[hammock]

This is great news, adding to a report in Nature that the natural immunity produced in people who have already had covid may last a lifetime.[1]

In case you hadn't heard, the Cleveland Clinic--consistently regarded as one of the top hospital systems in the United States and in the world--recently shared a study of 52,238 patients showing zero incremental benefit from the jab to the previously infected, recommending that "people who’ve had COVID-19 don’t need to get vaccinated."[2]

[1]https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01442-9

[2]https://www.healthline.com/health-news/new-study-determines-...

[nokcha]

>a study of 52,238 patients showing zero incremental benefit from the jab to the previously infected

This study ended May 15, 2021, and it notes that:

>Lastly, it is necessary to emphasize that these findings are based on the prevailing assortment of virus variants in the community during the study. It is not known how well these results will hold if or when some of the newer variants of concern become prominent.

Another study found that, for people already seropositive for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies from a previous infection, getting the first dose of an mRNA vaccine increased antibody titers by two orders of magnitude on average [1] but that the 2nd dose had no effect on antibody titers.

[1] Florian Krammer, et al. "Antibody responses in seropositive persons after a single dose of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine." New England Journal of Medicine (2021). https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2101667

[timr]

"for people already seropositive for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies from a previous infection, getting the first dose of an mRNA vaccine increased antibody titers by two orders of magnitude on average"

That's not what this says -- you're extrapolating that the vaccine somehow changed the immune response, when this letter is only providing data that people who already had Covid had a clear, ~immediate antibody response to vaccination. That's exactly what you expect to happen when immune people see an antigen for a second time.

In other words, the previously infected recipients already had a well-primed immune response. The vaccination isn't necessarily doing anything to increase the response -- it's just the expected reaction of an already-primed immune system, when it a bolus of antigens it already knows about is injected into the body:

> The antibody titers of vaccinees with preexisting immunity were 10 to 45 times as high as those of vaccinees without preexisting immunity at the same time points after the first vaccine dose (e.g., 25 times as high at 13 to 16 days) and also exceeded the median antibody titers measured in participants without preexisting immunity after the second vaccine dose by more than a factor of 6.

If anything, this letter (not a paper) provides further evidence that vaccination for the previously infected is not necessary.

[nokcha]

>That's not what this says

I admit I'm not medically trained, but the graph [1] seems pretty clear to me, and the authors said:

> In contrast, participants with SARS-CoV-2 antibodies at baseline before the first vaccine injection rapidly developed uniform, high antibody titers within days after vaccination (median AUC before vaccination, 90 [43 participants];

>at 0 to 4 days, 133 [7 participants];

>at 5 to 8 days, 14,208 [15 participants];

>at 9 to 12 days, 20,783 [8 participants];

>at 13 to 16 days, 25,927 [20 participants];

>at 17 to 20 days, 11,755 [4 participants];

>at 21 to 27 days, 19,534 [14 participants]; and

>after the second dose, 22,509 [19 participants])

[1] https://www.nejm.org/na101/home/literatum/publisher/mms/jour...

[timr]

The graph is quite clear. It shows that seropositive (previously infected) people had a higher pre-existing antibody level before vaccination, and it rapidly increased at days 5-8 post-vaccination -- faster and stronger than in unexposed people. It takes 28+ days and a second dose for the unexposed group to approach the titers seen in the group who already had Covid, and they still don't quite get there.

Most notably, even those previously infected people with ~0 titers at baseline rapidly developed high levels of antibodies at 5-8 days after vaccination. It's a small group, but the rapid nature of the response is telling.

This data is clear that the infected people had a rapid, robust immune response to vaccination. It cannot tell you what you're trying to infer -- that the vaccination itself increased the immune response. To determine that, you'd need to do some other experiment.

[nokcha]

I'm not sure what you're saying -- are you saying that I inaccurately stated the experimental results of the study, or are you disputing their clinical relevance? I didn't really make any claims about the clinical relevance of this antibody study, but I do think that it suggests that the current CDC guidance (of recommending 2 doses even for those previously infected) might be overkill and that it would be worth further study of whether 1 dose (or even 0 doses) would be sufficient (including against variants) for those previously infected.

