4 ms·

There's really nothing surprising about this conclusion. Before Covid came along and the focus inexplicably shifted to antibodies-only, it was well understood t

There's really nothing surprising about this conclusion. Before Covid came along and the focus inexplicably shifted to antibodies-only, it was well understood that infection with a pathogen was always likely to result in better immunity than vaccination.

uchiga 5y ago
The drawback of an infection on weak/strong immune systems can be death.
KaiserPro 5y ago
kinda. its more complex and nuanced than this. I had thought that the chickenpox vaccine gave you a higher chance of shingles in later life. However that appears to be the opposite of what actually happens. The crucial thing is that its dependent on the vaccine and the thing infecting you. For example the BCG jab which protects against TB is wild. Its a live vaccine that has been evolving, got lost once, and its kinda black magic. In older people it has a ~33% efficacy. its much more effective in babies and children though. However we've got to the point that TB is so rare in the UK that targeted vaccination is more than enough to keep it under control. With covid, we need to make sure that when people get it, they don't get seriously ill. Ideally they wont get it at all, but alas thats not the case, the vaccines are not effective enough for that against this variant. I assume that altering the mrna vaccines would have a similar speed as the annual flu vaccine, so changes for new variants would require less development time. But as someone pointed out, if you have a vaccine, and you get covid, te seems reasonable to assume that you will have a better immunity. Also with just 8 cases out 32k, it seems a small dataset to draw conclusions on.
whoooooo123 5y ago
Not that I doubt you, but where can I read more about this? I know nothing about epidemiology or immunology and reading threads like this makes me realise I need to get more informed.
macksd 5y ago
Except it was widely reported that natural immunity lasted 3 to 6 months and that the vaccines would last 2 years (at least Moderna), and the nuances there I think would be lost on a lay person. I even had an immunologist explain to me in detail why the immunity from the vaccine would be way stronger than acquired immunity. It doesn't really build confidence in science if, while we're finding new things, everyone pretends that the conclusion du jour was always obvious.
- AndrewBissell 5y ago
  I think we're in agreement here -- I did not mean to imply that a lay person following the claims bandied about in the mass media this year would have been under this impression. In fact, six months ago a claim like this would have been likely to be labeled misinformation on Twitter. I'm just saying that for the Covid vaccines to have provided better immunity than recovery from infection would have been very divergent from what is observed for the vast majority of other pathogens.
  - macksd 5y ago
    Okay but when I was asking questions about why we didn't expect booster shots from the mRNA vaccines, that is the opposite of what and immunologist at my local hospital told me. So I'm not sure it is obvious.

uchiga 5y ago

The drawback of an infection on weak/strong immune systems can be death.

KaiserPro 5y ago

kinda. its more complex and nuanced than this. I had thought that the chickenpox vaccine gave you a higher chance of shingles in later life. However that appears to be the opposite of what actually happens. The crucial thing is that its dependent on the vaccine and the thing infecting you. For example the BCG jab which protects against TB is wild. Its a live vaccine that has been evolving, got lost once, and its kinda black magic. In older people it has a ~33% efficacy. its much more effective in babies and children though. However we've got to the point that TB is so rare in the UK that targeted vaccination is more than enough to keep it under control. With covid, we need to make sure that when people get it, they don't get seriously ill. Ideally they wont get it at all, but alas thats not the case, the vaccines are not effective enough for that against this variant. I assume that altering the mrna vaccines would have a similar speed as the annual flu vaccine, so changes for new variants would require less development time. But as someone pointed out, if you have a vaccine, and you get covid, te seems reasonable to assume that you will have a better immunity. Also with just 8 cases out 32k, it seems a small dataset to draw conclusions on.

whoooooo123 5y ago

Not that I doubt you, but where can I read more about this? I know nothing about epidemiology or immunology and reading threads like this makes me realise I need to get more informed.

macksd 5y ago

Except it was widely reported that natural immunity lasted 3 to 6 months and that the vaccines would last 2 years (at least Moderna), and the nuances there I think would be lost on a lay person. I even had an immunologist explain to me in detail why the immunity from the vaccine would be way stronger than acquired immunity. It doesn't really build confidence in science if, while we're finding new things, everyone pretends that the conclusion du jour was always obvious.

AndrewBissell 5y ago
I think we're in agreement here -- I did not mean to imply that a lay person following the claims bandied about in the mass media this year would have been under this impression. In fact, six months ago a claim like this would have been likely to be labeled misinformation on Twitter. I'm just saying that for the Covid vaccines to have provided better immunity than recovery from infection would have been very divergent from what is observed for the vast majority of other pathogens.
- macksd 5y ago
  Okay but when I was asking questions about why we didn't expect booster shots from the mRNA vaccines, that is the opposite of what and immunologist at my local hospital told me. So I'm not sure it is obvious.