Longitudinal analysis shows durable immune memory after SARS-CoV-2 infection • Hacker News Board

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

#131

Post by criticaltinker » Sun, Aug 08, 2021, 5:41 PM UTC

raphlinus wrote: post #55

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 know this thread is catnip for the antivax contingent that reliably appears, but this argument has several problems. First, our vaccines provide a stronger immune response than infection, as has been well documented by now[1]. Vaccination on top of prior infection boosts the response[2]. Second, the harm from the vaccine is minimal, and comparing it with an amputation is ridiculous (in spite of the large number of…

> vaccines provide a stronger immune response than infection

This is a blatant oversimplification & misrepresentation of the article you referenced, and the paper which it cites [1]. The paper makes no claims that vaccine induced immune responses are more or less superior than the immune response induced by natural infection.

Quote from [1]:

- "Specifically, antibodies elicited by the mRNA vaccine were more focused to the RBD compared to antibodies elicited by an infection, which more often targeted other portions of the spike protein."

Counterintuitively, this property of the current mRNA vaccines - the induction of an immune response highly targeted toward the spike protein RBD - when combined with compulsory mass vaccination, could result in widespread proliferation of vaccine resistant variants [2][3][4][5]. This is a serious concern that is on the radar of many top experts in the field.

The second and third order consequences of mass vaccination using an imperfect vaccine are anything but simple, and very much pose a public health risk.

When you consider the evidence supporting the fact that natural immunity is at least equally effective as vaccination (a few more supporting references here [6][7]), it becomes very difficult to defend the idea you're advocating:

> it's simple enough: pretty much everybody (over 12 until trials complete) should get vaccinated

[1] Antibodies elicited by mRNA-1273 vaccination bind more broadly to the receptor binding domain than do those from SARS-CoV-2 infection https://stm.sciencemag.org/content/13/600/eabi9915

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

[3] 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...

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

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

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

[7] Antibody Responses 8 Months after Asymptomatic or Mild SARS-CoV-2 Infection https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7920668/

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

#132

Post by landemva » Sun, Aug 08, 2021, 5:44 PM UTC

mercora wrote: post #37

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…

how easy is it to test for these antibodies for a layman? could people actually easily get tested prior to considering a vaccination?

In my experience, the finger prick blood test cost $25 and 15 minutes. This test is for blood antibodies. This is not the test for active infection, such as nasal PCR.

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

#133

Post by landemva » Sun, Aug 08, 2021, 5:48 PM UTC

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.

Much of the death toll centers on those who are already sick, obese, and otherwise compromised. Age groups of children and young adults show remarkable resilience to infection. There is not one outcome.

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

#134

Post by anonuser123456 » Sun, Aug 08, 2021, 5:49 PM UTC

slumpt_ wrote: post #122

anonuser123456 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

Hi Pot, meet Kettle?

My statement literally starts with "I'm not sure...". You begin yours with "That's actually incorrect." Which expresses more confidence?

My opinion is based on a conversation with a Ph.D immunologist that happens to be a friend as well. And if that's not enough here is a paper from a totally separate lab that has similar conclusions, with actual data https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.29.454333v1

mRNA vaccines are obviously much better at generating antibodies for the RBD. That's an empirical fact, no one is disputing that. But natural immunity presents antibody targets beyond the RBD.

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

#135

Post by raphlinus » Sun, Aug 08, 2021, 5:49 PM UTC

nwienert wrote: post #129

raphlinus wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 studi…

Antibodies wane, but B-cell and T-cell response is important for longer term protection. Fortunately, we have results (including [B] and [T]) that vaccines also induce these memory cell responses.

Also, the durability of immunity from coronavirus probably depends on the exact coronavirus. It does seem to be true for SARS, but possibly less so for the seasonal coronaviruses that cause a respectable fraction of common colds[3]. We don't really know yet where SARS-CoV-2 falls on that spectrum.

[B]: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.12.21259864v...

[T]: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.30.21259787v...

[3]: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-1083-1

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

#136

Post by slumpt_ » Sun, Aug 08, 2021, 5:51 PM UTC

anonuser123456 wrote: post #134

slumpt_ wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

Hi Pot, meet Kettle? My statement literally starts with "I'm not sure...". You begin yours with "That's actually incorrect." Which expresses more confidence? My opinion is based on a conversation with a Ph.D immunologist that happens to be a friend as well. And if that's not enough here is a paper from a totally separate lab that has similar conclusions, with actual data https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.0…

If you finished the post, I mentioned I wasn’t referring to you.

With respect to the incorrect part, I was replying to:

“…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.”

Which is indeed wrong.

Hope that helps

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

#137

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Aug 08, 2021, 5:54 PM UTC

tchalla wrote: post #73

wizzwizz4 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I expected this for the mRNA vaccine, but source?

> Now, a new NIH-supported study shows that the answer to this question will vary based on how an individual’s antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 were generated: over the course of a naturally acquired infection or from a COVID-19 vaccine. 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 p…

[deleted]

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

#138

Post by anonuser123456 » Sun, Aug 08, 2021, 5:54 PM UTC

raphlinus wrote: post #114

ithkuil wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(genuine question) What does prevent us from creating mRNA vaccines that target multiple sites and not only the spike protein?

https://theconversation.com/covid-vaccines-focus-on-the-spik... is probably relevant to your question. The short answer (this was also discussed recently on TWiV) is that spike is the earliest interaction with cells, so focusing on it hopefully causes the immune response to mount earlier as well. But, as described in the link, other proteins may be viable targets as well.

Another issue is, other targets may not provide neutralizing immunity and may facilitate ADE. I don't think we've seen ADE in natural infection yet, so it may just be a theoretical issue, but I also don't know if we've really looked for ADE in natural infection either.

We do know that other similar coronavirus vaccine candidates (a candidate for SARS-COV-1) exhibited ADE in primate studies. So since the spike protein appears effective currently, maybe it's best to stick with that.

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

#139

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Aug 08, 2021, 5:56 PM UTC

ithkuil wrote: post #118

deanclatworthy wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far I’m aware this is an American thing. I’m from Finland (no vaccine pass yet) but travelling in Germany/Austria right now. They have the concept of 3G (don’t ask me to translate) but basically you can’t eat, drink or stay anywhere without either a vaccine, recovery or negative test. There is a pop up antigen test facility about 100m from the restaurant where anyone can go get a quick negative result and go do th…

Most of the pushback I hear here (Italy) about the ability to just get tested as an alternative to vaccine certification is the cost. It's perceived as a tax on the freedom to not vaccinate.

[deleted]

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

#140

Post by criticaltinker » Sun, Aug 08, 2021, 5:57 PM UTC

eightysixfour wrote: post #95

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…

To add to the list: "Kentucky residents who were not vaccinated had 2.34 times the odds of reinfection compared with those who were fully vaccinated (odds ratio [OR] = 2.34; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.58–3.47). These findings suggest that among persons with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, full vaccination provides additional protection against reinfection." https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm?s_c…

Here is a paper (not yet peer-reviewed) which presents statistically strong evidence (N = 52,238) that vaccinating previously infected individuals provides practically no benefit [1].

Quote from [1]:

- "The cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection remained almost zero among previously infected unvaccinated subjects, previously infected subjects who were vaccinated, and previously uninfected subjects who were vaccinated, compared with a steady increase in cumulative incidence among previously uninfected subjects who remained unvaccinated."

Right now there is no scientific consensus that full vaccination of previously infected individuals provides any additional protection that is meaningfully beneficial. In fact there is a lot of evidence pointing the other way - supporting the idea that vaccination strategies should be highly targeted at only the most vulnerable populations.

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