2 ms·

I just skimmed the concluding paragraph to see what this is about but this is patently false: "I recall a conversation with a family member some months ago, whe

I just skimmed the concluding paragraph to see what this is about but this is patently false: "I recall a conversation with a family member some months ago, when Omicron was a big thing in the media. My family member, a retired boomer and avid consumer of CNN and Fox News and MSNBC was entirely unaware that exposure to covid itself was bound to confer natural immunity with equal or better protective effects than any vaccine." Yea, post-infection immunity can generate all kinds of results, some better than the vaccine and some worse. Up to a third do not generate usable antibodies post-infection. Most importantly, to gain this protection, you must survive infection which may win you a ticket to being disabled with Long COVID or a ferry ride across the river Styx. Of course, at this point it should be pointed out that the vaccine gives good results against hospitalization, but if you want ~70% protection from infection from Omicron for 10 weeks (declines after that, probably not to zero though), you need to be boosted.

jtbayly 5y ago
> Up to a third do not generate usable antibodies post-infection. Citation? I’ve never seen any study saying anything like this.
- tehjoker 5y ago
  https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/27/9/21-1042_article https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/27/9/21-1042_article "In summary, we show that patients with low SARS-CoV-2 viral loads in their respiratory tract are less likely to mount a systemic antibody response. Although we cannot formally exclude false-positive RT-PCR results in some participants, PCR contamination is highly unlikely as an explanation for our findings (Appendix). We also show that clinical illness does not guarantee seroconversion and that laboratories with highly sensitive RT-PCR assays are more likely to detect serologic nonresponders. These results provide an explanation for the puzzling variability of seroconversion in different cohorts." Also: https://www.nebraskamed.com/COVID/covid-19-studies-natural-immunity-versus-vaccination https://www.nebraskamed.com/COVID/covid-19-studies-natural-i...

jtbayly 5y ago

> Up to a third do not generate usable antibodies post-infection. Citation? I’ve never seen any study saying anything like this.

tehjoker 5y ago
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/27/9/21-1042_article https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/27/9/21-1042_article "In summary, we show that patients with low SARS-CoV-2 viral loads in their respiratory tract are less likely to mount a systemic antibody response. Although we cannot formally exclude false-positive RT-PCR results in some participants, PCR contamination is highly unlikely as an explanation for our findings (Appendix). We also show that clinical illness does not guarantee seroconversion and that laboratories with highly sensitive RT-PCR assays are more likely to detect serologic nonresponders. These results provide an explanation for the puzzling variability of seroconversion in different cohorts." Also: https://www.nebraskamed.com/COVID/covid-19-studies-natural-immunity-versus-vaccination https://www.nebraskamed.com/COVID/covid-19-studies-natural-i...