4 ms·

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

by 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.

by 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.