8 ms·

> It's only a small portion of those receiving the AZ vaccine whose serum had no significant activity against A.30-- all of those with the mRNA vaccine did and

by cronix 5y ago

> It's only a small portion of those receiving the AZ vaccine whose serum had no significant activity against A.30-- all of those with the mRNA vaccine did and most of those receiving AZ did. How about those that received no vaccine, but have previously recovered from Covid? Is it an insignificant number because I rarely hear it discussed.

armagon 5y ago
I think it is due to politics that you don't hear this discussed; seemingly, nuance makes it more difficult to convey a message. The number of people who are known to have been infected is not insignificant, and the number who have been infected but it isn't known is much higher. (I thought estimated were that at least 4x as many people have had Covid as show up in the published results). There is every reason to expect that natural immunity (derived from a previous infection) is better (than that conferred by a vaccine), simply because the immune system will recognize the entire virus and not just the spike cell. This pre-print paper (https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v...) concludes: "This study demonstrated that natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity. Individuals who were both previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta variant." If having pre-delta covid made it more likely that your immune system could face delta, then I think it would stand true for other variants, too.
- cronix 5y ago
  Let's just say it was "on par" with a vaccine for the sake of argument, even if it is suggested it might be better/work more broadly. Is there a scientific reason, as opposed to political, why this would not exempt one from a mandated vaccine?
  - caconym_ 5y ago
    Since initial infectious doses and peak viral loads seem to vary wildly in people who've been infected, I would speculate that it's much easier to quantify vaccine-induced immunity in a public health context relative to so-called "natural immunity", since those initial variables can be tightly controlled. This is a practical matter for making consistent and effective public health policy, as well as a scientific matter (viz. establishing the relative effectiveness of various forms of immunity for diverse and uncertain infection scenarios). Experts in public health and/or infectious diseases, epidemiology, etc. may feel free to correct me if I'm substantially incorrect. However, for people who see the world through a lens that paints all public health policy with the brush of partisan politics, the distinction may be difficult to grasp.
    - OrvalWintermute 5y ago
      > Since initial infectious doses and peak viral loads seem to vary wildly in people who've been infected, I would speculate that it's much easier to quantify vaccine-induced immunity in a public health context relative to so-called "natural immunity", since those initial variables can be tightly controlled. I think you are missing the largest discriminator. The US Vaccines[1], and the related vaccines, are highly limited resistance specific to a spike protein only, perhaps with boosters, to a number of spikes seen. Total = 1, perhaps 2 if it includes a delta variant spike booster also. Natural immunity confers with it resistance to a number of different covid-19 viral proteins, not just the spike. We know Covid-19 has 29 proteins Now, we know that researchers saw these antibodies, as they were the ones that said, "all these antibodies could be the target of future vaccines", and the idea is there. However, we don't know the exactly count of antibodies to all these viral proteins, we just know of their existence from research. [2] But, to compare the strength of natural immunity to a vaccine is to fail at elementary math. However, I am not saying that people at a high risk from age, comorbidities, or both, should not take the vaccine. That is their own decision. On the other hand, the vast majority of the research indicates that natural immunity actually provides superior immunity from a breadth perspective, since a legacy vaccine protection is comparatively challenged against a mutated spike. [1] This is not true for all vaccines, merely "spike" vaccines. So, it wouldn't apply to an attenuated viral vaccine. However, attenuated vaccines do not prompt as strong an immune response. [2] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32555388/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32555388/
- Pyramus 5y ago
