3 ms·

I have seen little evidence that having previously had COVID gives you sterilizing immunity. Some evidence it gives you better immunity than the vaccine but now

by jjeaff 5y ago

I have seen little evidence that having previously had COVID gives you sterilizing immunity. Some evidence it gives you better immunity than the vaccine but now more evidence coming out that points to the vaccine being better.

walterbell 5y ago
Here are 100+ studies to that effect, https://brownstone.org/articles/79-research-studies-affirm-naturally-acquired-immunity-to-covid-19-documented-linked-and-quoted/ https://brownstone.org/articles/79-research-studies-affirm-n...
- fer 5y ago
  I'm not sure what I'm looking at. > Such would be evidence of immunity that is equal to that of vaccination and the immunity should be provided the same societal status as any vaccine-induced immunity. They advocate for infection having the same status as vaccination, which is reasonable, and the policies, at least in the west and in the countries I'm familiar with, they take previous infection into account. > Again, the Marek’s disease in chickens and the vaccination situation explains what we are potentially facing with these leaky vaccines Then they mention Marek's disease in a gross (yet common) misunderstanding of the causes of such scenario. Luckily, humans aren't stacked up onto each other in direct contact 24/7. > This follow-up chart is the most updated and comprehensive library list of 139 of the highest-quality, complete, most robust scientific studies and evidence reports/position statements on natural immunity as compared to the COVID-19 vaccine-induced immunity and allow you to draw your own conclusion. OK, let's go through a few: 1. Results are unbelievable (0 reinfections among +1000 people who expose themselves daily) but the methodology seems solid otherwise. No complaints. 2. In vitro, small sample. 3. Conveniently skips "When allowing the infection to occur at any time before vaccination (from March 2020 to February 2021), evidence of waning natural immunity was demonstrated," 4. Doesn't even talk about COVID-19 vaccine-induced immunity. 5. Shows that vaccine antibody titers wane faster than natural immunity. Interesting given that previous studies from the list focus on how T/B-cell response is much better measure than antibody levels. Kinda moving goalposts, but OK. 6. Shows 1/10 reinfection rate among infected vs infection rate among general population (since the study is from February 2021, I'd say that's roughly 90% unvaccinated). Doesn't compare against vaccines, which was the original point of the list? Funnily it directly disproves the unbelievable numbers of study 1, and this looks equally solid. 7. Says previously infected may not need a second dose (conveniently skips that they may need one). 8. Doesn't compare with anything. 9. Titers at 5 months after infection, hardly interesting. 10. Immunoglobulin levels, 2020, hardly interesting, doesn't compare with anything.. From this point the list seems to decrease in relevance to the point, just showing that infection gives some immunity, which is hardly what anyone is arguing. Some just talk about measles (55), others about possible cross immunity (85, 109), but overall it feels more like a vague Google search than a curated list of anything.
roenxi 5y ago
If he doesn't have sterelising immunity, how can he have recovered from COVID? He'd still have the coronavirus. For a body to fight off cornavirus the immune system has to have reached a state of sterelising immunity, otherwise the coronavirus would just keep jumping back and forward between family members. And that immunity will probably decay at about the same speed as any vaccine.
- lmm 5y ago
  > If he doesn't have sterelising immunity, how can he have recovered from COVID? He'd still have the coronavirus. Like any other situation where someone has non-sterilising immunity, his body may have been able to eliminate the disease without fully preventing the virus from reproducing.
  - roenxi 5y ago
    I'm certainly confused now. What is this mechanism that can successfully destroy ... hundreds? thousands? millions? of virus particles but is unable to stop them reproducing? Are you arguing that they reproduce after they've been destroyed? Or maybe that the COVID virus is a permanent infection? For a body to rid itself of a viral disease it needs to achieve sterelising immunity. That is what it means to recover after a virus, unless the virus is permanent like ... I dunno, herpes? ... and the body is suppressing it. Even then that might technically be sterelising immunity. The coronavirus doesn't reinfect people immediately after they recover from COVID. It is all but impossible that they don't have sterelising immunity at that point. Otherwise they would keep getting COVID over and over again. I can see how that isn't always true, but if coronavirus persisted after recovery I assume that would be big news.
    - fer 5y ago
      There's no sterilising immunity. That's a gross oversimplification of the incredibly complex thing that the immune system is. Immune response isn't linear. Likewise, viral reproduction isn't linear. They're not even constant within the same tissue. So whatever happens will depend on the virus, on the viral load, where it appears, and previous type and kind of immunity, and the speed of that immune response. Fun fact: the overwhelming majority of HIV exposures don't result in infection, but one would be stupid to claim that most people have "sterilising immunity" to HIV. It simply can't target most cells and dies off in the mucous membranes.