I don't know of any study of the Delta variant (or other recent variants) comparing immunity acquired from infection versus immunity conferred by vaccination -- AFAIK, it's still unknown how these compare and whether a vaccination might provide additional immunity against variants. IIRC, the mRNA vaccines were developed to target key parts of the virus that are thought to be unlikely to mutate without decreasing virus viability.

[timr]

> I do think that it suggests that the current CDC guidance (of recommending 2 doses even for those previously infected) might be overkill and that it would be worth further study of whether 1 dose (or even 0 doses) would be sufficient (including against variants) for those previously infected.

We agree on this.

> I don't know of any study of the Delta variant (or other recent variants) comparing immunity acquired from infection versus immunity conferred by vaccination -- AFAIK, it's still unknown how these compare and whether a vaccination might provide additional immunity against variants.

I'm not aware of any study of this, either. So far, everyone is focusing on the vaccines.

[Pyramus]

I don't follow your argumentation - why would extremely high antibody titres not almost certainly result in a better immune response?

On the contrary, from all that we know today, wouldn't we expect people with high IgA titres to even develop neutralizing immunity, at least in the weeks after titres peak?

[timr]

> I don't follow your argumentation - why would extremely high antibody titres not almost certainly result in a better immune response?

Antibody titres aren't constant. They increase when your immune system sees an antigen, and decline gradually afterward. In individuals with previous exposure to the antigen, they increase more quickly due to immune memory. This is true for any virus. Decline in circulating antibodies does not mean that your immunity has gone away.

Vaccination is, to a first approximation, injecting a large amount of antigen into someone to induce an immune response. Therefore, data that shows that previously exposed people have faster and stronger immune responses to vaccination are simply confirming what we already know about immunity. It does not mean that the vaccination made the response in exposed people stronger than it would have been otherwise.

Maybe it did, but you can't conclude it from this kind of data.

[nradov]

Higher antibody levels don't necessarily mean a lower risk of disease. While that's possible it remains unproven. There's more to the immune system than just circulating antibodies.

[js2]

The headline for the second article is with regards to prioritizing vaccination in places where demand outstrips supply. The conclusion of the study is:

"Individuals who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection are unlikely to benefit from COVID-19 vaccination, and vaccines can be safely prioritized to those who have not been infected before."

And from the body of the article:

"Experts say that more research is needed to determine how long immunity lasts after a case of COVID-19. Until we have that data, some infectious disease specialists are recommending that people who’ve had COVID-19 still get one dose."

And:

"Given the limited availability of the vaccines in certain countries, the findings add to the growing belief that the vaccines should be prioritized for those who haven’t previously had COVID-19."

[superkuh]

I read the entire Nature paper. I wouldn't call this paper great news. It's just confirmation of the not terrible news we had before.

Is 12 to 15 weeks (3-4 months) really "long lasting" antibody mediated immunity? I'm glad the antibodies still neutralize even gamma that long but 3-4 months is the timespan people were previously calling "short". Yes, T cell responses (the cells that kill infected cells) to sars-cov-2 epitopes last longer (not covered in this article) but this just seems to confirm the short coverage of b cell mediated antibodies.

[timr]

> Is 12 to 15 weeks (3-4 months) really "long lasting" antibody mediated immunity?

It's perfectly normal for an antibody response to decay over time. We don't keep making antibodies in perpetuity for every antigen we've ever seen, or our blood would turn into peanut butter.

The B-cell and T-cell mediated responses to previous infection are also proving to be robust, and the B-cell response, in particular, primes the immune system for a rapid increase in antibody levels if the virus is encountered again.

[superkuh]

Yes. But we only get one influenza vaccine per year. The expectation has been for antibody neutralization coverage (not just T-cell mediated infected cell killing) lasting that long.

