4 ms·

Worth noting that plenty of studies demonstrate the exact opposite: Natural Immunity is superior and durable. Vaccine effectiveness largely wanes after 4-5 mont

Worth noting that plenty of studies demonstrate the exact opposite: Natural Immunity is superior and durable. Vaccine effectiveness largely wanes after 4-5 months. Even the CDC has acknowledged this. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1.full.pdf https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v... https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7107e2.htm?s_cid=mm7107e2_w https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7107e2.htm?s_cid=mm...

dijonman2 5y ago
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
skyde 5y ago
to be fair this new study seem to be better designed.
- morebsfromnat 5y ago
  All this study has shown is that lots of very specific antibodies are produced via vaccination. We already know those antibodies aren't very robust (targeting just a few epitopes on the spike protein). Naturally produced antibodies, however, are robust and target epitopes across multiple proteins including the spike protein. Additionally, this study isn't looking at any other aspect of our immune system, only antibody levels. We already know antibodies aren't the end-all-be-all of immunity. It also isn't differentiating between IgG, IgM, or IgA antibodies. If you want to prevent infection, you'll need IgA antibodies and the mRNA vaccines are incapable of producing any of those.
  - cromwellian 5y ago
    This study says otherwise https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34133415/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34133415/
    - throttledagain2 5y ago
yumraj 5y ago
> Vaccine effectiveness largely wanes after 4-5 months. The article merely says Thus, our data indicates that mRNA vaccination may generate more neutralizing RBD antibodies than natural immunity. It makes no mention of how long it lasts. So, it is entirely possible that mRNA vaccine produce more antibodies but they diminish pretty quickly. While, an infection produces fewer antibodies, relatively speaking of course, but they last longer. Yes?
- anonygler 5y ago
  Which makes the lockdown/mandates even more damning to me. Back when the vaccines were available, California removed the mask mandate and then quickly put it back in place. It seems quite obvious (even at the time) that they should've fully opened and allowed people to take advantage of the strong immunity vaccination provided heading into a summer of mild transmission. People would've received both benefits: strong short term immunity and a natural boost from casual transmission.
  - WalterGR 5y ago
    Since this is a new report, we didn’t know its contents back then.
    - anonygler 5y ago
      What wasn't there to know? Locking back down after vaccine availability was moving the goalposts. Hospitals weren't even overwhelmed at the time. The EUA was approved because vaccine efficacy had been clearly demonstrated.
      - morebsfromnat 5y ago
        If you think efficacy was clearly demonstrated you should take a closer look at the actual data from the clinical studies.
      - WalterGR 5y ago
        I don’t remember government officials saying that once vaccines were available we’d end all lockdowns. Could you point me to that?
tandymodel100 5y ago
timr 5y ago
This study is also pretty old, despite being "published" now. It was originally submitted in June of 2021, and discusses the N501Y (presumably V1, given the timing) variant, which is no longer relevant. Worse, the vaccinated samples were all gathered by mid-March 2021, and except for three people, all were gathered within 40 days of vaccination. But the median time from symptoms for those who were previously infected was over two hundred days. This difference alone hopelessly confounds any stated conclusion, yet they've buried this essential information in the supplemental materials (ST1 & 2). This paper is bad.
beerandt 5y ago
Yea, if this is like the many other similar studies, they are restricting the antibodies counted to the ones specifically made to match the spike protein. Natural immunity makes less for the spike, but more overall, both in breadth of type and total number. Artificially limiting the count to one type of antibody is like claiming to be richer than Warren Buffet because you have more cash in your wallet than him in line at McDonalds, and ignoring the fact that your wallet contains your total net wealth.
Brian_K_White 5y ago
I think the phrase "vaccine effectiveness" is almost meaningless now because there is not just one kind of vaccine with just one set of properties. You can't even say simply that one vaccine is better or worse or than another because now you have to say better or worse at what exactly.
cultofmetatron 5y ago
so basically the best approach is to get the vaccine, wait a few days then get exposed to actual covid if you want maximum immunity without dying?

dijonman2 5y ago

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

skyde 5y ago

to be fair this new study seem to be better designed.

morebsfromnat 5y ago
All this study has shown is that lots of very specific antibodies are produced via vaccination. We already know those antibodies aren't very robust (targeting just a few epitopes on the spike protein). Naturally produced antibodies, however, are robust and target epitopes across multiple proteins including the spike protein. Additionally, this study isn't looking at any other aspect of our immune system, only antibody levels. We already know antibodies aren't the end-all-be-all of immunity. It also isn't differentiating between IgG, IgM, or IgA antibodies. If you want to prevent infection, you'll need IgA antibodies and the mRNA vaccines are incapable of producing any of those.
- cromwellian 5y ago
  This study says otherwise https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34133415/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34133415/
  - throttledagain2 5y ago

yumraj 5y ago

> Vaccine effectiveness largely wanes after 4-5 months. The article merely says Thus, our data indicates that mRNA vaccination may generate more neutralizing RBD antibodies than natural immunity. It makes no mention of how long it lasts. So, it is entirely possible that mRNA vaccine produce more antibodies but they diminish pretty quickly. While, an infection produces fewer antibodies, relatively speaking of course, but they last longer. Yes?

anonygler 5y ago
Which makes the lockdown/mandates even more damning to me. Back when the vaccines were available, California removed the mask mandate and then quickly put it back in place. It seems quite obvious (even at the time) that they should've fully opened and allowed people to take advantage of the strong immunity vaccination provided heading into a summer of mild transmission. People would've received both benefits: strong short term immunity and a natural boost from casual transmission.
- WalterGR 5y ago
  Since this is a new report, we didn’t know its contents back then.
  - anonygler 5y ago
    What wasn't there to know? Locking back down after vaccine availability was moving the goalposts. Hospitals weren't even overwhelmed at the time. The EUA was approved because vaccine efficacy had been clearly demonstrated.
    - morebsfromnat 5y ago
      If you think efficacy was clearly demonstrated you should take a closer look at the actual data from the clinical studies.
    - WalterGR 5y ago
      I don’t remember government officials saying that once vaccines were available we’d end all lockdowns. Could you point me to that?

tandymodel100 5y ago

timr 5y ago

This study is also pretty old, despite being "published" now. It was originally submitted in June of 2021, and discusses the N501Y (presumably V1, given the timing) variant, which is no longer relevant. Worse, the vaccinated samples were all gathered by mid-March 2021, and except for three people, all were gathered within 40 days of vaccination. But the median time from symptoms for those who were previously infected was over two hundred days. This difference alone hopelessly confounds any stated conclusion, yet they've buried this essential information in the supplemental materials (ST1 & 2). This paper is bad.

beerandt 5y ago

Yea, if this is like the many other similar studies, they are restricting the antibodies counted to the ones specifically made to match the spike protein. Natural immunity makes less for the spike, but more overall, both in breadth of type and total number. Artificially limiting the count to one type of antibody is like claiming to be richer than Warren Buffet because you have more cash in your wallet than him in line at McDonalds, and ignoring the fact that your wallet contains your total net wealth.

Brian_K_White 5y ago

I think the phrase "vaccine effectiveness" is almost meaningless now because there is not just one kind of vaccine with just one set of properties. You can't even say simply that one vaccine is better or worse or than another because now you have to say better or worse at what exactly.

cultofmetatron 5y ago

so basically the best approach is to get the vaccine, wait a few days then get exposed to actual covid if you want maximum immunity without dying?