14 ms·

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 kn

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/
    - caconym_ 5y ago
      I'm not sure where you imagine I made any statement directly comparing the efficacy of vaccines to natural immunity. The substance of my comment is limited to the problem of quantifying the efficacy of natural immunity in the real world, from the perspective of public health policy.
      - OrvalWintermute 5y ago
        > quantify vaccine-induced immunity This is a non-sequitur. These vaccines are leaky & non-sterilizing; these are not remotely comparable to the vaccines we have had throughout most of our normal lives that grant something like 99.99999% protection with minimal side effects. I'm saying that as someone as who has had a number of vaccines during my life - I am not an antivaxx. However, these vaccines are not comparable.
- destitude 5y ago
  Because it is purely political in the USA. Many other countries do classify people who gained immunity from exposure the same as vaccinated.
  - nuerow 5y ago
    > Many other countries do classify people who gained immunity from exposure the same as vaccinated. Can you point out an example of any country that exempts those who were already infected with COVID from taking the vaccine? As far as I can tell, no European country does anything of the sort, neither does the US and definitely not Canada, and a quick Google search returns no search hit.
    - rsj_hn 5y ago
      > As far as I can tell, no European country does anything of the sort This data is pretty easy to find. One tip is to look at the requirements of vaccine certificates in use in Europe. Modern life is all about knowing which keywords to search for. In the Swiss system, if you have a positive antibody test from a previous infection, you get a certificate for 180 days. Then you need another test. As long as you have antibodies detectable by the PCR test, you will have a certificate for the next 180 days. No vaccine needed. If you have covid, odds are you will have antibodies for the rest of your life[1]. https://www.bag.admin.ch/bag/en/home/krankheiten/ausbrueche-epidemien-pandemien/aktuelle-ausbrueche-epidemien/novel-cov/covid-zertifikat/covid-zertifikat-erhalt-gueltigkeit.html https://www.bag.admin.ch/bag/en/home/krankheiten/ausbrueche-... The EU covid certificate is given along similar lines as the Swiss. You need either have a vaccine, have a PCR that detects antibodies (180 day validity), or received a negative test (72 hour validity). You can find details here: https://ec.europa.eu/info/live-work-travel-eu/coronavirus-response/safe-covid-19-vaccines-europeans/eu-digital-covid-certificate_en https://ec.europa.eu/info/live-work-travel-eu/coronavirus-re... [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01442-9 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01442-9
      - nuerow 5y ago
        > This data is pretty easy to find, so not sure what was stopping you from gathering it. One tip is to look at the requirements of vaccine certificates in use in Europe. Actually, it isn't because your claim goes against pretty much all the information made available. Thus, the onus to substantiate your extraordinary claim is on you, specially because the odds that you've misunderstood or misrepresented your assertion are quite high. > In the Swiss system, if you have a positive antibody test from a previous infection, you get a certificate for 180 days. And here lies your mistake. Contrary to the original claim, Switzerland absolutely does not classify people who gained immunity from exposure the same as vaccinated. At all. If you take the time to read your own source, you'll notice that a) Switzerland supports both vaccine passports and certificate of prior infection, which are entirely different classifications, b) those who decide to only present a certificate of prior infection are forced to go through additional checks such as mandatory PCR tests prior to travel and after arriving, c) this only limited to international travel. > The EU covid certificate is given along similar lines as the Swiss. If you read up on the EU's COVID certificate you'll find out that the EU imposes high requirements for the certificate, such as not accepting PCR tests as proof of a prior COVID infection. Also, the same EU requires that those who were verifiably infected with COVID take at least a single vaccination dose to be deemed fully vaccinated.
- robbiep 5y ago
  Well some countries are saying proven infection is good for 7 months worth of vaccine coverage. But the length and time period of the immune response is likely much more variable than those who received vaccination
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- maccam94 5y ago
  Most people in the US who have contracted COVID-19 don't have proof of it. Vaccinating everyone is cheaper and more consistent than trying to build out mass testing infrastructure. Plus if you can convince people to show up for a test, it's better to just vaccinate them. Tests can come back negative, or give false positives, in which case those people still won't have immunity, but the benefits of the vaccine are pretty well understood. AFAIK it's more of an issue of ensuring public safety and efficiency than whether your immune system produced good enough antibodies from an infection.
  - Mountain_Skies 5y ago
    The Red Cross and the regional blood bank in my area both test for COVID19 antibodies. Seems extremely unrealistic that testing infrastructure would be too difficult considering how much we've done for the pandemic. "Just jab everyone and we're done!" sounds like a desire for a simple silver bullet solution, which is a very common Silicon Valley way of seeing the world. Equating antibody presence to be the same as having been vaccinated would give health officials a much more accurate view of the pandemic and where resources need to be allocated instead of this odd ideologically driven need to demand conformity from everyone even if they already have immunity that appears to be an order of magnitude more durable than the jab. It makes clear that this is almost entirely about a pathological need to round off all the corners in the world and almost nothing at all about fighting the pandemic itself. But what a wonderful opportunity this pandemic has been for the authoritarian types. For them, this truly is the golden age and should be extended for as long as possible.
