5 ms·

> There is every reason to expect that natural immunity (derived from a previous infection) is better (than that conferred by a vaccine), simply because the imm

> There is every reason to expect that natural immunity (derived from a previous infection) is better (than that conferred by a vaccine), simply because the immune system will recognize the entire virus and not just the spike cell. No - we do not have "every reason" to expect, quite the opposite. As a starter, for many infectious diseases (incl. viral diseases) vaccine-induced immunity is better, see e.g. the commentary and examples here [1]. Regarding SARS-CoV-2, the picture is a lot more subtle. Directly from German virologist Christian Drosten: "If you look closely at the data in the studies, the situation is much more complicated. What one should say and be aware of is vaccination, which provides a relatively constant protection, which is very well described in studies. You actually pretty much know what you have. While there is a greater spread in the case of infection. Quite simply, we get different amounts of virus in the infection. Some have a silent infection that they don't even notice, others have a symptomatic infection. And you have to be aware that in such studies, which are primarily based on PCR test results, there will always be a certain emphasis on symptomatic courses. That means saying that if I know I have survived an infection and it was confirmed by PCR testing, then that also implies that I had symptoms, otherwise I would hardly have had a PCR test at the time. So then I had a symptomatic course. I think that for this situation you can now say very well, whoever had the whole thing symptomatically, will be well protected afterwards, almost like a vaccination." [2] The study you picked in its current pre-print form does not adequately address this obvious selection bias, nor does it address the inherent survivorship bias. I´m not a medical expert though, so we will see if it passes peer review. In any case, please do not perpetuate the myth that natural immunity is superior per se. If you had a symptomatic infection plus a PCR test, you are likely well protected, very similar to (mRNA) vaccination. If your infection is more than 6 months old, get a booster. [1] https://twitter.com/ENirenberg/status/1412865782862725125 https://twitter.com/ENirenberg/status/1412865782862725125 [2] https://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/info/coronaskript334.pdf https://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/info/coronaskript334.pdf page 7 (via Google Translate)

passivate 5y ago
Can you link to studies mentioned in your quote ? - "If you look closely at the data in the studies, [..]" Also, you seem to be rightfully cautious that the situation is fluid, but also calling natural immunity being better a 'myth'. This may just be the word you chose, but myth to me is something that is complete BS. Are you also intending to use it that way?
- Pyramus 5y ago
  > Can you link to studies mentioned in your quote ? - "If you look closely at the data in the studies, [..]" See e.g. papers mentioned here: https://g-f-v.org/2021/09/30/4411/ https://g-f-v.org/2021/09/30/4411/ > myth to me is something that is complete BS I chose myth to describe the pattern of something that seems correct for seemingly obvious reasons but is actually incorrect for more complicated reasons. In particular the black and white belief that natural immunity is superior because a) it is 'natural' (this is a such a great example of extrapolating from a kernel of truth and can have interesting notions packed into it, like the superiority of divine creation and/or nature), b) the vaccine only encodes the spike protein (one of the reasons the spike protein was chosen is because it is more robust w.r.t. to variation relative to other components of the virus). I see these "arguments" often politicised with terms such as 'gold standard immunity'.
  - Proven 5y ago
    Earlier you said the truth complicated and peer reviews are necessary, now you say it's incorrect. Send your resume to Dr Fauci.
  - passivate 5y ago
    Your claim that natural immunity superiority is a myth is based on which scientific principles? Please throw all the science you can at me, I am genuinely interested. Also, I'm curious if you read the studies you're linking to? This is literally the conclusion from link #8 >This study demonstrated that natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity.
    - Pyramus 5y ago
      Please re-read what I wrote: It's BS to call natural immunity superior for the reasons of being "natural" or because "vaccines only encode the spike protein". There is no black and white argument why natural immunity should be superior - it can be worse, similar or better than vaccine-induced immunity. It all depends on the amount of viral particles you were exposed to in the first place. Any study that compares natural immunity to vaccine-induced has to deal with a selection bias (as stated in the quote by somebody who is a professional at designing such studies). Let me know if that clears things up.
ianai 5y ago
I also wonder whether the reason the "natural vs vaccine" immunity question may not have a great, direct answer is it wasn't asked until covid-19. When I was asked about this by a 'vaccine skeptic', I said having the vaccine after an infection was clearly a huge benefit over having just the vaccine or just the infection - so do it. I've also seen a study where the super rare, problematic responses to the vaccine seemed to be the same symptoms someone would experience with an infection sans the vaccine - only the effect would be dramatically worse with an infection. (Sorry I can't offer sources at the moment - moments from sleep.)
- native_samples 5y ago
  Of course it was asked before COVID-19: there's no point in taking a vaccine for a disease you already had because the vaccine is not more virus-like than the virus itself. By definition there is no event closer to infection than infection; for the body, a vaccine is always a trial run. Hence things like chickenpox parties. There wasn't raging debate about this because it's obvious and uncontested. It's quite sad to see people now claiming it's some kind of novel scientific question about natural immunity vs not. This is basic, high school level biology. It's not advanced stuff and the people claiming otherwise are invariably using bad science to do so. For example, claims that infection doesn't stop reinfection are often based on studies with so few cases of reinfection that it'd fall below the noise floor for almost any testing system. The belief that these events are real relies on yet more bad science (the belief that mass testing has an FP rate of zero). The reality is that natural immunity is suddenly being questioned because "vaccine zealots" are desperate to suppress any messaging that might discourage people from taking it. They've lost all perspective, which means they're making claims that are contradicting biology considered so basic and important that it's literally taught to children in school. Then they sit around looking confused, wondering why suddenly so many "anti-vaxxers" and "skeptics" came out of the woodwork.
  - Pyramus 5y ago
    > By definition there is no event closer to infection than infection [...] Hence things like chickenpox parties. Glad you mention chickenpox. Could you help me understand why the protein vaccine is much more effective than the attenuated virus vaccine? Following your argument there should be nothing better than the virus vaccine, because it is closest to infection?

