> I was tested 2 weeks ago for antibodies, my results were a “76” (I assume percentage?).
It does not mean percentage. The fact that we cannot directly relate antibody levels to immunological protection is one of the reasons we can't [yet?] use antibody tests to "count" as immunity.
While I posted above about being on the fence about vaccinating my kid, I was in a similar case as you. I'm in my late 40's, and I came down with covid early in the pandemic, before general availability of PCR tests, but I did manage to get an antibody test, and I was positive.
I did get vaccinated because the vaccine reinforces antibodies which are correlated with fewer complications upon subsequent infection. There are some epitopes on sars-cov-2 which closely resemble parts our own clotting factors and interferons, and the randomized nature of our immune response can lead to some less desirable antibodies being present. So, it seems a vaccine only helps.
One thing about getting vaccinated after recovery from covid, though, is that both the first and second doses knock you on your butt, not just the second.
> the randomized nature of our immune response can lead to some less desirable antibodies being present
Exactly! The point of many COVID vaccines is to teach the immune system to destroy a very specific and very important protein, which is the spike protein. Without that the virus can't enter cells. It's not present in our own body.
We have no idea what kind of immune response any given person might get with an actual infection. Reinfections are a thing.
Your last paragraph makes little sense. We have no idea what kind of immune response any given person might get with a vaccine (any vaccine) either. What kind of test this is? And infections after covid vaccines are sadly also a thing.
People get sick with COVID multiple times, and natural immunity is more hit-or-miss with regards to protection against variants. Reinfections are also frequently nastier than the first infection. It also costs absolutely nothing and at worst will act as an additional safety that makes you feel uncomfortable for a few days.
To provide additional protection (especially since given that timing it almost certainly wasn't the delta variant that you got). Maybe you are protected by your previous infection and maybe you aren't.
It was my understanding that you basically just punch these mRNA sequences into a computer and you could have a new formulation ready for manufacture over the weekend. If it's a regulatory issue, maybe the regulations should be adjusted. Why have a booster of the original stuff that's not working as well?
It's really not that simple. I'm not current, but I studied immunology as part of medical school a long time ago.
The Delta variant replicates really quickly, that is its evolutionary advantage over other strains, it's not that your immune system is weaker to it. What happens is that at first it ramps up a lot faster than your immune response, and during this period, it produce a lot more virions, and your immune system has a bigger fight on its hands.
There are many immunologists working on identifying the nature of the immune response to sars-cov-2, and so far, something on the order of 80 unique antibodies have been identified which are induced by vaccination, and about 200 unique antibodies which are induced by actual infection. The convalescent antibodies target the nucleocapsid (the ball) more than the spike protein.
It appears that the delta variant escapes approximately 1/8 of the antibodies in both cases, so you still have a very strong immune response, just one which doesn't ramp up as fast as the virus.
Now, as for the mRNA sequences, we can create them in a DNA printer (then transcribe to RNA), however, this triggers new safety and efficacy trials at the FDA.
Most proteins are safe, of course, and the odds that any particular new mRNA target is safe is pretty good. But it's not trivial to predict with computational models, and so it requires testing.
I was tested 2 weeks ago for antibodies after receiving the vaccine. My results were "0." And yet I experienced all the typical side effects from the vaccine, indicating that I probably had an immune response to it.
Nobody knows what any particular antibody count means with respect to risk to your health from a future COVID infection. Instead, we need to be looking at the hard statistics about who's getting admitted into hospitals and who's dying.
The data I've seen is not great, in part because reinfection is pretty rare. This study [0] indicating rates of 31.0% and 3.4% respectively is the best I've seen, but I'd hazard a guess that there's some sampling bias - i.e., healthier people are less likely to get symptomatic reinfection and therefore to get tested, so unhealthy people are overrepresented in the data - so those rates are probably overestimates.
It is a free vaccine that could save your life, has been safely administered to billions of people and greatly reduces the odds of you getting infected, transmitting to others or ending up in hospital.
What is the downside? or are you just apathetic to getting it.
I've seen several patients that were sicker the second time they got COVID, including people dying in their 20s and 30s. I can't speculate on what their antibody tests might have showed beforehand.
It does not mean percentage. The fact that we cannot directly relate antibody levels to immunological protection is one of the reasons we can't [yet?] use antibody tests to "count" as immunity.