    - maccam94 5y ago
      The Red Cross has ~7 million donors per year (~2% of the population). That's not really evidence that they could sample a large enough portion of the population as quickly as they could be vaccinated. And again, it doesn't increase herd immunity. It does at least have a side benefit of increasing our blood inventory, but also has the downside of potentially spreading infection among the unvaccinated while they donate.
  - LurkingPenguin 5y ago
- nuerow 5y ago
  > Is there a scientific reason, as opposed to political, why this would not exempt one from a mandated vaccine? First of all, taking the vaccine is not political. What is political is the contrarian stance against vaccinating against COVID-19. This sad state of affairs was the direct result of an election campaign which was deeply invested in denying that COVID-19 was a public health concern, or even that it existed at all, and thus recognizing the vaccine's importance and effectiveness was deemed a sign of a political defeat and admission of responsibility for countless unnecessary deaths. Secondly, natural immunity against COVID-19 is not a sure thing, with the risk of reinfection being as high as 17%, and subsequent infections are known to be more severe than the first[1]. In contrast, immunity through vaccination is believed to be not only more effective but also last longer[2]. Consequently, there is absolutely no reason at all, other than political beliefs, to refuse to get the vaccine. [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-01202-8 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-01202-8 [2] https://www.immunology.org/coronavirus/connect-coronavirus-public-engagement-resources/covid-immunity-natural-infection-vaccine https://www.immunology.org/coronavirus/connect-coronavirus-p...
  - LurkingPenguin 5y ago
    Your comment is full of misinformation. > This sad state of affairs was the direct result of an election campaign which was deeply invested in denying that COVID-19 was a public health concern, or even that it existed at all, and thus recognizing the vaccine's importance and effectiveness was deemed a sign of a political defeat and admission of responsibility for countless unnecessary deaths. You seem to be implying that the former president, whose administration helped fund the vaccine development, was responsible for all of the anti-vaxxer sentiment. Even as someone who is very happy Trump is gone, I must say this type of dishonesty has no place in a civil discourse about vaccination. https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/mar/04/rachel-maddow/what-trump-said-encourage-covid-19-vaccine-use/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/mar/04/rachel-mad... > ...and subsequent infections are known to be more severe than the first You have conveniently misconstrued what your own citation says: > Reinfections have been reported, and in a few instances, the second infection was more severe than the first, but serological responses suggest that patients never seroconverted after initial infection and ADE is a less likely cause of a more severe second infection Some people don't seroconvert after vaccination either. Using outliers to make broad claims is not appropriate. > ...immunity through vaccination is believed to be not only more effective but also last longer. Linking to an infographic that doesn't provide citations for its statements isn't exactly convincing, especially when there is evidence that what is claimed might not be accurate. For example see, https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v... Conclusion: > 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.
- throwawayfear 5y ago
  No. The majority of Americans now have antibodies one way or another. In significant excess of the 60 to 70 percent Fauci and other public servants were rooting for this entire year. Some 80 to 85 percent of the population by now has antibodies. More than 80% of Americans have coronavirus antibodies acquired through infection or vaccination, according to a new study of over 1.4 million blood donations across the U.S. https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article253987048.html https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article25398704... And as reported on by Bloomberg and other media, the antibodies from past infection confer protection equal to or greater than Pfizer. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-08-27/previous-covid-prevents-delta-infection-better-than-pfizer-shot https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-08-27/previous-... "Previous Covid Prevents Delta Infection Better Than Pfizer Shot" And those are slated to last for decades. Source: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01442-9 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01442-9 "Had COVID? You’ll probably make antibodies for a lifetime" On the exact terms given to us by Fauci and other public servants, there is no more reason for these covid mandates to exist. Not from a scientific point of view based on these links.
  - moistly 5y ago
    > The majority of Americans now have antibodies one way or another Why are some hospital systems still overwhelmed? Where are all these very sick people coming from if almost everyone has been in contact with the virus?
    - angelzen 5y ago
      Because hospitals operate with minimal spare capacity. Any epidemic wave will overwhelm the system. That being said, hospitals are not overwhelmed. There may be a handful of hot areas where that is marginally true, but generally speaking the vast majority of the country is doing just fine. I just threw a dart at Iowa: 69% beds occupancy, 10% covid. This is not what "overwhelmed" looks like. https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/region/us/iowa https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/region/us/iowa
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.

