Vaccines versus infection

[Dustyboots]

Interesting article here. I found it informative.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-58270098

@bumbleymummy

Your reply to carrot didn’t exactly sound like you agreed with her point. Fair enough if you do.

My point, as I explained in that reply was that, whatever the media, politicians and social media chose to discuss or dismiss, the scientific community started where it should have, by gathering evidence for and/or gainst many hypotheses, including the strength of natural immunity.

@puppeteer surely it is pretty obvious that it is only now that there is longitudinal data to discusss? Any previous discussions would have been woulda shoulda coulda guesswork.

It was always going to be important long term, as it is in every virus, disease. But evidence is required and, as has often seemed to be the case with covid, many people find the real time research to be too slow. So much in the word this days is instant!

But discussion in the public sphere was shoved aside quite vehemently and aggressively at some points in the past year or so. It was almost heretical to talk about it in some circles, and especially on MN! Sorry, I wanted to come back to that bit. I was part of some of those discussions and was possibly one of those you would have described as vehement or aggressively against discussing it.

Not because I didn't / don't think it is important but because last year there was no data, just suppositon - and there was far too much of that leading to misinformation and downright lies and disinformation. Earlier this year there was a new supposition every day about 'natural immunity' and all sorts of new buzzwords for it. Again the disinformation was rife, people who had read an Op Ed somewhere writing with all the authority of a macrobiologist, posters being shamed, scared, bouyed up by false information.

It is only recently I have come back to the topic, having given up in the face of the absolute determination of some to 'be right' even when there was no scientific data, let alone consensus.

Discusion is one thing, assertion of opinion as facts has often been downright scaremongering, here and in many other places.

@CuriousaboutSamphire well, yes. Do you not think that other countries did the same though? I’ve been reading studies showing that immunity lasts for 6/8+ months since the end of last year. Why have other countries included previous infection for their green passes but the U.K. did not?

At some level, even with perfect data, it’s still a judgement call.

But specifically, data has been there for some time now. Even in the early days, we saw studies that described covid as an increasingly normal coronavirus. Higher transmissibility and IFR, but otherwise normal.

Could your motivation stem more from a worry that people may then judge and act in undesirable ways? (Questioning restrictions, quarantine, etc.)

If it’s not something like that, I struggle to see why closing down informed (or even uninformed) debate is helpful.

Studies in Singapore have been released showing that previous infection with SARS/MERS gave and continues to give, long lasting protection against ALL the variants of Covid

This is interesting. I think a vaccine for MERS is currently being trialled.
I wonder whether it'll be used for covid in the future

Like other posters on this thread I also don't quite understand why the UK approach was to dismiss prior infection when other countries used natural immunity. And yes I know that PP have mentioned the research wasn't there to support using natural immunity and that's why but viral infection and recovery usually works like this:

You catch it, you develop an immune response, antibodies form, you fight it off (hopefully), you retain antibodies which often eventually fade to T cell memory which are ready to activate if/when you encounter the same or a similar virus.

Can anyone please tell me of any virus ever that by catching it and recovering you didn't get some natural immunity because I can't think of one.

There isn't any reason to think covid would be any different. It's novel but still a coronavirus like MERS, SARS, the common cold etc and they all work in that way and confer some protection after infection.

Can anyone please tell me of any virus ever that by catching it and recovering you didn't get some natural immunity because I can't think of one

No, but I think the strategy to vaccinated in addition to natural immunity is the right approach. It gives additional and slightly different immunity. If you have had flu, or measles, or chicken pox, or whatever, you have immunity, but we still get vaccinated to cover all bases.

@BigWoollyJumpers

Can anyone please tell me of any virus ever that by catching it and recovering you didn't get some natural immunity because I can't think of one

No, but I think the strategy to vaccinated in addition to natural immunity is the right approach. It gives additional and slightly different immunity. If you have had flu, or measles, or chicken pox, or whatever, you have immunity, but we still get vaccinated to cover all bases.

Thank you for your reply BWJ's.

I'm not suggesting the vaccines should or shouldn't be taken. My question isn't about the vaccine.

My question is "Can anyone please tell me of any virus ever that by catching it and recovering you didn't get some natural immunity?"

Anyone?

If you have had flu, or measles, or chicken pox, or whatever, you have immunity, but we still get vaccinated to cover all bases.

