3 ms·

https://www.science.org/content/article/having-sars-cov-2-once-confers-much-greater-immunity-vaccine-vaccination-remains-vital https://www.science.org/content/a

by timr 5y ago

https://www.science.org/content/article/having-sars-cov-2-once-confers-much-greater-immunity-vaccine-vaccination-remains-vital https://www.science.org/content/article/having-sars-cov-2-on... > The natural immune protection that develops after a SARS-CoV-2 infection offers considerably more of a shield against the Delta variant of the pandemic coronavirus than two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, according to a large Israeli study that some scientists wish came with a “Don’t try this at home” label. The newly released data show people who once had a SARS-CoV-2 infection were much less likely than never-infected, vaccinated people to get Delta, develop symptoms from it, or become hospitalized with serious COVID-19.

heimidal 5y ago
From the same article: > The researchers also found that people who had SARS-CoV-2 previously and received one dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine were more highly protected against reinfection than those who once had the virus and were still unvaccinated.
- timr 5y ago
  Yes, and? The comment to which I'm responding said there's little evidence that natural immunity is better than vaccines. That's just not true. There's pretty strong evidence, actually. That natural immunity plus a booster is better than either is interesting, but not responsive to the question.
  - hcknwscommenter 5y ago
    No there is not strong evidence. The Israeli study highlighted previous infection versus vaccinated but not (yet) infected. Note the "previously infected" category did not exclude the vaccinated, but the vaccinated category did exclude the previously infected. The only solid conclusion to make from that is: that even if you have been previously infected, get a vaccine.
    - timr 5y ago
      > The Israeli study highlighted previous infection versus vaccinated Yes, they did this, and showed that natural infection was superior to vaccination alone. > but not (yet) infected. Incorrect. > Note the "previously infected" category did not exclude the vaccinated, but the vaccinated category did exclude the previously infected. No. You only have to read the link to see that your understanding of the study is entirely incorrect. > The study...found in two analyses that never-infected people who were vaccinated in January and February were, in June, July, and the first half of August, six to 13 times more likely to get infected than unvaccinated people who were previously infected with the coronavirus. In one analysis, comparing more than 32,000 people in the health system, the risk of developing symptomatic COVID-19 was 27 times higher among the vaccinated, and the risk of hospitalization eight times higher. > The researchers also found that people who had SARS-CoV-2 previously and received one dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine were more highly protected against reinfection than those who once had the virus and were still unvaccinated.
      - hcknwscommenter 5y ago
        Okay. I admit that my characterization was sloppy/incorrect. Thank you for pointing that out. The paper is still not strong evidence though. To whit: "the higher hospitalization rate in the 32,000-person analysis was based on just eight hospitalizations in a vaccinated group and one in a previously infected group. And the 13-fold increased risk of infection in the same analysis was based on just 238 infections in the vaccinated population, less than 1.5% of the more than 16,000 people, versus 19 reinfections among a similar number of people who once had SARS-CoV-2." These numbers are very small for distinguishing between the effectiveness of two different and effective immunization methods (natural and vaccine). By now, we should have more data to support if the effect size is that strong. Do we?
        microtherion 5y ago
        Even if the numbers scale up, they'd mean that you'd avoid roughly 1 hospitalization for every 2285 people who got immunity from being infected instead of from being vaccinated. Unfortunately, to obtain that immunity, about 1 in 30 had to be hospitalized, 1 in 250 died, and a significant number suffered serious complications. Nobody in their right mind would choose such a tradeoff.
darkarmani 5y ago
Doesn't that literally have survival bias baked into it? The people that survived COVID-19 are going to be more fit as a population than the population that didn't have the deaths.
- timr 5y ago
  Even if they were, why would you assume this would be relevant to re-infection? The vast majority of people testing positive for the virus are not dying from it.

by timr 5y ago

heimidal 5y ago

From the same article: > The researchers also found that people who had SARS-CoV-2 previously and received one dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine were more highly protected against reinfection than those who once had the virus and were still unvaccinated.

timr 5y ago
Yes, and? The comment to which I'm responding said there's little evidence that natural immunity is better than vaccines. That's just not true. There's pretty strong evidence, actually. That natural immunity plus a booster is better than either is interesting, but not responsive to the question.
- hcknwscommenter 5y ago
  No there is not strong evidence. The Israeli study highlighted previous infection versus vaccinated but not (yet) infected. Note the "previously infected" category did not exclude the vaccinated, but the vaccinated category did exclude the previously infected. The only solid conclusion to make from that is: that even if you have been previously infected, get a vaccine.
  - timr 5y ago
    > The Israeli study highlighted previous infection versus vaccinated Yes, they did this, and showed that natural infection was superior to vaccination alone. > but not (yet) infected. Incorrect. > Note the "previously infected" category did not exclude the vaccinated, but the vaccinated category did exclude the previously infected. No. You only have to read the link to see that your understanding of the study is entirely incorrect. > The study...found in two analyses that never-infected people who were vaccinated in January and February were, in June, July, and the first half of August, six to 13 times more likely to get infected than unvaccinated people who were previously infected with the coronavirus. In one analysis, comparing more than 32,000 people in the health system, the risk of developing symptomatic COVID-19 was 27 times higher among the vaccinated, and the risk of hospitalization eight times higher. > The researchers also found that people who had SARS-CoV-2 previously and received one dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine were more highly protected against reinfection than those who once had the virus and were still unvaccinated.
    - hcknwscommenter 5y ago
      Okay. I admit that my characterization was sloppy/incorrect. Thank you for pointing that out. The paper is still not strong evidence though. To whit: "the higher hospitalization rate in the 32,000-person analysis was based on just eight hospitalizations in a vaccinated group and one in a previously infected group. And the 13-fold increased risk of infection in the same analysis was based on just 238 infections in the vaccinated population, less than 1.5% of the more than 16,000 people, versus 19 reinfections among a similar number of people who once had SARS-CoV-2." These numbers are very small for distinguishing between the effectiveness of two different and effective immunization methods (natural and vaccine). By now, we should have more data to support if the effect size is that strong. Do we?
      - microtherion 5y ago
        Even if the numbers scale up, they'd mean that you'd avoid roughly 1 hospitalization for every 2285 people who got immunity from being infected instead of from being vaccinated. Unfortunately, to obtain that immunity, about 1 in 30 had to be hospitalized, 1 in 250 died, and a significant number suffered serious complications. Nobody in their right mind would choose such a tradeoff.

darkarmani 5y ago

Doesn't that literally have survival bias baked into it? The people that survived COVID-19 are going to be more fit as a population than the population that didn't have the deaths.

timr 5y ago
Even if they were, why would you assume this would be relevant to re-infection? The vast majority of people testing positive for the virus are not dying from it.