Here's an article I just came across today on this [1]. It is originally from the NYT, but I saw it reprinted in the Seattle Times so that's where I'm linking (and I think their paywall is more lenient).
https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/if-youve-already-h...
I challenge anyone to show data otherwise before they reflexively down vote.
In any case, you're the one making a claim here: can you show the benefits of natural immunity? Can you show the risk vs reward of catching COVID-19, potentially spreading it to thousands, and getting natural immunity rather than just getting a vaccine? Bringing money into it just colors your argument poorly. It's not like getting the vaccine costs you any money personally.
Vaccines seem to provide better immunity than previously being infected [3]. In fact, a lot of research shows that getting a vaccine after being infected actually improves your protection against reinfection [4].
Would you argue in good faith this way about any other vaccine? Measles? Mumps? Anthrax? Ebola?
[1] https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseas...
[2] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/long-term-effects/...
[3] https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0806-vaccination-pr...
[4] https://www.news-medical.net/news/20211010/Research-finds-di...
https://www.science.org/content/article/having-sars-cov-2-on...
Based on the information in your link, it's a absolutely tiny sample in a very small specific conservative community. I'm really skeptical that they controlled for the unvaccinated cohort that caught covid twice hanging out in anti-vaxxer communities where covid infection was high. The CDC should be embarrassed about using this as evidence.
Or from the article you just linked:
> As for the Israel medical records study, Topol and others point out several limitations, such as the inherent weakness of a retrospective analysis compared with a prospective study that regularly tests all participants as it tracks new infections, symptomatic infections, hospitalizations, and deaths going forward in time. “It will be important to see these findings replicated or refuted,” says Natalie Dean, a biostatistician at Emory University.
She adds: “The biggest limitation in the study is that testing [for SARS-CoV-2 infection] is still a voluntary thing—it’s not part of the study design.” That means, she says, that comparisons could be confounded if, for example, previously infected people who developed mild symptoms were less likely to get tested than vaccinated people, perhaps because they think they are immune.
They've already run the gambit of heart problems and such, why make them run it again?
So I’d ask the reverse question: if the risk reduction is scientifically demonstrated and quite clear, what responsibility do public officials have towards enforcing the safety of others? When should we let them take that right, and when should we refuse them that power? I won’t claim to know this answer either!
Bonus points: Studies not funded by pharmaceutical companies.
There is also this here in the US, acknowledging "Kentucky’s local health departments, disease investigators, and regional epidemiologists; Kentucky Department for Public Health immunization and data team members; Suzanne Beavers, CDC" - https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm
There are multiple studies that show previously infected are well protected, and Israel shows 13x better than Pfizer’s
That statement has multiple issues. What does "better" mean? Where did you look? How do you define immunity (risk, falloff time, etc.). There's a new paper every week comparing how the vaccination and infection responses are different. Generalising to one-dimensional "better" is not going to happen in serious publications.
We're still at the level of (for example) "Therefore, antibody immunity acquired by natural infection or different modes of vaccination may have a differing susceptibility to erosion by SARS-CoV-2 evolution." https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34103407/
There's certainly a lot of research around different responses and they're a single pubmed query away. "But beware saying that outloud" is just FUD.
https://www.science.org/content/article/having-sars-cov-2-on...
The study you cite has some major issues. First, it's a proposed benefit based on a hypothetical mechanism, and not empirical data. Second, it does not indicate the likelihood of mutations that would be better treated by the vaccine. Third, it does not indicate how much more effective it would be, just that it's "possible".
Please stick to the topic and facts rather than being sneeringly dismissive. I'm not part of some bloc of anti-vaxxers, and open to changing my mind based on new information. In fact I've had covid AND I'm vaccinated, so the intent of my post is to spark discussion and get more data. Dismissing my post as FUD is ad hominem.
It can't be an ad hominem since I never said anything about you. Your post was FUD because you stated it very loosely and asked for hard data to refute it. You're quite likely right on infection providing better protection, but we neither have a hard confirmation of that (or you'd link it, right?) nor did you provide any support for "But beware saying that outloud." Not only there's ongoing research on differences (as we both provided), many people do say that outloud.
When I say "beware saying that outloud", it's a pointer to the nature of discussion on covid, which should be obvious to anyone paying attention - and that is that if you counter a prevailing or official narrative, you will be belittled and brushed aside, often without any conclusive data to back it up. The irony is thick.
You saw a lot of this at the beginning of covid... lots of people saying "well I had a bad cough for a little while... maybe I already had it"
You could maybe specify that people who have had covid need a positive test to skirt any vaccine mandates... but any sort added complexity at this scale is going to create a bunch of additional nonsense. People aren't even capable of understanding how to wear masks correctly.
So just get the vaccine so we can all get on with our stupid lives. I get vaccines all the time, this one is free, and in the grand scheme of things if you're right... this is fairly minor when it comes to pharma grifts.
Not getting vaccinated because you don't want to support the pharma industry is like driving your car on the sidewalk because you don't want to support the department of transportation. You're not making a point to anyone, and you're putting a bunch of strangers at risk to do it.
