 |
|
|
|
silversand
Montreal
Senior Member
Joined: 09/12/2004
View Profile
|
BC Snob wrote:I find no data in the linked study on antibodies from only infection.
....hello BC. Yep. I thoroughly read through every linked study.
What the Oregon Health & Science study shows, is the antibodies in the three sampled cohorts that have been both~vaccinated and naturally~infected are ~10 (ie. many) times "more potent" than having been vaccinated alone. As an aside, hybrid immunity has been investigated in numerous studies, and appears to be superior to either stand-alone vaccination, or stand-alone natural infection.
And the above is why I say in the subsequent post, "and if you have 3 mRNA shots, count yourself lucky. Prepare to be naturally infected, no matter what protective measures you use (ie. PPE)"
It (the Oregon study) doesn't inform the antibody potency in individuals NOT included in the study (not included in the study: people who have not been vaccinated at all (ie. solely natural immunity)). So, yes, those reading the Medscape article need to understand this.
The "10 times" should be interpreted as above. The author, a MB BS, MPhil as I understand the British medical qualification, MB is a UK medical doctor, something similar to an American MD.
* This post was
edited 03/22/22 01:56pm by silversand *
Silver
2004 Chevy Silverado 2500HD 4x4 6.0L Ext/LB Tow Package 4L80E Michelin AT2s| Outfitter Caribou
|
BCSnob
Middletown, MD
Senior Member
Joined: 02/23/2002
View Profile
|
But the author wrote
“Antibodies derived from natural infection with COVID-19 are more abundant and more potent….”
Not “Antibodies derived from natural infection with COVID-19 plus vaccination are more abundant and more potent….”
The whole point of her article was natural immunity (only from infection) is better than (or at least as good) immunity from vaccination. She started her article misrepresenting the results from the linked study which did not compare antibody levels from just infection vs antibody levels from vaccination.
|
silversand
Montreal
Senior Member
Joined: 09/12/2004
View Profile
|
....at least as good.
Read the linked Swiss study and the India studies in her paragraphs:
For example, a study in Geneva, Switzerland, of people infected in the first wave showed a 15.5% infection rate in seronegative individuals compared with just 1% in seropositives, giving overall protection attributable to infection of 94% - comparable with that in the original Pfizer vaccine trial.
Another study from India showed that seropositivity protected against both infection and severe disease, and suggested "strong plausibility that development of antibody following natural infection not only protects against re-infection by the virus to a great extent, but also safeguards against progression to severe COVID-19 disease".
|
silversand
Montreal
Senior Member
Joined: 09/12/2004
View Profile
|
...now read the linked NEJM study in the paragraph after the India piece:
A national database study including almost 22,000 people in Qatar published in the New England Journal of Medicine showed that previous infection was "robust" - approximately 90% - in preventing reinfection with the Alpha, Beta, and Delta variants of SARS-CoV-2, and approximately 60% "but still considerable" against Omicron. None of the re-infections progressed to critical or fatal outcomes and the effectiveness against severe, critical, or fatal COVID-19 was estimated to be 69.4% against Alpha, 88.0% against Beta, 100% against Delta, and 87.8% against Omicron variants.
|
silversand
Montreal
Senior Member
Joined: 09/12/2004
View Profile
|
....one of the points she makes is does it make sense to give previously infected populations a vaccine dose, when billions of population have not yet been infected (we are talking passed tense here, of course) had a single dose (ie. more efficient dose distribution)? How many in the world still have not as yet received a single vaccine dose to this day, and have not yet been infected (likely a small uninfected cohort; but the point still....) in 2022?
|
|
|
silversand
Montreal
Senior Member
Joined: 09/12/2004
View Profile
|
....and, natural immunity now appears to be durable (at least as good as purely vaccination) in the Lancet article:
A multicentre, prospective cohort of NHS workers published in the Lancet showed an 84% lower risk after natural infection lasting at least 7 months. A report from Dublin published in January this year reviewed 11 large cohort studies and found natural immunity lasted at least 10 months.
|
silversand
Montreal
Senior Member
Joined: 09/12/2004
View Profile
|
.....so this begs the question:
"...is hybrid immunity THAT much stronger than purely natural infection..." ? Is natural immunity "good enough" ?
Look, in a world where we know that we can never possibly vaccinate more than ~68 ~ 79% of the entire 8 -ish billion world inhabitants, we will simply have to "make due" with a world where 1 or 2 billion inhabitants will never ever be vaccinated against Covid. So, why not just confer "vaccination-equivalent" status on those 1~2 billion people? We are fairly certain that this sars-cov-2 virus is in its "death throws" presently (at least moving into some form of predictable status: endemicity). So, we need to decide how we handle the several billion people who will, in the short run, have naturally contracted BA.2 sans any vaccination. And with the horrendous track record distributing vaccines globally (on time? yeah right), the "virus" is simply mutating many times faster than we could ever deploy vaccines to everyone on Earth. May be one day, some form of vaccine will be developed to recognize much more of the virus, not just the spike protein to confer 2, 3, 7 years protection....but who knows; this may be a year....two, 3 years off.
On edit: ....yeah. This article would have been better served being peer reviewed; however, I can see where the author could have been reined-in, tempered, and edited.
* This post was
edited 03/22/22 02:56pm by silversand *
|
BCSnob
Middletown, MD
Senior Member
Joined: 02/23/2002
View Profile
|
What severity of illness provides immunity equivalent to vaccination (asymptotic, mild outpatient, hospitalized, or critical)?
Infection from which variant provides immunity equivalent to vaccination against all the other variants?
Why do studies find the rates of reinfection higher than breakthrough infections?
|
philh
Belleville MI
Senior Member
Joined: 05/11/2015
View Profile
 Offline
|
BCSnob wrote:What severity of illness provides immunity equivalent to vaccination (asymptotic, mild outpatient, hospitalized, or critical)?
Infection from which variant provides immunity equivalent to vaccination against all the other variants?
Why do studies find the rates of reinfection higher than breakthrough infections?
Bottom line, the hospitalization rate almost parallels the vaccination rate, indicating the jab is NOT stopping being from getting hospitalized. This was highlighted in both US and UK. Death rate is slightly higher amongst jabbed people, but it's probably a statistical anomaly
|
BCSnob
Middletown, MD
Senior Member
Joined: 02/23/2002
View Profile
|
Correlation does not equal causation.
The numbers you want to look at are the vaccination status of those hospitalized and those who died. Overwhelmingly, hospitalization and death are higher among those not vaccinated.
Have you not been reading the news in MI; even Fox News reported higher unvaccinated people amongst those hospitalized.
Michigan hits record high COVID-19 hospitalizations, majority are unvaccinated
* This post was
edited 03/22/22 04:26pm by BCSnob *
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