by jjeaff 5y ago

walterbell 5y ago

Here are 100+ studies to that effect, https://brownstone.org/articles/79-research-studies-affirm-naturally-acquired-immunity-to-covid-19-documented-linked-and-quoted/ https://brownstone.org/articles/79-research-studies-affirm-n...

fer 5y ago
I'm not sure what I'm looking at. > Such would be evidence of immunity that is equal to that of vaccination and the immunity should be provided the same societal status as any vaccine-induced immunity. They advocate for infection having the same status as vaccination, which is reasonable, and the policies, at least in the west and in the countries I'm familiar with, they take previous infection into account. > Again, the Marek’s disease in chickens and the vaccination situation explains what we are potentially facing with these leaky vaccines Then they mention Marek's disease in a gross (yet common) misunderstanding of the causes of such scenario. Luckily, humans aren't stacked up onto each other in direct contact 24/7. > This follow-up chart is the most updated and comprehensive library list of 139 of the highest-quality, complete, most robust scientific studies and evidence reports/position statements on natural immunity as compared to the COVID-19 vaccine-induced immunity and allow you to draw your own conclusion. OK, let's go through a few: 1. Results are unbelievable (0 reinfections among +1000 people who expose themselves daily) but the methodology seems solid otherwise. No complaints. 2. In vitro, small sample. 3. Conveniently skips "When allowing the infection to occur at any time before vaccination (from March 2020 to February 2021), evidence of waning natural immunity was demonstrated," 4. Doesn't even talk about COVID-19 vaccine-induced immunity. 5. Shows that vaccine antibody titers wane faster than natural immunity. Interesting given that previous studies from the list focus on how T/B-cell response is much better measure than antibody levels. Kinda moving goalposts, but OK. 6. Shows 1/10 reinfection rate among infected vs infection rate among general population (since the study is from February 2021, I'd say that's roughly 90% unvaccinated). Doesn't compare against vaccines, which was the original point of the list? Funnily it directly disproves the unbelievable numbers of study 1, and this looks equally solid. 7. Says previously infected may not need a second dose (conveniently skips that they may need one). 8. Doesn't compare with anything. 9. Titers at 5 months after infection, hardly interesting. 10. Immunoglobulin levels, 2020, hardly interesting, doesn't compare with anything.. From this point the list seems to decrease in relevance to the point, just showing that infection gives some immunity, which is hardly what anyone is arguing. Some just talk about measles (55), others about possible cross immunity (85, 109), but overall it feels more like a vague Google search than a curated list of anything.

roenxi 5y ago

If he doesn't have sterelising immunity, how can he have recovered from COVID? He'd still have the coronavirus. For a body to fight off cornavirus the immune system has to have reached a state of sterelising immunity, otherwise the coronavirus would just keep jumping back and forward between family members. And that immunity will probably decay at about the same speed as any vaccine.

lmm 5y ago
> If he doesn't have sterelising immunity, how can he have recovered from COVID? He'd still have the coronavirus. Like any other situation where someone has non-sterilising immunity, his body may have been able to eliminate the disease without fully preventing the virus from reproducing.
- roenxi 5y ago
  I'm certainly confused now. What is this mechanism that can successfully destroy ... hundreds? thousands? millions? of virus particles but is unable to stop them reproducing? Are you arguing that they reproduce after they've been destroyed? Or maybe that the COVID virus is a permanent infection? For a body to rid itself of a viral disease it needs to achieve sterelising immunity. That is what it means to recover after a virus, unless the virus is permanent like ... I dunno, herpes? ... and the body is suppressing it. Even then that might technically be sterelising immunity. The coronavirus doesn't reinfect people immediately after they recover from COVID. It is all but impossible that they don't have sterelising immunity at that point. Otherwise they would keep getting COVID over and over again. I can see how that isn't always true, but if coronavirus persisted after recovery I assume that would be big news.
  - fer 5y ago
    There's no sterilising immunity. That's a gross oversimplification of the incredibly complex thing that the immune system is. Immune response isn't linear. Likewise, viral reproduction isn't linear. They're not even constant within the same tissue. So whatever happens will depend on the virus, on the viral load, where it appears, and previous type and kind of immunity, and the speed of that immune response. Fun fact: the overwhelming majority of HIV exposures don't result in infection, but one would be stupid to claim that most people have "sterilising immunity" to HIV. It simply can't target most cells and dies off in the mucous membranes.