I had covid in May 2020. At the end of June 2020, a test for antibodies to covid showed none.NicosMachine said:But if you've had Covid, there is no reason to get a vaccination. That is being ignored by vaccine pimps.Salute The Marines said:
The issue is that vaccination is safe and statistically harmless for all demographics. Initial covid infection is not.
I don't think innate immunity exists since this was a never before seen virus. My understanding is that the recovered have 2 types of immunity, though. One represented by the presence of antibodies, then durable immunity, which doesn't require the presence of antibodies to effective. Someone with more medical knowledge will come along and flesh that one out, I think it is t-cells but I'll get the details wrong if I go further.YouBet said:
How are we defining natural immunity? Are we conflating both immunity derived from getting covid and then having antibodies with simply having innate immunity?
Man made is better than God made. . . NotedZobel said:This is not a fact.Quote:
the fact that natural immunity is better than vaccine.
Zobel said:
One paper != fact.
We can even say it seems like, or it's probable. But there's as many studies that show one way as there are another.
Both breakthrough and reinfection rates are very low. But there's no definitive answer to the question of which is lower, especially when you add in the complexity of variants.
You are apparently struggling with reading comprehension as well.Zobel said:
What a strange comment. Is your angle that God made the virus? Or that God didn't make the human immune system which the vaccines activate? I really am struggling with what you believe, what you think I believe, and how it's relevant to the discussion.
Quote:
More than 7,700 new cases of the virus have been detected during the most recent wave starting in May, but just 72 of the confirmed cases were reported in people who were known to have been infected previously that is, less than 1% of the new cases. Roughly 40% of new cases or more than 3,000 patients involved people who had been infected despite being vaccinated.
With a total of 835,792 Israelis known to have recovered from the virus, the 72 instances of reinfection amount to 0.0086% of people who were already infected with COVID.
By contrast, Israelis who were vaccinated were 6.72 times more likely to get infected after the shot than after natural infection, with over 3,000 of the 5,193,499, or 0.0578%, of Israelis who were vaccinated getting infected in the latest wave.
That's another open question. For example, see this from Nature Medicine "Neutralizing antibody levels are highly predictive of immune protection from symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection". Which is kind of a case in point - my main issue in that you're taking limited snapshots of information and drawing conclusions which are too broad or too strong. I'm not even saying you're wrong, I'm saying it's not as certain as you're making it out to be.Quote:
It's been shown that lower titer levels in natural immune responses are inconclusive at best.
I don't understand the objection to PCR vs antibody testing. They eliminated people with recent infection because it doesn't help answer the question they were asking, which was "whether vaccination and prior infection were associated with lower risk for testing PCR positive." A recent positive test would preclude them from being categorized as "reinfection" vs ongoing infection.Quote:
Your Qatar airport PCR study had no antibody (serology) testing. Therefore it eliminated 2,488 people from the naturally infected sample (12 wk window), many of which would have shown up in the final results for prior natural immunity and neg PCR, with serology blood tests. The Lancet study I posted had same issue, but to lesser degree since they could include subjects 4 weeks out from a positive antibody test to final tally of those natural and negative. Probably best explanation for the difference in outcomes.
Shrug, you're basically saying the study could have included people who were actually recovered in the vaccination group by mistake, if they did not know they were exposed/infected/recovered. But this bias is on both sides of the equation - it also applies to the people who were unvaccinated but also no prior infection.Quote:
Finally, it's very important to eliminate those with both natural immunity AND vaccine when comparing to a sample of only natural immunity. That's one HUGE advantage the vaccine has in studies of an asymptomatic or mild virus and the vast majority of data analyzed at moment. As the vaccine is pushed more an more to "everyone", that skew becomes larger and larger.
Again, I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying you're using words like "extremely probable" and "obvious" when I don't think it is either extremely probable or obvious.Quote:
Considering all this, it's extremely probable that studies will become much more controlled which prevents vaccines from taking credit for natural immunity, resulting in a leap frog effect for natural immunity. So what has become obvious over last few months, will likely become definitive in next couple years. We will ultimately find that Fauci's original gut feeling and honest expert opinion was true, and his rhetoric during vaccine pushing mode was BS narrative. A gov simpleton messaging strategy for a public too lazy to discuss what we are here.
I think it should be noted that we've never vaccinated like we are now. As you know we are not using an attenuated virus in the mRNA or J&J vaccines, and the mechanism is not comparable to an attenuated virus. It also kind of sidesteps the fact that we do have vaccines which produce sterilizing immunity, which is as good as it gets.VetSurg said:
Prior to the COVID mania, medical professionals understood, as it was well documented, that a natural infection ALWAYS produces superior immunity. Vaccines are attenuated (in varying ways) so as not to produce the illness which is to be prevented by the vaccine. That attenuation often results in a lower level immunity. Hopefully, it is protective. It is never superior.
