5 ms·

I didn't see any information about this variant's ability to infect those with immunity from previous infection. Did I miss it, or was this rather important qu

by JPKab 5y ago

I didn't see any information about this variant's ability to infect those with immunity from previous infection. Did I miss it, or was this rather important question completely out of the scope of this study?

encryptluks2 5y ago
I remember getting downvoted a while back, but my suggestion has been to have people get vaccinated and then give them a small dose of coronavirus thereafter. At the time it may have seemed wild, but now it has been proven to be the most effective immunity.
- SketchySeaBeast 5y ago
  Has it? I thought there was promising result with catching COVID and then being vaccinated (though you've already caught COVID, so you've failed the whole "don't catch COVID" objective), I wasn't aware there was good research for the opposite.
  - encryptluks2 5y ago
    Like most things with COVID they didn't test the other way, but it is thought to be as effective and more so in order to prevent an initial serious infection, especially if timed adequately with the body has produced maximum resistance.
- orra 5y ago
  > At the time it may have seemed wild, but now it has been proven to be the most effective immunity. It's wild because immunity is useful for preventing infection (also, reducing the severity of infection). There's little point catching the thing you don't want to catch in order to prevent you catching it, because you still. suffer. the. harm. of having been infected. There are way better options, like third doses of vaccines. Or revising the vaccines for Delta. Besides, if you want something 'like' a small dose of coronavirus, it would be far safer to attenuate the coronavirus first. Then you just have a classic vaccine.
  - encryptluks2 5y ago
    The study shows natural immunity with a single dose is the most effective. I have little faith in a vaccine that can't be trusted to mitigate a controlled infection. What would be the point of the vaccine if it only "might" help prevent infection? Otherwise, if it is only effective %5 of the time but has nasty side effects 1% of the time, then you're taking a much bigger risk don't you think?
    - orra 5y ago
      You're just talking anti vaxx drivel. In reality the risk benefit analysis[1] is clear: the benefits massively outweigh the risks. No vaccine ever stops 100% of infections; stop making unnecessary preconditions. [1] https://wintoncentre.maths.cam.ac.uk/news/communicating-potential-benefits-and-harms-astra-zeneca-covid-19-vaccine/ https://wintoncentre.maths.cam.ac.uk/news/communicating-pote...
      - encryptluks2 5y ago
        Wow, you really do want to condition people to ignore or disregard anything someone says as long as you say antivax. It is like the word Nazi. Doesn't matter what actually happens, you'd want to be able to call someone a Nazi and have someone mindlessly punch them in the face. A vaccine preventing the seriousness of infection is a precondition. If I get a vaccine and it does nothing it is pointless. While most vaccinated act like political drones, if you told them than the vaccine actually does nothing to prevent the spread and vaccinated people are still frequently dying from COVID then I'm sure a lot of them would not be getting it.
- 323 5y ago
  Some people die despite being vaccinated. And you can't tell ahead of time which ones (generally the very sick, but not always).
  - encryptluks2 5y ago
    Some people die in general. How many deaths are attributed to COVID-19 that would have been unpreventable, like a car accident or suicide?
    - DanBC 5y ago
      Suicide is preventable.
- thinkcontext 5y ago
  How many rigorous studies have been performed testing your hypothesis?
  - encryptluks2 5y ago
    How many rigorous studies have been performed on anything related to the vaccine really, because the data keeps changing. Anyhow, here is the study: https://www.science.org/content/article/having-sars-cov-2-once-confers-much-greater-immunity-vaccine-vaccination-remains-vital https://www.science.org/content/article/having-sars-cov-2-on...
- LatteLazy 5y ago
  Will the body actually generate antibodies to other covid proteins in that case or will the existing antibodies against the spike protein destroy covid before new ones have a chance to be developed?
  - JPKab 5y ago
    Great question. Isn't the reason the delta variant is so effective at infecting (mildly) already vaccinated people due to the fact that the immune system (unexpectedly) doesn't produce antibodies for the broad structures in the spike protein? My understanding based on a few papers I've read is that the immune system was more efficient than anticipated, and tended to produce antibodies based on specific structures that are part of the spike protein. Apparently, evolving an entirely new spike protein would be implausible, but mutations on the existing spike protein are more frequent, and this narrower than expected antibody is slower to bind to these.
thinkcontext 5y ago
Yes it is outside the scope of this study. It looked at behavior of the variant in a test tube. The results suggest that the question you raise is a natural next line of inquiry. But it won't likely be performed by this group, they are test tube researchers, that question is answered by number crunchers.

by JPKab 5y ago

encryptluks2 5y ago

I remember getting downvoted a while back, but my suggestion has been to have people get vaccinated and then give them a small dose of coronavirus thereafter. At the time it may have seemed wild, but now it has been proven to be the most effective immunity.

