Why is natural immunity ignored?

[SoOvethis]

I have seen several posts where people seem to think there is practically no protection from having caught Covid naturally and keep wondering why. But I think the reason is because there is never anything positive in the media about catching COVID naturally and low reinfection rates. I happened to come across an article today which I found surprising as that pointed out some statistics that show how unlikely you are to catch Covid twice.
That matches my real world experience too, I don’t know of anyone who has had confirmed Covid twice. And everyone that I now know who have caught recently are double jabbed but haven’t had covid naturally before.
If someone can prove that they had covid before or that they still have antibodies why can’t that be considered as “safe” as having the vaccinations? Especially as apparently the viral load is lower in those who have been reinfected.

www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/23/phe-upgrade-delta-variants-risk-level-due-to-reinfection-risk

This headline is totally misleading to what the article is actually telling you!

“ In light of the findings, PHE upgraded its risk assessment on “immunity after natural infection” from amber to red for the Delta variant. Reinfections remain a rarity though, accounting for only 1.2% of the 83,197 cases analysed.”

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9834687/Proof-Covid-turning-mild-illness-Survivors-reinfected-lower-viral-loads.html

“ Last April, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) began examining people who had been struck down with Covid to determine the risk of them catching it again.

Of the 19,470 people they studied between April 2020 and July 2021, 195 went on to catch Covid for a second time.

This equated to just one per cent of people being reinfected. ”

“ Only a quarter of those participants who were reinfected had a high viral load — considered to be a score below 30.”

“ The finding was based on real-world analysis of the third wave in England and looked at about 80,000 Delta cases.

But even with the increased risk posed by the mutant strain, the numbers of Britons getting reinfected still remains low.

Of the Delta cases PHE analysed over the past three months, just 1.2 per cent were identified as possible reinfections.”

(Possibly reinfection btw…interesting choice of word)

I had a positive PCR as well as antibodies test at the same time which stated its likely I’ve been infected with covid within the past six months and it’s not my most recent infection….

So no point me getting the vaccine?

@Indiatango

The Cleveland study is clear that adding a vaccination to natural immunity does not increase immune resistance. The Israeli study demonstrates the same conclusion

@Indiatango - can you link to that bit of the research, please, because it certainly conflicts with this report: www.news-medical.net/news/20210830/Does-SARS-CoV-2-natural-infection-immunity-better-protect-against-the-Delta-variant-than-vaccination.aspx which clearly states “ However, vaccines can add an extra boost to protection in people who recovered from COVID-19. Results showed that a single vaccine dose with natural immunity provided greater protection against reinfection than people with natural immunity alone.”

Not sure if they allow links. I have been giving plasma for 16 months now and still have strong immune response

Sorry sent old video

Here you go. This is a decent link with more links to investigate deeper. I am not anti vax and do not think vulnerable people get Covid first in order to gain immunity as it beat me up for 3 weeks. Vaccination is great to reduce symptoms but as time goes on it seems to wane which is worrying. We should be embracing and investigating natural immunity rather than sweeping it under the carpet for political reasons.

www.news-medical.net/news/20210608/No-point-vaccinating-those-whoe28099ve-had-COVID-19-Findings-of-Cleveland-Clinic-study.aspx

Natural immunity doesn't make anyone any money though, and would unndermine the whole overdramantic government strategy of locking people away ruining their livelihoods, cancelled operations and shutting schools, just cause China did it. Fair enough bring out vaccines and treatments but to deny natural immunity is insane. It is now acknowledged that natural immunity gives you better protection. And given the tiny risk of death covid poses to most people, I'm really not sure why we even vaccinated anyone other than the elderly and vulnerable anyway? It's all so political low. It has long since moved away from being about public health. Politicians stink.

Thanks for the link, @Indiatango. I note it links to a report in June, though, so earlier than the one I linked which suggests that a dose of vaccine plus natural infection is more protective than just natural immunity, and your link also contains the following: “Important Notice
medRxiv publishes preliminary scientific reports that are not peer-reviewed and, therefore, should not be regarded as conclusive, guide clinical practice/health-related behavior, or treated as established information.”

