https://www.msn.com/en-ca/health/medical/fact-check-no-natural-immunity-doesn-t-replace-vaccination-experts-say/ar-AAOYjEK?ocid=msedgntp
There has been some blather in this forum by some that people who have been infected don't need to be vaccinated.
Research and fact checking by the experts have come up with the answer.
Natural immunity doesn't replace vaccination.
@mghrn55 saidGee, I don't know. That article is quite wishy-washy and doesn't really just really justify your summary conclusion.
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/health/medical/fact-check-no-natural-immunity-doesn-t-replace-vaccination-experts-say/ar-AAOYjEK?ocid=msedgntp
There has been some blather in this forum by some that people who have been infected don't need to be vaccinated.
Research and fact checking by the experts have come up with the answer.
Natural immunity doesn't replace vaccination.
To start, the comparison is not prior infection PLUS vax vs. just prior infection. Everyone agrees prior infection PLUS vax is the best. But the question is whether we should force prior infected to vax or whether they're already kind of on par with NOT infected plus vax and so should be treated as such.
If you take apart that article, it doesn't really make a judgment on prior infection unvaxxed vs. non-infected vaxxed.
The closest is it comes is:
===“Natural immunity does certainly protect you, but we don't know to what extent."
Vaccines, on the other hand, offer consistent protection against COVID-19 ===
That's not really true, though. People who are vaxxed are still susceptible to being infected, as has not been clearly shown by events, though they're certainly less likely to be infected and, if infected, less likely to get seriously ill. The "we don't know to what extent" does kind of apply to both classes.
=== and unlike natural immunity, you don’t have to get sick to gain the protective benefits of a vaccine. ===
That's quite a silly point. Only a few idiots are arguing to intentionally get infected to get antibodies (which if like jumping off a building to cure your fear of heights). The issue is people who were infected because they caught the infection already unintentionally.
The article broadly concedes the main idea - that natural infection does provide protection:
Example: "Provided they survive the illness, patients generally emerge with some protection against COVID-19. That’s why Chakrabarti said there is indeed a “nugget of truth” to the idea that natural immunity can help keep people a bit safer from the virus."
It maintains that the level of protection isn't precisely known and is inconsistent. But the same can be said for the vax, of course.
===“The people who are arguing for natural immunity (over) vaccine-elicited immunity often do so with the assumption that natural immunity is superior,” Miller said.
“And in the context of COVID-19, and especially in comparison to our COVID mRNA vaccines, there's just not strong evidence that that's the case.”===
Yes, but is there strong evidence that it's NOT the case? Not really.
It goes through a few suggestions to that effect, but they're not compelling.
===One study published on June 30 in Science Translational Medicine found people who were fully vaccinated with the Moderna vaccine had antibodies that were more broadly protective against variants than the ones produced by COVID-19 patients.===
This was an in vitro study and we have no idea whether it leads to real world outcomes consistent. It also showed strong immunity for pre-infected; just not quite as good as the vaxxed.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/scitranslmed.abi9915
===The CDC published similar findings. Among Kentucky residents who caught COVID during 2020, the ones that were unvaccinated were more than two times more likely to be re-infected compared to the residents who were fully vaccinated.===
This is a sleight of hand because it compared infected + vaxxed to infected no vax, not infection no vax to non-infected vaxxed, which is the real issue.
===Compared with fully vaccinated people, unvaccinated individuals are also seven times more likely to catch COVID-19, 25 times more likely to be hospitalized, and 60 times more likely to be in the ICU due to the disease, according to a new report from the Ontario COVID-19 Science Advisory Table.===
This comparison is unvaxxed vs. vaxxed; it doesn't consider pre-infection at all. Very dishonest to throw that into the middle of this article without that disclaimer.
==="There's really excellent evidence now that people who have had a prior infection and are then vaccinated are the best protected of all," said Miller.===
Everyone agrees to that. But that's not the point or the issue.
Then, the article switches gears a bit, conceding that pre-infection gives you protection but saying that:
a. You should get vaxxed even if infected because that gives you super-protection; and
b. It's a bad idea to intentionally get infected
Both are almost truisms.
The title of this thread is COVID Immunity - natural vs vaccine.
If one has only one of these protection bases, it is quite uncertain which is better; and if the vax is better, it's probably by a small margin.
Ultimately, while I think most people even pre-infected should vax (possibly not healthy pre-infected teens, but that's another issue) the point I'm trying to make is that people who can prove prior infection should be considered on the same level of vaxxed people for purposes of mandates and access to public events.
30 Sep 21
@mghrn55 saidExperts agree with you that natural immunity does not replace vaccination. Thus, the scientific community believes that even if you have been infected you will get better protection with a vaccine.
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/health/medical/fact-check-no-natural-immunity-doesn-t-replace-vaccination-experts-say/ar-AAOYjEK?ocid=msedgntp
There has been some blather in this forum by some that people who have been infected don't need to be vaccinated.
Research and fact checking by the experts have come up with the answer.
Natural immunity doesn't replace vaccination.
@quackquack saidOf course, but for certain demographics, it is quite possible that the slight risk of negative side effects could outweigh some component of the vaccination process.
Experts agree with you that natural immunity does not replace vaccination. Thus, the scientific community believes that even if you have been infected you will get better protection with a vaccine.
This is the extreme example, but I'll use it to make the rhetorical point: For a previously-infected healthy 12 year old boy who got a first dose of the Pfizer vaccine exactly 3 weeks ago, the risk of myocarditis likely outweighs the benefit of getting the second dose today.
Change the gap between doses to 3 months, change the age or health of the child or make him not previously infected, and we can start adjusting the calculus.
30 Sep 21
@sh76 saidEven recognizing that there are always risks with any medical procedure, I still think that municipalities and corporations are prudent when they require people to be vaccinated and not allow an exception for natural immunity.
