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.