7 ms·

> Because the data shows they don't matter. Source? Because the CDC says otherwise. > In the first full week of October, vaccinated New Yorkers with a prior C

• animal_spirits 5y ago
  I think what they are suggesting is that natural immunity + vaccine is also more protective than just natural immunity
  • diamondo25 5y ago
    But natural immunity doesn't work if you die or end up having severe loss of health, so vaccine + natural immunity would be best way.
    • walterbell 5y ago
      CDC said last October that 146 million people (~40%) in the US have already recovered from Covid. There are also interventions other than vaccines, e.g. early treatment, https://c19early.com https://c19early.com
  • keithnz 5y ago
    yes, vaccine + natural immunity gives you super immunity by a large factor, they also found that it doesn't matter if you get the virus, then get vaccinated, or get vaccinated then get the virus, you'll end up with super immunity.
    • sharken 5y ago
      Super immunity is not a scientific concept, it would be nice to have some numbers or studies to show the difference. Natural immunity as a personal choice should have been possible. But that has not been an option, for someone who wants to be part of society.
• mlac 5y ago
  There is a behavioral component. Is that because people who have caught it are more likely to take precautions against catching it again? Those who were vaccinated but previously uninfected may have had a “it can’t happen to me and if it does, I’m vaccinated” attitude. I’d expect unvaccinated people to be in the bucket with covid deniers and anti-maskers, which would have the highest base rate of COVID.
  • anonfornoreason 5y ago
    I doubt it. I caught it in Aug/September during the delta wave and am way less careful now than I was before. Not saying this is true or advocating a position here, but I feel like the pandemic is over for me, I don't have to worry about any current variants, etc. The people I talk to who have also developed natural immunity have the same sort of feeling.
    • jkhdigital 5y ago
      Meanwhile… my sister and her daughter had a Covid sandwich: caught it in summer 2020, got vaccinated as soon as feasible, then caught it again a few days ago. Anecdotally, my sister is one of those people who “catches everything” so I can’t say I’m surprised, but clearly there is no such thing as absolute sterilizing immunity (natural or vaccine-induced) for this particular coronavirus.
      • vaxskeptic 5y ago
        It's not specific to this one, it's true of all coronaviruses. This article explains why it's so hard to make a vaccine for coronaviruses: https://www.abc.net.au/news/health/2020-04-17/coronavirus-vaccine-ian-frazer/12146616 https://www.abc.net.au/news/health/2020-04-17/coronavirus-va... Of course, this was written a few weeks before "Project Warp Speed" when everyone and their dog announced that had found a vaccine for this brand new coronavirus.
• bonzini 5y ago
  You are confusing the effect on individual people with the effect on the whole community. I do not debate the effect of natural immunity on individuals who have had COVID in the past, but it is not widespread enough to cause a dent in the infection or to alleviate the stress on the healthcare system. The effect exists but the data shows it does not matter.
  • MatteoFrigo 5y ago
    > The effect exists but the data shows it does not matter. You may have been right at a time where almost nobody had a previous infection. However, estimates by reputable sources https://covidestim.org/us https://covidestim.org/us show that a large percentage of people have been infected by covid at least once. The data are by state, I see ~75% for MA, 80% for CA and NY, and you can pick your favorite state. At this point it is more correct to say that the vaccine does not matter, and immunity by prior infection is the dominant effect. Either that, or the Yale school of public health, the Harvard school of public health, and the Stanford Medicine institutes who run the covidestim.org site are full of shit.
    • bonzini 5y ago
      If the vaccine does not matter, why do we still see such a prevalence of unvaccinated people among patients Who required hospitalization?
      • nostrebored 5y ago
        Because many of these are older individuals with contraindication. The elderly with unknown vaccine status. The homeless. People in nursing homes trying to live out the last years of their life without the discomfort of vaccine side effects. Not age adjusting the vaccinated and unvaccinated cohort is disingenuous. Not breaking out ‘unknown’ vaccine status — which only becomes relevant for the stats after death - is disingenuous. You are reading propaganda, and reading it uncritically.
        • 5y ago
• eli 5y ago
  I don't think your math is correct there and that data is pre-Omicron. https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/232698/omicron-largely-evades-immunity-from-past/ https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/232698/omicron-largely-evade... estimates that prior infection offered 85% protection against Delta but only 19% against Omicron.
  • rfrey 5y ago
    The vaccines also offer very little protection against infection by Omicron, and less with the B.2 variant. Definitely not saying vaccines aren't important - they keep you out of hospital! But they don't prevent infection post Delta.
    • eli 5y ago
      I don’t know why you think this. Covid cases — people merely testing positive — are overwhelmingly among the unvaccinated in every state. Vaccine cuts your risk by 3x to 5x depending where you look. Look at this chart: https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#rates-by-vaccine-status https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#rates-by-vaccine-s... If you read to the bottom of the previous study I posted they addressed vaccine effectiveness too based on UK data. They work! Just make sure to get your booster.
