5 ms·

Double-whammy article, second title: Secondary immune response stronger after infection than after shot

rafale 5y ago
If the immune response is comparable to that of a fully vaccinated person, we should be issuing "immunization cards" to people who have recovered. The goal is to control the disease, not the people.
- throwaway72722 5y ago
  Succinct way of describing it there, especially if prior infection is even stronger than the vaccine. Unfortunately, vaccine passports appear to be used more as a punishment for not complying than being about disease control. Edit - Incredible how you can be downvoted for laying out crystal clear logic there. Covid, eh!
- glogla 5y ago
  That makes no sense logistically - the test to accurately measure that the people indeed have the antibodies in sufficient strength is more expensive than the vaccine - and now you have to distribute both instead of just one. It's not worth it.
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > the test to accurately measure that the people indeed have the antibodies in sufficient strength is more expensive than the vaccine Let them pay for it, and make its validity valid for only as long as that rest is predictive. If they can’t get it due to distribution issues, they can do the same thing people who refuse their standard vaccines do—stay away from (and be let be by) others.
  - LurkingPenguin 5y ago
    Comments like these oversimplify the immune system. Your real-world protection from illness isn't based solely on the amount of neutralizing antibodies that are circulating in your veins as a result of either infection or vaccination. It would not be efficient for the immune system to keep antibodies circulating in large numbers for every pathogen you've ever been exposed to. Instead, the immune system generates longer-lasting memory T and B cells, which allow it to recognize pathogens it has been exposed to in the past and more quickly produce antibodies to fight them if necessary. Most individuals who have been vaccinated or recovered from infection will have protection against SARS-CoV-2 even after the antibodies produced immediately following vaccination or infection have waned and become undetectable. The evidence to date suggests that the long-lasting memory T and B cell responses are stronger and broader in individuals who have recovered from natural infection, while those who have been vaccinated have higher levels of neutralizing antibodies that wane quickly. Ultimately, whether you're talking about vaccination or natural infection, the problem with your statement "the test to accurately measure that the people indeed have the antibodies in sufficient strength" is that there is no such test because there is no validated model to correlate titers of neutralizing antibodies to protection against infection and illness.
adflux 5y ago
Even though all the science points to infection being better than vaccination at creating immune response, it's not accepted as an alternative. Ridiculous IMO.
- falcolas 5y ago
  FWIW, no, all the science does not point to an infection being better than a vaccine. A well cited article that discusses this: https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/10/prior-infection-vs-vaccination-why-everyone-should-get-a-covid-19-shot/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/10/prior-infection-vs-v...
  - adflux 5y ago
    "Individuals who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection are unlikely to benefit from COVID-19 vaccination," the authors concluded. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v... From the article :')
    - detaro 5y ago
      Yes, an article discussing how different studies show different results also quotes authors of studies that show a negative result, what a surprise... not quite the "gotcha" you suggest it is. It also references studies in the other direction, that's the point of that article.
    - falcolas 5y ago
      I feel like you cherry picked the one study that fits your bias, and ignored the dozen others which do not. Here’s a direct counter from one of the other studies: > The CDC researchers found that people previously infected but unvaccinated were 2.34 times more likely to get reinfected than people who were previously infected and fully vaccinated. And here’s the conclusion of the article: Overall, the variable immune responses to infection, lower neutralization against delta, and the clear boost in protection from a very safe, highly effective vaccine make a strong argument for vaccinating the recovered.
wizard-beta 5y ago
Shhhh... don't let science get in the way of the ongoing power grab by the surveillance state and the ongoing money grab by big pharma
- afavour 5y ago
  What’s science supposed to be contradicting here? The article says Delta doesn’t make kids sicker than other variants, not that it doesn’t make them sick at all. A shot is still going to be preferable to an infection because it isn’t communicable.
  - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    >What’s science supposed to be contradicting here? There is significant contention over whether the vaccine provides better immunity than prior infection with many claiming it does. "Secondary immune response stronger after infection than after shot" is in direct contradiction of that claim. I haven't read the article in sufficient detail to comment on whether or not that title is justified.
  - angelzen 5y ago
    Kids have vanishingly small risk of covid death, 1%-2% of the already vanishingly small risk of death for kids. The article confirms that the 'long covid in kids' fearmongering is also unwarranted. Given that surviving an infection also provides better long term protection (99.9995% of children survive covid), and that an infection later in life becomes significantly more dangerous, it raises big questions over the short-term strategy of covid vaccinating children. In particular as California has mandated covid vaccines for children, which could prove downright harmful long term. https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/graphics/2021/10/08/covid-19-kids-cases-hospitalizations-deaths/8361479002 https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/graphics/2021/10/08/covid-... https://data.cdc.gov/resource/3apk-4u4f.csv https://data.cdc.gov/resource/3apk-4u4f.csv https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-health-education-california-gavin-newsom-575ef3be2c5c2600664fa48c08041abd https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-health-educa...
    - 5y ago
bryanlarsen 5y ago
The problem with infection to provide immunity is its variability, not its strength. It's kind of moot anyways, infection + vaccine is better than just an infection.
- GaryTang 5y ago
  What do you mean the variability?
  - baq 5y ago
    Answer is in the post you reply to. Might want to reread.
  - bryanlarsen 5y ago
    The average immune response to infection is good. But for some it's great and for others it is poor.
  - falcolas 5y ago
    > researchers looking at SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in people who had recovered found that the difference between the highest and lowest levels varied by a factor of over 1,000. Citations in: https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/06/antibody-testing-suggests-immune-response-post-covid-is-very-variable/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/06/antibody-testing-sug...
- isabelc 5y ago
  No, according to Cleveland Clinic's study, vaccine adds no benefit to those with natural immunity. https://www.news-medical.net/amp/news/20210608/No-point-vaccinating-those-whoe28099ve-had-COVID-19-Findings-of-Cleveland-Clinic-study.aspx https://www.news-medical.net/amp/news/20210608/No-point-vacc...
  - raphlinus 5y ago
    That study is seriously out of date, as it addresses the optimal strategy to prioritize vaccinations when the vaccines are scarce. That's still, sadly, a major concern in many parts of the world, but not so much in the US and Europe. Since then, there's solid science[1] that hybrid immunity is significantly better than either vaccine-induced or disease-induced. So taking the vaccine is clearly the better choice whether you've been infected or not. [1]: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abj2258 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abj2258
Pxtl 5y ago
Yes you can get natural immunity from COVID. You can also get dead, or permanent brain or lung damage. Get the shots.
- kybernetyk 5y ago
  Or you can get a heart defect from the shots. Or blood clots. So there's no categorical "take the shot" or "dont take the shot". It's your personal risk profile that should be the deciding factor. Not some troll on the internet/tv telling you what to do.
  - glogla 5y ago
    This is just standard anti-vax bullshit.
    - wizard-beta 5y ago
      Not an argument
    - kybernetyk 5y ago
      Why? Please elaborate why you consider this bullshit. I mean making personal decisions based on personal risk is seldom considered "bullshit". Why is it bullshit in this case? Because the TV says so?
      - op00to 5y ago
        It’s bullshit because the risk for heart complications is higher if you get COVID than if you get the shot. This is simple math.
        kybernetyk 5y ago
        But those simple math calculations don’t factor in the chance of getting corona in the first place. 2 years in the pandemic and I only know 3 people who got corona. People act as if it was 100% certain one would get corona.

