Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Longitudinal analysis shows durable immune memory after SARS-CoV-2 infection

cell.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 222 posts

Re: Longitudinal analysis shows durable immune memory after SARS-CoV-2 infection

#121

Post by raphlinus »

timr wrote: post #111
SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #42

Not to disagree with the effectiveness of immunity gained by getting Covid-19, but also: "The evidence shows that protective antibodies generated in response to an mRNA vaccine will target a broader range of SARS-CoV-2 variants ... compared to antibodies acquired from an infection." https://directorsblog.nih.gov/2021/06/22/how-immunity-genera... "Vaccination offers longer, stronger immunity" https://www.jhsph.edu/cov…

I am a believer in vaccines, but you're mischaracterizing the first link by selective omission. You've cut out the critical words of the sentence (emphasized): > The new evidence shows that protective antibodies generated in response to an mRNA vaccine will target a broader range of SARS-CoV-2 variants carrying “single letter” changes in a key portion of their spike protein compared to antibodies acquired from an inf…

Thanks for trying to bring more precision to the discussion. I also cited that blog post elsethread, and, having reviewed it, agree it's not the single best piece of evidence. It establishes a narrow result which suggests a generally better immune response from vaccines, but does not prove it.

If I had to cite a single preprint to support the assertion, it would probably be this one:

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.15.440089v4

Obviously this study also has limitations: it speaks only to Ab levels, while obviously the overall immune response is a lot more complicated.

I agree with the "waving of preprints" claim. Unfortunately, hyperskepticism, rejecting drawing conclusions because of the inevitable limitations of any study, is also a politicized position, and unfortunately I see a fair amount of that as well.

Re: Longitudinal analysis shows durable immune memory after SARS-CoV-2 infection

#122

Post by slumpt_ »

anonuser123456 wrote: post #80
slumpt_ wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vaccination also has more durable immunity than natural immunity in this case. Without those risks you outline.

I’m not sure this is clear. Yes, this is what has been stated in the media, but I have yet to see data to back the claim. And in particular it has been shown that natural immunity produces a much broader set of antibodies that may allow the immune system to cope with variants better. I’m not advocating natural immunity btw. I completely agree people should get the vaccine.

That’s actually incorrect. Someone was kind enough to cite in another reply to me.

I’m honestly a bit disturbed how much confidence software engineers have in their consumption of virology research. My good friend has worked in it for 10+ years not including a doctorate and worked on an mRNA vaccine.

I trust his takes more than any media and certainly more than some of these folks replying doubting the state of the science. Vaccines are the safest and best protection against COVID one can get.

Not specifically replying to you with that, just the general tone of these threads. Folks are out of their depth.

Re: Longitudinal analysis shows durable immune memory after SARS-CoV-2 infection

#123

Post by criticaltinker »

This paper further supports the fact that naturally acquired immunity to SARS-CoV-2 is 1) robust and 2) durable.

1) Robust means the immune response recognizes many different parts of the virus.

2) Durable means the immune response remains detectable - and likely effective at protecting the individual - for a long period of time.

A robust immune response is important because it provides a certain degree of protection against variants of the virus.

This robustness is why some people hypothesize that natural immunity provides better protection than vaccination - however this hypothesis has not been conclusively proven in the literature yet. If you're aware of primary sources that say otherwise please share them.

For now, all available evidence strongly suggests that individuals with naturally acquired immunity are at least equally well protected as individuals who have been vaccinated. Here are a couple more supporting references [1][2].

As a final point - in the literature there is some evidence & concern that the current mRNA vaccines induce an immune response which is highly targeted toward the spike protein [3]. When combined with mass vaccination campaigns, this creates tremendous selective pressure that can further enhance the fitness of the virus, and lead to increasingly infectious or virulent variants [3][4][5][6].

It's clear that vaccination poses little additional risk - but also little benefit - to previously infected individuals, and consequently our vaccination campaigns should be highly targeted toward vulnerable demographics to reap the most benefits and minimize the risks to public health.

