Immunity post virus "at least as good as vaccine"

[wideskies]

So the front of The Times says if you've had Covid, immunity is at least as good as having had the vaccine based on a Public Health England study. The same piece of research is reported by the BBC as "5 months of immunity".

So now I'm left wondering, do I feel positive that I've had Covid over Christmas and have some immunity, or a bit down that the immunity only lasts 5 months?? Hoping to find out more on the study today

It doesn't say that - it says that it lasts at least five months - since the study only covered that long. But it would be in line with most viruses that at some point immunity lessens, but then the immune system is also "trained" so there's a bit of a trade off. If your body comes across it again at any time, it'll respond better and quicker. There is no such thing as total immunity all of the time, forever. For any virus. But that's how our bodies deal with other viruses, like the flu viruses. It'll just become another virus.

The way I'm reading it is they can only say 'at least 5 months immunity' as the study only started 5 months ago so they can't extend the timeline beyond that atm. Happy to be corrected as I'm not a scientist
However, I'm taking it as a good sign (also had The Covid)
I'm not convinced re the statement regarding you can still get it again with no symptoms and pass it on. I think that's to ensure those people who have had the virus won't be running around willy nilly thinking their immune. Again, happy to be corrected by people who actually know about this stuff.

BBC also says that even though you'll be protected from illness, you can still catch it again and infect others.

I guess this means that although you might personally be symptom free if you catch it a second time, you could still be a spreader to others.

*they're immune. sorry

However, I'm taking it as a good sign

Yes, this is good news

It's good news.

A previous survey said at least 90 days. More time has passed, and the immunity is continuing

Assuming immunity from vaccine also wears off ... what happens when we still haven't vaccinated the younger population but the older, higher risk of clogging hospitals, population needs a repeat vaccine? Logic says you once again prioritise those at highest risk of taking up NHS resources, but I imagine that will draw even more protest than it has this time.

I'm not surprised by this, only surprised they haven't embargoed it until such a time when there's less virus about!

@MereDintofPandiculation presumably you just go the flu jab route - free annual vaccination for the vulnerable and appropriate workforce + an option to buy one if you don't qualify for the free one.

I posted about this a few days ago. It’s great news 😊

This is the thing I dont understand. If in some parts of the country (say London), 1 in 25 people have it, the next week a different 1 in 25 people have it, and so on and so on for the 10 or so weeks of this this current 'peak', then surely we must be approaching natural herd immunity (10 in 25 getting it this peak, plus the people who got immunity in last peak etc).

They might find younger people have a better response and longer lasting.
Also the consideration if the vax reduces spread vs catching naturally for young people.

I dont think they can know as
We are still SD which will affect howcmany who previously caught it get it again and same with vax. The elderly especially are likely to still be cautious.

I have had it twice now. In March and January.

I am an unlucky one. DP did not get it. So his immunity probably worked then

quiteathome did you have a positive test both times? Was the second time noticeably less severe?

Doesn’t say only five months, says at least. Presumably only five months’ data is available.

I'm another two-timer - last April (wasn't tested but fell ill shortly after DH who subsequently had positive antibody test) and January (positive PCR). This time neither DH nor DC had symptoms (DC no symptoms last time either).

Herd immunity is probably a bit higher than you are imagining. It’s 80% for polio and 95% for measles.

Another two timer, so is my son. I think there are quite a lot of us. I know I lost my first lot of antibodies at around 6 months, caught it again at 9. It was symptomatic but mild for both of us.

@Tarararara

This is the thing I dont understand. If in some parts of the country (say London), 1 in 25 people have it, the next week a different 1 in 25 people have it, and so on and so on for the 10 or so weeks of this this current 'peak', then surely we must be approaching natural herd immunity (10 in 25 getting it this peak, plus the people who got immunity in last peak etc).

It's not 1 different person in 25 each week though. And it hasn't been 1 in 25 for 10 weeks. I think this is the first time it's been that high in London, last week was 1 in 30 and only in London, not everywhere.

So no, no at herd immunity which is approx 70% of population so c50m. Based on positive tests, the total is only 3.2m

This suggests we are at 22% having had covid by 4th Jan. So yes, I see that's a long way from the rates needed for herd immunity.

www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2021/jan/10/one-in-five-have-had-coronavirus-in-england-new-modelling-says

Surely there is now an argument for vaccinating people who haven’t had a positive test first then.

You in fact can't be vaccinated for a month after a positive test anyway for safety (theoretical concerns I think)

I have had it and am being offered a vaccine as NHS worker. I feel a bit guilty and would rather someone else had it but Trust management is heavily leaning on me to still have it. They don't take any notice of my immunity post infection. They don't count it in risk assessments.

I waiting on another test to come back after having the same symptoms to when had it in November! Though they are mild symptoms- energy less, breathe less doing stairs, aches, sinus pain, loss of smell.

@CrackOpenTheGin

Surely there is now an argument for vaccinating people who haven’t had a positive test first then.

I asked this as a theoretical question last night. (no response)

In theory it should be that people who have had a positive test in the last 5 months should be depriortised slightly to enable whole population immunity to be built quicker.

I have no doubt that despite this science if the government were to make this policy lots of people would go nuts.

@CrackOpenTheGin

Surely there is now an argument for vaccinating people who haven’t had a positive test first then.

But there is no guarantee and if those people are also vulnerable, surely they still need vaccinating.

I am CV. I caught covid last term and was ill and spent time in hospital.
The doctors cannot say I won't get it again, and following covid I have another health issue which would also make me vulnerable, more so than the original health issue. It's been over 3 months and I'm still struggling at times.

So I still need to be vaccinated to avoid catching it again, due to my medical vulnerability. And also that I normally work in a place where there is no social distancing, no masks, not protection from covid and with children who won't be vaccinated all around me. I just can't take the risk of catching it a second time in a couple of months time.