4 ms·

No, infection is not more protective than vaccination. Vaccination is much more consistent than infection - not least because the vaccine is not packaged with i

No, infection is not more protective than vaccination. Vaccination is much more consistent than infection - not least because the vaccine is not packaged with immune suppressing elements.

peteradio 5y ago
Consistency refers to the spread not the mean. For instance, you could have a vaccine performing uniformly poorly relative to a prior infection and that sure would be consistent.
- somewhereoutth 5y ago
  I was implying consistently good. As in, the ~ 90% protection was relatively uniform
  - peteradio 5y ago
    Sources? Are you sure you are not conflating consistently higher specific antibody titers with uniformly better clinical outcomes?
ars 5y ago
That's not true: "Naturally infected populations were less likely to be reinfected by SARS-CoV-2 than the infection-naïve and vaccinated individuals." https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-05325-5 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-05325-5 There are other studies that say the same thing - natural immunity is far superior to vaccination. (But also more risky since acquiring that immunity can cause people to end up in the hospital.) The best is both: "Two doses of BNT162b2 vaccine were associated with high short-term protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection; this protection waned considerably after 6 months. Infection-acquired immunity boosted with vaccination remained high more than 1 year after infection." https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2118691 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2118691
- somewhereoutth 5y ago
  Agree the best is both. Your source pertains to Bangladesh, not sure the results necessarily carry more generally, due to the different society/demographics/etc. Please provide sources for your other studies - "far superior" is quite a strong claim
- JamisonM 5y ago
  So the first study is a population that is mostly using the Chinese vaccine that is not very good and the second study just validates that getting vaccinated before getting infected is very good (and the reinfection population was only 210 subjects!). The unvaccinated participants data is pre-delta infections: "A total of 6169 participants in the previously infected cohort were followed in the unvaccinated follow-up period and up to 1 year after a primary infection. These participants were predominantly infected in the spring of 2020 and were followed in the period before emergence of the delta (B.1.617.2) variant." C'mon buddy, do better!

No, infection is not more protective than vaccination. Vaccination is much more consistent than infection - not least because the vaccine is not packaged with immune suppressing elements.

peteradio 5y ago

Consistency refers to the spread not the mean. For instance, you could have a vaccine performing uniformly poorly relative to a prior infection and that sure would be consistent.

somewhereoutth 5y ago
I was implying consistently good. As in, the ~ 90% protection was relatively uniform
- peteradio 5y ago
  Sources? Are you sure you are not conflating consistently higher specific antibody titers with uniformly better clinical outcomes?

ars 5y ago

That's not true: "Naturally infected populations were less likely to be reinfected by SARS-CoV-2 than the infection-naïve and vaccinated individuals." https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-05325-5 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-05325-5 There are other studies that say the same thing - natural immunity is far superior to vaccination. (But also more risky since acquiring that immunity can cause people to end up in the hospital.) The best is both: "Two doses of BNT162b2 vaccine were associated with high short-term protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection; this protection waned considerably after 6 months. Infection-acquired immunity boosted with vaccination remained high more than 1 year after infection." https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2118691 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2118691

somewhereoutth 5y ago
Agree the best is both. Your source pertains to Bangladesh, not sure the results necessarily carry more generally, due to the different society/demographics/etc. Please provide sources for your other studies - "far superior" is quite a strong claim
JamisonM 5y ago
So the first study is a population that is mostly using the Chinese vaccine that is not very good and the second study just validates that getting vaccinated before getting infected is very good (and the reinfection population was only 210 subjects!). The unvaccinated participants data is pre-delta infections: "A total of 6169 participants in the previously infected cohort were followed in the unvaccinated follow-up period and up to 1 year after a primary infection. These participants were predominantly infected in the spring of 2020 and were followed in the period before emergence of the delta (B.1.617.2) variant." C'mon buddy, do better!