15 weeks is rather short. Additionally, it's not really 15 weeks. The study time scale starts at the 1st vaccine dose (week 1). Then it's 3 weeks until the 2nd dose and 2 more weeks till full protection. So the actual protective coverage span in this study is week 8 to week 15, or 7 weeks.

This study being held up as proof of long lasting immunity doesn't hold water. It is not bad news though. Decent B-cell responses (though tailing off) till 7 weeks after full vaccination is good. But we definitely need to know what happens after the first 2 months too. This exact study should be repeated again in 6 months (24 weeks).

[timr]

> 15 weeks is rather short. Additionally, it's not really 15 weeks.

You're right. It's the lower bound, based on the duration of the experiment.

There have now been many, many studies all pointing in the same direction. A small selection:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...

Natural infection protects against Covid (incl. Alpha variant). Adjusted incidence rate ratio for covid infection - 0.159 (84% protection) and symptomatic covid - 0.074 - (93% protection) - 7 month follow up

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullar...

Patients who had 1 PCR positive tests had Hazard ratio 0.06 of further positive PCR - 94% protection - 12 month follow up.

https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid...

After 1 positive PCR, Protection against any COVID - 81.8%, symptomatic COVID - 84.5% - 6 month follow up - protection increased over time.

https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid...

seropositive patients had 94% reduction in hazard of testing positive - 8 month follow up

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034545

Adjusted risk ratio of covid infection for antibody positive healthcare workers was 0.11 (89% less likely) - 7 month follow up period. All reinfections were asymptomatic.

At this point, claiming that immunity to Covid (even against "the variants") is less than a year is an extraordinary claim. There is no reason, prima facie to presume that the results will be different for vaccines.

[superkuh]

Right. The experiment was far too short to make any claims about long term B cell mediated antibody levels. Establishing 7 weeks post fully vaccinated being good is not a "lasting immunity".

I'm not sure I agree with just assuming protection will last that long as a default. This study does not establish it but it is a good stepping stone to proving that theory.

re: your edits, the tangential bit from this paper about sars-cov-2 positive cases wasn't the main thrust and from the graphs it looks like their neutralizing antibody levels actually are multiple logs below mRNA vaccinated people at the same 15 week point. I'm not sure what all these citations about naturally infected people add to the topic being debated.

[timr]

> re: your edits, the tangential bit from this paper about sars-cov-2 positive cases wasn't the main thrust and from the graphs it looks like their neutralizing antibody levels actually are multiple logs below mRNA vaccinated people at the same 15 week point. I'm not sure what all these citations about naturally infected people add to the topic being debated.

These are all real-world studies of actual duration of immunity. They trump any theoretical concerns based on lab measurements of neutralizing antibody levels.

Observing that the vaccines induce responses lasting as long as 15 weeks is completely unsurprising, based on what we already know from real-world observation of natural infection. Ignoring contextual evidence and concluding that this specific paper didn't provide reasonable evidence is losing the forest for the trees.

Could it be possible that the vaccines don't confer immunity lasting as long as what we're observing from natural infection? Sure, I guess.

Is it likely? No.

[jaywalk]

It's time for the naturally immune to be treated the same as those who've been vaccinated. There is absolutely zero scientific evidence to the contrary, and plenty of evidence to support it.

[mywittyname]

Vaccination is more comprehensive than natural immunity though. We've already see that the BNT vaccine offers a higher degree of protection against variants than natural immunity, or indeed other vaccines.

Reinfection studies from a few months ago demonstrated that natural immunity is roughly 50% effective for people aged 65 or over. And that's the age group most likely to experience negative outcomes from covid-19, it's seems prudent to go ahead and recommend vaccinations for this age group, regardless of previous infection.

Then there's the elephant in the room: so few people have been tested that it really difficult to know who has had it. Anyone who has had a cold in the past 18 months is going to claim they had covid, regardless of whether they tested positive or not. It would be easier to vaccinate this group than it would be to perform a test for covid antibodies.