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/
  - caconym_ 5y ago
    I'm not sure where you imagine I made any statement directly comparing the efficacy of vaccines to natural immunity. The substance of my comment is limited to the problem of quantifying the efficacy of natural immunity in the real world, from the perspective of public health policy.
    - OrvalWintermute 5y ago
      > quantify vaccine-induced immunity This is a non-sequitur. These vaccines are leaky & non-sterilizing; these are not remotely comparable to the vaccines we have had throughout most of our normal lives that grant something like 99.99999% protection with minimal side effects. I'm saying that as someone as who has had a number of vaccines during my life - I am not an antivaxx. However, these vaccines are not comparable.
destitude 5y ago
Because it is purely political in the USA. Many other countries do classify people who gained immunity from exposure the same as vaccinated.
- nuerow 5y ago
  > Many other countries do classify people who gained immunity from exposure the same as vaccinated. Can you point out an example of any country that exempts those who were already infected with COVID from taking the vaccine? As far as I can tell, no European country does anything of the sort, neither does the US and definitely not Canada, and a quick Google search returns no search hit.
  - rsj_hn 5y ago
    > As far as I can tell, no European country does anything of the sort This data is pretty easy to find. One tip is to look at the requirements of vaccine certificates in use in Europe. Modern life is all about knowing which keywords to search for. In the Swiss system, if you have a positive antibody test from a previous infection, you get a certificate for 180 days. Then you need another test. As long as you have antibodies detectable by the PCR test, you will have a certificate for the next 180 days. No vaccine needed. If you have covid, odds are you will have antibodies for the rest of your life[1]. https://www.bag.admin.ch/bag/en/home/krankheiten/ausbrueche-epidemien-pandemien/aktuelle-ausbrueche-epidemien/novel-cov/covid-zertifikat/covid-zertifikat-erhalt-gueltigkeit.html https://www.bag.admin.ch/bag/en/home/krankheiten/ausbrueche-... The EU covid certificate is given along similar lines as the Swiss. You need either have a vaccine, have a PCR that detects antibodies (180 day validity), or received a negative test (72 hour validity). You can find details here: https://ec.europa.eu/info/live-work-travel-eu/coronavirus-response/safe-covid-19-vaccines-europeans/eu-digital-covid-certificate_en https://ec.europa.eu/info/live-work-travel-eu/coronavirus-re... [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01442-9 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01442-9
    - nuerow 5y ago
      > This data is pretty easy to find, so not sure what was stopping you from gathering it. One tip is to look at the requirements of vaccine certificates in use in Europe. Actually, it isn't because your claim goes against pretty much all the information made available. Thus, the onus to substantiate your extraordinary claim is on you, specially because the odds that you've misunderstood or misrepresented your assertion are quite high. > In the Swiss system, if you have a positive antibody test from a previous infection, you get a certificate for 180 days. And here lies your mistake. Contrary to the original claim, Switzerland absolutely does not classify people who gained immunity from exposure the same as vaccinated. At all. If you take the time to read your own source, you'll notice that a) Switzerland supports both vaccine passports and certificate of prior infection, which are entirely different classifications, b) those who decide to only present a certificate of prior infection are forced to go through additional checks such as mandatory PCR tests prior to travel and after arriving, c) this only limited to international travel. > The EU covid certificate is given along similar lines as the Swiss. If you read up on the EU's COVID certificate you'll find out that the EU imposes high requirements for the certificate, such as not accepting PCR tests as proof of a prior COVID infection. Also, the same EU requires that those who were verifiably infected with COVID take at least a single vaccination dose to be deemed fully vaccinated.
robbiep 5y ago
Well some countries are saying proven infection is good for 7 months worth of vaccine coverage. But the length and time period of the immune response is likely much more variable than those who received vaccination
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
maccam94 5y ago
Most people in the US who have contracted COVID-19 don't have proof of it. Vaccinating everyone is cheaper and more consistent than trying to build out mass testing infrastructure. Plus if you can convince people to show up for a test, it's better to just vaccinate them. Tests can come back negative, or give false positives, in which case those people still won't have immunity, but the benefits of the vaccine are pretty well understood. AFAIK it's more of an issue of ensuring public safety and efficiency than whether your immune system produced good enough antibodies from an infection.
- Mountain_Skies 5y ago
  The Red Cross and the regional blood bank in my area both test for COVID19 antibodies. Seems extremely unrealistic that testing infrastructure would be too difficult considering how much we've done for the pandemic. "Just jab everyone and we're done!" sounds like a desire for a simple silver bullet solution, which is a very common Silicon Valley way of seeing the world. Equating antibody presence to be the same as having been vaccinated would give health officials a much more accurate view of the pandemic and where resources need to be allocated instead of this odd ideologically driven need to demand conformity from everyone even if they already have immunity that appears to be an order of magnitude more durable than the jab. It makes clear that this is almost entirely about a pathological need to round off all the corners in the world and almost nothing at all about fighting the pandemic itself. But what a wonderful opportunity this pandemic has been for the authoritarian types. For them, this truly is the golden age and should be extended for as long as possible.