If the immune response is comparable to that of a fully vaccinated person, we should be issuing "immunization cards" to people who have recovered. The goal is to control the disease, not the people.

throwaway72722 5y ago
Succinct way of describing it there, especially if prior infection is even stronger than the vaccine. Unfortunately, vaccine passports appear to be used more as a punishment for not complying than being about disease control. Edit - Incredible how you can be downvoted for laying out crystal clear logic there. Covid, eh!
glogla 5y ago
That makes no sense logistically - the test to accurately measure that the people indeed have the antibodies in sufficient strength is more expensive than the vaccine - and now you have to distribute both instead of just one. It's not worth it.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > the test to accurately measure that the people indeed have the antibodies in sufficient strength is more expensive than the vaccine Let them pay for it, and make its validity valid for only as long as that rest is predictive. If they can’t get it due to distribution issues, they can do the same thing people who refuse their standard vaccines do—stay away from (and be let be by) others.
- LurkingPenguin 5y ago
  Comments like these oversimplify the immune system. Your real-world protection from illness isn't based solely on the amount of neutralizing antibodies that are circulating in your veins as a result of either infection or vaccination. It would not be efficient for the immune system to keep antibodies circulating in large numbers for every pathogen you've ever been exposed to. Instead, the immune system generates longer-lasting memory T and B cells, which allow it to recognize pathogens it has been exposed to in the past and more quickly produce antibodies to fight them if necessary. Most individuals who have been vaccinated or recovered from infection will have protection against SARS-CoV-2 even after the antibodies produced immediately following vaccination or infection have waned and become undetectable. The evidence to date suggests that the long-lasting memory T and B cell responses are stronger and broader in individuals who have recovered from natural infection, while those who have been vaccinated have higher levels of neutralizing antibodies that wane quickly. Ultimately, whether you're talking about vaccination or natural infection, the problem with your statement "the test to accurately measure that the people indeed have the antibodies in sufficient strength" is that there is no such test because there is no validated model to correlate titers of neutralizing antibodies to protection against infection and illness.

adflux 5y ago

Even though all the science points to infection being better than vaccination at creating immune response, it's not accepted as an alternative. Ridiculous IMO.

