-
You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.
I give up. I googled it .Carry on.
https://www.aljazeera.com/features/...best-protection-a-covid-infection-or-vaccines
The question of whether antibodies produced as a result of natural infection from COVID-19 offer more or less protection than those acquired through vaccination has been asked many times since the vaccines were rolled out.
A new study from Israel, which is yet to be peer reviewed, concluded that natural immunity confers longer-lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalisation caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared with immunity induced from two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech two-dose vaccine
https://www.aljazeera.com/features/...best-protection-a-covid-infection-or-vaccines
The question of whether antibodies produced as a result of natural infection from COVID-19 offer more or less protection than those acquired through vaccination has been asked many times since the vaccines were rolled out.
A new study from Israel, which is yet to be peer reviewed, concluded that natural immunity confers longer-lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalisation caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared with immunity induced from two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech two-dose vaccine
Last edited:
From a just published UK study:
1. One dose of vaccine is less effective against delta variant than against wildtype.
2. Differences in two doses of vaccine were negligible between wildtype and delta variant.
3. Single dose of vaccine was 33% effective for symptomatic disease for delta variant.
4. Two doses of BNT162b2 (Pfizer) vaccine was 88% effective against delta variant while ChAdOx1 (AstraZeneca) was only 60%.
Their conclusions:
We found an absolute reduction of one dose vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic disease with the B.1.617.2 variant of approximately 20% when compared to the B.1.1.7 variant. However, reductions in vaccine effectiveness after two doses were very small. This was the case for both the BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 vaccines. Using a TNCC analysis, estimated vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic disease with B.1.617.2 for a single dose of either vaccine is approximately 33%, for two doses of BNT162b2 is approximately 88% and for two doses of ChAdOx1 is approximately 60%.
What this means:1. One dose of vaccine is less effective against delta variant than against wildtype.
2. Differences in two doses of vaccine were negligible between wildtype and delta variant.
3. Single dose of vaccine was 33% effective for symptomatic disease for delta variant.
4. Two doses of BNT162b2 (Pfizer) vaccine was 88% effective against delta variant while ChAdOx1 (AstraZeneca) was only 60%.
Their conclusions:
Overall, we found high levels of vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic disease after two doses. These estimates were only modestly lower than vaccine effectiveness against the B.1.1.7 variant. It is likely that vaccine effectiveness against more severe disease outcomes will be greater. Our finding of reduced effectiveness after dose 1, would support maximising vaccine uptake with two doses among vulnerable groups in the context of circulation of B.1.617.2.
I've tried to look at the Israeli study that everyone is quoting, but I can't find an English translation and don't speak Hebrew. I generally don't trust popular press interpretations because I've found them to be frequently wrong. But I found this from Nature, which I do trust:The data also suggest that the time between doses of vaccine doesn’t affect vaccine effectiveness, and that people who have previously tested positive for COVID-19 as well as receiving two vaccine doses have the best protection against future infection.
The analysis focused on the 18–64 age group and didn’t look at hospitalizations or fatalities, points out Dvir Aran, a biomedical data scientist at Technion — Israel Institute of Technology in Haifa. “This study is about infection, not severe disease,” he says. The results back up observations from Israel, which vaccinated its population very early in the pandemic, he says. “We are seeing high levels of breakthrough [infections] in the population that was vaccinated early, and on the other hand, we are seeing robust protection in those vaccinated recently — especially in 12–15-year-olds.”
So, the answer is still, even if you've been infected you need to be vaccinated because infected+vaccinated provides superior protected to infected alone. And you need both shots.-
1
-
1
- Show all
We know that hospitalizations and deaths are X-times more for unvaccinated vs vaccinated. I think your question is valid as I do think it would be very interesting to know what percentage of hospitalizations and deaths were from people that had it previously.
That said, if there is no danger for someone to get vaccinated ….why not just get vaccinated? I‘ve seen zero stories or evidence that getting vaccinated lowers immunity.
That said, if there is no danger for someone to get vaccinated ….why not just get vaccinated? I‘ve seen zero stories or evidence that getting vaccinated lowers immunity.
-
4
- Show all
I've been through this study many, many pages ago. What it says:
1. Infected and immune and 2 shots is better than unvaccinated and infected.
2. Infected is better than one shot.
3. One shot is better than unvaccinated.
Later studies have shown different. Again, from Nature:
“We are seeing high levels of breakthrough [infections] in the population that was vaccinated early [in Israel], and on the other hand, we are seeing robust protection in those vaccinated recently — especially in 12–15-year-olds.”
