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

#191

Post by ithkuil » Sun, Aug 08, 2021, 9:52 PM UTC

peteradio wrote: post #188

ithkuil wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 not even assessing the risk of the vaccine in my judgement. 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…

I'm pulling a different angle into the equation: an altruistic angle. Are you a priori not interested in participating in an effort that would require an action from you (and possibly also a risk) unless you're directly beneficiary of such action?

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

#192

Post by arein3 » Sun, Aug 08, 2021, 10:03 PM UTC

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…

you can look at jewish data

for a highly vaccinated population 50% newly infected are unvaccinated, 50% are vaccinated and only 1% are getting the virus the second time

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

#193

Post by peteradio » Sun, Aug 08, 2021, 10:35 PM UTC

ithkuil wrote: post #191

peteradio wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not even assessing the risk of the vaccine in my judgement. 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…

I'm pulling a different angle into the equation: an altruistic angle. Are you a priori not interested in participating in an effort that would require an action from you (and possibly also a risk) unless you're directly beneficiary of such action?

I'd assert that in such an experiment I would already be doing my part to reduce the impact of covid mainly due to where I live and minorly by my choices of how I live. The extra utility of that vaccine is effectively lost on me when that is figured in. When there is 0 utility then any altruistic action is nothing more than signaling. If I could be convinced there is serious utility for others by getting vaccinated then of course I would get it. Nobody seems willing to put real numbers to this, its simply "DO IT EVERYONE!"

Lets say there are only 2 reasons to get the vaccine:

1) To protect yourself

2) To protect all those you care for.

I'm not worried about 1 due to the apparently very low likelihood I will have some terrible personal covid outcome.

I'm not worried about 2 due to the apparent very low likelihood of even catching covid.

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

#194

Post by mejutoco » Sun, Aug 08, 2021, 10:45 PM UTC

deanclatworthy wrote: post #153

ithkuil wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I just looked it up. Where I'm staying the tests are 57e, you do it yourself, and get a result within 20mins which is valid for 24h. That definitely is a high cost.

Probably as a tourist it is different? I live in Germany and you can get an antigen test for free per day. They are valid for 24 hours, so it costs 0€ To get tested for any event.

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

#195

Post by spfzero » Sun, Aug 08, 2021, 11:39 PM UTC

criticaltinker wrote: post #182

raphlinus wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> The main conclusion is that they should be prioritized to people who have not had prior infection 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…

Thanks, that was what I keyed into reading the OP as well.

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

#196

Post by nradov » Sun, Aug 08, 2021, 11:46 PM UTC

YPCrumble wrote: post #175

If twenty percent of the population has had covid, and fifty percent has been vaccinated, say we assume half of the twenty percent isn’t an overlap. Wouldn’t that put us much closer to the herd immunity number of seventy percent than we’ve been thinking? And that if infections continue at a high pace, shouldn’t we reach that level very soon?

The CDC estimates that 36% of Americans have been infected.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/burd...

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

#197

Post by spfzero » Sun, Aug 08, 2021, 11:55 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…

I don't think you can state that the vaccines provide a stronger immune response. There is a lot of evidence to the contrary, including this OP. They may provide a stronger single-antibody response as measured at some point in time, but there's no evidence that that results in "better" immunity.

To measure immunity you need to see who gets re-infected and how seriously. Of what I've seen, those studies either show no difference or an advantage for natural immunity.

I don't think the information that natural immunity might be better, is all that helpful. But the growing evidence that it is (at least) as good, is very relevant, since it means vaccines can be prioritized to those who have not yet had Covid-19.

And people who have had it, should certainly not be discriminated against in any way.

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

#198

Post by bmer » Mon, Aug 09, 2021, 12:11 AM UTC

criticaltinker wrote: post #178

bmer wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reference [1] is applicable to how our body handles an immune response to the viral infection in general: i.e. whether naturally acquired, or through controlled vaccination. Natural infections were, naturally focused upon, in order to understand the baseline dynamics of viral infection. Reference [2] is...it says just as much about the efficacy of vaccination as the efficacy of natural immunity: > The cumulative inci…

Are you trying to refute the claim that natural infection confers immunity that is at least equally as protective as vaccination? It's not clear to me that you've presented any counter evidence. I will try to outline my thoughts on your comment to help the discussion. [1] is another primary source beyond the OP that demonstrates the durability of the immune response from natural infection. We are in agreement that in…

I don't see how I'm missing the central thesis of [3]. If a strategy X develops for eliminating a virus Y, Y will undergo positive selection to escape targeting by X. X can be whatever target scheme our immune systems first fixate on, or a narrow targeting emergency vaccine. It really doesn't matter. The researchers focus on the defense mechanism kickstarted by the vaccine, because their point is we cannot be complacent. Point well taken, to be sure, but no one was being complacent anyway (I've seen a fair number of presentations on vaccine design at this point, and no one is touting anything as the silver bullet). Where I'm living, other mechanisms for managing the infection have not disappeared just because vaccination is now in play. The emergency vaccine is first and foremost, a way to generate herd immunity quickly. It will need to be supplemented with other strategies, both in the short term, and in the long term. The researchers have done valuable work in helping us better quantify the timespan over which we can expect escape, and thus allow us to better estimate the time by which we'll need the next wave of solutions in play. THE RESEARCHERS DO NOT ARGUE THAT THE EMERGENCY VACCINE IS USELESS.

