3 ms·

> the subject of natural immunity (also called post-infection immunity) has been neglected This is false. The effectiveness of infection and vaccine based im

> the subject of natural immunity (also called post-infection immunity) has been neglected This is false. The effectiveness of infection and vaccine based immunity has been a hot subject much studied from the start. > Once the vaccination became widely available, what began with near silence at the beginning turned nearly into a complete blackout of the topic. This claim of being silenced is not science, but a rhetorical and political tactic. The idea is that by claiming to have been silenced the argument gets outsider rebel status. This particular claim is both false and manipulative. > natural immunity for a SARS-type virus is robust, long-lasting, and broadly effective even in the case of mutations, generally more so than vaccines Again this is a mischaracterization, and oddly enough the listed citations appear to argue otherwise. Most interesting and relevant is citation #22 which notes that infection based immunity lasts longer and has greater breadth, but boosters do markedly increase specific titers. This addresses the difference which is not on a linear scale. Vaccines result in extremely high titers for a prolonged period of at least 6 months and even longer. Infection based immunity according to citation #26 tends to go away after 1.5 to 2 years. The added breadth of defense from infection appears to have been some help against Delta, but vaccination was also significantly helpful against Delta and there is reason to believe that we are not going to see many more variants like Delta in the near future. The increased titers from vaccination are in particular recommended for immunocompromised people like the elderly and cancer patients. Altogether this piece makes false claims about scientific investigations and discussions and then presents evidence that doesn't actually support their apparent attempt to argument that infection based immunity is superior and cannot or should not be boosted with vaccines.

peteradio 5y ago
I don't disagree with any of your statements. Yes the scientists have been busy with their thorough study and we see more each month. But broadly the politicians (does this suppress funding?) are rejecting any form of natural immunity in US and Canada. Why? An abundance of caution should cut both ways. Anyway I wouldn't try to interpret this outside of the context of railing against mandates. Yes its true there are people who should get vaccines/boosters, are these guys arguing otherwise? That's a totally different argument from whether its ethical or even in our general interest to vaccinate those who wish not to be. Those who wish not to be tend to be those who are least at risk, young and healthy.
- m0llusk 5y ago
  This touches on complex system issues and the realities of government operations. A potentially interesting comparison would be to welfare programs. Historically these have been means driven in order to target the most needy with the greatest amount of assistance. Modern thinking has instead emphasized ideas like basic income, population wide stimulus, and other non means driven approaches to make sure that all who need assistance have access to at least some. Making sure vaccines are administered to the general population is a way of getting on top of a killer virus that does not require means testing in order to skip those who have already been infected. Simple systems are more robust, and the government is stupid and clumsy to an extreme that most individuals find difficult to fully comprehend.

peteradio 5y ago

I don't disagree with any of your statements. Yes the scientists have been busy with their thorough study and we see more each month. But broadly the politicians (does this suppress funding?) are rejecting any form of natural immunity in US and Canada. Why? An abundance of caution should cut both ways. Anyway I wouldn't try to interpret this outside of the context of railing against mandates. Yes its true there are people who should get vaccines/boosters, are these guys arguing otherwise? That's a totally different argument from whether its ethical or even in our general interest to vaccinate those who wish not to be. Those who wish not to be tend to be those who are least at risk, young and healthy.

m0llusk 5y ago
This touches on complex system issues and the realities of government operations. A potentially interesting comparison would be to welfare programs. Historically these have been means driven in order to target the most needy with the greatest amount of assistance. Modern thinking has instead emphasized ideas like basic income, population wide stimulus, and other non means driven approaches to make sure that all who need assistance have access to at least some. Making sure vaccines are administered to the general population is a way of getting on top of a killer virus that does not require means testing in order to skip those who have already been infected. Simple systems are more robust, and the government is stupid and clumsy to an extreme that most individuals find difficult to fully comprehend.