We don’t tend to vaccinate against chickenpox after we’ve had it. Most people don’t get vaccinated against flu. People born before a certain year are presumed immune to measles, mumps etc without having to be vaccinated. Yes, we vaccinate against these diseases to prevent them/reduce risk of serious illness but if we’ve had them, we don’t tend to vaccinate as well. Immunity tends to be lifelong.

@bumbleymummy

If you have had flu, or measles, or chicken pox, or whatever, you have immunity, but we still get vaccinated to cover all bases.

We don’t tend to vaccinate against chickenpox after we’ve had it. Most people don’t get vaccinated against flu. People born before a certain year are presumed immune to measles, mumps etc without having to be vaccinated. Yes, we vaccinate against these diseases to prevent them/reduce risk of serious illness but if we’ve had them, we don’t tend to vaccinate as well. Immunity tends to be lifelong.

I was confused about the chickenpox vaccine comment as well. As someone who has paid to have extra vaccinations for their children not offered on the NHS I've never heard of this is the UK.

Are you in the USA BWJ?

Sorry I should have been more detailed. You can have chicken pox as a child, and that generates immunity. Yes UK doesn't have a vaccination programme for chicken pox, but it does for Shingles later in life. Whether or not you have had chicken pox, you still get the shingles vaccine later. Same virus.

Can anyone please tell me of any virus ever that by catching it and recovering you didn't get some natural immunity because I can't think of one It isn't the fact of having some immunity, it is the level of immunity that was unknown. That can vary widely.

@bumbleymummy

We've all been reading studies, with varying degrees of understanding. That's part of the reason there is so much misunderstanding and questioning. Even when various studies show a high level of reliability, people continue to question it, disbelieve, partly because they have read interim reports, thought the data had high reliability and were then disappointed, cinfused, when other studies showed contrary findings. That is why some posters, like me, used to try and explain. Many gave up, the disinfomration and misunderstandings were/are relentless

I’ve been reading studies showing that immunity lasts for 6/8+ months since the end of last year. Why have other countries included previous infection for their green passes but the U.K. did not?

See above. And also see infection rates and pattersns. As so many have been so angry about the UK infection and death rate was very high. Relying on a, then, unquantified natural immunity wouldn't have been sensible here. Other governments made different decisions. Different levels of caution, infection rates, modelling etc. And many, many other resaons, I would have to assume, not being involved in the research!

I think it is interesting, in the context of the obvious Government strategy of rapid infection of children via schools this autumn. It will be interesting to see whether the Government also carries out the other part of what the article suggests - allow infection of adults rather than rolling out boosters - given the possibly lower public acceptability of the latter.

All of these points are true (to some degree) but all are irrelevant when considering whether offering vaccination against coronavirus @bumbleymummy

We don’t tend to vaccinate against chickenpox after we’ve had it.
Not comparable to coronavirus. Chickenpox immunity is robust, you don't tend to get reinfected and the virus does not mutate to the same degree that coronavirus does.

Most people don’t get vaccinated against flu.
Because 'flu isn't novel. Most people have some level of immunity against it, hence why it doesn't spread in the same way coronavirus does. If levels rise worryingly in the Autumn, there will be drives to offer those not usually offered the vaccine in a bid to reduce transmission.

Yes, we vaccinate against these diseases to prevent them/reduce risk of serious illness but if we’ve had them, we don’t tend to vaccinate as well. Immunity tends to be lifelong.
Nope. It depends on the virus. Hence why people get 'flu vaccines each year. Immunity to coronavirus is certainly not lifelong, will depend drastically on viral load when you were first examined, and there are plenty of studies showing the benefits to the both the individual and society of being vaccinated after coronavirus infection.

Immunity to coronavirus is certainly not lifelong, Which we wouldn't have known had there not been some failrly extensive longitudinal research across all age groups. Early signs were good, later findings reduced the % protection and longevity quite considerably. All conclusions have changed many times over the last year.

As you said, @speckledostrichegg, more recent reasearch shows the additional benefit of the vaccine after infection. Again something that couldn't have been measured until relatively recently. - and even now is incomplete, as not enough time has passed for it to be otherwise!

Immunity to coronavirus is certainly not lifelong,

Which we wouldn't have known had there not been some failrly extensive longitudinal research across all age groups.

