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 know someone who has had covid twice. Once before being jabbed and then again a couple months after 2nd jab.

@Emilyontmoor

honestly though, there is so little use in genome-wide data for the individual (genetic astrology was very apt) that this would never be something that would catch on in the NHS. For population based analyses yes, for working out if Doris is at increased risk of dementia, no.

If you read the blurb I linked to that is precisely what genome U.K. are trying to do, identify SNPs on your DNA which predict you get Covid mildly or severely.

There are several genes already identified as predictive of individual health outcomes. The BRCA 1 and 2 are the well known ones for hormonal Cancers but it is widely accepted that there are others implicated in those Cancers. Any sort of family history and you are tested for known and unknown genes. The Gene that causes the FAP Bowel Cancer has been known about since the early twentieth century and a register met long before the actual gene was identified. There are many more genes already linked to illness.

Of course when DNA was first mapped it was hoped that it would open up a whole new world of gene related health benefits. The reason more has not been achieved is that the issue turned out to be the sheer volume of data that studies throw up. The challenge is handling that data, they have even involved computer game designers, and bio medical researchers now have to have advanced data analysis, and of course funding. Which is where the funding for the Covid related work might just come up with some answers.

Which all sort of further undermines this argument that immunity is homogeneous, with the healthiest immune system in the world if you have the gene you are still going to get Covid badly or Breast Cancer …..

@Emilyontmoor

If you read my full post you would see it was in response to someone raising concerns about the NHS getting access to individuals genome-wide data, I was explaining why this was unlikely to be a priority of theirs due to it being of limited use. I gave the example of how polygenic screening in IVF is now considered pretty useless.

The examples of risk genes you've given - these are what would be termed mendelian (ie monogenic) not polygenic. These are useful because they have a huge effect on your phenotype - ie whether you get cancer or not. This is in contrast to something like dementia or heart disease, where polygenic scores explain so little of your overall risk that the NHS (or "big pharma") would not be interested in trying to monetise or steal this data.

Yes of course in terms of COVID there are a huge number of studies looking to identify genetic risk of severe symptoms and death, which have already proven useful. But I was never not saying that in my post

The reason more has not been achieved is that the issue turned out to be the sheer volume of data that studies throw up. The challenge is handling that data, they have even involved computer game designers, and bio medical researchers now have to have advanced data analysis, and of course funding.

@Emilyontmoor also going to respectfully disagree on these points - we are very good at handling large scale genetic data and time/resources is not a significant limitation. It's generally that complex traits are just that, complex, and often genome wide variation is useful on a population but not individual level.

I have also yet to encounter a computer game designer at the forefront of genetic epidemiology/bioinformatics lab, but it's true some of the PhDs dabble in it as a side hustle

[quote Charles11]@Emilyontmoor yes you can be unlucky. You may have got a huge viral load and end up very ill even though you did everything right. Each of us are individuals with different health.
You may think the jury is definitely back but what are you trying to say? What about all those people who are being hospitalised and dying due to covid despite having both vaccinations?
One headline I read was saying that 30% of deaths of covid in Wales were those who had been vaccinated. 30% is not small.

Of course, I’m not saying the vaccinations are not working, but would better underlying health given those 30% a better chance?

And there is plenty of research now that highlights the importance of vitamin d.

I’m just surprised, and annoyed tbh, that the message for better health and vitamin d isn’t being pushed.
It’s not really going to hurt anyone but could potentially help.[/quote]
I think many of them are elderly. Age is still the biggest risk factor, even if people are double vaccinated.

@Tightsonatrain

The reason more has not been achieved is that the issue turned out to be the sheer volume of data that studies throw up. The challenge is handling that data, they have even involved computer game designers, and bio medical researchers now have to have advanced data analysis, and of course funding.

@Emilyontmoor also going to respectfully disagree on these points - we are very good at handling large scale genetic data and time/resources is not a significant limitation. It's generally that complex traits are just that, complex, and often genome wide variation is useful on a population but not individual level.

I have also yet to encounter a computer game designer at the forefront of genetic epidemiology/bioinformatics lab, but it's true some of the PhDs dabble in it as a side hustle

I think she’s referring to the games developed to investigate protein folding :)

Tightsonatrain Points taken but clearly you were not at the UCL conference where computer gaming experts were indeed among the many diverse disciplines who were gathered together to discuss the issue of how to better process and analyse data on DNA.

