accounting for folks who have antibodies acquired naturally - reeks of ignorance from those who are supposedly 'of science'
- tedunangst 5y ago
  I imagine they're trying to discourage people from getting deliberately infected to avoid a shot.
  - wahern 5y ago
    Except the CDC decided to hang their hat (https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0806-vaccination-protection.html https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0806-vaccination-pr...) on the one published article that claimed to show vaccination was dramatically more efficacious than previous infection, despite that study contradicting multiple, better studies, and despite the study itself admitting in a footnote that the data was exceptionally suspect. Also note how the CDC hedges their bets in the press release, saying that vaccination is better than prior infection alone, which only begs the question. Here's the rub: is previous infection as good as Moderna? Probably not, especially given the new variants. (Though last year studies were showing infection providing 90%+ immunity.) But nothing is as good as Moderna. (Except maybe Novavax?) Should we require J&J vaccine recipients to be re-vaccinated with Moderna? Nobody is demanding that, though very roughly speaking J&J-level immunity may be about where things stand now for the previously infected. This seems to be another unforced err by the CDC. Not as bad as some others, but unforced and very politically costly. It also complicates things going forward because it seems we're quickly approaching the point where we'll need to begin requiring a 2nd round of vaccinations. The CDC will need every last shred of credibility and good will left for that initiative. It could have been in a position where it could say, "hey, we tolerated the previously infected skipping vaccination before, but now the situation has changed." Instead, they'll have much less capital to work with.
seventytwo 5y ago
No. Read the next sentence in the paper.
- defaulty 5y ago
  > Individuals who were both previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta variant. I think they still have a point. How much more? 95% efficacy to 96% efficacy?
phkahler 5y ago
>> Do the people who are refusing a vaccine because they were already infected have a good point now? Yes. But this has been speculated about for several months now. I'm not an anti-vaxxer but was holding out. On the verge of getting the vaccine I caught covid. I currently see no point in getting the vaccine. With indications that the real deal is more effective at providing future immunity (simple logic suggests that too) I think someone needs to prove some benefit to me getting the vaccine. This is not my fight, I do find it annoying that people forget about us previously infected folks and act like there are 2 categories - vaxxed or not.
- maxerickson 5y ago
  The J&J and mRNA vaccines (reliably) induce antibodies to the pre-fusion spike protein, so you may have a wider range of antibodies with vaccination than without. (It's the only target they present to the immune system is why I put reliably; there's no saying infection doesn't induce similar antibodies)
  - mrtesthah 5y ago
    There have been studies suggesting vaccination indeed provides better immunity to mutations. e.g, Vaccine-induced immunity provides more robust heterotypic immunity than natural infection to emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern: https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-226857/v1 https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-226857/v1
- kbenson 5y ago
  I'm not sure I care where people get their antibodies from as long as they're effective, but since you're here, mind my asking what the aversion is to the vaccine now? Is it a convenience factor, or not wanting to deal with being sick, or something else? The risks seem fairly well established at this point, from what I've been able to see. Even if there's no proven benefit, there's plenty of things in life we almost all do because of possible benefit, so this just seems like another one of those case. We buy insurance in case we might need it. We wear seat belts even though the crash might be such that they provide no benefit. What's the point that tips you over the edge of not wanting the vaccine in this case? My understanding is that for a short inconvenience (in both time and physical well being) and zero cost you get something that might prove extremely beneficial later.
dubyah 5y ago
Rate of reinfection is currently rare, but vaccination post infection does lower that rate. 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... "Among Kentucky residents infected with SARS-CoV-2 in 2020, vaccination status of those reinfected during May–June 2021 was compared with that of residents who were not reinfected. In this case-control study, being unvaccinated was associated with 2.34 times the odds of reinfection compared with being fully vaccinated." Additionally, there have also been some preprints indicating reduction of long covid symptoms following vaccination in a good portion of those surveyed.
dataflow 5y ago