Interestingly, this link is a September article from what looks like the same person as in your June article:
www.news-medical.net/news/20210915/Natural-SARS-CoV-2-infection-induces-more-durable-immunity-than-vaccination.aspx
But in September, she is now concluding that the best protection exists in previously infected people who have also been vaccinated:
“ The study findings reveal that natural infection induces moderate-intensity immunity against SARS-CoV-2 and its variants that remain stable for a long period. In contrast, mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine-induced immunity gradually declines with time, despite an early robust magnitude. Importantly, vaccines offer the highest level of protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection in COVID-19 recovered individuals.”

So, I think she has somewhat shifted her position since June.

As time marches on we see that vaccinating people who have recovered from Covid simply triggers the immune response. The Israeli study basically says that the vaccine is great protection for the unvaccinated but has little statistical improvement for the unvaccinated who have recovered from Covid. Breakthrough is rare for both groups but the safest group is still this those have recovered naturally. I’m not sure if the vaccinated who then catch Covid are better protected but let’s hope they are !!!!!

[quote Walkaround]@Waheristuff - so you want a list of all the people I know?… Of course it is possible to get more ill the 2nd time. It would be sensible for people claiming natural immunity is superior to admit that - it’s not as if it harms the argument that in general, natural immunity is superior, if the real virus hasn’t killed you, made you seriously ill, or caused long term complications in the getting of it. It’s the lack of being able to predict who can get covid “safely” with 100% certainty that makes the vaccine desirable.[/quote]
It's the lack of being able to predict who can get the vaccine "safely" with 100% certainty that makes the vaccine undesirable.

@Indiatango - yes, worst case scenario would be that breakthrough natural infections for people who have been vaccinated somehow fail to provide effective long term immunity. It’s interesting, though, that in June, the article writer was arguing that vaccination post-natural infection was pointless, but definitely isn’t arguing that in September.

@IncredulousOne - not when, statistically, the undesirability of covid is greater than the undesirability of vaccination. I am certainly far happier being exposed to covid post-vaccine than pre-vaccine. It can certainly be argued that if natural infection can be proven in a sufficiently high proportion of people to confer genuinely long-term, effective natural immunity, that they shouldn’t be expected to get vaccinated on top of that, but not that vaccination against covid is generally undesirable. Regardless, it seems clear to me that final conclusions still cannot be drawn on this, as the research is clearly ongoing and conclusions are currently arguable either way.

Yes - the pressure on medics is very high to comply with the CDC viewpoint. That’s why the Israeli report is so important as they don’t appear to have been so politicised and are keeping to the facts. If at any time I think the vaccine improves my survival chances I would have it.

My real issue though is why the negativity from the authorities on natural immunity? It’s almost as though they don’t want us to break dependence on big pharma?

Natural infection generally results in fewer antibodies than vaccination (some people even seem to resist infection via their innate immune system rather than their active immune system, but let's not complicate things...). However, immunity is not all about antibodies. More antibodies does not equal "more immunity" - it means you're fighting off a more severe infection. Antibodies generally don't hang around all that long after an infection, but memory T-cells remember how to produce antibodies (the clue is in the name) which is why you generally won't get infected a second time (and if you do it will generally be mildp) because as the virus tries to reinfect you, your immune system hits the ground running.

It is also important to realise that natural infection generates an immune response to all the different parts of the Coronavirus - not just the spike protein (which is all that vaccine induced antibodies target).

Unfortunately for the vaccines, the spike protein is the most mutable part of the virus, so when the virus mutates (what Greek letter are we up to now...?) if the spike protein is sufficiently different from the original strain, then the original-spike antibodies might no longer work. However the other parts of the virus are more stable and are unlikely to mutate much, so (if you've had a natural infection) you still got all the antibodies to the other parts of the virus which remain effective.