I said it the first time, and I'll repeat it again: that a more comprehensive vaccine design will need to supplement the emergency vaccine was a given from day 1. For that same reason, design of "upgrades" to the vaccination program began a long time ago. The papers you're citing are collecting data which help such designs. None of them advocated that the emergency vaccination is useless.

> You are incorrect - the current spike protein focused mRNA based vaccines do not guarantee sterilizing immunity - that means you can be vaccinated yet still get infected and transmit the virus to others. Please cite your sources if you're going to make such claims.

Do you realize that the extent to which vaccinations stop transmission is on a continuum? It is not "on", or "off" in exact terms. The current COVID-19 vaccines immunize to an extent that the re-transmission rate is negligible. A leaky vaccine (the kind studied in the paper) barely makes a dent to the transmission rate, and if it does, only mildly. COVID-19 vaccinations are far from leaky, even if they are not 100% water-tight.

I'm not sure why you're using that paper either, to be honest. There are better ones, but they don't suit your point as well, probably? Here's one that directly talks about COVID-19, and openly acknowledges the risk that exists due to the ACTUAL leakiness of the COVID-19 vaccine, but also shows why this does not prevent herd immunity from emerging, and why it in fact poses a greater risk to those who choose to stubbornly remain unvaccinated, or (and more seriously) those who lack the resources to be vaccinated:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.12.01.20241836v...

I'm not going to continue on this conversation, as I went through your other posts, and I have a fair grasp on what your position is. Continuing on trying to talk to you would be extremely stupid on my part. Have fun doing whatever it is you want to, and good luck.

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

#199

Post by User23 » Mon, Aug 09, 2021, 12:53 AM UTC

maxerickson wrote: post #83

User23 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Red Cross disagrees[1]: “One of the Red Cross requirements for plasma from routine blood and platelet donations that test positive for high-levels of antibodies to be used as convalescent plasma is that it must be from a donor that has not received a COVID-19 vaccine. This is to ensure that antibodies collected from donors have sufficient antibodies directly related to their immune response to a COVID-19 infectio…

They are following the FDA guidance for the convalescent plasma EUA, which does allow people that were sick prior to vaccination to donate plasma...it seems the Red Cross isn't interested in trying to communicate that to potential donors. https://www.fda.gov/media/136798/download If you expand the boxes on your link, you'll also see that they aren't specifically collecting convalescent plasma, as demand has decreased…

Yes I read the link I myself posted, and yes I see the above since that's why I specifically said "regular blood donor." Obviously casual donors should just get vaccinated.

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

#200

Post by criticaltinker » Mon, Aug 09, 2021, 1:19 AM UTC

bmer wrote: post #198

criticaltinker wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you trying to refute the claim that natural infection confers immunity that is at least equally as protective as vaccination? It's not clear to me that you've presented any counter evidence. I will try to outline my thoughts on your comment to help the discussion. [1] is another primary source beyond the OP that demonstrates the durability of the immune response from natural infection. We are in agreement that in…

I don't see how I'm missing the central thesis of [3]. If a strategy X develops for eliminating a virus Y, Y will undergo positive selection to escape targeting by X. X can be whatever target scheme our immune systems first fixate on, or a narrow targeting emergency vaccine. It really doesn't matter. The researchers focus on the defense mechanism kickstarted by the vaccine, because their point is we cannot be complac…

> THE RESEARCHERS DO NOT ARGUE THAT THE EMERGENCY VACCINE IS USELESS

We are in agreement on these points, and to be fair I never made such a broad claim, nor did I intend to insinuate such.

You seem to be concerned with defending vaccination which is understandable, but I believe you're interpreting my statements as completely disregarding the utility and benefits of vaccines, which is not a position I support or attempt to argue.

> Do you realize that the extent to which vaccinations stop transmission is on a continuum? It is not "on", or "off" in exact terms.

We are in agreement on this point as well.

> The current COVID-19 vaccines immunize to an extent that the re-transmission rate is negligible.

A citation on this claim would be greatly appreciated - "negligible" is strongly worded there. FWIW I'm aware of the literature showing that vaccination reduces transmission, but I've never seen it dismissed as negligible.

Thanks for the citation you did share, it's indeed very relevant.

> why it in fact poses a greater risk to those who choose to stubbornly remain unvaccinated

We are in agreement that viral immune escape also poses a risk to the unvaccinated population, especially those who have not acquired natural immunity.

> I'm not going to continue on this conversation

> trying to talk to you would be extremely stupid on my part

I'm sorry I've put you off - my position is not set in stone and I do my best to keep an open mind when presented with conflicting evidence.

I get the impression that you think I'm incurably "anti-vax", so to clarify: my opinion is that vaccines are a powerful tool which must be carefully and strategically used.