You can tell people that if they had covid they're at less risk because they've built up a resistance, but you can also tell them everyone is required to get the vaccine anyway.
But we can do testing.
For the record:
> Earlier estimates that 80% of infections are asymptomatic were too high and have since been revised down to between 17% and 20% of people with infections.[1]
> It’s also unclear to what extent people with no symptoms transmit SARS-CoV-2. The only test for live virus is viral culture. PCR and lateral flow tests do not distinguish live virus. No test of infection or infectiousness is currently available for routine use.678 As things stand, a person who tests positive with any kind of test may or may not have an active infection with live virus, and may or may not be infectious.[1]
And not getting vaccinated because you don't want to support the pharma industry misses that they get $20 per shot for the vaccine, but will get thousands per dose of the expensive meds you'll need if you wind up in the ICU.
Strengthening your argument further, the pharma industry already got $20 per shot for the vaccine.
The government signed a contract for the shots, so if you're letting them go to waste, you're just wasting your tax dollars which went to pharma companies anyways.
However, this is a false dichotomy. First, because the same studies that show this ALSO show that getting vaccinated on top of natural immunity is better still ( https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v... ), second because natural immunity prior to the vaccine implies getting COVID and the extremely high risk of complications (from hospitalization, to long COVID symptoms, to death), and third, because there isn't any data around what happens if you get vaccinated first, then get COVID (i.e., is the combination of natural response + vaccine the same if the order is reversed).
There is no situation where getting vaccinated does not help reduce the likelihood of catching COVID, or suffering serious symptoms.
Not clear why this is an argument for vaccine mandates when natural immunity is already better than the vaccine alone, and puts individuals in the same or better place as the vaccine.
> second because natural immunity prior to the vaccine implies getting COVID and the extremy high risk of complications
What does this have to do with people who already had covid?
> there isn't any data around what happens if you get vaccinated first, then get COVID
Once again what does this have to do with people who already had covid?
> There is no situation where getting vaccinated does not help reduce the likelihood of catching COVID, or suffering serious symptoms.
If you are already in a state where you are at least as protected as vaccinated people, how is this an argument for mandate for those with natural immunity?
You won't be able to find any data comparing mandates for those who have had COVID vs no mandate having any real effect on the general population because those who have already had it are very well protected.
You can have had the j&j vaccine and be way less protected than natural immunity, and be considered compliant. This is absolutely inconsistent.
Pretty major distinction.
It is absurd to suggest that someone deliberately getting covid is a safer way to get immunity.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/06/antibody-testing-sug...
https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/10/prior-infection-vs-v...
We have done such studies before with regarding to the hepatitis B vaccine. Most nursing students had no immunity against it after having received two doses of the vaccine.
I think antibody levels should be tied to the mandates. For what it is worth, I am against such mandates.
For vaccines for which the vaccine has few side effects, this is, AFAICT, not usually considered worthwhile — providers seem to prefer giving an extra MMR dose to people with unknown vaccination status for example. For COVID, at least with current vaccines, maybe it would make sense.
(ISTM, based on available data, people who have had COVID ought not to be required to get two doses, but one might be reasonable from a public health perspective.)
How do you make sure people aren't faking vaccination status, as you say? A positive PCR test on public record is in fact more trustworthy.
The tests used in most places have significant false positives/negatives on a population level. You may think you were infected when you weren't. With vaccination you know whether you were vaccinated.
(My son had a bout of severe pneumonia around the same time. We wondered, too. Not COVID, it turns out.)
Therein lies a significant problem with "I don't need the vaccine, I have natural immunity!"
That's just as trustworthy. Probably more since what it asserts is less variable than how long you maintain antibodies.
The link I provided "is an electronic vaccination record drawn from the data stored in the California immunization registry."
It doesn't accept user submissions; it only accepts data from recognized health organizations. The website allows you to put in your name and birthdate and get a QR code that can be scanned and will take you back to the website, showing dates you were vaccinated. It requires someone confirming that the QR code is directing them to the correct website, and confirm name and birthdate, but that's far more available to actually check than a PCR test.
Meaning no need to rely on easily faked vaccination cards; you instead ask for a QR code, scan it, and confirm it took you to the government site, with a name and birthdate that matches some government issued picture ID. Still 'beatable', if you have good fake ID for a person who has been vaccinated, but just as good in 'security' as relying on a PCR test (since it's still ultimately pulling from a publicly readable, only privately writeable DB), and probably a better assertion than "PCR test", since it can work for everyone, and tells you the date of vaccination (whereas date of antibodies being detected doesn't tell you anything about whether they still have natural immunity now).
So, you can't prove a negative, that being that someone has not been vaccinated. But you can prove that you had covid.
CA is larger than LA county, so immediately is more effective than what you proposed in your OP.
There are also multiple initiatives to make country-wide databases of vaccination status available via app. Test status? False positives, false negatives, can be done at home, etc, and -still only applies to people who have had COVID-. Everyone without a health issue (that should keep them out of public spaces anyway) can get vaccinated.