SketchySeaBeast 5y ago
Has it? I thought there was promising result with catching COVID and then being vaccinated (though you've already caught COVID, so you've failed the whole "don't catch COVID" objective), I wasn't aware there was good research for the opposite.
- encryptluks2 5y ago
  Like most things with COVID they didn't test the other way, but it is thought to be as effective and more so in order to prevent an initial serious infection, especially if timed adequately with the body has produced maximum resistance.
orra 5y ago
> At the time it may have seemed wild, but now it has been proven to be the most effective immunity. It's wild because immunity is useful for preventing infection (also, reducing the severity of infection). There's little point catching the thing you don't want to catch in order to prevent you catching it, because you still. suffer. the. harm. of having been infected. There are way better options, like third doses of vaccines. Or revising the vaccines for Delta. Besides, if you want something 'like' a small dose of coronavirus, it would be far safer to attenuate the coronavirus first. Then you just have a classic vaccine.
- encryptluks2 5y ago
  The study shows natural immunity with a single dose is the most effective. I have little faith in a vaccine that can't be trusted to mitigate a controlled infection. What would be the point of the vaccine if it only "might" help prevent infection? Otherwise, if it is only effective %5 of the time but has nasty side effects 1% of the time, then you're taking a much bigger risk don't you think?
  - orra 5y ago
    You're just talking anti vaxx drivel. In reality the risk benefit analysis[1] is clear: the benefits massively outweigh the risks. No vaccine ever stops 100% of infections; stop making unnecessary preconditions. [1] https://wintoncentre.maths.cam.ac.uk/news/communicating-potential-benefits-and-harms-astra-zeneca-covid-19-vaccine/ https://wintoncentre.maths.cam.ac.uk/news/communicating-pote...
    - encryptluks2 5y ago
      Wow, you really do want to condition people to ignore or disregard anything someone says as long as you say antivax. It is like the word Nazi. Doesn't matter what actually happens, you'd want to be able to call someone a Nazi and have someone mindlessly punch them in the face. A vaccine preventing the seriousness of infection is a precondition. If I get a vaccine and it does nothing it is pointless. While most vaccinated act like political drones, if you told them than the vaccine actually does nothing to prevent the spread and vaccinated people are still frequently dying from COVID then I'm sure a lot of them would not be getting it.
323 5y ago
Some people die despite being vaccinated. And you can't tell ahead of time which ones (generally the very sick, but not always).
- encryptluks2 5y ago
  Some people die in general. How many deaths are attributed to COVID-19 that would have been unpreventable, like a car accident or suicide?
  - DanBC 5y ago
    Suicide is preventable.
thinkcontext 5y ago
How many rigorous studies have been performed testing your hypothesis?
- encryptluks2 5y ago
  How many rigorous studies have been performed on anything related to the vaccine really, because the data keeps changing. Anyhow, here is the study: https://www.science.org/content/article/having-sars-cov-2-once-confers-much-greater-immunity-vaccine-vaccination-remains-vital https://www.science.org/content/article/having-sars-cov-2-on...
LatteLazy 5y ago
Will the body actually generate antibodies to other covid proteins in that case or will the existing antibodies against the spike protein destroy covid before new ones have a chance to be developed?
- JPKab 5y ago
  Great question. Isn't the reason the delta variant is so effective at infecting (mildly) already vaccinated people due to the fact that the immune system (unexpectedly) doesn't produce antibodies for the broad structures in the spike protein? My understanding based on a few papers I've read is that the immune system was more efficient than anticipated, and tended to produce antibodies based on specific structures that are part of the spike protein. Apparently, evolving an entirely new spike protein would be implausible, but mutations on the existing spike protein are more frequent, and this narrower than expected antibody is slower to bind to these.

thinkcontext 5y ago

Yes it is outside the scope of this study. It looked at behavior of the variant in a test tube. The results suggest that the question you raise is a natural next line of inquiry. But it won't likely be performed by this group, they are test tube researchers, that question is answered by number crunchers.