[1] SARS-CoV-2 infection induces long-lived bone marrow plasma cells in humans https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03647-4.pdf

[2] Necessity of COVID-19 vaccination in previously infected individuals https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.01.21258176v...

[3] Risk of rapid evolutionary escape from biomedical interventions targeting SARS-CoV-2 spike protein https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33909660/

[4] SARS-CoV-2 immune evasion by the B.1.427/B.1.429 variant of concern https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2021/06/30/scie...

[5] mRNA vaccine-elicited antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 and circulating variants https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03324-6

[6] Imperfect Vaccination Can Enhance the Transmission of Highly Virulent Pathogens https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371%2Fj...

Re: Longitudinal analysis shows durable immune memory after SARS-CoV-2 infection

#124

Post by Izkata »

daveguy wrote: post #86
briefcomment wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a strawman. Can you instead address this particular bucket: people who have had Covid, and are now wondering if they are as immune as they can hope for, considering all other available interventions.

Identifying the relative effects of two courses of action is nowhere near a straw man. Merriam-Webster definition of straw man: a weak or imaginary opposition (such as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted Stating the actual side-effects of one course over the other is neither weak nor imaginary.

There are two different buckets of people that OP is conflating:

* Those who haven't been infected yet

* Those who have already been infected

They're ignoring the second bucket, which is what GP was pointing out - only talking about the first bucket and pretending it applies to both.

Re: Longitudinal analysis shows durable immune memory after SARS-CoV-2 infection

#125

Post by chiefalchemist »

mbgerring wrote: post #47

“Acquiring” natural immunity also has the following side effects at a much higher rate than the vaccine: - Death - Hospitalization - Chronic illness, which can include long-term neurological impairment I feel like it’s important to keep that in mind if you’re either advocating “natural immunity” as a public health strategy, or considering it a personal strategy.

Links please. If those at risk aren't given the jab then counts of death and hospitalizations are going to be skewed against the natural immunity.

Re: Longitudinal analysis shows durable immune memory after SARS-CoV-2 infection

#126

Post by ithkuil »

pfisherman wrote: post #100
015a wrote: post #19

Its important to keep studies like this in mind when talking with people who refuse to take the vaccine because they "already had COVID". In a very real sense, if natural antibodies are durable, persistent, and effective; the vaccine is an unnecessary medical procedure. Doctors would not cut off your legs for no reason; that would be unethical. The vaccine is a medical procedure like any other; if the benefit is ques…

I think other comments may have pointed this out already, but there are several problems with this line of reasoning. When deciding on whether or not to administer a procedure or treatment, one must consider the balance of potential harms and benefits, while accounting for uncertainty. In this particular case, the potential for harm from the vaccine is quite low (this is borne out by the data), and the benefits are m…

> In this particular case, the potential for harm from the vaccine is quite low (this is borne out by the data),

Which is why a common anti-vax argument is sow doubt about the harmful effects.

I noticed a few options:

a) conspiratorial: "the government is lying about side harm"

b) anecdotal: "I personally know at least 3 people who couldn't walk after the vaccine. Do you call me a liar?"

c) hyper-skepticism: "how can we know if it long term side effect? Yes it's proven safe for X months, but what about in Y month? what about Y years?"

I found it hard to defuse such positions with "just more data". They seem to be memes (crafted or just evolved?) that resist quite strongly to data.

Re: Longitudinal analysis shows durable immune memory after SARS-CoV-2 infection

#127

Post by Izkata »

eightysixfour wrote: post #92
briefcomment wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a strawman. Can you instead address this particular bucket: people who have had Covid, and are now wondering if they are as immune as they can hope for, considering all other available interventions.

This study shows that those who have had COVID but are unvaccinated have 2.3x the risk of reinfection compared to those who had COVID and are vaccinated. 246 patients, 492 controls. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm?s_cid=mm...