Influenza requires annual vaccination because it has a unique ability to "antigenically drift" so that it is a little different every year. Science tries to anticipate the "drift" when producing the vaccine. Some years, they get very close and the vaccines work well. Other years, not so close and the vaccine is poorly effective. But once you are infected with that year's flu, you're completely immune to reinfection that year.
This seems to be an open question. Two recent papers:Quote:
Corona viruses do not antigenically drift.
Quote:
Shrug, you're basically saying the study could have included people who were actually recovered in the vaccination group by mistake, if they did not know they were exposed/infected/recovered. But this bias is on both sides of the equation - it also applies to the people who were unvaccinated but also no prior infection.
Yes, follow you. You're saying there are four groups (well, let's expand to five for clarity's sake).Quote:
What I'm saying is that people who get vaccinated know with 100% certainty they were poked with a needle and are also recorded in the official vaccine database, and therefore eliminated from group 3. Conversely, there 100s of millions of people globally who got covid and have no knowledge or record of it, some even tested negative when symptomatic positive (like I did). So it's not a mistake, it's a margin of error that can't even be quantified without a serology test or applying an avg (which wasn't done).
My understanding is that the HPV vaccine provides better immunity than one gets from having had HPV. I assume that's not the only one like that.VetSurg said:
Prior to the COVID mania, medical professionals understood, as it was well documented, that a natural infection ALWAYS produces superior immunity. Vaccines are attenuated (in varying ways) so as not to produce the illness which is to be prevented by the vaccine. That attenuation often results in a lower level immunity. Hopefully, it is protective. It is never superior.
Influenza requires annual vaccination because it has a unique ability to "antigenically drift" so that it is a little different every year. Science tries to anticipate the "drift" when producing the vaccine. Some years, they get very close and the vaccines work well. Other years, not so close and the vaccine is poorly effective. But once you are infected with that year's flu, you're completely immune to reinfection that year.
Corona viruses do not antigenically drift.
" chap said:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01557-z
Quote:
For SARS-CoV, a coronavirus very like SARS-CoV-2 that was originally identified in 2003 and causes severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), the continued presence of high concentrations of neutralizing antibodies in blood serum for more than 17 years was reported in 2020. Wang and colleagues' results suggest that long-term immunity might also be expected for SARS-CoV-2.
Quote:
"The amount of natural immunity is less, duration is less and ability of Delta to get around natural immunity is higher."
maybe this got covered already further down, but to address the bolded first paragraph, that's not how efficacy is calculated. the calc would be efficacy=1-(#s/#c) where:thirdcoast said:
The best vaccines on the market have an efficacy rate of 95% and the reinfection rate is less than 1% in unvacinated covid survivors (a year later). Doesn't that make the natural immune response better at preventing infection? What am I missing?
I know there are a lot of lazy people out there who "think" they got infected and never confirmed. But should the med community still be out telling "everyone" to get vaccinated or very rarely mentioning natural immunity?
*If you say many natural reinfections are mild and unrecorded, I could say same thing about vaccinated infections. So let's stick with the existing numbers, studies and trials.
Zobel said:
Your natural immune response and the immune response caused by the vaccine are the same thing. That's the brilliance of vaccination in general... our bodies are already really good at fighting infections.
The reinfection rate and the breakthrough rate after vaccination seem to be comparable. A large observational study looked at this in the Qatar (here). Comparable means - very low.
People who have recovered and people who have been vaccinated probably have similar resistance to infection. But its complicated, yo. The truth is we don't really have a ton of evidence about either reinfection OR efficacy vs variants. This kind of stuff normally happens slowly, we're cramming decades worth of study down into weeks and months. We want to have clarity about this now, but it's just not there.
On the other hand, we know that multiple vaccinations produce more immunity, and there's been evidence that a person who has gotten sick plus a booster is ultra-double-secret protected. The downside to the shot is low-to-none, we have the vaccines, so there's no policy reason not to. Particularly if, for example, a triple vax or recover+one shot produces sterilizing immunity (which means you straight up don't get infected any more).
Your last paragraph is not really correct. A very mild actual infection may not trigger a strong immune response. In some way the mildness of the infection implies a mild immune response. The various vaccines are designed to trigger a strong response - otherwise they don't work. The response from the vaccine with regard to triggering spike protein antibody production looks to be even stronger than a natural infection. But antibodies aren't the only part of the immune system... that's why the vaccine causing aches, etc is good - that means your body's immune system is being recruited to respond to the spike protein the vaccine is making your produce. Immunology is stupid complicated.
Quote:
The downside to the shot is low-to-none
