5 ms·

Pfizer’s own data says the same thing. The safety and efficacy study they did shows that efficacy drops by about 6% every 2 months. Everyone will need boosters

Pfizer’s own data says the same thing. The safety and efficacy study they did shows that efficacy drops by about 6% every 2 months. Everyone will need boosters at least once per year in perpetuity if they want to maintain any reasonable amount of protection. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261159v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261159v...

akomtu 5y ago
Does natural immunity wane off at the same rate?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- LurkingPenguin 5y ago
  It doesn't look like it. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v... > SARS-CoV-2-naïve vaccinees had a 13.06-fold (95% CI, 8.08 to 21.11) increased risk for breakthrough infection with the Delta variant compared to those previously infected, when the first event (infection or vaccination) occurred during January and February of 2021. The increased risk was significant (P<0.001) for symptomatic disease as well. When allowing the infection to occur at any time before vaccination (from March 2020 to February 2021), evidence of waning natural immunity was demonstrated, though SARS-CoV-2 naïve vaccinees had a 5.96-fold (95% CI, 4.85 to 7.33) increased risk for breakthrough infection and a 7.13-fold (95% CI, 5.51 to 9.21) increased risk for symptomatic disease. SARS-CoV-2-naïve vaccinees were also at a greater risk for COVID-19-related-hospitalizations compared to those that were previously infected.
  - akomtu 5y ago
    So it's better to get natural immunity while under the effect of vaccine. I'm sure Pfizer would prefer perpetual mandatory boosters because thats a fat revenue stream.
    - elzbardico 5y ago
      Nops, because of antigenic imprinting. From the wiki (that prefers the annoying name Original Antigenic Sin, probably invented by a theist) "Original antigenic sin, also known as antigenic imprinting or the Hoskins effect,[1] refers to the propensity of the body's immune system to preferentially utilize immunological memory based on a previous infection when a second slightly different version of that foreign pathogen (e.g. a virus or bacterium) is encountered. This leaves the immune system "trapped" by the first response it has made to each antigen, and unable to mount potentially more effective responses during subsequent infections. Antibodies or T-cells induced during infections with the first variant of the pathogen are subject to a form of original antigenic sin, termed repertoire freeze." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_antigenic_sin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_antigenic_sin
      - collias 5y ago
        Correct. It's inconvenient for the current narrative of getting absolutely everyone vaccinated with a spike protein from a single variant, but the best immunity currently available is naturally-obtained. Also, mostly unrelated, but the word "sin" has little to do with theism, though maybe that's where it's most commonly used. For example, in archery, a miss is called a "sin". I think it's apt for this concept.
    - throwntoday 5y ago
      Better to get natural immunity and just leave it at that. But it you got a vaccine afterwards from what I've gathered your natural antibodies will outcompete whatever the vaccine is producing. The inverse appears to be the same, in that, your body will be unable to produce its own antibodies after getting a vaccine because it is being outcompeted. This seems to pose an issue for variants, as your body will have no way of fighting off a sufficiently mutated virus, it will continue to produce the wrong antibodies. This is known as antibody-dependent enhancement, or ADE, and was a well understood risk prior to rushing out these vaccines.
- elzbardico 5y ago
  Not sure if there are studies, but I don't think it likely. It is almost natural to suppose that infection confers a broader antigenic stimuli than just a single spike protein for a single variant.
LurkingPenguin 5y ago
> Everyone will need boosters at least once per year in perpetuity if they want to maintain any reasonable amount of protection At 6 months, there's a stark difference between VE against infection versus VE against hospitalization. What endpoint should we really care about? Constantly boosting a non-sterilizing vaccine that is apparently still highly effective at reducing the risk of severe outcomes is mind boggling. There are people getting breakthrough infections just 2-4 months after their second dose. Look at how much drama has been generated trying to get people to take an initial vaccination series. The idea that vaccination campaigns for perpetual boosters every 3-6 months could ever be widely successful is absurd. It just isn't going to happen. It's pretty obvious that virtually everyone is going to get this thing at some point even if they've been vaccinated, and eventually public health officials will have no choice but to accept that natural immunity is a real thing.
- spookthesunset 5y ago
  I recall all the way back in March public health “experts” said that everybody was gonna get it. That was the idea behind “flatten the curve” to keep everybody from getting it at once… Dunno how society forgot that.