If covid hadn't become a political shit-show, I'd agree with you. But at this point, I think it's a little irresponsible to society to give anyone an out on getting vaccinated.

[timr]

> Vaccination is more comprehensive than natural immunity though. We've already see that the BNT vaccine offers a higher degree of protection against variants than natural immunity, or indeed other vaccines.

I have seen no evidence for either of these claims, other than assertions. If you have some, please provide citations.

[YawningAngel]

It's quite irresponsible to try and coerce people who don't need treatment to accept it as well

[munk-a]

No it isn't - it's providing unified and clear guidance on vaccination. I'm up in Canada where vaccine hesitancy has been almost unheard of[1] and those who refuse to get vaccinated, excepting those that can't for medical reasons, are ostracized for their overtly selfish actions. The US, though, has a real problem with disinformation being accepted more readily than fact. I am fine with the theory of having a nuanced and technical discussion of vaccine efficacy but I think it's pretty clear that that discussion can't happen in the public forum due to continued calls that hydroxychloroquine is an equally valid solution.

1. https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explor...

[sjwalter]

As a Canadian who emigrated to the US, the attitude you so proudly display--ostracizing people who aren't convinced of a novel vaccine with zero long-term safety information--makes me so happy I live here.

[mrj]

It's not novel, this technology has been trialed and used for a decade, 3 years in vaccines.

We do already have long-term data. You would see side effects for a vaccine within six months, and we have been administering it for much longer than that.

The vaccines are safe.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7956899/

[peter422]

How sure are you about the long term effects of COVID?

[croes]

Did I miss the long term safety information of the corona virus?

[wait_a_minute]

Hear hear. That will never be the norm in the United States of America, no matter what some cliques and bubbles online seem to think.

[YawningAngel]

This has nothing to do with what I said. You are reacting to anti-vaccine views other people have that are not expressed in my comment. I said that _if_ Covid-19 infection confers equal levels of protection to vaccination then it is irresponsible to try and coerce people who have been infected to get vaccinations they don't need. I have said nothing about anything else. If you have issues with what those people have said you should take it up with them

[andybak]

To be fair, your comment was rather nebulous. If you're going to comment on a topic that tends to polarize people, then it's wise to be slightly more explicit in one's statements.

[kQq9oHeAz6wLLS]

> are ostracized

That sounds like hell.

[stronglikedan]

> hell

My Canadian friends seem to think that's what their country has turned into, and on just about every front, not just vaccines.

[incrudible]

> I'm up in Canada where vaccine hesitancy has been almost unheard of[1] and those who refuse to get vaccinated, excepting those that can't for medical reasons, are ostracized for their overtly selfish actions.

In other words, those who value individual freedom might want to avoid Canada for its over-boarding groupthink and overtly collectivist mentality.

[munk-a]

I actually strongly disagree with this point. America has a very precise definition of individual freedom that I disagree with - it's a big part of why I emigrated. In the US you're absolutely free to die as you wish - in Canada you're free to live a healthy life and do with that life what you may.

Socialism and socialized healthcare frequently gets painted as being anti-freedom but I think that the lack of socialized healthcare infringes more effectively on individual freedoms than the presence of it. In the case of vaccinations - encouraging widespread vaccination (and there is currently and probably will never be a mandate) allows more of the population to act freely. Canada is only behind on vaccinations (and, in total doses administered we're now actually tied) due to the fact that we don't have domestic production facilities which resulted on our dose orders being delayed until America dealt with their domestic population. I don't think that's unfair and I've been pretty critical of the LPC that failed to build out domestic production facilities early into the pandemic but - eh, we work with what we've got.

I think you are projecting what you view as two options in America - either communism or individual freedoms - onto the rest of the world. That is a myopic approach to take when considering all the cultures and governments in the world.

[mustacheemperor]

What you are saying is contrary to the tack already taken towards the eradication of other endemic lethal diseases and pests such as River Blindness. That example has been eradicated through much of the Americas primarily by treating everyone in an affected community with ivermectin, which has the effect of slowing transmission from all of the infected individuals in the community (including those who don't know they are infected) and does not harm uninfected individuals. With attitudes like the one you are quoting, it would never work.

