In reply to: The guidance from the CDC is to get it. posted by LondonDomer
just like people are showing their vaccine card. However that's not the messaging at all so I got the vaccine in case there's any fun things I want to do that I need it for. Had the second dose on Tuesday, was in bed with chills yesterday and am back to work today feeling 98% normal.
...but what data are you basing your agreement on that shows the effectiveness and longevity of natural immunity to COVID-19?
If it's out there, I'd certainly love to read it, but I'm not aware of anything definitive on COVID-19 re-infection over time, whereas I know that the immunity developed from the vaccines is being continuously studied.
site says that reinfection is "rare"...to me, rare is 1% or less which would make the natural antibodies 99% effective against reinfection. Certainly they are 75% effective which would be greater than one of the vaccines on the market.
https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/lasting-immunity-found-after-recovery-covid-19#:~:text=The%20immune%20systems%20of%20more,lasting%20immune%20memories%20after%20vaccination.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/your-health/reinfection.html
When covid first came out, herd immunity was talked about as "70% of the population has to have had it." Now, only the vaccine is a way to have herd immunity. I call BS on that and I think it's spin for messaging for people to get the vaccine. I understand why, there's a ton of people out there who say "I 'know' I had it way back when" which is also most likely total BS and they should be getting the vaccine.
Regardless, I have had covid and have now completed both shots so I don't want to wear a stupid mask anymore and I want to go to a Red Wings game.
They already have tens of thousands of people enrolled in a study and all they have to do is continue to follow up and track infection rates.
It seems much more challenging to create statistically significant data from the hundreds of thousands of people who have had natural infections with a bunch of variables, though I'm sure it is being studied somehow by someone?
I plan to get my 2nd shot next week as scheduled. I'm not personally worried about the very rare complications from the vaccines and I'll deal with a day of feeling crappy to ensure that I'm as immune as I can possibly be.
But that really has nothing to do with why we would give a passport to someone with a vaccine but not natural immunity. We have what, maybe 6 months of data on the vaccines? What about these vaccines make them better than any other vaccine in that we believe they give better protection than acquired immunity?
...or at least, that it lasts a minimum time that we have not yet reached.
The six months will, hopefully, get pushed to seven, then eight. If it eventually runs out, the ongoing studies will show it, and it's likely that a booster shot will be all that is needed renew it.
I don't know if we have any idea how long natural immunity lasts, or whether it is variable based on an individual infection, because I'm not sure it's been effectively studied.
If I may ask, why do you want to avoid being vaccinated?
I just don't particularly see the need at this point.
Admittedly it does give me pause that vaccines are being pushed so hard, not in general, but over everything we supposedly knew about acquired immunity.
I don't recall seeing any definitely information surrounding the duration or effectiveness of natural immunity, other than the fact that re-infections, while rare, have occurred.
Are there studies out there than pinpoint this information that I'm unaware of?
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but everything I've read pre-Covid, even from the CDC, has stated that while obviously riskier, immunity is more robust from an infection than a vaccine. Why has this changed so quickly?
I don't know that I've ever given it much thought, but my understanding is that natural immunity is extremely variable between people, and certainly between different viruses
We've been able to essentially eliminate some diseases with childhood vaccines/booster shots. Yet we can't completely stop the flu, and we can't do anything about the common cold.
I am unaware of any consensus surrounding the general efficacy or effectiveness of vaccines vs. natural immunity taken as a whole. I'm not even sure such a conclusion is possible.
Isn't this the reason why it takes so long to develop and study vaccines?
From Childrens' Hospital of Philly: https://www.chop.edu/centers-programs/vaccine-education-center/vaccine-safety/immune-system-and-health
From Michigan's Department of Health with citations to CDC: https://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdch/Waiver_Ed_Natural_Immunity_479884_7.pdf
I agree that immunity is likely variable and difficult to study.
From the 1st article:
"However, when scientists are designing vaccines, they determine the smallest amount of virus or bacteria needed to generate a protective immunologic response. In this situation, more is not necessarily better."
A stronger immmune response to an infection doesn't necessarily imply "better" because vaccines are specifically developed to minimize the side effects (feeling sick) of the immune response while still conferring immunity.
The larger point is that, with a novel virus, no one knows, and we shouldn't be making recommendations based on assumptions that have not yet been studied.
Doesn't that also make the case that we shouldn't prioritize vaccine immunity vs. acquired immunity if and when we issue passports?
It’s being continuously studied in the continuing trials.
Your statement that natural immunity is usually “better” than vaccine induced immunity relies on a pretty big assumption that this is also true for COVID.
I’m not certain if natural immunity is being studied the same way as vaccine induced immunity.. I suspect it is, but it’s more challenging and, as far as I know, we don’t have any clinical results at all similar to what we have from the vaccine trial studies.
If we do, I’d love to read about them and have the guidance change.
but taken directly from the scientists who published those articles, based on what I assume is 100+ years of study.
I don't think relying on that is any bigger assumption regarding Covid than it is to project the current Covid trials into the future. To be clear, I'm not arguing against the vaccines. I just think it's ludicrous to potentially base passports on them but not to consider acquired immunity as well.
They are updating the guidance every month based on the ongoing results. I think they first announced 3 months or 4 months of immunity, and theyve revised that guidance now up to 6 months, I believe.
At some point, a statistically significant number of people in the trial may start to contract COVID, and that will tell us that immunity wanes in that timeframe. I assume they're then test boosters.
On you statements on natural immunity, the issue isn't with who is saying it.
The issues are:
1)The word "usually."
2)Defining a stronger immune system response as "better". It does not follow that the continuing immunity is necessarily stronger, and the statement I quoted from your article in my last post speaks directly to that point.
The only reason that one would need to include natural immunity in any sort of vaccine "passport" (which I'm against anyway) is for someone who does not want to get vaccinated, isn't it? Otherwise, they simply need to go get the shot and the point is moot.