4 ms·

> There is little evidence right now that immunity through a natural infection is better than immunity from a vaccine. This is a very strong claim to make with

> There is little evidence right now that immunity through a natural infection is better than immunity from a vaccine. This is a very strong claim to make without any evidence or proof. To the contrary, there is strong evidence that natural infection brings considerably better immunity than any vaccination does. [0] Study analyzed: > 2.5 million people in Israel, spanning March 1st 2020 to August 14th 2021. Full study can be read in detail: [1] [0] https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/312538 https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/312538 [1] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1.full.pdf https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v...

peter422 5y ago
There is a more recent U.S. study [1], which comes to a different conclusion, and neither of these studies take into account boosters (or a longer delay between shots), which by all accounts improves vaccine effectiveness by ~10x. Being vaccinated and then boosted offers as worst equal protection, probably better, against infection and disease, with much much lower risk of side effects, serious disease, long covid or death. 1: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/pdfs/mm7044e1-H.pdf https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/pdfs/mm7044e1-H.pdf
- beerandt 5y ago
  That's an unbelievably poorly designed study, for many reasons. It basically says unvaccinated people who are already or recently sick (with any "covid-like" symptoms) are more likely to go to the hospital once they catch covid (vs vaccinated). (Duh.) Worse, it presumes any of those sick people with respiratory symptoms had natural immunity to covid without any confirmation. So it's not comparing natural immunity to vaccinated immunity, but vaccinated individuals vs anybody-unvaccinated-thats-been-sick-with-anything-in-the-last-6-months. Put another way, it presumes any "covid-like" symptoms results in natural immunity to covid, then puts that assumption to the test. And instead of admitting it's a bad assumption and that most of this group didn't previously have covid, they attribute it to natural immunity not being effective.
  - peter422 5y ago
    Your interpretation of the study is wrong (and probably shows your internal bias in this matter). I’m not suggesting it is a perfect study, but the methodology makes sense. The point is that if somebody gets hospitalized for covid-like sickness, then they’ll be hospitalized (and trackable), and they hope that is a stable cohort. So you start with hospitalized patients with covid-like symptoms, then look among them and see who was vaccinated (and when), vs who previously had covid (and when), and then by looking at the percentage of cases caused by covid you are attempting to effectively compare the susceptibility to covid in the broader population. It works as long as the person is getting all of their medical care in your system and you have full tracking of them (which they do in the study). And again, it isn’t perfect but there is no perfect study for this. And when they redo the study with boosters whatever the result is we know the real world effectiveness of boosters is 10x non-boosted do the results would be even better.
    - AndrewUnmuted 5y ago
      You start out by saying their interpretation is wrong, but their interpretation is that it: > presumes any of those sick people with respiratory symptoms had natural immunity to covid without any confirmation. This is an accurate statement to make about the study. Until you can effectively prove somehow this is not the case, it's only you who > shows your internal bias in this matter
      - peter422 5y ago
        No it doesn’t. Read the study. People being hospitalized with covid-like symptoms is the broader population and those with prior confirmed covid infections and those with prior confirmed vaccines within that population are the sample groups where the covid infections rates are compared. Do you genuinely believe a study with such a massive and obvious methodology problem would get published and cited by the CDC? (and yes I know bad studies do get published from time to time but it isn’t common).
        AndrewUnmuted 5y ago
Retric 5y ago
Different is not the same as better. Multiple studies show benefits for each under different conditions such as time since exposure and consistency of protection. The best fit for available evidence seems to be that getting COVID (or at least a positive test result) doesn’t guarantee a robust long term immunity for every individual. But it can result in a better long term immunity for many. This is why it’s recommended for people to get vaccinated even after infection. They might already have robust immunity, or they might not. The vaccines are so incredibly safe and cheap it’s simply not worth the risk.
- artificialLimbs 5y ago
  Safe unless you're vaccine injured and have to go to the kangaroo vaccine court to get denied any (government, not vaccine manufacturer) payout.

peter422 5y ago

There is a more recent U.S. study [1], which comes to a different conclusion, and neither of these studies take into account boosters (or a longer delay between shots), which by all accounts improves vaccine effectiveness by ~10x. Being vaccinated and then boosted offers as worst equal protection, probably better, against infection and disease, with much much lower risk of side effects, serious disease, long covid or death. 1: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/pdfs/mm7044e1-H.pdf https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/pdfs/mm7044e1-H.pdf

beerandt 5y ago
That's an unbelievably poorly designed study, for many reasons. It basically says unvaccinated people who are already or recently sick (with any "covid-like" symptoms) are more likely to go to the hospital once they catch covid (vs vaccinated). (Duh.) Worse, it presumes any of those sick people with respiratory symptoms had natural immunity to covid without any confirmation. So it's not comparing natural immunity to vaccinated immunity, but vaccinated individuals vs anybody-unvaccinated-thats-been-sick-with-anything-in-the-last-6-months. Put another way, it presumes any "covid-like" symptoms results in natural immunity to covid, then puts that assumption to the test. And instead of admitting it's a bad assumption and that most of this group didn't previously have covid, they attribute it to natural immunity not being effective.
- peter422 5y ago
  Your interpretation of the study is wrong (and probably shows your internal bias in this matter). I’m not suggesting it is a perfect study, but the methodology makes sense. The point is that if somebody gets hospitalized for covid-like sickness, then they’ll be hospitalized (and trackable), and they hope that is a stable cohort. So you start with hospitalized patients with covid-like symptoms, then look among them and see who was vaccinated (and when), vs who previously had covid (and when), and then by looking at the percentage of cases caused by covid you are attempting to effectively compare the susceptibility to covid in the broader population. It works as long as the person is getting all of their medical care in your system and you have full tracking of them (which they do in the study). And again, it isn’t perfect but there is no perfect study for this. And when they redo the study with boosters whatever the result is we know the real world effectiveness of boosters is 10x non-boosted do the results would be even better.
  - AndrewUnmuted 5y ago
    You start out by saying their interpretation is wrong, but their interpretation is that it: > presumes any of those sick people with respiratory symptoms had natural immunity to covid without any confirmation. This is an accurate statement to make about the study. Until you can effectively prove somehow this is not the case, it's only you who > shows your internal bias in this matter
    - peter422 5y ago
      No it doesn’t. Read the study. People being hospitalized with covid-like symptoms is the broader population and those with prior confirmed covid infections and those with prior confirmed vaccines within that population are the sample groups where the covid infections rates are compared. Do you genuinely believe a study with such a massive and obvious methodology problem would get published and cited by the CDC? (and yes I know bad studies do get published from time to time but it isn’t common).
      - AndrewUnmuted 5y ago

Retric 5y ago

Different is not the same as better. Multiple studies show benefits for each under different conditions such as time since exposure and consistency of protection. The best fit for available evidence seems to be that getting COVID (or at least a positive test result) doesn’t guarantee a robust long term immunity for every individual. But it can result in a better long term immunity for many. This is why it’s recommended for people to get vaccinated even after infection. They might already have robust immunity, or they might not. The vaccines are so incredibly safe and cheap it’s simply not worth the risk.

artificialLimbs 5y ago
Safe unless you're vaccine injured and have to go to the kangaroo vaccine court to get denied any (government, not vaccine manufacturer) payout.