  > There is every reason to expect that natural immunity (derived from a previous infection) is better (than that conferred by a vaccine), simply because the immune system will recognize the entire virus and not just the spike cell. No - we do not have "every reason" to expect, quite the opposite. As a starter, for many infectious diseases (incl. viral diseases) vaccine-induced immunity is better, see e.g. the commentary and examples here [1]. Regarding SARS-CoV-2, the picture is a lot more subtle. Directly from German virologist Christian Drosten: "If you look closely at the data in the studies, the situation is much more complicated. What one should say and be aware of is vaccination, which provides a relatively constant protection, which is very well described in studies. You actually pretty much know what you have. While there is a greater spread in the case of infection. Quite simply, we get different amounts of virus in the infection. Some have a silent infection that they don't even notice, others have a symptomatic infection. And you have to be aware that in such studies, which are primarily based on PCR test results, there will always be a certain emphasis on symptomatic courses. That means saying that if I know I have survived an infection and it was confirmed by PCR testing, then that also implies that I had symptoms, otherwise I would hardly have had a PCR test at the time. So then I had a symptomatic course. I think that for this situation you can now say very well, whoever had the whole thing symptomatically, will be well protected afterwards, almost like a vaccination." [2] The study you picked in its current pre-print form does not adequately address this obvious selection bias, nor does it address the inherent survivorship bias. I´m not a medical expert though, so we will see if it passes peer review. In any case, please do not perpetuate the myth that natural immunity is superior per se. If you had a symptomatic infection plus a PCR test, you are likely well protected, very similar to (mRNA) vaccination. If your infection is more than 6 months old, get a booster. [1] https://twitter.com/ENirenberg/status/1412865782862725125 https://twitter.com/ENirenberg/status/1412865782862725125 [2] https://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/info/coronaskript334.pdf https://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/info/coronaskript334.pdf page 7 (via Google Translate)
  - passivate 5y ago
    Can you link to studies mentioned in your quote ? - "If you look closely at the data in the studies, [..]" Also, you seem to be rightfully cautious that the situation is fluid, but also calling natural immunity being better a 'myth'. This may just be the word you chose, but myth to me is something that is complete BS. Are you also intending to use it that way?
- fhars 5y ago
  Yes, but even if P(Survive infection|Survive first infection) > P(Survive infection|Have been vaccinated), in general the far more interesting inequality is P(Survive first infection) * P(Survive infection|Survive first infection) << P(Survive having been vaccinated) * P(Survive infection|Have been vaccinated) So it usually is still a better strategy to get vaccinated than to get infected.
greg5green 5y ago
They don't include the data in the paper, but they do have that data in the supplemental charts under "Convalescent". Looks like a similar dropoff as scene in people vaccinated with BNT162b2. It should be noted that this convalescent plasma was taken from ICU patients, not people that were asymptomatic or had minor symptoms.
mlyle 5y ago
There's convalescent plasma in the study we're all looking at. Looks like a similar difference. - People given AZ required 8.8x the concentration of their serum to neutralize A.30 vs. B.1 - For mRNA vaccines, this was 4.6x. - Convalescent plasma-- those infected-- this was 4.4x. - AZ dose 1, mRNA dose 2 was by far the smallest difference, 1.8x. I'd caution in reading too much into these numbers. Comparing titers in general between the groups in this study is problematic because of vastly varying times since infection/administration. And the size of the populations is small.
nradov 5y ago
It's a significant number. The CDC estimated that about 36% of Americans had been infected as of May (more by now). https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/burden.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/burd... I recommend that everyone get vaccinated if they can, especially if they haven't had a confirmed infection. For most patients natural immunity provides protection as good or better than vaccination. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.09.12.21263461v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.09.12.21263461v...
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

