4 ms·

As other commentators have noted, it's quite a leap in logic to use reinfection data to make a mechanistic claim on how natural infection may or may not improve

As other commentators have noted, it's quite a leap in logic to use reinfection data to make a mechanistic claim on how natural infection may or may not improve the immune response compared to vaccination. In addition, the naturally-infected and vaccine populations are not the same. For example, having a bad experience with a natural infection of Covid may cause people to not participate as much in virus-risky behavior. On the other hand, people who seek out vaccinations may have done so for business or personal reasons that make them more prone to expose themselves to the virus. It is also possible that (re)infection for the two groups are not monitored at the same rate. Without controlling for these factors (which your first link does not) you cannot make any judgement about which immunity is stronger from your cited data. Lastly, your second link and your last link directly contradict each other — the second link claims "Recovered COVID patients don't benefit from vaccine" but your last link says "Individuals who were both previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection...." If you're going to cite sources, they should probably have a consistent message :).

bananabiscuit 5y ago
That mechanism of action is just what I’ve seen put forth by immunologists commenting on the these kinds of results. While the author’s opinions on the necessity of vaccines do differ, they do agree on my main point: that empirically, natural immunity is indeed robust and tentatively even better than vaccine acquired immunity. It looks like getting a vaccine helps boost immunity in all cases, whether you had a previous infection or if you had 2 doses and I would bet even after the booster, each additional shot will continue to provide some marginal benefit. So keep getting jabs, I guess, or you’re killing grandma. I think at this point throwing in “you should vaccinate (regardless of your individual circumstance)” into your conclusion, even if it’s a complete non-sequitor, is a hedge against losing your job/funding/respect of your equally frightened peers. The COVID research equivalent of the “making the world a better place” SV trope.
- jyounker 5y ago
  To acquire immunity naturally you have to get sick. In oder to acquire that immunity you have a 1% chance of dying, 2% chance of ending up in the hospital on a ventilator for a month, and a 20% chance of long haul covid. To acquire immunity from a vaccine you have a 0.001% chance of an allergic reaction. Which risk do you choose?
  - bananabiscuit 5y ago
    Sorry. I never said and never even meant to imply that you should try to get sick instead of getting the vaccine. Only that if you were already sick, that it greatly shifts your own risk/benefit profile in the direction of not getting the vaccine.
    - manwe150 5y ago
      Currently, I think the numbers for a person in that case are then 1% chance of getting COVID again naturally vs vaccine’s 0.001% chance of allergic reaction and a reduced chance of getting COVID again of 0.5%. (Using very round numbers) Which risk do you choose? Source: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm
      - bananabiscuit 5y ago
        I’ll personally take the risk of being reinfected with COVID. Either way, at a <= 1% risk of re-infection, I’m no longer a real liability to society so please just leave it for me to decide and don’t force me undergo any unnecessary medical procedures.

bananabiscuit 5y ago

That mechanism of action is just what I’ve seen put forth by immunologists commenting on the these kinds of results. While the author’s opinions on the necessity of vaccines do differ, they do agree on my main point: that empirically, natural immunity is indeed robust and tentatively even better than vaccine acquired immunity. It looks like getting a vaccine helps boost immunity in all cases, whether you had a previous infection or if you had 2 doses and I would bet even after the booster, each additional shot will continue to provide some marginal benefit. So keep getting jabs, I guess, or you’re killing grandma. I think at this point throwing in “you should vaccinate (regardless of your individual circumstance)” into your conclusion, even if it’s a complete non-sequitor, is a hedge against losing your job/funding/respect of your equally frightened peers. The COVID research equivalent of the “making the world a better place” SV trope.

jyounker 5y ago
To acquire immunity naturally you have to get sick. In oder to acquire that immunity you have a 1% chance of dying, 2% chance of ending up in the hospital on a ventilator for a month, and a 20% chance of long haul covid. To acquire immunity from a vaccine you have a 0.001% chance of an allergic reaction. Which risk do you choose?
- bananabiscuit 5y ago
  Sorry. I never said and never even meant to imply that you should try to get sick instead of getting the vaccine. Only that if you were already sick, that it greatly shifts your own risk/benefit profile in the direction of not getting the vaccine.
  - manwe150 5y ago
    Currently, I think the numbers for a person in that case are then 1% chance of getting COVID again naturally vs vaccine’s 0.001% chance of allergic reaction and a reduced chance of getting COVID again of 0.5%. (Using very round numbers) Which risk do you choose? Source: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm
    - bananabiscuit 5y ago
      I’ll personally take the risk of being reinfected with COVID. Either way, at a <= 1% risk of re-infection, I’m no longer a real liability to society so please just leave it for me to decide and don’t force me undergo any unnecessary medical procedures.