@bumbleymummy age is a risk factor but many elderly people are asymptomatic or affected mildly or recovered.
What made these people different?
They all still deserve to have a fighting chance, don’t they?
I still think it’s worth getting a message out.

charles I have two octogenarian family members survive this, early March 2020. One who had a history of lung problems got it very early in Feb when they had no clue but prompt treatment with the antibiotics they they now use worked but 5 days later their partner got it. Though from a genetic line that has seen people from disadvantaged backgrounds live into their 90s they were far more affected, 5 days during which a razor throat , crashing headache and they felt their chest in such a tight band they thought they were going to die. I just don’t see that their lifestyle played more of a role than genetics treatment and viral load, unless drinking litres of tea makes them vulnerable . On the whole their generation do have a history of eating healthily because they spent their early years during rationing.They are not in the queues for fast food are they?

We are being given relatively little information on how well naturally acquired immunity is faring against vaccination immunity. You cannot absolutely insist people in this group are vaccinated without giving people verifying data to back it.

If you have naturally acquired immunity, what is the relative risk. We are not really told conclusively.

Where are the 'gold standard' studies to back the claims of superior protection through vaccination? There have been none really as far as I see. They also demand these 'gold standard' proofs for other therapeutics, but where the Covid vaccines are concerned, proof in favour of the vaccines seems to be a set at a much lower bar.

I've read nothing to explain why a vaccine that utilises a synthesised part of the virus can provide anything but equal protection as compared to full exposure to the wild virus. Surely, the mechanism produces identical (at best) protection & nothing ‘superior’ ?

I've read nothing to explain why a vaccine that utilises a synthesised part of the virus can provide anything but equal protection as compared to full exposure to the wild virus

@MummyPop00 the clue is in what you've just written. Vaccination involves exposing someone twice to a controlled dose of antigen that has been designed to stimulate a robust immune response.

Infection on the other hand is completely variable and many are exposed to very low viral loads which are known to cause milder symptoms but also a less robust, long lasting immune response.

very low viral loads which are known to cause milder symptoms but also a less robust, long lasting immune response.

Not necessarily.

“ in this study, we confirmed that rates of antibody positivity according to 3 commercial kits was still high at 8 months after infection, even in asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic participants (69.0%–91.4%).”

wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/27/3/20-4543_article

“In this study, 89% of HCWs with asymptomatic or mild COVID-19 had nAb at 16 to 18 weeks after U.K. lockdown, and 66% had titers of >200.”

immunology.sciencemag.org/content/5/54/eabf3698

[quote bumbleymummy]very low viral loads which are known to cause milder symptoms but also a less robust, long lasting immune response.

Not necessarily.

“ in this study, we confirmed that rates of antibody positivity according to 3 commercial kits was still high at 8 months after infection, even in asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic participants (69.0%–91.4%).”

wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/27/3/20-4543_article

“In this study, 89% of HCWs with asymptomatic or mild COVID-19 had nAb at 16 to 18 weeks after U.K. lockdown, and 66% had titers of >200.”

immunology.sciencemag.org/content/5/54/eabf3698[/quote]
classic quote part of someones post without context to attempt to prove a point

that isn't really relevant given neither of those studies estimated the viral load participants were exposed to, or measured it post positive test?

particularly given one is of HCPs who, at a group level, will have been exposed to a higher viral load than the average person.

Well clearly higher viral loads aren’t indicative of the severity of infection then if they also can cause mild/asymptomatic disease which also leads to lasting immunity.

How do you think they would go about measuring the viral load that the people were exposed to?

@bumbleymummy

Well clearly higher viral loads aren’t indicative of the severity of infection then if they also can cause mild/asymptomatic disease which also leads to lasting immunity.

How do you think they would go about measuring the viral load that the people were exposed to?

I said estimate, not measure.

Several groups have been working on a prediction for likelihood of exposure level. This would incorporate scenarios around the time of infection such as occupation or presence of COVID+ household member.

Mummypop The extent and speed with which studies are being undertaken and reported about Covid is astonishing. I know hardly anyone who has not been asked to take part in a study of some sort, whether testing for disease prevalence or vaccine efficacy (bloods taken every three weeks post jabs) or antibody levels post infection or to identify why some people get mild disease. And the vaccines went through the same safety and approval protocols as other vaccines. It was just that with funding and the urgent need they were able to implement the existing vaccine technology at much greater speed than normal. I was talking to someone who works in the Worldwide Influenza Centre last summer who said that the speed of the progress they were making was unprecedented, vaccines were progressing rapidly not because corners were being cut but because of funding and logistics barriers that evaporated.