akomtu 5y ago

Does natural immunity wane off at the same rate?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
LurkingPenguin 5y ago
It doesn't look like it. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v... > SARS-CoV-2-naïve vaccinees had a 13.06-fold (95% CI, 8.08 to 21.11) increased risk for breakthrough infection with the Delta variant compared to those previously infected, when the first event (infection or vaccination) occurred during January and February of 2021. The increased risk was significant (P<0.001) for symptomatic disease as well. When allowing the infection to occur at any time before vaccination (from March 2020 to February 2021), evidence of waning natural immunity was demonstrated, though SARS-CoV-2 naïve vaccinees had a 5.96-fold (95% CI, 4.85 to 7.33) increased risk for breakthrough infection and a 7.13-fold (95% CI, 5.51 to 9.21) increased risk for symptomatic disease. SARS-CoV-2-naïve vaccinees were also at a greater risk for COVID-19-related-hospitalizations compared to those that were previously infected.
- akomtu 5y ago
  So it's better to get natural immunity while under the effect of vaccine. I'm sure Pfizer would prefer perpetual mandatory boosters because thats a fat revenue stream.
  - elzbardico 5y ago
    Nops, because of antigenic imprinting. From the wiki (that prefers the annoying name Original Antigenic Sin, probably invented by a theist) "Original antigenic sin, also known as antigenic imprinting or the Hoskins effect,[1] refers to the propensity of the body's immune system to preferentially utilize immunological memory based on a previous infection when a second slightly different version of that foreign pathogen (e.g. a virus or bacterium) is encountered. This leaves the immune system "trapped" by the first response it has made to each antigen, and unable to mount potentially more effective responses during subsequent infections. Antibodies or T-cells induced during infections with the first variant of the pathogen are subject to a form of original antigenic sin, termed repertoire freeze." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_antigenic_sin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_antigenic_sin
    - collias 5y ago
      Correct. It's inconvenient for the current narrative of getting absolutely everyone vaccinated with a spike protein from a single variant, but the best immunity currently available is naturally-obtained. Also, mostly unrelated, but the word "sin" has little to do with theism, though maybe that's where it's most commonly used. For example, in archery, a miss is called a "sin". I think it's apt for this concept.
  - throwntoday 5y ago
    Better to get natural immunity and just leave it at that. But it you got a vaccine afterwards from what I've gathered your natural antibodies will outcompete whatever the vaccine is producing. The inverse appears to be the same, in that, your body will be unable to produce its own antibodies after getting a vaccine because it is being outcompeted. This seems to pose an issue for variants, as your body will have no way of fighting off a sufficiently mutated virus, it will continue to produce the wrong antibodies. This is known as antibody-dependent enhancement, or ADE, and was a well understood risk prior to rushing out these vaccines.
elzbardico 5y ago
Not sure if there are studies, but I don't think it likely. It is almost natural to suppose that infection confers a broader antigenic stimuli than just a single spike protein for a single variant.

LurkingPenguin 5y ago

> Everyone will need boosters at least once per year in perpetuity if they want to maintain any reasonable amount of protection At 6 months, there's a stark difference between VE against infection versus VE against hospitalization. What endpoint should we really care about? Constantly boosting a non-sterilizing vaccine that is apparently still highly effective at reducing the risk of severe outcomes is mind boggling. There are people getting breakthrough infections just 2-4 months after their second dose. Look at how much drama has been generated trying to get people to take an initial vaccination series. The idea that vaccination campaigns for perpetual boosters every 3-6 months could ever be widely successful is absurd. It just isn't going to happen. It's pretty obvious that virtually everyone is going to get this thing at some point even if they've been vaccinated, and eventually public health officials will have no choice but to accept that natural immunity is a real thing.

spookthesunset 5y ago
I recall all the way back in March public health “experts” said that everybody was gonna get it. That was the idea behind “flatten the curve” to keep everybody from getting it at once… Dunno how society forgot that.