[reducesuffering]

> Then there's the elephant in the room: so few people have been tested that it really difficult to know who has had it. Anyone who has had a cold in the past 18 months is going to claim they had covid, regardless of whether they tested positive or not.

There are many many people who have confirmed positive COVID tests. At least excuse those.

>I think it's a little irresponsible to society to give anyone an out on getting vaccinated.

I think it's irresponsible to require people who most science points to having better protection naturally, to also have to get a vaccine. From this point of view, 2 dose vaccine still have less protection than natural antibodies. Maybe we should require the vaccinated to keep getting more vaccine shots until science shows they're at par with natural antibodies, lowest hanging fruit and all...

[michaelmrose]

> There are many many people who have confirmed positive COVID tests. At least excuse those.

The virus is a moving target and what was true of the alpha variant may not be true of delta or downstream. I guess it depends on what you mean by excuse. If you mean allow people to say go on a cruise with a positive covid test as opposed to a vaccination record that seems tentatively reasonable. If you mean allow workers at an old folks home to opt out based on a prior positive test that is unreasonable. If it makes you even possibly slightly less likely to kill the old folks you should get the jab.

The real problem is the grey area created by such a rule. There are probably multiple times as many people who think they have had covid compared to those that have actually had covid that have never been tested. I know people in the US who had an illness in 2019 who are sure they had covid. If you give them an opening they wont let it go. It will surely get ugly.

[reducesuffering]

If folks can't produce a confirmed positive covid test or antibody test, then they can effectively be treated as unprotected because there's no evidence they have protection, that's fine.

> If you mean allow workers at an old folks home to opt out based on a prior positive test that is unreasonable. If it makes you even possibly slightly less likely to kill the old folks you should get the jab.

Where is the line drawn? Maybe it would be more effective for people with 2 doses to get a third? What science is there showing antibodies + 1 shot is more marginal protection than 3 shots?

[michaelmrose]

It should be drawn where it's safe to draw it based on current knowledge.

I don't believe that it's firmly established that natural immunity is as good as 2 shots or natural immunity + 1 shot.

We bought more than enough doses to vaccinate everyone and downsides are small.

Consider a population of 10 million with natural immunity. Let us suppose that vaccination with Pfizer will kill between 0 and 1.

Suppose that 1% would fall ill and 1% of those die. That is 1000 preventable deaths.

It needn't be very much of a difference just 1/100th of 1% to vastly outweigh the risk of a very safe vaccine.

[croes]

The vaccine also leads to natural antibodies. It only contains the spike protein so the immune system can safely develop the antibodies.

[mulmen]

> Maybe we should require the vaccinated to keep getting more vaccine shots until science shows they're at par with natural antibodies, lowest hanging fruit and all...

Why would we do that when the vaccines are safer than the actual disease and effective enough to contain the spread?

[reducesuffering]

There are repeated calls demanding people with antibodies should be required to get a vaccine shot. However most available science points towards natural immunity having slightly better protection. Is there any science whatsoever showing that antibodies + 1 more shot is better than 2 vaccine shots + 1 additional shot? If antibodies are still more protected than 2 shots, how do we know which option provides the most marginal protection? You could easily make the case that since the current science is showing natural antibodies have more comprehensive protection than 2 dose shots, that maybe our first priority should be giving 2 dosers a third shot?

[mulmen]

I misinterpreted your post as some kind of “herd immunity” scheme where we all get infected and that is somehow better. That doesn’t seem to be the argument you were making so I am sorry.

It seems like we should be optimizing for vaccinating as much of the (non-antibody) population up to a level where the spread of the virus is contained rather than maximizing resistance in the population with antibodies. There must be a threshold at which the low hanging fruit becomes “people without antibodies” rather than “people with fewer antibodies”. I’m not sure it matters if the antibodies are from the vaccine or infection.