I really don’t know what else you would expect during a pandemic of a novel virus?

It is false news to say that not enough is being done on any front of scientific research (though of course there is plenty of actual news on the incompetent corrupt and negligent way in which the government has handled the public health response).

After nearly 2 years of this virus, people who have recovered naturally from Covid are proving to be the least likely to be in hospital or ill. Yet this potential key to defeating the virus is being ignored and people are still being pushed to a vaccine which is proving less effective than the natural immunity. A good example is where they say the previously infected should have one jab as it increases antibodies. Its not the jab that increased the antibodies, its the T cells remembering the virus when the vaccination goes in and making new antibodies to defeat it.

@VeganCow

I know someone who has had covid twice. Once before being jabbed and then again a couple months after 2nd jab.

In the largest global study on reinfection, there are roughly 60 people out of 112 million monitored who have been confirmed to have been reinfected with the D variant having had the A variant. Many claim to know people who have had Covid twice but having 2 positive PCR tests is not proof. Right now in the entire UK there is nobody in hospital who has been reinfected.

@SoOvethis I had Covid in March 2020 obviously it wasn’t confirmed as I didn’t go to hospital but I was really ill at home. I am part of an ONS study so I had an antibody test which showed I had the antibodies.

I have monthly antibody tests and as at June 2021 I still had the antibodies. So I had antibodies for 15 months. We missed julys test.

I am currently ill with Covid confirmed on a pcr test. So either I have the new varient which my antibodies can’t fight or my natural antibodies ran out in July and I’ve caught it again.

My first monthly antibody tests were done in summer 2020 and have continued to show positive antibodies until June 2021.

@XjustagirlX. I am curious as you had it in March 2020 but did not get confirmed and it did not make you ill enough for hospital. Now you have it again - is it confirmed and are your more ill or less? Do you have anything other than a PCR test as evidence on both occasions?

@Indiatango when I was ill in March 2020 I did not have it confirmed until summer 2020 with my antibody test. I was not ill again between March and summer 2020. In March I had Covid symptoms.

This time I have had it confirmed with a lateral flow test and a pcr test.

I felt 10 times worse first time round.

Also just to add I have not been vaccinated.

@XjustagirlX
Sorry to hear you have caught it again! But at least it’s much milder for you this time.
So seems as if you having antibodies has acted in the same way as someone being vaccinated. It prevented you getting seriously ill or ending up in hospital in intensive care.
I dont dispute reinfections - I think they are less common than what some on mumsnet like to think. But I do think having had covid will give you some sort of protection against severe disease.
Hope you recover swiftly this time around! 😊😊

@XjustagirlX You are very very unlucky as it’s extremely rare to get it twice. The fact that’s it’s mild after more than a year and a new variant since your last infection proves that natural immunity is working and vaccines or boosters are not required. I would be interested in the timeframes of you being sick the first time compared to the second and of the symptoms were different between A and D variants.

It’s important that the naturally recovered are studied as they are best answer to beating the virus in my view.

[quote Indiatango]@XjustagirlX You are very very unlucky as it’s extremely rare to get it twice. The fact that’s it’s mild after more than a year and a new variant since your last infection proves that natural immunity is working and vaccines or boosters are not required. I would be interested in the timeframes of you being sick the first time compared to the second and of the symptoms were different between A and D variants.

It’s important that the naturally recovered are studied as they are best answer to beating the virus in my view.[/quote]
I would not say this automatically means vaccines are not required - for example we know little about how well immunity persists over the long-term like past 12 months. You might also not necessarily get severe symptoms yourself, but vaccination might make the difference in terms of transmitting it to others.

Nowhere is recommending that you don't get vaccinated just because you've had a previous infection - and indeed the CDC study demonstrating that in cohort of previously infected people, those were not subsequently vaccinated were 2.4x more likely to have a second infection.

It’s important that the naturally recovered are studied as they are best answer to beating the virus in my view.
I don't necessarily think this is the case. It might help us identify subsets of the population who are more vulnerable than others, but it is unlikely we will glean substantial info on modifiable risk factors for COVID severity.