4 ms·

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...

• 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.
    • spfzero 5y ago
      >The statistical evidence suggests that even if you have had a previous confirmed infection, you’re still better off getting vaccinated. Sure. And you'll continue to be better protected every time you get a booster, every 6 months, for the rest of your life. But all of us are going to stop getting boosters at some point. We're going to decide we're "immune enough", and go on with our lives, even though there will be some minute chance of getting Covid, from whichever variant is then around. Many people with prior infection may feel they are "immune enough", and you can argue over the significance of the remaining risk, but ultimately that's a decision they make for themselves, just as all of us do in every facet of our lives every day.
      • jjeaff 5y ago
        Regardless of the minutia of the numbers, the recommendation to get vaccinated regardless of whether you have had COVID in the past or not is based on the fact that a very high number of people in the US and worldwide "think" they probably had covid but aren't entirely sure because they never got tested. The vaccine for everyone is easier and cheaper from a public health standpoint than to have people taking serology tests that may or may not be accurate and then waiting for the results in order to find out if you should get the vaccine or not. When the fact is, even if you were previously infected, you will be even better off getting vaccinated.
      • jjeaff 5y ago
        Apparently a lot of people without prior infection or the vaccine feel they are immune enough. And they are the ones clogging the ICU beds and otherwise taxing our health care system. I think "immune enough" in some cases, like a pandemic or potential pandemic, has to be decided from a public health standpoint and not on an individual basis.
    • timr 5y ago
      > 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, it isn't. It's clarifying that there's a great big forest here, lest we get lost in the details of the spots on the bark beetles in one particular tree. The immunity granted by prior infection is at least on par with that of vaccination. Moreover, I quoted directly from the study to explain why short-term squiggles in the lines at the bottom of the graph aren't worth dwelling upon: the vaccines are getting worse over time (against symptomatic infection), and the effect of natural immunity is gaining importance. This is exactly as you would expect for a virus that has evolved to partially escape the vaccine. Regardless, these are minor differences. You can't reasonably argue that vaccination has a definitive advantage over natural infection. We should be counting both.
• JPKab 5y ago
  From a recent editorial from a Johns Hopkins professor addressing the CDC trying to whitewash their own failings in the study: https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-high-cost-of-disparaging-natural-immunity-to-covid-vaccine-mandates-protests-fire-rehire-employment-11643214336?st=hdyljbo13f7etts&reflink=desktopwebshare_twitter https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-high-cost-of-disparaging-na... "Yet the CDC spun the report to fit its narrative, bannering the conclusion “vaccination remains the safest strategy.” It based this conclusion on the finding that hybrid immunity—the combination of prior infection and vaccination—was associated with a slightly lower risk of testing positive for Covid. But those with hybrid immunity had a similar low rate of hospitalization (3 per 10,000) to those with natural immunity alone. In other words, vaccinating people who had already had Covid didn’t significantly reduce the risk of hospitalization." "Similarly, the National Institutes of Health repeatedly has dismissed natural immunity by arguing that its duration is unknown—then failing to conduct studies to answer the question. Because of the NIH’s inaction, my Johns Hopkins colleagues and I conducted the study. We found that among 295 unvaccinated people who previously had Covid, antibodies were present in 99% of them up to nearly two years after infection. We also found that natural immunity developed from prior variants reduced the risk of infection with the Omicron variant." Classic NIH: Say there isn't enough data when challenged on a policy, then deliberately not study it. They did this for DECADES with cannabis.