First, you skipped the fact that this is about the Delta variant. Those folks have been refusing vaccines since much earlier than when Delta became prevalent. > Our study has several limitations. First, as the Delta variant was the dominant strain in Israel during the outcome period, the decreased long-term protection of the vaccine compared to that afforded by previous infection cannot be ascertained against other strains. Second... how do you reconcile your position with [1]? > Kentucky residents who were not vaccinated had 2.34 times the odds of reinfection compared with those who were fully vaccinated. Third, note that they describe another limitation: > Additionally, as this is an observational real-world study, where PCR screening was not performed by protocol, we might be underestimating asymptomatic infections, as these individuals often do not get tested. This is particularly important given that vaccines appeared to reduce viral loads (and thus transmission) for strains preceding the Delta variant, but they don't seem to have this effect for Delta anymore. One huge reason the CDC kept telling people to get vaccinated was to reduce transmission rates. It's not just about your personal health here. Yet people didn't listen, and now we have a strain whose transmission appears to be far less affected by vaccination. So if people are refusing it on that basis for Delta, that doesn't make it a "good point", but rather a self-fulfilling prophecy (and one that quite possibly sabotaged a public health campaign). [1] https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm
- BuGGeH 5y ago
  From your same paper. >These findings suggest that among persons with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, full vaccination provides additional protection against reinfection What "2.34 times" is referencing is two groups had COVID-19 but one of them got the vaccine as well. In which case the COVID-19 + Vaccine group has less chance of reinfection compared to those who only had COVID-19. The original article does mention that COVID-19 + infection does provide more protection as well I believe.
  - dataflow 5y ago
    You're only looking at "protection". It's not just about that individual. That's only half the story. Transmissibility is the other half. Think about it this way: if we could tell already-vaccinated people to get COVID for extra reduction of transmissions (!), we would do that too. For obvious reasons, we don't do that. But this clearly doesn't apply in the reverse direction!
gexla 5y ago
If you're playing Russian Roulette, you probably still rather have that first exposure be the vaccine and then take the chances of breakthrough as opposed to the first exposure being the virus itself.
yyyk 5y ago
>Do the people who are refusing a vaccine because they were already infected have a good point now? Not from this, because a vaccine does not cancel 'natural' immunity. In fact this study and others show previously infected people which get vaccinated get better immunity. If their argument was that they'd rather have the dose go for someone else they would have had a better point, but it's obvious they'd benefit from a single dose.
- babesh 5y ago
  This says that natural immunity is 18x better. There is virtually no need for the vaccine.
  - admax88qqq 5y ago
    Uhhh... Is that the only metric by which a vaccine is evaluated?
    - babesh 5y ago
      As far as you taking it, pretty much yes. The unvaccinated can take it. That is of better community benefit. There is barely any additional protection for you.
      - admax88qqq 5y ago
        The vaccine also hells reduce the severity of infection.
  - yyyk 5y ago
    We need to separate public policy (where I live getting a shot is entirely optional for previously infected) and the individual decision to get vaccinated. For the individual, the risk of reinfection is still higher than the risk of a vaccine. Also note the small risk of a false positive for the initial COVID diagnosis.
  - babesh 5y ago
    I misread the 13 for an 18. It is 13x with a relatively wide confidence interval. Another commentator pointed this out to me.
forgingahead 5y ago
Only if we ignore the entire profit motive behind pushing vaccines for all, including for children, and chimpanzees: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/08/us-chimp-sanctuary-poised-give-its-primates-covid-19-vaccine-will-others-follow-its https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/08/us-chimp-sanctuary-p...
vmception 5y ago
wait wait wait, its only a matter of time before delta variant mRNA vaccines come out though this is comparing two different things, which is a facepalm but just like the last 18 months it is not possible to compare the things you actually want because the data and materials dont even exist yet and wont for another year leaving us at square one: react but your reaction cant be based on things merely tangentially related like natural immunity to this years virus versus vaccine immunity to last years virus here, finally an actually flu analogy can be used: “natural immunity to this years flu works better than vaccine immunity to last years flu” wooowww stop the presses, uhm except not really its not news
- peteradio 5y ago
  Don't stop the presses, stop the mandates based on overly general recommendations.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Layke1123 5y ago
No. Why would getting the vaccine after being infected cause a person any harm?