by cronix 5y ago

armagon 5y ago

I think it is due to politics that you don't hear this discussed; seemingly, nuance makes it more difficult to convey a message. The number of people who are known to have been infected is not insignificant, and the number who have been infected but it isn't known is much higher. (I thought estimated were that at least 4x as many people have had Covid as show up in the published results). There is every reason to expect that natural immunity (derived from a previous infection) is better (than that conferred by a vaccine), simply because the immune system will recognize the entire virus and not just the spike cell. This pre-print paper (https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v...) concludes: "This study demonstrated that natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity. Individuals who were both previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta variant." If having pre-delta covid made it more likely that your immune system could face delta, then I think it would stand true for other variants, too.

cronix 5y ago
Let's just say it was "on par" with a vaccine for the sake of argument, even if it is suggested it might be better/work more broadly. Is there a scientific reason, as opposed to political, why this would not exempt one from a mandated vaccine?
- caconym_ 5y ago
  Since initial infectious doses and peak viral loads seem to vary wildly in people who've been infected, I would speculate that it's much easier to quantify vaccine-induced immunity in a public health context relative to so-called "natural immunity", since those initial variables can be tightly controlled. This is a practical matter for making consistent and effective public health policy, as well as a scientific matter (viz. establishing the relative effectiveness of various forms of immunity for diverse and uncertain infection scenarios). Experts in public health and/or infectious diseases, epidemiology, etc. may feel free to correct me if I'm substantially incorrect. However, for people who see the world through a lens that paints all public health policy with the brush of partisan politics, the distinction may be difficult to grasp.
  - OrvalWintermute 5y ago
    > Since initial infectious doses and peak viral loads seem to vary wildly in people who've been infected, I would speculate that it's much easier to quantify vaccine-induced immunity in a public health context relative to so-called "natural immunity", since those initial variables can be tightly controlled. I think you are missing the largest discriminator. The US Vaccines[1], and the related vaccines, are highly limited resistance specific to a spike protein only, perhaps with boosters, to a number of spikes seen. Total = 1, perhaps 2 if it includes a delta variant spike booster also. Natural immunity confers with it resistance to a number of different covid-19 viral proteins, not just the spike. We know Covid-19 has 29 proteins Now, we know that researchers saw these antibodies, as they were the ones that said, "all these antibodies could be the target of future vaccines", and the idea is there. However, we don't know the exactly count of antibodies to all these viral proteins, we just know of their existence from research. [2] But, to compare the strength of natural immunity to a vaccine is to fail at elementary math. However, I am not saying that people at a high risk from age, comorbidities, or both, should not take the vaccine. That is their own decision. On the other hand, the vast majority of the research indicates that natural immunity actually provides superior immunity from a breadth perspective, since a legacy vaccine protection is comparatively challenged against a mutated spike. [1] This is not true for all vaccines, merely "spike" vaccines. So, it wouldn't apply to an attenuated viral vaccine. However, attenuated vaccines do not prompt as strong an immune response. [2] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32555388/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32555388/
Pyramus 5y ago
> There is every reason to expect that natural immunity (derived from a previous infection) is better (than that conferred by a vaccine), simply because the immune system will recognize the entire virus and not just the spike cell. No - we do not have "every reason" to expect, quite the opposite. As a starter, for many infectious diseases (incl. viral diseases) vaccine-induced immunity is better, see e.g. the commentary and examples here [1]. Regarding SARS-CoV-2, the picture is a lot more subtle. Directly from German virologist Christian Drosten: "If you look closely at the data in the studies, the situation is much more complicated. What one should say and be aware of is vaccination, which provides a relatively constant protection, which is very well described in studies. You actually pretty much know what you have. While there is a greater spread in the case of infection. Quite simply, we get different amounts of virus in the infection. Some have a silent infection that they don't even notice, others have a symptomatic infection. And you have to be aware that in such studies, which are primarily based on PCR test results, there will always be a certain emphasis on symptomatic courses. That means saying that if I know I have survived an infection and it was confirmed by PCR testing, then that also implies that I had symptoms, otherwise I would hardly have had a PCR test at the time. So then I had a symptomatic course. I think that for this situation you can now say very well, whoever had the whole thing symptomatically, will be well protected afterwards, almost like a vaccination." [2] The study you picked in its current pre-print form does not adequately address this obvious selection bias, nor does it address the inherent survivorship bias. I´m not a medical expert though, so we will see if it passes peer review. In any case, please do not perpetuate the myth that natural immunity is superior per se. If you had a symptomatic infection plus a PCR test, you are likely well protected, very similar to (mRNA) vaccination. If your infection is more than 6 months old, get a booster. [1] https://twitter.com/ENirenberg/status/1412865782862725125 https://twitter.com/ENirenberg/status/1412865782862725125 [2] https://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/info/coronaskript334.pdf https://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/info/coronaskript334.pdf page 7 (via Google Translate)
- passivate 5y ago
  Can you link to studies mentioned in your quote ? - "If you look closely at the data in the studies, [..]" Also, you seem to be rightfully cautious that the situation is fluid, but also calling natural immunity being better a 'myth'. This may just be the word you chose, but myth to me is something that is complete BS. Are you also intending to use it that way?
fhars 5y ago
Yes, but even if P(Survive infection|Survive first infection) > P(Survive infection|Have been vaccinated), in general the far more interesting inequality is P(Survive first infection) * P(Survive infection|Survive first infection) << P(Survive having been vaccinated) * P(Survive infection|Have been vaccinated) So it usually is still a better strategy to get vaccinated than to get infected.

greg5green 5y ago

They don't include the data in the paper, but they do have that data in the supplemental charts under "Convalescent". Looks like a similar dropoff as scene in people vaccinated with BNT162b2. It should be noted that this convalescent plasma was taken from ICU patients, not people that were asymptomatic or had minor symptoms.

mlyle 5y ago

There's convalescent plasma in the study we're all looking at. Looks like a similar difference. - People given AZ required 8.8x the concentration of their serum to neutralize A.30 vs. B.1 - For mRNA vaccines, this was 4.6x. - Convalescent plasma-- those infected-- this was 4.4x. - AZ dose 1, mRNA dose 2 was by far the smallest difference, 1.8x. I'd caution in reading too much into these numbers. Comparing titers in general between the groups in this study is problematic because of vastly varying times since infection/administration. And the size of the populations is small.

nradov 5y ago

It's a significant number. The CDC estimated that about 36% of Americans had been infected as of May (more by now). https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/burden.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/burd... I recommend that everyone get vaccinated if they can, especially if they haven't had a confirmed infection. For most patients natural immunity provides protection as good or better than vaccination. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.09.12.21263461v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.09.12.21263461v...

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]