Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
No. They are addressing the subgroup of the first group of people, who you are ignoring: * Those who haven't been infected who are wondering if they should not bother with the vaccine if getting infected provides durable immunity. The answer to that is: the vaccine is orders of magnitude less dangerous than contracting the virus. Just because you don't address every single group of people in a response does not mean…
Longitudinal analysis shows durable immune memory after SARS-CoV-2 infection
181–190 of 222 posts
Re: Longitudinal analysis shows durable immune memory after SARS-CoV-2 infection
#182Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here is a paper (not yet peer-reviewed) which presents statistically strong evidence (N = 52,238) that vaccinating previously infected individuals provides practically no benefit [1].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 vacc…
Thanks for bringing this paper, it's relevant to the conversation. A couple of points of context. First, this study is quite early on in the vaccination campaign, when supplies were very short. The main conclusion is that they should be prioritized to people who have not had prior infection. That advice was not followed, largely because determining prior infection status complicates the protocols for vaccination quit…
You're leaving out the primary finding, here is the actual conclusion from the study I previously cited [1]:
- "Individuals who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection are unlikely to benefit from COVID-19 vaccination, and vaccines can be safely prioritized to those who have not been infected before."
> this study in particular predates the significant spread of the delta variant, and there is particular concern about reinfection from that variant
I agree on the general point. Relevant to the discussion is the fact that the OP paper addresses this, here are relevant excerpts:
- "Our findings show that most COVID-19 patients induce a wide-ranging immune defense against SARS-CoV-2 infection, encompassing antibodies and memory B cells recognizing both the RBD and other regions of the spike, broadly-specific and polyfunctional CD4+ T cells, and polyfunctional CD8+ T cells."
- "The immune response to natural infection is likely to provide some degree of protective immunity even against SARS-CoV-2 variants because the CD4+ and CD8+ T cell epitopes will likely be conserved."
- "Thus, vaccine induction of CD8+ T cells to more conserved antigens such as the nucleocapsid, rather than just to SARS-CoV-2 spike antigens, may add benefit to more rapid containment of infection as SARS-CoV-2 variants overtake the prevailing strains."
These findings hint that naturally acquired immunity may actually be more robust to variants of concern in comparison to the immune response induced by vaccination. But admittedly this has not been proven yet.
See my top level post on this thread for more details and citations.
Re: Longitudinal analysis shows durable immune memory after SARS-CoV-2 infection
#183Earlier quoted context omitted.
interesting, over here in germany if you (provably) had covid you don't have to get vaccinated to enter places requiring that or a test
I think the EU timeout for the proved infection is 6 months unfortunately. So someone in the EU decided that a COVID infection's protection only lasts 6 months.
Re: Longitudinal analysis shows durable immune memory after SARS-CoV-2 infection
#184Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a pretty bad take. No vaccine has 100% coverage. Most of the time we're talking about 85-90% protection rate, with some low possibility of mild infectious contagion. The particularly ignorant take on your part is ignoring 1918 to 1919 change in that flu. It 'naturally' became far more deadly with no vaccine needed.
Right. Abstractly viruses find a sweet spot between transmission rate and lethality to host. Too lethal and it won’t spread very far. However, in practical terms there is a lot more room for something like COVID to be far more damaging and still spread just like it has been or more. All of the immunity we now have and the particular nature and quality of it will certainly impact what the virus does when mutating. If…
Re: Longitudinal analysis shows durable immune memory after SARS-CoV-2 infection
#185Earlier quoted context omitted.
Data from Israel shows that vaccinated people have a 6.72 times higher chance to get infected than previously infected people: https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/309762
Do you have a moderately credible source on this? The linked is pushing a radical right-wing hard-line anti-vaccine agenda too hard to be considered remotely credible or trustworthy. It also does not link to primary sources.
Re: Longitudinal analysis shows durable immune memory after SARS-CoV-2 infection
#186Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not deriding the honest worry. Nobody can know with certainty anything about the future. I'm worrying about the paralyzing effects of a meme that says that since it's technically possible for an adverse affect to happen at an arbitrary point in the future, we cannot consider an option to curb the effects of a known problem we have right now. Often I'm accused of dismissing the possibility of adverse effects like…
I will try to answer your questions from my point of view. It appears "off" that there is no nuance to this vaccination strategy. It seems especially odd to advocate for vaccinating children who stand to benefit very little personally. I had planned to get vaccinated but have been pretty concerned by the totalitarian vibes I've been getting lately. So I guess I've decided to let my civics slide to match. I will get t…
Would 0.0001% risk be acceptable for you, hypothetically, as a civic duty?
Re: Longitudinal analysis shows durable immune memory after SARS-CoV-2 infection
#187Not 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…
"Citations"
My high school English teacher would be disappointed in this site.
I'm sure there's a bunch of actual scientific articles below that are flagged because they are going against the narrative.
Don't ever change HN.
Re: Longitudinal analysis shows durable immune memory after SARS-CoV-2 infection
#188Earlier quoted context omitted.
I will try to answer your questions from my point of view. It appears "off" that there is no nuance to this vaccination strategy. It seems especially odd to advocate for vaccinating children who stand to benefit very little personally. I had planned to get vaccinated but have been pretty concerned by the totalitarian vibes I've been getting lately. So I guess I've decided to let my civics slide to match. I will get t…
What would be your risk threshold (hypothetically speaking, if we could know it) that would make it for you a no-brainer to just take the vaccine assuming that you taking it would encourage other people who do fall in a higher risk bracket to also take it? Would 0.0001% risk be acceptable for you, hypothetically, as a civic duty?
I'm saying the apparent risk of the disease to myself and from me to others is not above the necessary level to stir an action from me.
I'm probably going to get the vaccine if I see some sense of nuance to the guidance. Such as reasonable advice properly and publicly discussing the relative risk/rewards for our various demographics. The current attitude that I'm confronted with in my day-to-day is "wow what a dumb fuck hes hurting himself and everyone around him", for me the stats say otherwise.
Re: Longitudinal analysis shows durable immune memory after SARS-CoV-2 infection
#189Its 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…
Rejecting a medical intervention is a right people have. It doesn’t matter it’s because of 5G, fertility, medical conditions or them merely not being in the mood to take the vaccine.
Re: Longitudinal analysis shows durable immune memory after SARS-CoV-2 infection
#190“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.
The pfizer vaccine clinical trial had equal rates of death among vaccine and placebo recipients, FWIW.
I don't believe any RCT has validated the claim that vaccination reduces the recipients chance of death.
(Nor has any validated that parachutes save lives, I suppose!)