6 ms·

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 addi

• 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
  • elliekelly 5y ago
    Sorry I’m not quite sure I follow. You’re saying antibodies are the “quick and easy” way to measure whether a person’s body is (correctly) reacting to the vaccine. So when someone has antibodies soon after vaccination it’s a sign it’s worked, but the antibodies dissipating isn’t necessarily a sign a person no longer has immunity? But since testing for antibodies is the only feasible test available to measure immune response in response to the vaccine it’s become conflated with actual immunity? So someone could (in theory) get the vaccine, have tons of antibodies 6 weeks later, then have greatly reduced antibodies and it doesn’t tell us anything about whether or how much immunity that person will have if they’re infected?
    • maxerickson 5y ago
      More or less. There's cells that remember how to make the antibodies, speeding up the response to a second exposure even long after the initial exposure. Having lots of antibodies when exposed can maybe prevent infection or lessen severity, so it isn't a complete non-concern that they fade.
      • rolph 5y ago
        you understand the concept in a practical form
    • robbiep 5y ago
      Someone will have tons of antibodies 4-6 weeks later and then experience a drop off. Especially if you’re measuring from the first vaccine dose. This is literally how the Adaptive immune system works. Initial adaptive response, production of IgM, Vdj recombination, class switching and global proliferation (especially in the face of a repeated antigen insult), followed by a tone down of B cells as the memory effect is preserved and the antibody titre falls back (antibodies have a half life of 3-4 weeks). Because (at least currently) the antibody response in humans is non-sterilising (talk of boosters to generate IgA abound, along with a more specific Delta variant vaccine may change this) you can’t equate a titre in humans yet with a ‘level’ of immunity
• anonymouse008 5y ago
  Where does the concept of diminishing marginal returns come in you think? There’s got to be a point where we say, it’s “good enough” to not warrant exposure to 50 Billion copies of mRNA.
  • enkid 5y ago
    There is very little risk to the mRNA vaccine. So, what do you mean "warrant exposure to 50 Billion copies if mRNA." This is just trying to throw out a big number to sound scary, but in fact tells you nothing about the risks.
    • anonymouse008 5y ago
      The 50Billon was a stat thrown at my feet by a phd arguing that the exposure to Covid is unknown in people with previous infections… they claim the more numerous the spike Protein exposure the better the immunity. 0. Less exposure to spike proteins the better: in all cases the less one is exposed to novel, man made stimuli into intimate bodily functions (read less than 1000 years of human existence) the better. And a counter point to the benefit of modern medicine… many still die in their sleep, if one is exceedingly lucky and very healthy, then they will have no need for the man made interventions. 1. Inadvertent intravenous injection: lack of properly aspirated needles can potentially send a majority of the mRNA into a vein, producing complications. This is my hypothesis for the wide range in side effects 2. Faulty Fatty Anchors: it is claimed that the lipid anchor keeps the spike protein in a safe state. Potentially this is not true and potentially when your body attacks the vaccine the protein is set free due to incomplete distraction There are quite a few others, but these I’ve found to be the most compelling. These and the others I will reserve unless anyone is curios.. these all require much more observation than a few years to complete.
      • deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
• fieryskiff11 5y ago
  I've had 5 shots so far (pfizerx2, AZx3) because of exactly this. Natural immunity (which I already have) doesn't confer complete protection, but in combination with the vaccines I believe I'm fully protected.
  • sakex 5y ago
    That's possibly a world record! Any reason for this?
    • nanis 5y ago
      Interestingly, it is not a world record. In July, I noticed that in VAERS, there are a few people with 4-5 shots. The reports made for interesting reading.
    • slumdev 5y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypochondriasis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypochondriasis
  • jazzyjackson 5y ago
    I guess when you make something free you can't cry fowl when people go back for seconds thirds fourths and fifths.
• spfzero 5y ago
  But even though the protection waned, it was still a factor of 6 better than the vaccine at the same point in time. It waned to be "only" 6 times better. Clearly, you want natural immunity if you can get it safely, which is a big question. It still makes sense to get vaccinated for most adults. You can always get your natural immunity through a break-through infection, which you'll ride out more easily having been vaccinated.
• spfzero 5y ago
  Even though it wasn't a conclusion of the study, if someone wants to make the point that they already had Covid, and therefore have at least the same immunity as a vaccinated person, that's a very reasonable position. They should not be restricted from anything a vaccinated person can do.
  • amelius 5y ago
    No, because covid tests are not 100% conclusive, so from a statistical point of view it will always be better to get a vaccine shot anyway.
    • ipaddr 5y ago
      You are trying to not trigger autoimmune disorders. Someone recovered from covid with potentially three additional shots is at greater risk for autoimmune reactions.
      • enkid 5y ago
        We really need to be careful making claims like that. There is no evidence this is true and there is evidence that getting a vaccine gives additional protections even if you already had COVID. https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0806-vaccination-protection.html https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0806-vaccination-pr...
        • jcims 5y ago
          Due care is called for in both directions. My daughter's immune system took 13 years to decide that she didn't need insulin any more. If anything comes from this particular pandemic I'm hoping that one of them is that we need to be honest and transparent about risk/benefit and knowns/unknowns rather that try to brush the long tails under the rug as if they don't exist.
          • enkid 5y ago
            How do you weigh that against the long tail of a COVID infection having long term effects? We already have evidence of that, and zero evidence of that with the vaccine.
• beerandt 5y ago
  Restrictions being placed on unvaccinated individuals with natural immunity is based on the premise that it's not as effective or long-lasting as the vaccine. That might not be an excuse to not get vaccinated, but it's absolutely a reason that individuals with natural immunity should not be treated any worse or differently than vaccinated individuals. Regardless of whether vaccination improves on extant natural immunity. And based on what we know about sars-1 and mers, that's not necessarily a safe assumption. For cases of repeated exposure and vaccination over time, the problems with those vaccine attempts were primarily over-stimulating an immune response.