passivate 5y ago

Can you link to studies mentioned in your quote ? - "If you look closely at the data in the studies, [..]" Also, you seem to be rightfully cautious that the situation is fluid, but also calling natural immunity being better a 'myth'. This may just be the word you chose, but myth to me is something that is complete BS. Are you also intending to use it that way?

Pyramus 5y ago
> Can you link to studies mentioned in your quote ? - "If you look closely at the data in the studies, [..]" See e.g. papers mentioned here: https://g-f-v.org/2021/09/30/4411/ https://g-f-v.org/2021/09/30/4411/ > myth to me is something that is complete BS I chose myth to describe the pattern of something that seems correct for seemingly obvious reasons but is actually incorrect for more complicated reasons. In particular the black and white belief that natural immunity is superior because a) it is 'natural' (this is a such a great example of extrapolating from a kernel of truth and can have interesting notions packed into it, like the superiority of divine creation and/or nature), b) the vaccine only encodes the spike protein (one of the reasons the spike protein was chosen is because it is more robust w.r.t. to variation relative to other components of the virus). I see these "arguments" often politicised with terms such as 'gold standard immunity'.
- Proven 5y ago
  Earlier you said the truth complicated and peer reviews are necessary, now you say it's incorrect. Send your resume to Dr Fauci.
- passivate 5y ago
  Your claim that natural immunity superiority is a myth is based on which scientific principles? Please throw all the science you can at me, I am genuinely interested. Also, I'm curious if you read the studies you're linking to? This is literally the conclusion from link #8 >This study demonstrated that natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity.
  - Pyramus 5y ago
    Please re-read what I wrote: It's BS to call natural immunity superior for the reasons of being "natural" or because "vaccines only encode the spike protein". There is no black and white argument why natural immunity should be superior - it can be worse, similar or better than vaccine-induced immunity. It all depends on the amount of viral particles you were exposed to in the first place. Any study that compares natural immunity to vaccine-induced has to deal with a selection bias (as stated in the quote by somebody who is a professional at designing such studies). Let me know if that clears things up.

ianai 5y ago

I also wonder whether the reason the "natural vs vaccine" immunity question may not have a great, direct answer is it wasn't asked until covid-19. When I was asked about this by a 'vaccine skeptic', I said having the vaccine after an infection was clearly a huge benefit over having just the vaccine or just the infection - so do it. I've also seen a study where the super rare, problematic responses to the vaccine seemed to be the same symptoms someone would experience with an infection sans the vaccine - only the effect would be dramatically worse with an infection. (Sorry I can't offer sources at the moment - moments from sleep.)

native_samples 5y ago
Of course it was asked before COVID-19: there's no point in taking a vaccine for a disease you already had because the vaccine is not more virus-like than the virus itself. By definition there is no event closer to infection than infection; for the body, a vaccine is always a trial run. Hence things like chickenpox parties. There wasn't raging debate about this because it's obvious and uncontested. It's quite sad to see people now claiming it's some kind of novel scientific question about natural immunity vs not. This is basic, high school level biology. It's not advanced stuff and the people claiming otherwise are invariably using bad science to do so. For example, claims that infection doesn't stop reinfection are often based on studies with so few cases of reinfection that it'd fall below the noise floor for almost any testing system. The belief that these events are real relies on yet more bad science (the belief that mass testing has an FP rate of zero). The reality is that natural immunity is suddenly being questioned because "vaccine zealots" are desperate to suppress any messaging that might discourage people from taking it. They've lost all perspective, which means they're making claims that are contradicting biology considered so basic and important that it's literally taught to children in school. Then they sit around looking confused, wondering why suddenly so many "anti-vaxxers" and "skeptics" came out of the woodwork.
- Pyramus 5y ago
  > By definition there is no event closer to infection than infection [...] Hence things like chickenpox parties. Glad you mention chickenpox. Could you help me understand why the protein vaccine is much more effective than the attenuated virus vaccine? Following your argument there should be nothing better than the virus vaccine, because it is closest to infection?