Again, natural immunity doesn't do the dead any good, and there's a percentage of people who are unvaccinated who get infected who are going to die.
1. Infected and immune and 2 shots is better than unvaccinated and infected.
2. Infected is better than one shot.
3. One shot is better than unvaccinated.
Later studies have shown different. Again, from Nature:
“We are seeing high levels of breakthrough [infections] in the population that was vaccinated early [in Israel], and on the other hand, we are seeing robust protection in those vaccinated recently — especially in 12–15-year-olds.”
Again, natural immunity doesn't do the dead any good, and there's a percentage of people who are unvaccinated who get infected who are going to die.
Last edited:
-
1
-
1
- Show all
why not just get vaccinated? I‘ve seen zero stories or evidence that getting vaccinated lower.
It appears to me that if you had the virus you should get vaccinated. I never said you shouldn’t. It also appears that the general consensus in the medical community from everything I’ve seen is that natural immunity is better than vaccinated immunity. So, under the mandate, if Bob never had Covid but is vaccinated and George had Covid but isn’t vaccinated Bob’s good to go but George hits the bricks. They have the same immunity (some would argue that George’s is actually better) but George gets fired because he won’t get a second level of protection that Bob doesn’t even have.
It appears to me that if you had the virus you should get vaccinated. I never said you shouldn’t. It also appears that the general consensus in the medical community from everything I’ve seen is that natural immunity is better than vaccinated immunity. So, under the mandate, if Bob never had Covid but is vaccinated and George had Covid but isn’t vaccinated Bob’s good to go but George hits the bricks. They have the same immunity (some would argue that George’s is actually better) but George gets fired because he won’t get a second level of protection that Bob doesn’t even have.
In this case, your question is flawed. I alluded to why before but I'll be direct. Trying to just compare the vaccine to "natural immunity" has several scientific problems.
First, how do we define a COVID case? If it's anyone who who had enough viral load to test positive, then you'd need a massive study to find out because you'd need to follow a large sample and regularly test them because testing access and utilization varies (not everyone has the same access and not everyone will get tested after the same symptoms). Many of these studies have different criteria for a "COVID case" and some required people to have moderate to severe symptoms.
Second, you're mixing definitions. If you're defining natural immunity as someone who had antibodies tested and did have significant antibody levels, then you need a comparable group post vaccine to compare them to (i.e., make sure you're only comparing them to people with measurable antibodies post vaccine). This is also a bad comparison because it doesn't really get at the issue of typical immunity after testing positive vs typical immunity after getting vaccinated.
Third, antibodies aren't the only thing involved in immunity and it shouldn't be our only metric of immune response. That's part of the complication here.
Fourth, the US has done a terrible job of tracking variants. That's problematic here because without knowing which strain someone caught, you might miss important parts about conditions under which natural immunity might vary. For example, someone who had a symptomatic delta case would be expected to have better protection against delta than someone who had alpha. Unless you do the study like under the first point, you'll have little idea about which variant they had except to tie it to when they tested positive, but even that isn't a guarantee.
Fifth, differences in time are also huge here. Studies that don't do a good job controlling for this won't offer great insight as to which is better because any differences in when someone got infected vs when someone got the vaccine will alter your comparisons.
Sixth, your scenario in the prior post was about whether someone who has had it should still get vaccinated. The answer is still unequivocally, yes. Getting vaccinated even after you've had COVID offers better protection than not being vaccinated. That finding has been replicated several times.
Summary: comparing the types of immunity is not straightforward and this is part of why outcomes vary across studies. Further, making this comparison doesn't offer a ton of insights when getting vaccinated significantly improves protection for both those who have and have not had COVID.
First, how do we define a COVID case? If it's anyone who who had enough viral load to test positive, then you'd need a massive study to find out because you'd need to follow a large sample and regularly test them because testing access and utilization varies (not everyone has the same access and not everyone will get tested after the same symptoms). Many of these studies have different criteria for a "COVID case" and some required people to have moderate to severe symptoms.
Second, you're mixing definitions. If you're defining natural immunity as someone who had antibodies tested and did have significant antibody levels, then you need a comparable group post vaccine to compare them to (i.e., make sure you're only comparing them to people with measurable antibodies post vaccine). This is also a bad comparison because it doesn't really get at the issue of typical immunity after testing positive vs typical immunity after getting vaccinated.