The drugs companies knew that the spike protein was the most mutable part of the virus when they designed the vaccines. I will leave it to others to speculate as to why they chose to design the vaccines to target this part...

@Indiatango - I haven’t noticed any negativity towards natural immunity, just negativity towards the illness you have to get in order to become naturally immune and a realistic approach to trying to get out of the pandemic mess as quickly as possible.

[quote Walkaround]@IncredulousOne - not when, statistically, the undesirability of covid is greater than the undesirability of vaccination. I am certainly far happier being exposed to covid post-vaccine than pre-vaccine. It can certainly be argued that if natural infection can be proven in a sufficiently high proportion of people to confer genuinely long-term, effective natural immunity, that they shouldn’t be expected to get vaccinated on top of that, but not that vaccination against covid is generally undesirable. Regardless, it seems clear to me that final conclusions still cannot be drawn on this, as the research is clearly ongoing and conclusions are currently arguable either way.[/quote]
@Walkaround sorry, I didn't make the point of my post to you clear - I was merely pointing out the logical fallacy of your pro-vaccine argument.

For many, the undesirability of Covid will be greater than the undesirability of the vaccine. They should get vaccinated if they wish.

For other (e.g. young males) the undesirability (ie. risks) of the vaccine will be greater than the undesirability of Covid. They should not be penalised (by vax-passes, travel restrictions, etc) for making the (rational) choice not to have a vaccine.

[quote Walkaround]@Indiatango - I haven’t noticed any negativity towards natural immunity, just negativity towards the illness you have to get in order to become naturally immune and a realistic approach to trying to get out of the pandemic mess as quickly as possible.[/quote]
But I have seen a lot of negativity against those who have not had the vaccine (irrespective of prior infection). Being labelled as bigots, racists, and anti-Semites. Even mainstream media sources suggesting that they should be denied jobs and NHS access:

www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/voices/antivaxxers-vaccine-coronavirus-nhs-b1849437.html%3famp

(Okay, I know it's the Independent, which is a filthy rag, but this article really stopped to a new low).

@IncredulousOne - are you suggesting that every research scientist in the world is too corrupt to do any honest research into vaccination and they all meekly avoid looking into vaccines that might never need tweaking, because big pharma stifles any such alternative research? Maybe the Oxford scientists are particularly cunning and evil and pretended to work with companies that promised to produce a not-for-profit vaccine, but were secretly hoping to make a subsequent profit out of the next round of covid vaccine development, having lulled people into a false sense of security.

@IncredulousOne - I’ve seen a colossal amount of negativity from anti-vaxxers, too. And ludicrous conspiracy claims. I haven’t heard the likes of Chris Witty, or even Boris Johnson, claim those who have not had the vaccine are anti-semites, bigots or racists, though, so not seeing your apparent viewpoint that the bigotry exists where it matters or is in any way one-sided, rather than at both extremes of the spectrum, as you would expect.

With respect this discussion is not really about pro or anti vax. It’s about why people who have recovered from Covid are being largely ignored in policy decisions to the extent that the double jabbed gain privileges and Covid survivors get quietly marginalised

I'm really not sure why we even vaccinated anyone other than the elderly and vulnerable anyway?

Gosh I was wondering this the other day. It's got to the point that I feel guilty for wondering and questioning anything. How awful is that?

@Indiatango - I suspect for a variety of reasons, including lack of confidence in the durability and extent of natural immunity, as the research is still ongoing and apparently not yet peer reviewed; a belief that having an approved vaccination given at a known date is an easier and less contentious way of assessing everyone’s likely immunity at a given point in time without creating too complex a system and mining too much of their private medical data to find out; and not wanting to complicate and confuse the mass and rapid roll out of vaccines at this point in the pandemic. So far as I’m concerned, vaccination has been shown to be sufficiently safe in pretty much everyone that I am not that bothered whether I have or have not been previously infected. I was just happy to be vaccinated so that I could be allowed maximum freedom to get on with my life. In due course, when life is more back to normal around the world, I will be more interested in whether life can remain normal without regular boosters - in other words, I think the research is very interesting and relevant, but not concrete enough to justify a huge change in current policy quite yet.