1. You cannot prove someone has been vaccinated as the system currently exists. That ship has already sailed. Anyone can opt out by lying that they got vaccinated somewhere that doesn't keep public records. Those mandating vaccinations have have to accept this because vaccines aren't approved for more than 2 (or 3) shots, so you can't force people to get vaccinated again if they don't have a verifiable record. Even if there's a worldwide database rolled out, it's too late, too many people got vaccinated off the record.
2. You CAN prove you've had covid with a high degree of certainty. Recent tests have low false positive rates.
Why let people slip out of the vaccine mandate with an easy lie yet corner those who have already had covid and therefore better immunity than the vaccinated? It's nonsense that ignores reality.
You do the society a favor, and the app they provide lets you know if you continue to have covid19 antibodies.
To avoid that, we should definitely sweep basic immunology under the rug and lump all those who've caught and recovered from covid in with the other unvaccinated underclass. They should've thought twice about the ramifications of their actions before deciding catch and recover from covid.
Thank god for these mandates. I can't image how society would function, if at all, if a perverse incentive were to exist. People would want to get sick. COVID parties. It'd be like the days before the vaccines when..
when...
...
I forgot my point. Lock them all up.
Under the "man dates" all 160M are considered "unvaccinated", even though "science" shows their immunity is longer lasting than that derived from the vaccine, and a lot of them are currently being thrown out of their jobs.
Your link says 120M. Not a big deal, but odd since you linked right to it.
> Under the "man dates" all 160M are considered "unvaccinated",
What? No, only the unvaccinated ones are considered unvaccinated. Are you suggesting that everyone who has been infected is unvaccinated?
> a lot of them are currently being thrown out of their jobs.
Actually, it looks like it's very few. [1][2]
1. Lots Of People Say They'll Quit Over Vaccine Mandates, But Research Shows Few Do. https://www.npr.org/2021/09/29/1041500566/vaccine-mandate-qu...
2. Only a fraction of U.S. health care workers are risking their jobs over vaccinations. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/07/science/covid-us-health-w...
CDC says "1 in 4.2 (95% UI* 3.6 – 4.9) COVID–19 infections were reported". Your friendly coronavirus tracker says there were 45,431,167 confirmed cases in the United States. Simple arithmetic shows that there were, therefore, 45,431,167 * 4.2 = 190,810,901 total cases. 120M figure was computed months ago, when there were fewer confirmed cases, but the ratio still holds. Most people had it already. Moreover a lot of people had it _and_ had the vaccine as well. Kids and anyone healthy under 30 aren't at risk. Let's end this charade.
Lest you think I'm an anti-vaxxer, no - I think people 40 years old and older should definitely get vaccinated and I'm vaccinated myself (I have comorbidities). But I also think this must be strictly personal choice, and you _can't_ collect enough safety data over just 9 months, especially if you vaccinate your control groups.
[1] Just a few days ago: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10076925/NYT-report...
When you need a ride home from the airport, do you want a licensed driver, or an unlicensed one?
Plus, I would like to know if asymptomatic vaccinated do indeed have reduced spread as opposed to asymptomatic non-vaccinated.
Or to put it simply: can you give me studies supporting the claim that vaccinated people are less likely to spread COVID-19, whether asymptomatic or symptomatic vs. non-vaccinated?
---
By the way, does possessing the COVID-19 pass automatically imply that you are less likely to transmit?
This is entirely normal. The immune system doesn't keep elevated neutralizing antibody levels forever, that is too expensive. The immune system relies on B cells to kickstart neutralizing antibody production if the need arises. How those people would react to a further infection event would be extremely interesting. Do they produce antibodies? How fast? But the researchers didn't look into that.
The linked article is overselling vaccine effectiveness and underplays natural immunity. This is borderline misinformation.
https://www.healio.com/hematology-oncology/learn-immuno-onco...
> As a student in the Soviet Union I noticed subscribers to what Russians called the sovok mindset talked in interminable strings of pogovorki, i.e goofball proverbs or aphorisms you’d heard a million times before (“He who takes no risk, drinks no champagne,” or “Work isn’t a wolf, it won’t run off into the woods,” etc). This was a learned defense mechanism, adopted by a people who’d found out the hard way that anyone caught not speaking nonstop nonsense could be suspected of harboring original thoughts. Voluble stupidity is a great disguise in a society where silence is suspect.
That said, I can confirm that even in USSR people did very much harbor original thoughts even though quite obviously there was no free press and one could pay dearly for speaking their mind. You just had to be sure that you know everyone you're speaking to really, really well. The KGB had lots of "secret collaborators" embedded within the populace (much like the FBI in the US today), so if you're not careful with your jokes or thoughts, you could easily get 5 years in the labor camp. I predict that the United States will be like that within 10 years or less.
There's even a Soviet joke about this: a judge is heard laughing when exiting the court, and a friend of his asks "why are you laughing?", "The guy on trial told a really funny joke.", "Could you tell it to me?", "No, I can't, I just gave him 5 years in the labor camp for it."
(Wikipedia lists it as filmed in 'sepia', which could colloquially be called black & white)