> First, reinfection was not confirmed through whole genome sequencing, which would be necessary to definitively prove that the reinfection was caused from a distinct virus relative to the first infection.

I guess that would explain how it doesn't fit with this: https://bnonews.com/index.php/2020/08/covid-19-reinfection-t... (<200 confirmed reinfections worldwide, 82k suspected reinfections worldwide).

Re: Longitudinal analysis shows durable immune memory after SARS-CoV-2 infection

#128

Post by 542458 »

krona wrote: post #107
542458 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The test is easy, but has a relatively high false positive rate. It also may use up lab resources that could be put to other uses. The other wrinkle (and possibly the most important one) is that we don’t want to create a system where antivaxxers have an incentive to deliberately infect themselves and/or others.

> The test is easy, but has a relatively high false positive rate. The FDA approved Roche serology test has a specificity greater than 99.8% and sensitivity of 100% (14 Days post-PCR confirmation) https://www.roche.com/media/releases/med-cor-2020-05-03.htm I wouldn't say 0.02% is a particularly high FP rate.

I was under the impressing that the Roche test was an outlier, and that most other tests do not match that. Most other tests have issues with cross reactivity with common cold antibodies.

Re: Longitudinal analysis shows durable immune memory after SARS-CoV-2 infection

#129

Post by nwienert »

raphlinus wrote: post #121
timr wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am a believer in vaccines, but you're mischaracterizing the first link by selective omission. You've cut out the critical words of the sentence (emphasized): > The new evidence shows that protective antibodies generated in response to an mRNA vaccine will target a broader range of SARS-CoV-2 variants carrying “single letter” changes in a key portion of their spike protein compared to antibodies acquired from an inf…

Thanks for trying to bring more precision to the discussion. I also cited that blog post elsethread, and, having reviewed it, agree it's not the single best piece of evidence. It establishes a narrow result which suggests a generally better immune response from vaccines, but does not prove it. If I had to cite a single preprint to support the assertion, it would probably be this one: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/1…

We know based on past corornaviruses that natural infection can lead to durable immunity up to 20 years, and like you mentioned with T-cells and more. We also have data showing the current ones so far last as long as we’ve tested them, while vaccines have waned once near a year out. The consensus hasn’t been reached, by my current beliefs strongly tend towards (based on many past similar viruses and all current studies) that vaccine is far less efficacious.

https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/309762

Note: that’s 6.7 times stronger immunity from natural vs vaccinated! If anything we should have “previously-infected” cards that confer far greater privileges than vaccination cards, if we’re going to be playing that silly game.

Here’s a citation showing stronger T cell immunity from naturally infected: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/372/6549/1418

Natural infection stronger across the board:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.news-medical.net/amp/news/2...

Natural immunity holds across even previously known coronavirus variants:

https://news.emory.edu/stories/2021/07/covid_survivors_resis...

Re: Longitudinal analysis shows durable immune memory after SARS-CoV-2 infection

#130

Post by peteradio »

raphlinus wrote: post #101
peteradio wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[1] is not generally supportive of your very broad statement. You must qualify you statement with some indication of this stated limitation: "carrying “single letter” changes in a key portion of their spike protein"

It is one datapoint among many, but I found it interesting because it is based on careful biological experimentation and directly compares immune response from vaccination and prior infection. Another relevant quote: "Importantly, the vaccine-elicited antibodies targeted a broader range of places on the RBD than those elicited by natural infection." This is not an intuitively obvious result. But, since it was asked,…

It seems odd to present these tangential measurements when what I think most people are interested in is personal outcomes. How can one relate relative increases in seropositivity to patient outcomes? Why don't we see studies which conclusively nail this down? I'm well aware of this study https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/pdfs/mm7032e1-H.pdf, I'm unmoved by it, see this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28106987 . Are you aware of more substantial studies to date? Thank you for the links and the discussion. I personally have yet to get the vaccine but do consider myself persuadable.
Post reply on HN