Of course, but for certain demographics, it is quite possible that the slight risk of negative side effects could outweigh some component of the vaccination process.
This is the extreme example, but I'll use it to make the rhetorical point: For a previously-infected healthy 12 year old boy who got a first dose of the Pfizer vaccine exactly 3 weeks ago, the risk of myocarditis ...[text shortened]... or health of the child or make him not previously infected, and we can start adjusting the calculus.
01 Oct 21
@quackquack saidDo y’all know why there is minimal covid in Australia??? Because they have closed borders.
Even recognizing that there are always risks with any medical procedure, I still think that municipalities and corporations are prudent when they require people to be vaccinated and not allow an exception for natural immunity.
OK, carry on.
@quackquack saidMandates may be warranted in some cases, but mandated should always be narrowly tailored to mandate only what is necessary to achieve an important goal.
Even recognizing that there are always risks with any medical procedure, I still think that municipalities and corporations are prudent when they require people to be vaccinated and not allow an exception for natural immunity.
Forcing a healthy 18 year old to get 2 doses of a vaccine after having been previously infected and while currently testing positive for high levels of COVID antibodies is not only unnecessary but probably fails a cost-benefit analysis.
One-size-fits-all and "better safe than sorry" don't cut it when it comes to mandating behavior.
01 Oct 21
@sh76 saidWe disagree. The vaccine is incredibly safe (so much so that's traveling to a vaccination site is literally more dangerous then the vaccine). The vaccine gives more protection than just antibodies and that protection benefits everyone not just the person getting the vaccine.
Mandates may be warranted in some cases, but mandated should always be narrowly tailored to mandate only what is necessary to achieve an important goal.
Forcing a healthy 18 year old to get 2 doses of a vaccine after having been previously infected and while currently testing positive for high levels of COVID antibodies is not only unnecessary but probably fails a cost-benefi ...[text shortened]...
One-size-fits-all and "better safe than sorry" don't cut it when it comes to mandating behavior.
One size fit all rules are used all the time. There is a age where you can legally drive (even though some people who are younger are responsible and some people who are of age are not) similarly there is a legal age to purchase cigarettes and alcohol. We don't give waivers even though it would be easy. If you ever need clear rules it is during a pandemic and the clearest and simplest rule is that if you don't get a vaccine you will (and should be) prevented from enter certain locals.
01 Oct 21
@averagejoe1 saidTime traveling to before the virus reached the United States and moving our country to galaxy where no one with Covid could reach us is an effective solution. However, giving the constraints we have, a vaccine that is readily available, safe and free seems likes the easier course of action at this point in time.
Do y’all know why there is minimal covid in Australia??? Because they have closed borders.
OK, carry on.
01 Oct 21
@quackquack saidThe gene vaccines are NOT safe. My brother is very weak since taking the Moderna vaccine. Yesterday he fell down and I had to help him get up because he was too weak to get up by himself. All those pro vaccine ads saying it is safe is a lie. He cannot even hold things in his hands without dropping them.
We disagree. The vaccine is incredibly safe (so much so that's traveling to a vaccination site is literally more dangerous then the vaccine). The vaccine gives more protection than just antibodies and that protection benefits everyone not just the person getting the vaccine.
One size fit all rules are used all the time. There is a age where you can legally drive (even ...[text shortened]... ule is that if you don't get a vaccine you will (and should be) prevented from enter certain locals.
STOP SPREADING MISINFORMATION!
@sh76 said"Everyone agrees prior infection PLUS vax is the best."
Gee, I don't know. That article is quite wishy-washy and doesn't really just really justify your summary conclusion.
To start, the comparison is not prior infection PLUS vax vs. just prior infection. Everyone agrees prior infection PLUS vax is the best. But the question is whether we should force prior infected to vax or whether they're already kind of on par with NOT infecte ...[text shortened]... considered on the same level of vaxxed people for purposes of mandates and access to public events.
Not true. I disagree.
That is another lie to push ineffective gene vaccines on people that do not need them. You believe it because it is based on corrupted data from the CDC and you are not acknowledging that fact. The CDC does not count all breakthrough infections. If they did their data would show the gene vaccines do not help people that have natural immunity.
Use Israel's data. DATA from the USA is worthless crap!
@averagejoe1 saidI live in Victoria, the " current " police state, I would rather live a dangerous freedom than living under a dictator, thats for sure.
Do y’all know why there is minimal covid in Australia??? Because they have closed borders.
OK, carry on.
01 Oct 21
@averagejoe1 saidYou do know Australia have had multiple extreme lockdowns, don’t you?
Do y’all know why there is minimal covid in Australia??? Because they have closed borders.
OK, carry on.
01 Oct 21
@metal-brain said🚨🚧moronity of Gop alert🚧🚨
The gene vaccines are NOT safe. My brother is very weak since taking the Moderna vaccine. Yesterday he fell down and I had to help him get up because he was too weak to get up by himself. All those pro vaccine ads saying it is safe is a lie. He cannot even hold things in his hands without dropping them.
STOP SPREADING MISINFORMATION!
01 Oct 21
@metal-brain saidStudies from Israel show that the long term benefits, of course for the vast majority that survive, from having covid are far better than the vax alone. Though I am reading that both is still best but who knows. I mean who knows not WHO knows, Lol.
"Everyone agrees prior infection PLUS vax is the best."
Not true. I disagree.
That is another lie to push ineffective gene vaccines on people that do not need them. You believe it because it is based on corrupted data from the CDC and you are not acknowledging that fact. The CDC does not count all breakthrough infections. If they did their data would show the gene v ...[text shortened]... e Israel's data. DATA from the USA is worthless crap!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MI_Dm3pj3dQ