5 ms·

>Most of them have probably had COVID already, or soon will, giving them an immunity just as good as vaccination. Immunity from prior-infection was worse than

>Most of them have probably had COVID already, or soon will, giving them an immunity just as good as vaccination. Immunity from prior-infection was worse than vaccination at protecting people from Delta.[1] 1. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/vaccine-induced-immunity.html#anchor_1635546906501 https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-br...

switch007 5y ago
By how much? It's really disingenuous to say "more" or "less" or "better" or "worse" without qualification.
s1artibartfast 5y ago
Source? The papers I have seen show the exact opposite!
- bovid19 5y ago
  Would you mind sharing which papers you are talking about?
- omegaworks 5y ago
  "There is laboratory evidence that persons previously infected with the original lineage of SARS-CoV-2 have reduced neutralizing antibody titers against certain variants (i.e., Beta, Gamma, and Delta variants)" https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/vaccine-induced-immunity.html#anchor_1635546906501 https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-br...
  - rimliu 5y ago
    That's an outdated source.
s1artibartfast 5y ago
Your reference undermines your claim. From your reference: >In this review, observational studies appeared to show protection to be higher following infection.
- omegaworks 5y ago
  In the executive summary, which lays out how we should interpret the total body of data collected so far: "The body of evidence for infection-induced immunity is more limited than that for vaccine-induced immunity in terms of the quality of evidence... There are insufficient data to extend the findings related to infection-induced immunity at this time to persons with very mild or asymptomatic infection or children." We literally don't have the evidence needed to say with certainty that infection (of all levels of severity) provides "an immunity just as good as vaccination." The data only suggests that people that are severely affected by COVID may have higher peak antibody titers. It's a huge gamble to play with yourself and the people around you.
  - s1artibartfast 5y ago
    You are shifting the goal posts. First you said: >Immunity from prior-infection was worse than vaccination at protecting people from Delta.[1] Now you are saying : >We literally don't have the evidence needed to say with certainty that infection (of all levels of severity) provides "an immunity just as good as vaccination." Meanwhile, all the data coming out of countries with centralized covid tracking suggests natural immunity is as good or better. Here is another link if you are interested: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1.full-text https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v... Reviewing health data for 2.5 million Israelis, It found: >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 >Conclusions 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.
gojomo 5y ago
This study has a rather strange design that might be miscategorizing people who’d both been infected & vaxed (counting them only as vaxed), & among other things, misses the risk that more unvaxed people might seek medical care, or receive more aggressive treatment, for the same level of symptoms. It’s also an outlier result, as larger analyses from Israel suggest longer & stronger protection from infection. What we can say confidently is that both the vax & prior infection provide some future protection, ut both fade against re-infection fairly fast, while remaining helpful against severity. Also more generally: the CDC has not, in this pandemic, proven very reliable in its reporting, recommendations, or weighing/updating of evidence, & its choice of what to report & emphasize has been highly compromised by shifting political pressures. I think their highlighting of this result, over evidence suggesting otherwise, is suspect - more a reflection of them wanting to boost the vax campaign than an honest assessment of all relevant scientific evidence.

switch007 5y ago

By how much? It's really disingenuous to say "more" or "less" or "better" or "worse" without qualification.

s1artibartfast 5y ago

Source? The papers I have seen show the exact opposite!

bovid19 5y ago
Would you mind sharing which papers you are talking about?
omegaworks 5y ago
"There is laboratory evidence that persons previously infected with the original lineage of SARS-CoV-2 have reduced neutralizing antibody titers against certain variants (i.e., Beta, Gamma, and Delta variants)" https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/vaccine-induced-immunity.html#anchor_1635546906501 https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-br...
- rimliu 5y ago
  That's an outdated source.

s1artibartfast 5y ago

Your reference undermines your claim. From your reference: >In this review, observational studies appeared to show protection to be higher following infection.

omegaworks 5y ago
In the executive summary, which lays out how we should interpret the total body of data collected so far: "The body of evidence for infection-induced immunity is more limited than that for vaccine-induced immunity in terms of the quality of evidence... There are insufficient data to extend the findings related to infection-induced immunity at this time to persons with very mild or asymptomatic infection or children." We literally don't have the evidence needed to say with certainty that infection (of all levels of severity) provides "an immunity just as good as vaccination." The data only suggests that people that are severely affected by COVID may have higher peak antibody titers. It's a huge gamble to play with yourself and the people around you.
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  You are shifting the goal posts. First you said: >Immunity from prior-infection was worse than vaccination at protecting people from Delta.[1] Now you are saying : >We literally don't have the evidence needed to say with certainty that infection (of all levels of severity) provides "an immunity just as good as vaccination." Meanwhile, all the data coming out of countries with centralized covid tracking suggests natural immunity is as good or better. Here is another link if you are interested: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1.full-text https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v... Reviewing health data for 2.5 million Israelis, It found: >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 >Conclusions 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.

gojomo 5y ago

This study has a rather strange design that might be miscategorizing people who’d both been infected & vaxed (counting them only as vaxed), & among other things, misses the risk that more unvaxed people might seek medical care, or receive more aggressive treatment, for the same level of symptoms. It’s also an outlier result, as larger analyses from Israel suggest longer & stronger protection from infection. What we can say confidently is that both the vax & prior infection provide some future protection, ut both fade against re-infection fairly fast, while remaining helpful against severity. Also more generally: the CDC has not, in this pandemic, proven very reliable in its reporting, recommendations, or weighing/updating of evidence, & its choice of what to report & emphasize has been highly compromised by shifting political pressures. I think their highlighting of this result, over evidence suggesting otherwise, is suspect - more a reflection of them wanting to boost the vax campaign than an honest assessment of all relevant scientific evidence.