[_Microft]

Isn’t the number of antibodies after a COVID infection far lower than after receiving the vaccine? I thought that’s why a jab after an infection is actually still recommended, to boost the number to levels that vaccinated see?

[wait_a_minute]

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01442-9

The study provides evidence that immunity triggered by SARS-CoV-2 infection will be extraordinarily long-lasting. Adding to the good news, “the implications are that vaccines will have the same durable effect”, says Menno van Zelm, an immunologist at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia.

[ryandrake]

> There are many many people who have confirmed positive COVID tests. At least excuse those.

Yes, but don't just take their word for it. Confirmed clinical test should be the bar. I fear if the "you don't need a vaccine if you've had it" narrative gains traction, even if it is undeniably true, it's going to result in the anti-vaxxers lying about having already had the virus, to manufacture another excuse for themselves. If we've learned anything in the last year, it's that any system that relies on people to pinky-swear they're telling the truth will be exploited by a small but significant minority of people.

[braincat31415]

Here is the thing (and that's something that people with kids might relate to) -- we already know that covid is not a danger to kids, and that there are potential side effects involved when vaccinating kids. There is no way in hell I would vaccinate my child because "it is good for the society as a whole".

[ceejayoz]

> we already know that covid is not a danger to kids

We don't actually know this. We know it's less dangerous to them thus far. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-56696907 https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/politifact/202...

[baq]

covid absolutely is a danger to kids, it's just less of a danger than to old people. the question is whether risk of vaccination is significantly less than risk of covid. we don't really know yet, but i'd surely vaccinate my kids if it meant they couldn't transmit the disease to their grandparents.

[reducesuffering]

I agree entirely. My point is that there are a significant amount of people who aren't even there. There hasn't been acquiescing past demanding exception-less vaccine passports.

[wait_a_minute]

It's not your business to police this and that's not how it works in the United States. It is not anyone's business to demand a confirmed clinical test. Florida and other states have been open for a long time now and their covid numbers are declining same as wherever there are attempts at more mandates. What use is a confirmed clinical test there?

We are not a collective. We do not have these types of arbiters who will police and decide what is best for everyone. We are a nation of individuals and if you cannot trust people to "pinky-swear" on this matter then how can you trust them to do anything? Including vote on anything? Or reason? Who will make all the decisions for them?

[ryandrake]

Every system has some number of malicious actors. You should trust, but you must also verify. If a system designer assumes no bad actors exist, the system will be quickly exploited, which is why voluntary mask mandates and distancing rules didn't work. We have locks on doors, passwords for computers, seat belts in cars, and rules against drunk driving, precisely because of a small number of dishonest and reckless people.

[JumpCrisscross]

> zero scientific evidence to the contrary, and plenty of evidence to support it

We have evidence that vaccination continue to provide broad-spectrum immunity while those naturally immune are e.g. still vulnerable to the Delta variant [1].

[1] https://directorsblog.nih.gov/2021/06/22/how-immunity-genera...

[braincat31415]

The Wall Street Journal reported Friday that about half of adults infected in an outbreak of the delta variant in Israel were fully vaccinated with the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine

Source CNBC.

[tunesmith]

Is this intended as a counterpoint, or a point in support? People have been pretty loose with their "therefore" about this Israel snippet. After all, if 100% of Israel had been vaccinated with Pfizer, then 100% of adults infected with Delta would have been fully vaccinated. I'm sure the raw number of people infected with Delta is way down compared to what it would have been w/o vaccination though.

[Fomite]

This is a frequent anti-vaxx talking point that well predates COVID-19. In most outbreaks in highly vaccinated populations, most of the cases will be in the vaccinated. We see this for measles and pertussis all the time. The rate will be much lower though.

[braincat31415]

Just googling, Israel vaccination rate is 57.0%

[braincat31415]

Links: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/25/delta-who-urges-fully-vaccin... https://www.wsj.com/articles/vaccinated-people-account-for-h...

[cogman10]

Can I see a link? I'm not finding the same report. Instead I'm finding these [1] which point to the vaccine being highly effective at keeping you out of the hospital.

