4 ms·

Well it is a single scientific study. To believe it as fact would be a fundamental misunderstanding of how science works. I agree with the spirit of your comme

Well it is a single scientific study. To believe it as fact would be a fundamental misunderstanding of how science works. I agree with the spirit of your comment in that I would hold out for more scientific replication of these results to increase my confidence beyond the level of simple curiosity.

hammock 5y ago
Has there been any such replication of the "natural immunity protection is equal or greater to vaccine protection" study(s) yet?
- pelasaco 5y ago
  https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v...
- jonhohle 5y ago
  As a lay-person and not an epidemiologist, what logic is there for the idea that mRNA treatments that synthesize a single protein could be better than an actual infection which produces hundreds of those proteins per replication along with dozens or more proteins that may be used by the immune system to identify the virus? Traditional vaccines at least dump most of the target viral proteins into the body. Focusing on a single protein that may mutate in the target virus has always seemed myopic to me, let alone the assumption that this approach could possibly be more effective than an immune response to the actual virus. I’m not saying that this approach couldn’t work, just that it would, by definition, trigger a subset of the immune response of a whole virus vaccine. Edit to add: by better, I mean better at triggering an immune response. I’m not arguing against the idea that a targeted, single protein approach is or is not better at reducing illness or death and therefore shouldn’t be pursued, just about the idea that recovered individuals would be less protected than a vaccinated individual on average.
  - bbatchelder 5y ago
    > just about the idea that recovered individuals would be less protected than a vaccinated individual on average. I don't think its so much about the idealized immune response, but that in general, people's immune response to natural infection seems to widely vary, with many not having much of a robust response. It very well may be that a good immune response to natural infection may be better than one from an mRNA vaccine targeting the spike protein - but in aggregate the vaccine will be more successful because its induces a more consistent response.
    - jonhohle 5y ago
      Again, this seems counterintuitive to me. If infected, the immune system reacts to foreign bodies. If jabbed, the immune system reacts to foreign bodies. The intention of the shots are to stimulate the same system as a natural reaction, minus the threat of disease. If an individual wouldn’t have a strong response to infection, why would it be any different from a subset of proteins? Is there academic research on this topic that existed prior to SARS-Cov-2?

hammock 5y ago

Has there been any such replication of the "natural immunity protection is equal or greater to vaccine protection" study(s) yet?

pelasaco 5y ago
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v...
jonhohle 5y ago
As a lay-person and not an epidemiologist, what logic is there for the idea that mRNA treatments that synthesize a single protein could be better than an actual infection which produces hundreds of those proteins per replication along with dozens or more proteins that may be used by the immune system to identify the virus? Traditional vaccines at least dump most of the target viral proteins into the body. Focusing on a single protein that may mutate in the target virus has always seemed myopic to me, let alone the assumption that this approach could possibly be more effective than an immune response to the actual virus. I’m not saying that this approach couldn’t work, just that it would, by definition, trigger a subset of the immune response of a whole virus vaccine. Edit to add: by better, I mean better at triggering an immune response. I’m not arguing against the idea that a targeted, single protein approach is or is not better at reducing illness or death and therefore shouldn’t be pursued, just about the idea that recovered individuals would be less protected than a vaccinated individual on average.
- bbatchelder 5y ago
  > just about the idea that recovered individuals would be less protected than a vaccinated individual on average. I don't think its so much about the idealized immune response, but that in general, people's immune response to natural infection seems to widely vary, with many not having much of a robust response. It very well may be that a good immune response to natural infection may be better than one from an mRNA vaccine targeting the spike protein - but in aggregate the vaccine will be more successful because its induces a more consistent response.
  - jonhohle 5y ago
    Again, this seems counterintuitive to me. If infected, the immune system reacts to foreign bodies. If jabbed, the immune system reacts to foreign bodies. The intention of the shots are to stimulate the same system as a natural reaction, minus the threat of disease. If an individual wouldn’t have a strong response to infection, why would it be any different from a subset of proteins? Is there academic research on this topic that existed prior to SARS-Cov-2?