21–30 of 342 posts
I’m very surprised that “proof of immunity” isn’t an acceptable alternative to a vaccine for things like travel or work. It seems it’s either vaccine or bust. Anyone know why this is the case?
Proof of immunity can have the server side component for verification, which was neglected for the vaccination effort
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The consensus I’m hearing from epidemiologists is the mRNA vaccines should offer better immunity than infection Serious question: How can we possibly know this? I'm all for vaccinations (I'm going in for my second shot this weekend), but I just worry about commentary backed by intuition that doesn't carry sufficient disclaiming.
I had this exact question and asked around before finding out a friend's brother specializes in immunology. Apparently two separate exposures triggers a much longer lasting immune response, and because of the nature of the vaccine it's much more targeted to one specific aspect of the virus, and consequently more potent in a way. Moderna also made a statement that they expected their vaccine to last for 2 years based…
This actually makes a lot of sense.
Thanks for sharing and correcting my line of thinking on it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The consensus I’m hearing from epidemiologists is the mRNA vaccines should offer better immunity than infection Serious question: How can we possibly know this? I'm all for vaccinations (I'm going in for my second shot this weekend), but I just worry about commentary backed by intuition that doesn't carry sufficient disclaiming.
I had this exact question and asked around before finding out a friend's brother specializes in immunology. Apparently two separate exposures triggers a much longer lasting immune response, and because of the nature of the vaccine it's much more targeted to one specific aspect of the virus, and consequently more potent in a way. Moderna also made a statement that they expected their vaccine to last for 2 years based…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I had this exact question and asked around before finding out a friend's brother specializes in immunology. Apparently two separate exposures triggers a much longer lasting immune response, and because of the nature of the vaccine it's much more targeted to one specific aspect of the virus, and consequently more potent in a way. Moderna also made a statement that they expected their vaccine to last for 2 years based…
Yes. So long as no mutation takes place on the protein spike.
I’m very surprised that “proof of immunity” isn’t an acceptable alternative to a vaccine for things like travel or work. It seems it’s either vaccine or bust. Anyone know why this is the case?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The consensus I’m hearing from epidemiologists is the mRNA vaccines should offer better immunity than infection. So it would seem the 8 month for immunity after infection should be a lower bound for the vaccine effectiveness.
As much as I'd like that to be true, I think it's impossible to separate that statement from the political pressure to motivate vaccination. ie, if the opposite was true — vaccination did not provide the same strength of immunity as infection — no epidemiologist would ever state this publicly. So I'll be happy if it's true, but this statement doesn't move my belief-meter one way or another.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The consensus I’m hearing from epidemiologists is the mRNA vaccines should offer better immunity than infection. So it would seem the 8 month for immunity after infection should be a lower bound for the vaccine effectiveness.
As much as I'd like that to be true, I think it's impossible to separate that statement from the political pressure to motivate vaccination. ie, if the opposite was true — vaccination did not provide the same strength of immunity as infection — no epidemiologist would ever state this publicly. So I'll be happy if it's true, but this statement doesn't move my belief-meter one way or another.
This was completely expected, since this is the case with the other coronaviruses. People that contracted SARS-CoV-1 still have a strong immune response almost 20 years later.
>People that contracted SARS-CoV-1 still have a strong immune response almost 20 years later. Could you provide a source for this please?
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2550-z
Asking for a citation for something so trivially discoverable is a weird flex.
This is promising. Anecdotally though, I know people in India who got covid (with symptoms) twice or even thrice over the last 12 months. I imagine antibody generation is different for different people, and/or response to variants of the virus is different.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I had this exact question and asked around before finding out a friend's brother specializes in immunology. Apparently two separate exposures triggers a much longer lasting immune response, and because of the nature of the vaccine it's much more targeted to one specific aspect of the virus, and consequently more potent in a way. Moderna also made a statement that they expected their vaccine to last for 2 years based…
Yes. So long as no mutation takes place on the protein spike.