asveikau 5y ago

Well... Has it been studied what happens to people with natural immunity who also get vaccinated? Is it better, worse, or the same?

prox 5y ago
Vaccination and natural immunity seems to add to the protection according to the study.
mikepurvis 5y ago
Indeed, but the GP excluded the very next sentence from their sizzle quote: "Individuals who were both previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta variant."
- _justinfunk 5y ago
  Honest question, help me understand where this argument is wrong: if those with natural antibodies are encouraged to get a vaccination in order to gain "additional protection"... those with a vaccination be encouraged to expose themselves to covid-19 in hope to get a breakthrough infection to generate natural antibodies for "additional protection"?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - maxerickson 5y ago
    It's wrong because the risks aren't similar. Not just to the individual, people getting infected after vaccination are more likely to spread the infection to people that are immunologically naive to the virus than people getting vaccinated after recovery.
- makomk 5y ago
  Giving a third dose of the vaccine would probably also give people in the two-dose group additional protection against the Delta variant. The question is whether that additional protection is actually worth the additional doses of vaccine required and the side effects. There are arguments in the mainstream media that giving those extra booster doses would be outright immoral because they could be used on people in the developing world who haven't been vaccinated yet; those arguments never get applied to requiring the previous-infected to get vaccinated, presumably because vaccination is a partisan political topic.
  - ScalaFan 5y ago
    It is easy to stand at a distance and claim that it would be immoral to give booster shots when many countries don't have enough first shots. However, they (WHO) are ignoring the realities of the logistics problems that these countries have in distributing and shipping these vaccines that have stringent storage and utilization requirements. Those countries need to fix their medical distribution systems first to handle the volumes that are really needed for the vaccines that they have access to.
    - babesh 5y ago
      There are multiple vaccines out there that don't have such stringent requirements. Even the J&J vaccine doesn't have those requirements.
      - lern_too_spel 5y ago
        As far as I know, only Comirnaty is currently being used as a booster, and it is the most restrictive of all currently approved vaccines.

0xy 5y ago

Not according to Pfizer executives.

gHosts 5y ago

No, that isn't a conclusion from the study. > Individuals who were both previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta variant. Note also... > evidence of waning natural immunity was demonstrated, they didn't compare against 2 dose vaccinated, presumably because of lack of data.

cannaceo 5y ago
The study compared against 2-dose vaccinated. The three groups are as follows: 1. Two-dose vaccinated 2. Previously infected and not vaccinated 3. Previously infected and single-dose vaccinated
- discordance 5y ago
  It would have been great to find out a fourth scenario: infected post double vaccination
  - pwarner 5y ago
    I think they are working on that, and it will be important, but they just need time. Break through cases seem to be high recently, but folks need to recover, then they need to run around in the wild and get (or not get) COVID, and then they need to write the paper... Stay tuned, I can't wait to see, since I feel like this is where most people will end up.
rolph 5y ago
regarding reduction of observed antibody titre == evidence of waning natural immunity. this is not evidence of waning immunity this is evidence of efficiency and conservation of function the presence of antibodies has been used as an indicator that vaccination produces an immune response, unfortunately far too many people have conflated reduction of this antibody titre over time as a reduction of immunity, when it is a modality of immunity. antibody titre is a better indicator of prophylactic efficacy than immune status. unfortunately it is very inconveinient to work with T cells and B cells as a measure of intensity of immune response. this however can be inferred by observation of changes in antibody titre following infections/challenges subsequent to reduction of post innocual antibody titre

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

chrisco255 5y ago

Yes, they always did. Natural immunity is the rule not the exception.

wahern 5y ago

They've always had a good point. This is yet another paper in a line of good (and unsurprising) research going back to vaccine trials in 2020. The discourse has become politicized, unfortunately, and for whatever reasons the voices of the pro-vaccine faction in the U.S. have become dominated by people who reflexively discount the science. This doesn't seem to be the case in Europe, where the EU-wide immunity passport treats those with prior documented infection the same as the fully vaccinated. This was pointed out to me on HN a few weeks ago, when I opined that it would be logistically impractical to verify and issue immunity passports to the previously infected. Would it be better if those with a previous infection received a vaccine? Maybe. That's a more complex question. But at this juncture that's moving the goal posts; it's scientifically and politically unreasonable to make that demand.