[1] https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/...

[incrudible]

Moreover, half of the deaths from the delta variant in the UK occured in fully vaccinated individuals:

https://www.businessinsider.com/vaccinated-among-delta-death...

I would see two main reasons for this:

- vaccinations are far from "94% effective" in the age groups who need it the most (elderly with weakened immune systems)

- deaths are over-counted (death from any cause within 28 days is counted as COVID death)

[freshpots]

Did you read the entire article?

Or even the bold points at the beginning?

No fully vaccinated people under 50 died, and the overall death rate was 0.13%.

One hundred and seventeen deaths from 92,029 cases is a death rate of about 0.13%.

[baq]

you conveniently miss the fact that if more people were vaccinated, delta wouldn't have spread this fast and perhaps wouldn't even come to be or would die out before it could spread.

[incrudible]

How is that relevant? The question is: How effective are these vaccines really against that variant? In the real world, not in the lab.

If half the cases are in vaccinated individuals and only half the people are vaccinated, how can the vaccine be 80%-90% effective? That's a mathematical impossibility.

In the case of the deaths, it might be possible because the vaccinated are far older on average and likely over-counted.

[tunesmith]

Just saw a quote from Gottlieb the other day saying that they think the vaccine is more protective against COVID generally than natural immunity... the variants also seem more likely to pierce prior immunity... and that what's really protective is if you get vaccinated after natural infection. (paraphrased, but pretty close.)

Also, generally speaking, people who caught COVID were contagious for a while, while vaccinated people aren't. So there's the social responsibility factor - if you have a lifestyle where you at all likely to be among people while contagious, getting vaccinated reduces risk for others.

[vxNsr]

> Just saw a quote from Gottlieb

Who is this? Why do we care what he says? Can you provide a source for the quote?

The Cleveland clinic disagrees with your “authoritative” quote (see comments above)

[tunesmith]

Dr. Scott Gottlieb, former commissioner of FDA, https://twitter.com/SquawkCNBC/status/1409465340292222986

[vxNsr]

Thanks, he doesn’t directly address this new study. And uses soft, non-definitive language that can be walked back if needed. Not saying I don’t appreciate you providing the source, but as far as what he says vs what you said he said… it’s a little different.

I’d also like to add, I don’t think many ppl are thinking they’d rather get the disease vs the vaccine, rather, if they already got the disease, is there a real benefit vs the risks of the vaccine (eg the heart stuff we’re seeing now). Personally I was careful and never got sick, so I got the vaxx ASAP, but I do think it’s a fair and legitimate concern.

[detaro]

Combination of previous infection and a vaccine dose gives you better coverage, the second is less needed. (And e.g. here in Germany proof of previous infection + one dose counts as fully vaccinated)

[maxerickson]

Vaccine induced immunity is natural too, it's the same mechanism, exposure to an antigen triggers a response in the body.

Really, "naturally immune" would imply a pre-existing immunity to the infection.

[wait_a_minute]

If someone opposes that common sense, I’d have to wonder what their agenda is tbh.

[baq]

back in the day it was common sense surgeons washing hands is pointless.

[wait_a_minute]

And? That doesn't change that there are still things which are common sense and rooted in basic logic accessible to anyone. That Nature journal article is one of those things.

[baq]

it was basic logic accessible to anyone that washing hands doesn't matter - it was, after all, just dirt and blood. it couldn't be proven that there was anything bad in dirt and blood.

[wait_a_minute]

So you think that Nature as a journal saying previous covid infection gives antibodies like the vaccines, is comparable to how primitive medical science once didn’t know you had to wash your hands before surgery?

[Reason077]

There are also cases of people being infected despite having had 2 doses of mRNA vaccine:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-57640550

> “people who’ve had COVID-19 don’t need to get vaccinated.”

Having had Covid twice myself (different variants?), I don’t agree!

[nradov]

With millions of cases there are always going to be a few outliers. It doesn't necessarily mean anything one way or another.