61–70 of 342 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Testing for immunity could easily cost more than the vaccine. Also most people haven't caught it yet, so you'd need to give them the vaccine anyways.
The antibody tests are like $5.
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.
From my understanding, there are two main reasons. 1) The two spaced exposures. Repeated spaced exposures build a significantly stronger response. 2) Isolation of the spike protein. Just like ML might pick up on a correlated part of the image while learning to recognize things (many examples, no good links), your immune system may learn to react to different parts of the virus. The spike protein is the most unchangin…
Does that mean that a natural immunity may offer protection against other coronaviruses that have a different spike protein structure? The logic being that the less targeted defenses built through a natural immunity would latch onto some other commonality?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The antibody tests are like $5.
Where can I get such a test that is accurate and shows a quantitative number)? Quest charges $80.
I was sort of thinking of the cost of doing the test when I said $5, rather than the retail cost (really, that's what I was thinking about!).
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The public health profession has lost so much credibility over the last year. No one should feel the need to reverse engineer latent preemptive anticipatory inverted Stockholm syndrome like this, but here we are.
They've lost credibility because of a concerted effort to discredit them. An effort that was initiated specifically by people who didn't want to follow their broadly reasonable medical advice.
_If_ natural immunity lasts longer than vaccine immunity, does that mean those that have been infected would not need the regular booster shots?
Natural immunity and vaccine immunity are expected to last around the same amount time. This is for the simple reason that the mechanism that generates the immunity is similar. (Natural immunity being a bit more diverse, while vaccine focuses on a single protein.)
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2021/04/29/scie...
> After one dose, individuals with prior infection showed enhanced T cell immunity, antibody secreting memory B cell response to spike and neutralizing antibodies effective against B.1.1.7 and B.1.351. By comparison, HCW receiving one vaccine dose without prior infection showed reduced immunity against variants. B.1.1.7 and B.1.351 spike mutations resulted in increased, abrogated or unchanged T cell responses depending on human leukocyte antigen (HLA) polymorphisms. Single dose vaccination with BNT162b2 in the context of prior infection with a heterologous variant substantially enhances neutralizing antibody responses against variants.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>People that contracted SARS-CoV-1 still have a strong immune response almost 20 years later. Could you provide a source for this please?
There are several such studies, all trivially discoverable. Here is one published in Nature last year, where they specifically also studied cross reactivity of SARS-2003 immune response with SARS-2019: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2550-z Asking for a citation for something so trivially discoverable is a weird flex.
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?
Everything I've been reading about vaccine passports include some reference to having a positive COVID test more than X period of time in the past as an equivalent to a vaccine. That said, there are few (if any) reasons not to do both, so at least for now I'm okay even if we did only push for vaccines-as-validation.
If recovery grants equivalent immunity, there's not only no reason to get a vaccine, there's reason to not get any vaccine: However rare complications are from the vaccines, there's no reason to risk them.