foolinaround 5y ago
> it would be logistically impractical to verify and issue immunity passports to the previously infected. If one is donating blood etc, this information is available such as in the Red Cross donor app. The push by the pro-vaccine groups in the US without accounting for folks who have antibodies acquired naturally - reeks of ignorance from those who are supposedly 'of science'
tedunangst 5y ago
I imagine they're trying to discourage people from getting deliberately infected to avoid a shot.
- wahern 5y ago
  Except the CDC decided to hang their hat (https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0806-vaccination-protection.html https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0806-vaccination-pr...) on the one published article that claimed to show vaccination was dramatically more efficacious than previous infection, despite that study contradicting multiple, better studies, and despite the study itself admitting in a footnote that the data was exceptionally suspect. Also note how the CDC hedges their bets in the press release, saying that vaccination is better than prior infection alone, which only begs the question. Here's the rub: is previous infection as good as Moderna? Probably not, especially given the new variants. (Though last year studies were showing infection providing 90%+ immunity.) But nothing is as good as Moderna. (Except maybe Novavax?) Should we require J&J vaccine recipients to be re-vaccinated with Moderna? Nobody is demanding that, though very roughly speaking J&J-level immunity may be about where things stand now for the previously infected. This seems to be another unforced err by the CDC. Not as bad as some others, but unforced and very politically costly. It also complicates things going forward because it seems we're quickly approaching the point where we'll need to begin requiring a 2nd round of vaccinations. The CDC will need every last shred of credibility and good will left for that initiative. It could have been in a position where it could say, "hey, we tolerated the previously infected skipping vaccination before, but now the situation has changed." Instead, they'll have much less capital to work with.

seventytwo 5y ago

No. Read the next sentence in the paper.

defaulty 5y ago
> Individuals who were both previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta variant. I think they still have a point. How much more? 95% efficacy to 96% efficacy?

phkahler 5y ago

>> Do the people who are refusing a vaccine because they were already infected have a good point now? Yes. But this has been speculated about for several months now. I'm not an anti-vaxxer but was holding out. On the verge of getting the vaccine I caught covid. I currently see no point in getting the vaccine. With indications that the real deal is more effective at providing future immunity (simple logic suggests that too) I think someone needs to prove some benefit to me getting the vaccine. This is not my fight, I do find it annoying that people forget about us previously infected folks and act like there are 2 categories - vaxxed or not.

maxerickson 5y ago
The J&J and mRNA vaccines (reliably) induce antibodies to the pre-fusion spike protein, so you may have a wider range of antibodies with vaccination than without. (It's the only target they present to the immune system is why I put reliably; there's no saying infection doesn't induce similar antibodies)
- mrtesthah 5y ago
  There have been studies suggesting vaccination indeed provides better immunity to mutations. e.g, Vaccine-induced immunity provides more robust heterotypic immunity than natural infection to emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern: https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-226857/v1 https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-226857/v1
kbenson 5y ago
I'm not sure I care where people get their antibodies from as long as they're effective, but since you're here, mind my asking what the aversion is to the vaccine now? Is it a convenience factor, or not wanting to deal with being sick, or something else? The risks seem fairly well established at this point, from what I've been able to see. Even if there's no proven benefit, there's plenty of things in life we almost all do because of possible benefit, so this just seems like another one of those case. We buy insurance in case we might need it. We wear seat belts even though the crash might be such that they provide no benefit. What's the point that tips you over the edge of not wanting the vaccine in this case? My understanding is that for a short inconvenience (in both time and physical well being) and zero cost you get something that might prove extremely beneficial later.

dubyah 5y ago

Rate of reinfection is currently rare, but vaccination post infection does lower that rate. 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... "Among Kentucky residents infected with SARS-CoV-2 in 2020, vaccination status of those reinfected during May–June 2021 was compared with that of residents who were not reinfected. In this case-control study, being unvaccinated was associated with 2.34 times the odds of reinfection compared with being fully vaccinated." Additionally, there have also been some preprints indicating reduction of long covid symptoms following vaccination in a good portion of those surveyed.