  - maccam94 5y ago
    The Red Cross has ~7 million donors per year (~2% of the population). That's not really evidence that they could sample a large enough portion of the population as quickly as they could be vaccinated. And again, it doesn't increase herd immunity. It does at least have a side benefit of increasing our blood inventory, but also has the downside of potentially spreading infection among the unvaccinated while they donate.
- LurkingPenguin 5y ago
nuerow 5y ago
> Is there a scientific reason, as opposed to political, why this would not exempt one from a mandated vaccine? First of all, taking the vaccine is not political. What is political is the contrarian stance against vaccinating against COVID-19. This sad state of affairs was the direct result of an election campaign which was deeply invested in denying that COVID-19 was a public health concern, or even that it existed at all, and thus recognizing the vaccine's importance and effectiveness was deemed a sign of a political defeat and admission of responsibility for countless unnecessary deaths. Secondly, natural immunity against COVID-19 is not a sure thing, with the risk of reinfection being as high as 17%, and subsequent infections are known to be more severe than the first[1]. In contrast, immunity through vaccination is believed to be not only more effective but also last longer[2]. Consequently, there is absolutely no reason at all, other than political beliefs, to refuse to get the vaccine. [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-01202-8 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-01202-8 [2] https://www.immunology.org/coronavirus/connect-coronavirus-public-engagement-resources/covid-immunity-natural-infection-vaccine https://www.immunology.org/coronavirus/connect-coronavirus-p...
- LurkingPenguin 5y ago
  Your comment is full of misinformation. > This sad state of affairs was the direct result of an election campaign which was deeply invested in denying that COVID-19 was a public health concern, or even that it existed at all, and thus recognizing the vaccine's importance and effectiveness was deemed a sign of a political defeat and admission of responsibility for countless unnecessary deaths. You seem to be implying that the former president, whose administration helped fund the vaccine development, was responsible for all of the anti-vaxxer sentiment. Even as someone who is very happy Trump is gone, I must say this type of dishonesty has no place in a civil discourse about vaccination. https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/mar/04/rachel-maddow/what-trump-said-encourage-covid-19-vaccine-use/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/mar/04/rachel-mad... > ...and subsequent infections are known to be more severe than the first You have conveniently misconstrued what your own citation says: > Reinfections have been reported, and in a few instances, the second infection was more severe than the first, but serological responses suggest that patients never seroconverted after initial infection and ADE is a less likely cause of a more severe second infection Some people don't seroconvert after vaccination either. Using outliers to make broad claims is not appropriate. > ...immunity through vaccination is believed to be not only more effective but also last longer. Linking to an infographic that doesn't provide citations for its statements isn't exactly convincing, especially when there is evidence that what is claimed might not be accurate. For example see, https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v... Conclusion: > 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.
throwawayfear 5y ago
No. The majority of Americans now have antibodies one way or another. In significant excess of the 60 to 70 percent Fauci and other public servants were rooting for this entire year. Some 80 to 85 percent of the population by now has antibodies. More than 80% of Americans have coronavirus antibodies acquired through infection or vaccination, according to a new study of over 1.4 million blood donations across the U.S. https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article253987048.html https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article25398704... And as reported on by Bloomberg and other media, the antibodies from past infection confer protection equal to or greater than Pfizer. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-08-27/previous-covid-prevents-delta-infection-better-than-pfizer-shot https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-08-27/previous-... "Previous Covid Prevents Delta Infection Better Than Pfizer Shot" And those are slated to last for decades. Source: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01442-9 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01442-9 "Had COVID? You’ll probably make antibodies for a lifetime" On the exact terms given to us by Fauci and other public servants, there is no more reason for these covid mandates to exist. Not from a scientific point of view based on these links.
- moistly 5y ago
  > The majority of Americans now have antibodies one way or another Why are some hospital systems still overwhelmed? Where are all these very sick people coming from if almost everyone has been in contact with the virus?
  - angelzen 5y ago
    Because hospitals operate with minimal spare capacity. Any epidemic wave will overwhelm the system. That being said, hospitals are not overwhelmed. There may be a handful of hot areas where that is marginally true, but generally speaking the vast majority of the country is doing just fine. I just threw a dart at Iowa: 69% beds occupancy, 10% covid. This is not what "overwhelmed" looks like. https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/region/us/iowa https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/region/us/iowa

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.