Are you sure @CuriousaboutSamphire? AFAIA this was something assumed from the beginning of the pandemic given what we know about other comparable viral infections- one of the key arguments by epidemiologists against the GBD.

My response was to @bumbleymummy as those points were rather disingenuous and just another post attempting to discourage vaccination in the general population against coronavirus.

@CuriousaboutSamphire

Can anyone please tell me of any virus ever that by catching it and recovering you didn't get some natural immunity because I can't think of one It isn't the fact of having some immunity, it is the level of immunity that was unknown. That can vary widely.

@bumbleymummy

We've all been reading studies, with varying degrees of understanding. That's part of the reason there is so much misunderstanding and questioning. Even when various studies show a high level of reliability, people continue to question it, disbelieve, partly because they have read interim reports, thought the data had high reliability and were then disappointed, cinfused, when other studies showed contrary findings. That is why some posters, like me, used to try and explain. Many gave up, the disinfomration and misunderstandings were/are relentless

I’ve been reading studies showing that immunity lasts for 6/8+ months since the end of last year. Why have other countries included previous infection for their green passes but the U.K. did not?

See above. And also see infection rates and pattersns. As so many have been so angry about the UK infection and death rate was very high. Relying on a, then, unquantified natural immunity wouldn't have been sensible here. Other governments made different decisions. Different levels of caution, infection rates, modelling etc. And many, many other resaons, I would have to assume, not being involved in the research!

@CuriousaboutSamphire the studies I’m referring to were among the ones that have been used to make decision irt presumptive immunity for green passes in other countries so I don’t think there were issues with their reliability.

Other countries have had high levels of infection and still made the decision to accept infection as an option for the green pass. We seem a bit behind in that respect. In Ireland, hiqa advised NPHET to increase presumptive immunity from 6 to 9 months based on the emerging evidence about durability of immunity after infection.

@speckledostrichegg I’m not the one who made the comparison. You should maybe address your comment to bigwholly. Ref to lifelong immunity after infection was irt measles/mumps.

@bumbleymummy

If you have had flu, or measles, or chicken pox, or whatever, you have immunity, but we still get vaccinated to cover all bases.

We don’t tend to vaccinate against chickenpox after we’ve had it. Most people don’t get vaccinated against flu. People born before a certain year are presumed immune to measles, mumps etc without having to be vaccinated. Yes, we vaccinate against these diseases to prevent them/reduce risk of serious illness but if we’ve had them, we don’t tend to vaccinate as well. Immunity tends to be lifelong.

This was your post, no?

Yep. In response to the poster who was making the comparison.

just another post attempting to discourage vaccination in the general population against coronavirus.

Don’t be so silly.

Irt lifeling immunity. Some recent studies have shown immunity 12 months after infection. It will be a while before we can say definitively how long it lasts.

@bumbleymummy

Yep. In response to the poster who was making the comparison.

just another post attempting to discourage vaccination in the general population against coronavirus.

Don’t be so silly.

Irt lifeling immunity. Some recent studies have shown immunity 12 months after infection. It will be a while before we can say definitively how long it lasts.

Given your campaign against vaccination for the gen pop over the last 18 months I'm not really sure if "don't be so silly" is warranted, but hey ho

‘Campaign against vaccination’ 🙄 More silliness.

so I don’t think there were issues with their reliability. I don't think you understood my point. I said nothing about the standard of research just that as time changes so does understanding of the data. Different decsions are made for different reasons, different plans, all sorts of things.

What you see as being 'a bit behind' is an opinion based on criteria of the time. Who knows if/when they may change that? That wouldn't mean the intital decision was wrong, just based on different criteria.

It's quite simple: different decisions are taken across the world for widely varying reasons. Good enough data for one country may not be good enough for another. It isn't the data itself that is the final arbiter - it's the situation it is to be applied to

@bumbleymummy

‘Campaign against vaccination’ 🙄 More silliness.

Well you have spend more than a year trying, without much clarity, to explain your personal reasoning against it, trying to persuade/educate posters to your way of thinking!

@bumbleymummy

‘Campaign against vaccination’ 🙄 More silliness.

Not what I said though?

Given your campaign against vaccination for the gen pop over the last 18 months I'm not really sure if "don't be so silly" is warranted, but hey ho

It will be a while before we can say definitively how long it lasts. Funny, I have been saying that for a few posts now...