5 ms·

source?

• 22c 5y ago
  First page of google... https://ncrc.jhsph.edu/research/comparing-sars-cov-2-natural-immunity-to-vaccine-induced-immunity-reinfections-versus-breakthrough-infections/ https://ncrc.jhsph.edu/research/comparing-sars-cov-2-natural... https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/lasting-immunity-found-after-recovery-covid-19 https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/lasting... etc.
  • Jason_Protell 5y ago
    So breakthrough infections are more likely for people who have been vaccinated vs people who have already caught SARS-CoV-2 and developed natural immunity. Interesting. Still a good idea to get vaccinated to fight / reduce risk of infection.
    • FjolsvithAase 5y ago
      If only getting vaccinated prevented getting infected...
    • mensetmanusman 5y ago
      It is a good idea in the abstract, but ignoring that natural immunity is better is extremely expensive.
      • klyrs 5y ago
        Preferring natural immunity to sensible precautions including vaccines is extremely costly in terms of human life.
        • deleted 5y ago
          [deleted]
        • FjolsvithAase 5y ago
          But when people on an aircraft carrier of double-vaccinated personnel get COVID, does the vaccine really work better than natural immunity? https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-57830617 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-57830617
          • klyrs 5y ago
            It reduces the spread, and greatly reduces the risk of death and hospitalization. It's not 100% effective, and that's never been the point. It's not like the "natural method" is 100% effective at preventing infection, either.
            • FjolsvithAase 5y ago
              The "natural method" provides protection against variants, whereas the vaccine needs boosters to protect against the variants.
              • klyrs 5y ago
                The vaccines have stood up pretty well against variants, when looking at hospitalization and death rates. The "natural method" has much higher rates of both. Boosters aren't being universally applied almost anywhere, and people getting hospitalized in places with big waves right now are mostly unvaccinated. Maybe you like mass graves and overcrowded hospitals, but the rest of us are getting vaccines.
                • FjolsvithAase 5y ago
                  Not what I'm seeing. I'll stick with the pureblood crowd. https://theswedenpost.com/most-covid-deaths-in-sweden-and-uk-in-september-involved-fully-vaccinated-individuals-headlines-breaking-news-sweden/ https://theswedenpost.com/most-covid-deaths-in-sweden-and-uk... https://nypost.com/2021/10/06/sweden-suspends-moderna-vaccine-for-those-30-and-under/ https://nypost.com/2021/10/06/sweden-suspends-moderna-vaccin...
      • Jason_Protell 5y ago
        This is an absurd position. Vaccination isn't just a good idea in the abstract, it is a good idea (for public health) in the real world. Natural immunity is not better just because it correlates to a lower breakthrough infection rate than vaccination immunity. If you choose the natural immunity path, you're subjecting yourself (and others) to higher risk of death and health problems.
        • mensetmanusman 5y ago
          Possibly, but it might be better to focus on vaccinating the poor and bringing their immunity to 90% from 0% than mandating a rich person improve from 96% to 97% or get fired :) (this is where I think you might be misunderstanding, I’m not saying we should use natural immunity as a strategy for the 0% as you imply)
          • Jason_Protell 5y ago
            Mostly agree, but I think both (vaccinating poor + public service vaccination requirements) can be part of a holistic public health strategy.
            • mensetmanusman 5y ago
              This is the ideal case, but that assumes a public health system people can trust.