      • mike_hock 5y ago
        > It cuts your risk by 3x to 5x depending where you look. In other words, it's 70-80% effective, which is pretty poor performance for a vaccine. So, can we please get an update that encodes the Omicron spike instead of trying to boost antibodies for a virus that's now extinct?
        • eli 5y ago
          They’re working on it. But the original target effectiveness during vaccine development was 75%. We got lucky it was so much better against earlier strains. It’s still pretty good — about the same as an average year’s flu shot. It’s a far cry from the apparently very popular myth that the vaccines no longer work at all.
• lwkl 5y ago
  The person you are replying to is talking about hospitalizations for severe ilness. The study you are quoting is talking about covid infections in general. These two are not the same and the vaccine protects from the former (severe illness and death).
  • deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  • wutbrodo 5y ago
    No, he's also talking about severe illness and death. He's saying that prior infection is a good substitute for the vaccine in preventing severe illness and death. The corollary being that we should consider "vaxed or prior infection" and "immunologically naive" as the two relevant groups (for mandates etc), not "vaxed" and "unvaxed".
    • mneubrand 5y ago
      Prior infection is a good substitute for the vaccine because the ones that die from that "prior infection" aren't going to be in the statistic that shows how effective a prior infection is compared to a vaccine for a subsequent covid infections
      • wutbrodo 5y ago
        You're responding to the wrong comment. I'm clarifying what the other commenter said, not championing his point. That being said, your comment still doesn't make any sense. The people who would be substituting prior infection for a vaxpass would not be the dead ones, because dead people are not known for going to comedy shows, bars, or restaurants. Ie, the claim is that "conditioned on being infected [and alive], a vaccine is superfluous". The [and alive] that you clarified is about as helpful as "and non-fictional"
• jeeeb 5y ago
  Here is the actual study: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e1.htm?s_cid=mm7104e1_w https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e1.htm?s_cid=mm... Importantly it doesn’t account for the effect of boosters and looks at pre-omicron data. That noted the best protection seems to be had by a combination of vaccination and prior infection, which is perhaps unsurprising. Also other CDC studies suggest that natural immunity declines quicker than vaccine induced immunity (https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7044e1.htm?s_cid=mm7044e1_w https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7044e1.htm?s_cid=mm...). Given these results it would seem like generally a good idea to get vaccinated, even if you have had prior infection.
  • timr 5y ago
    > Importantly it doesn’t account for the effect of boosters and looks at pre-omicron data. Don't just read the summary. Look at figure 1: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e1.htm#F1_down https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e1.htm#F1_down There are unvaccinated, uninfected people...and then there is everyone else. Once you have been infected or vaccinated, the difference between is so small as to be academic. And as the authors note, the importance of natural infection increased over time, as the virus escaped the vaccines: "Importantly, infection-derived protection was higher after the Delta variant became predominant, a time when vaccine-induced immunity for many persons declined because of immune evasion and immunologic waning." To your other claim: > other CDC studies suggest that natural immunity declines quicker than vaccine induced immunity No. That's not what that study said. First, it followed symptomatic infection, not severe illness. As we're seeing now, Omicron pretty handily bypasses vaccine-induced immunity to cause minor illness. Also, methodologically, the study you're citing was bad. It only gave credit for natural immunity to those people with confirmed infections, which was/is an underestimate, and made vaccines look more effective than they are. A substantial fraction of the "only vaccinated" group almost certainly had undiagnosed covid infection.
    • jeeeb 5y ago
      > There are unvaccinated, uninfected people...and then there is everyone else. This is shifting the goal. The disclaimers I cited come directly from the study and are highly relevant when comparing the effect of natural immunity vs vaccination. > No. That's not what that study said. First, it followed symptomatic infection, not severe illness. This doesn’t contradict what I said. The study gives evidence that natural immunity (to symptomatic infection) declines more quickly than vaccine induced immunity. > Also, methodologically, the study you're citing was bad. It only gave credit for natural immunity to those people with confirmed infections, which was/is an underestimate, and made vaccines look more effective than they are. One, the same effect would also have been present in the natural immunity group, as people may have been reinfected since their initial confirmed infection. Two, this is largely irrelevant to the point I was making. The statistical evidence suggests that even if you have had a previous confirmed infection, you’re still better off getting vaccinated.
• kodah 5y ago
  Some anecdotes: I got COVID before there were vaccines and I've received all three shots. While all of my friends caught Omicron, I have not - and I'm the only one among them who got sick beforehand. On the other hand, I have an unvaccinated coworker who has now gotten Delta and Omicron. I know that doesn't prove anything, but it also doesn't make these studies I see any more illuminating either. As an aside, I'm not even sure I want things to go back to "normal" other than lifted travel restrictions and the anger/frustration/callout culture to go away. Restaurants taking over the streets, working from home, less cars, etc have all been a boon for the way I live my life.