What is the logic in giving freedoms to vaccinated people who we now know catch the virus and infect other people?

@Indiatango

What is the logic in giving freedoms to vaccinated people who we now know catch the virus and infect other people?

Because they are less likely to get infected than unvaccinated people who have not been previously infected, will be ill for less long and less severely if they are infected, and because if previously infected, vaccination can only decrease still further the chance of them being reinfected at all or being ill at all, and can enable them to provide a simple proof of vaccination. As it currently stands, there is insufficient evidence that someone infected in, eg, March 2020 will definitely still be fully immune to covid now, and without enough test tubes for simple blood tests, I don’t think testing millions of people for antibodies or other evidence of natural immunity as a way of proving a lack of need for vaccination is feasible.

That logic just doesn’t cut it. If you want a level of protection then get vaccinated. If other people don’t get vaccinated it makes no difference to you. If they get sick it makes no difference to you it’s their body their choice. Also saying ‘less chance’ of catching or infecting doesn’t cut it either - the vaccinated catch and pass on the virus at rates of up to 30% now and it’s growing weekly as vaccinations wear off.

Finally, the Israel evidence is clear that people who have recovered from Covid from the outset in 2020 are 13 times less likely to get ill than double jabbed of only 7 months ago. They carry a smaller viral load and their immune systems identify variants better. If anything they should get a passport in preference to the jabbed. This casting aside of natural immunity has got to stop

This is politics not medicine

Your logic doesn’t cut it, either. The Government in England wants people to go back to normal behaviour asap without chaos ensuing. The easiest way to achieve this is to get as many people vaccinated as possible as quickly as possible, then for them to mix them together while vaccinated immunity is still at its best. That way, hopefully, when vaccinated people do get infected, they are significantly less likely to clog up the hospitals or die and they get the benefit of a boost of natural immunity, which will hopefully help in the long term (ongoing research required). The situation pre-vaccination made it 100% obvious that mixing together while unvaccinated resulted in too many hospitalisations and deaths for the hospital system to be able to cope with, and the level of effectiveness of the vaccines makes it obvious that more rather than fewer people have to be vaccinated, because it does reduce the rate of transmission and illness, however much you hate to admit it, but only enough to prevent chaos if as many people as possible are vaccinated - otherwise, the virus gets to too many of the really vulnerable too quickly and chaos ensues. Natural immunity is not therefore being cast aside, it’s just that there were not enough people with natural immunity alone to enable life to go back to normal very quickly without a significant death toll, long-term complications for the healthcare system to deal with, and chaos in hospitals and workplaces due to high levels of significant sickness. Israel proves this - not enough natural immunity for people to mix together without risk unless vaccinated. And, as pointed out, faffing about with assessing whether someone needs a vaccine or not isn’t a priority when giving a vaccine to someone who has already had covid is not going to do any harm to their natural immunity, it can only boost it if anything, so for certainty and simplicity until more research has been completed to show that natural infection, however mild/asymptomatic it was and however long ago still provides amazing immunity (this is not yet proven, whatever you say, as many healthcare workers in particular have had covid more than once, so have been able to transmit it more than once and be off sick more than once), they should be vaccinated, too.

So, what is your alternative proposal, @Indiatango? Because arguing the vaccine is only for your protection doesn’t cut it when the vaccine is only 66% effective. Lots of people choosing not to be vaccinated for any reason puts everyone in need of healthcare for any reason at risk, as hospitals get sidetracked by highly infectious covid admissions. At very high levels of vaccine refusal, it puts the rest of societal life in danger, too, as other essential workers fall sick for significant periods of time at the same time due to rapid spread, unless significant curbs are put on normal human behaviour. Your body, your choice would work better as a concept if the vaccine were 100% effective; it fails as an argument at societal level when the vaccine is significantly less effective than that, hence the pressure for people to be vaccinated and the risk of it spilling over into compulsion.