dataflow 5y ago

First, you skipped the fact that this is about the Delta variant. Those folks have been refusing vaccines since much earlier than when Delta became prevalent. > Our study has several limitations. First, as the Delta variant was the dominant strain in Israel during the outcome period, the decreased long-term protection of the vaccine compared to that afforded by previous infection cannot be ascertained against other strains. Second... how do you reconcile your position with [1]? > Kentucky residents who were not vaccinated had 2.34 times the odds of reinfection compared with those who were fully vaccinated. Third, note that they describe another limitation: > Additionally, as this is an observational real-world study, where PCR screening was not performed by protocol, we might be underestimating asymptomatic infections, as these individuals often do not get tested. This is particularly important given that vaccines appeared to reduce viral loads (and thus transmission) for strains preceding the Delta variant, but they don't seem to have this effect for Delta anymore. One huge reason the CDC kept telling people to get vaccinated was to reduce transmission rates. It's not just about your personal health here. Yet people didn't listen, and now we have a strain whose transmission appears to be far less affected by vaccination. So if people are refusing it on that basis for Delta, that doesn't make it a "good point", but rather a self-fulfilling prophecy (and one that quite possibly sabotaged a public health campaign). [1] https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm

BuGGeH 5y ago
From your same paper. >These findings suggest that among persons with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, full vaccination provides additional protection against reinfection What "2.34 times" is referencing is two groups had COVID-19 but one of them got the vaccine as well. In which case the COVID-19 + Vaccine group has less chance of reinfection compared to those who only had COVID-19. The original article does mention that COVID-19 + infection does provide more protection as well I believe.
- dataflow 5y ago
  You're only looking at "protection". It's not just about that individual. That's only half the story. Transmissibility is the other half. Think about it this way: if we could tell already-vaccinated people to get COVID for extra reduction of transmissions (!), we would do that too. For obvious reasons, we don't do that. But this clearly doesn't apply in the reverse direction!

gexla 5y ago

If you're playing Russian Roulette, you probably still rather have that first exposure be the vaccine and then take the chances of breakthrough as opposed to the first exposure being the virus itself.

yyyk 5y ago

>Do the people who are refusing a vaccine because they were already infected have a good point now? Not from this, because a vaccine does not cancel 'natural' immunity. In fact this study and others show previously infected people which get vaccinated get better immunity. If their argument was that they'd rather have the dose go for someone else they would have had a better point, but it's obvious they'd benefit from a single dose.

babesh 5y ago
This says that natural immunity is 18x better. There is virtually no need for the vaccine.
- admax88qqq 5y ago
  Uhhh... Is that the only metric by which a vaccine is evaluated?
  - babesh 5y ago
    As far as you taking it, pretty much yes. The unvaccinated can take it. That is of better community benefit. There is barely any additional protection for you.
    - admax88qqq 5y ago
      The vaccine also hells reduce the severity of infection.
- yyyk 5y ago
  We need to separate public policy (where I live getting a shot is entirely optional for previously infected) and the individual decision to get vaccinated. For the individual, the risk of reinfection is still higher than the risk of a vaccine. Also note the small risk of a false positive for the initial COVID diagnosis.
- babesh 5y ago
  I misread the 13 for an 18. It is 13x with a relatively wide confidence interval. Another commentator pointed this out to me.

forgingahead 5y ago

Only if we ignore the entire profit motive behind pushing vaccines for all, including for children, and chimpanzees: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/08/us-chimp-sanctuary-poised-give-its-primates-covid-19-vaccine-will-others-follow-its https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/08/us-chimp-sanctuary-p...

vmception 5y ago

wait wait wait, its only a matter of time before delta variant mRNA vaccines come out though this is comparing two different things, which is a facepalm but just like the last 18 months it is not possible to compare the things you actually want because the data and materials dont even exist yet and wont for another year leaving us at square one: react but your reaction cant be based on things merely tangentially related like natural immunity to this years virus versus vaccine immunity to last years virus here, finally an actually flu analogy can be used: “natural immunity to this years flu works better than vaccine immunity to last years flu” wooowww stop the presses, uhm except not really its not news

peteradio 5y ago
Don't stop the presses, stop the mandates based on overly general recommendations.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

Layke1123 5y ago

No. Why would getting the vaccine after being infected cause a person any harm?