Vaccine immunity isn’t based on assumptions.
by ndroman21 (2021-04-15 15:09:36)

In reply to: Unless I'm completely misunderstanding your last sentence  posted by elcortez01

Post Reply Return to Back Room

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.

"Better" is not only my statement
by elcortez01  (2021-04-15 15:29:35)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

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're not projecting anythiing from the trials.
by ndroman21  (2021-04-15 15:42:44)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

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.