Third, antibodies aren't the only thing involved in immunity and it shouldn't be our only metric of immune response. That's part of the complication here.
Fourth, the US has done a terrible job of tracking variants. That's problematic here because without knowing which strain someone caught, you might miss important parts about conditions under which natural immunity might vary. For example, someone who had a symptomatic delta case would be expected to have better protection against delta than someone who had alpha. Unless you do the study like under the first point, you'll have little idea about which variant they had except to tie it to when they tested positive, but even that isn't a guarantee.
Fifth, differences in time are also huge here. Studies that don't do a good job controlling for this won't offer great insight as to which is better because any differences in when someone got infected vs when someone got the vaccine will alter your comparisons.
Sixth, your scenario in the prior post was about whether someone who has had it should still get vaccinated. The answer is still unequivocally, yes. Getting vaccinated even after you've had COVID offers better protection than not being vaccinated. That finding has been replicated several times.
Summary: comparing the types of immunity is not straightforward and this is part of why outcomes vary across studies. Further, making this comparison doesn't offer a ton of insights when getting vaccinated significantly improves protection for both those who have and have not had COVID.
-
1
- Show all
Sixth, your scenario in the prior post was about whether someone who has had it should still get vaccinated. The answer is still unequivocally, yes. Getting vaccinated even after you've had COVID offers better protection than not being vaccinated. That finding has been replicated several times.
Good grief, that was never my question. My question was if the medical community has now decided that natural immunity is not as good as vaccinated immunity.
My post:
Is the medical community at least in agreement that natural immunity is superior to the immunity from the vaccine?
Bob gets to keep his job because his immunity is better than George’s? Is that what you’re saying?
Good grief, that was never my question. My question was if the medical community has now decided that natural immunity is not as good as vaccinated immunity.
My post:
Is the medical community at least in agreement that natural immunity is superior to the immunity from the vaccine?
Bob gets to keep his job because his immunity is better than George’s? Is that what you’re saying?
We don't know whose is better and it's a dumb comparison unless you want to start taking blood draws and doing expensive assays on both of their blood samples. Your prior post said 35 tested positive. When did they test positive? When did they last have antibody levels, t cell response and b cell response tested? What were those results? Did they even do any of those tests? Do you really want to go down that rabbit hole that I just went over? We do, however, know that getting vaccinated substantially increases protection for both.
Margret owns Company A where both Bob and George work. She is tired of increasing insurance costs, paying for sick leave and higher downtime because people like George won’t get vaccinated and become infected w covid. Margret has every right to require vaccines and takes responsibility to her employees and customers to keep everyone healthy. If George doesn’t want to get vaccinated he can find work somewhere else.
-
1
- Show all
We also don’t know the answer to any of those questions for the vaccinated yet he gets to skate according to the mandate. I would have less trouble with the mandate if they made some concessions for those with antibodies from natural immunity but they don’t. When my employee with natural immunity from infection asks why his immunity isn’t as good as Bob’s I’ll just tell him it’s a stupid question and that he’s fired. Thanks for the help.
Last edited:
Aaaaaaand this feels like the real point you've been wanting to make the whole time.
That employee could just get vaccinated and have better protection with the bonus of not getting fired. I mean, they're apparently super concerned with having the best immunity anyway.
I don't support this mandate, but it definitely seems like you want to boil all of the scientific nuance down to partisan bickering over a policy.
That employee could just get vaccinated and have better protection with the bonus of not getting fired. I mean, they're apparently super concerned with having the best immunity anyway.
I don't support this mandate, but it definitely seems like you want to boil all of the scientific nuance down to partisan bickering over a policy.
-
4
-
1
- Show all
That’s the point. It’s been the same damn thing since day 1. It’s gone from “this is the flu” to “this is seasonal” to “masks don’t work” to “why not try hcq “ to “the vaccine isn’t as effective” back to “masks don’t work” to “I told you vaccines won’t work bc now we need boosters” to “ivermectin is the answer”to “natural immunity vs vaccine immunity”.
It’s herd immunity theory applied to faux outrage. Instead of worrying about the latest stick in your craw why don’t we all just focus on what science says works best and get everyone vaccinated (that can be). It’s really getting silly.
It’s herd immunity theory applied to faux outrage. Instead of worrying about the latest stick in your craw why don’t we all just focus on what science says works best and get everyone vaccinated (that can be). It’s really getting silly.
-
1
- Show all