5 ms·

> 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 va

> 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.
  - caconym_ 5y ago
    You are, apparently, not even making a token effort to understand my comments. If you want to talk about how much better natural immunity is than vaccines, there are plenty of subthreads in these comments where your contributions--while possibly controversial--would not be completely irrelevant. But this is not one of those subthreads. I have not expressed an opinion on that matter and I have no intention of doing so in this particular context.
  - unclebucknasty 5y ago
    >had a number of vaccines during my life - I am not an antivaxx "Antivaxx" in today's context has nothing to do with whether you've ever accepted a vaccine in your life, and everything to do with whether you reject COVID vaccines. In fact, that's as much the meaning as anything: that people who were previously OK with vaccines (including the regimen of sometimes experimental vaccines required by the military) are somehow now vociferously opposed to COVID vaccines. And, on that measure, even a cursory glance at your recent comment history reveals that you are unequivocally antivaxx.
    - OrvalWintermute 5y ago
      > you are unequivocally antivaxx My vaccine record says otherwise.
      - unclebucknasty 5y ago
        To quote the sibling of my previous comment: "You are, apparently, not even making a token effort to understand my comments"
        OrvalWintermute 5y ago
        You are using a pejorative directed at me, by calling me antivaxx, or, an antivaxxer. That is actually an insult. Please refrain from insulting me. I am not antivaxx. I am pro-vaccine, and as a veteran I am actually quite immunized. Heavily immunized in fact. Far more so than most of the civilian population. However, this is a question of an unlike comparison. I am vaccine hesistant in this case. Thanks for prompting this clarification.
caeril 5y ago
> Natural immunity confers with it resistance to a number of different covid-19 viral proteins, not just the spike I am personally closer to the antivax group than the provax group( at least in terms of mandates, because abrogation of bodily autonomy is straight up evil ), but I have to take issue with this statement. While you are probably correct, we need to worry about biomechanics and effectiveness. If the S protein is the specific means of entry, that's definitely the one we should target. There's no reason to target proteins that don't actually bind to anything. There are other issues regarding what are the limits to the memory of our circulating B cells. If my immune system has to "swap out" memory of, say, polio, in order to accommodate antibodies to eight different viral proteins, I'd rather it only remember one, if it's just as effective.
mlyle 5y ago
> 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. This is bogus. A broad spectrum of immune response develops through mutation and maturation of B cells. This is why we see broad neutralizing activity-- even against Delta without a Delta-specific booster-- against all variants from vaccination.

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.
- caconym_ 5y ago
  You are, apparently, not even making a token effort to understand my comments. If you want to talk about how much better natural immunity is than vaccines, there are plenty of subthreads in these comments where your contributions--while possibly controversial--would not be completely irrelevant. But this is not one of those subthreads. I have not expressed an opinion on that matter and I have no intention of doing so in this particular context.
- unclebucknasty 5y ago
  >had a number of vaccines during my life - I am not an antivaxx "Antivaxx" in today's context has nothing to do with whether you've ever accepted a vaccine in your life, and everything to do with whether you reject COVID vaccines. In fact, that's as much the meaning as anything: that people who were previously OK with vaccines (including the regimen of sometimes experimental vaccines required by the military) are somehow now vociferously opposed to COVID vaccines. And, on that measure, even a cursory glance at your recent comment history reveals that you are unequivocally antivaxx.
  - OrvalWintermute 5y ago
    > you are unequivocally antivaxx My vaccine record says otherwise.
    - unclebucknasty 5y ago
      To quote the sibling of my previous comment: "You are, apparently, not even making a token effort to understand my comments"
      - OrvalWintermute 5y ago
        You are using a pejorative directed at me, by calling me antivaxx, or, an antivaxxer. That is actually an insult. Please refrain from insulting me. I am not antivaxx. I am pro-vaccine, and as a veteran I am actually quite immunized. Heavily immunized in fact. Far more so than most of the civilian population. However, this is a question of an unlike comparison. I am vaccine hesistant in this case. Thanks for prompting this clarification.

caeril 5y ago

> Natural immunity confers with it resistance to a number of different covid-19 viral proteins, not just the spike I am personally closer to the antivax group than the provax group( at least in terms of mandates, because abrogation of bodily autonomy is straight up evil ), but I have to take issue with this statement. While you are probably correct, we need to worry about biomechanics and effectiveness. If the S protein is the specific means of entry, that's definitely the one we should target. There's no reason to target proteins that don't actually bind to anything. There are other issues regarding what are the limits to the memory of our circulating B cells. If my immune system has to "swap out" memory of, say, polio, in order to accommodate antibodies to eight different viral proteins, I'd rather it only remember one, if it's just as effective.

mlyle 5y ago

> 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. This is bogus. A broad spectrum of immune response develops through mutation and maturation of B cells. This is why we see broad neutralizing activity-- even against Delta without a Delta-specific booster-- against all variants from vaccination.