falcolas 5y ago
FWIW, no, all the science does not point to an infection being better than a vaccine. A well cited article that discusses this: https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/10/prior-infection-vs-vaccination-why-everyone-should-get-a-covid-19-shot/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/10/prior-infection-vs-v...
- adflux 5y ago
  "Individuals who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection are unlikely to benefit from COVID-19 vaccination," the authors concluded. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v... From the article :')
  - detaro 5y ago
    Yes, an article discussing how different studies show different results also quotes authors of studies that show a negative result, what a surprise... not quite the "gotcha" you suggest it is. It also references studies in the other direction, that's the point of that article.
  - falcolas 5y ago
    I feel like you cherry picked the one study that fits your bias, and ignored the dozen others which do not. Here’s a direct counter from one of the other studies: > The CDC researchers found that people previously infected but unvaccinated were 2.34 times more likely to get reinfected than people who were previously infected and fully vaccinated. And here’s the conclusion of the article: Overall, the variable immune responses to infection, lower neutralization against delta, and the clear boost in protection from a very safe, highly effective vaccine make a strong argument for vaccinating the recovered.

wizard-beta 5y ago

Shhhh... don't let science get in the way of the ongoing power grab by the surveillance state and the ongoing money grab by big pharma

afavour 5y ago
What’s science supposed to be contradicting here? The article says Delta doesn’t make kids sicker than other variants, not that it doesn’t make them sick at all. A shot is still going to be preferable to an infection because it isn’t communicable.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  >What’s science supposed to be contradicting here? There is significant contention over whether the vaccine provides better immunity than prior infection with many claiming it does. "Secondary immune response stronger after infection than after shot" is in direct contradiction of that claim. I haven't read the article in sufficient detail to comment on whether or not that title is justified.
- angelzen 5y ago
  Kids have vanishingly small risk of covid death, 1%-2% of the already vanishingly small risk of death for kids. The article confirms that the 'long covid in kids' fearmongering is also unwarranted. Given that surviving an infection also provides better long term protection (99.9995% of children survive covid), and that an infection later in life becomes significantly more dangerous, it raises big questions over the short-term strategy of covid vaccinating children. In particular as California has mandated covid vaccines for children, which could prove downright harmful long term. https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/graphics/2021/10/08/covid-19-kids-cases-hospitalizations-deaths/8361479002 https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/graphics/2021/10/08/covid-... https://data.cdc.gov/resource/3apk-4u4f.csv https://data.cdc.gov/resource/3apk-4u4f.csv https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-health-education-california-gavin-newsom-575ef3be2c5c2600664fa48c08041abd https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-health-educa...
  - 5y ago

bryanlarsen 5y ago

The problem with infection to provide immunity is its variability, not its strength. It's kind of moot anyways, infection + vaccine is better than just an infection.

GaryTang 5y ago
What do you mean the variability?
- baq 5y ago
  Answer is in the post you reply to. Might want to reread.
- bryanlarsen 5y ago
  The average immune response to infection is good. But for some it's great and for others it is poor.
- falcolas 5y ago
  > researchers looking at SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in people who had recovered found that the difference between the highest and lowest levels varied by a factor of over 1,000. Citations in: https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/06/antibody-testing-suggests-immune-response-post-covid-is-very-variable/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/06/antibody-testing-sug...
isabelc 5y ago
No, according to Cleveland Clinic's study, vaccine adds no benefit to those with natural immunity. https://www.news-medical.net/amp/news/20210608/No-point-vaccinating-those-whoe28099ve-had-COVID-19-Findings-of-Cleveland-Clinic-study.aspx https://www.news-medical.net/amp/news/20210608/No-point-vacc...
- raphlinus 5y ago
  That study is seriously out of date, as it addresses the optimal strategy to prioritize vaccinations when the vaccines are scarce. That's still, sadly, a major concern in many parts of the world, but not so much in the US and Europe. Since then, there's solid science[1] that hybrid immunity is significantly better than either vaccine-induced or disease-induced. So taking the vaccine is clearly the better choice whether you've been infected or not. [1]: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abj2258 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abj2258

Pxtl 5y ago

Yes you can get natural immunity from COVID. You can also get dead, or permanent brain or lung damage. Get the shots.

kybernetyk 5y ago
Or you can get a heart defect from the shots. Or blood clots. So there's no categorical "take the shot" or "dont take the shot". It's your personal risk profile that should be the deciding factor. Not some troll on the internet/tv telling you what to do.
- glogla 5y ago
  This is just standard anti-vax bullshit.
  - wizard-beta 5y ago
    Not an argument
  - kybernetyk 5y ago
    Why? Please elaborate why you consider this bullshit. I mean making personal decisions based on personal risk is seldom considered "bullshit". Why is it bullshit in this case? Because the TV says so?
    - op00to 5y ago
      It’s bullshit because the risk for heart complications is higher if you get COVID than if you get the shot. This is simple math.
      - kybernetyk 5y ago
        But those simple math calculations don’t factor in the chance of getting corona in the first place. 2 years in the pandemic and I only know 3 people who got corona. People act as if it was 100% certain one would get corona.