Natural immunity BBC article

[Russianmax]

This is not purely about natural immunity. But I thought it was interesting as this article puts natural immunity on an equal footing with vaccine immunity.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-59378849

Also it is just interesting that natural immunity has been acknowledged at all.

Not sure what I'm trying to say. Perhaps just that if we could understand that both forms of immunity are important, and this could be discussed in the media more often, there may be less divide between the unvaxxed and vaxxed - and hostility between people in general.

@bumbleymummy

Yes, I’ve read that one before. Pre-delta. Do you disagree with the findings from the lancet paper above?

oh my goodness, not the PP

but we have also discussed this paper where you dismissed it as being pre-delta several times. As was said on that thread

1. Many of the papers you cite are "pre-delta" but you don't see it as an issue when it's backing up your point.
2. that wouldn't actually be an issue rendering findings useless
3. IT WASN'T PRE-DELTA - reinfection was recorded May-June 2021

But I guess anything to try and dismiss good quality research that demonstrates importance of vaccination?!

DustyMaiden
My DB and DSIL had Covid very early on. They were asked to give blood to their antibodies could be used. Neither had any

Yes this isn't being talked about much.
There have been 2 major studies on antibodies in the news
From memory the USA study (CDC) found that 1 in 4 people tested 2 weeks after covid infection had no antibodies. A similar UK study found that 1 in 3 had no antibodies after a recent covid infection.

You clearly spend a lot of time reading & reviewing scientific literature @bumbleymummy and it's something you're passionate about, so for the life of me I don't understand this very obvious bias against research which demonstrate benefits of vaccination in various scenarios 😩

@hamstersarse

Natural immunity has been associated with 'anti-vaxx' people right from the start. It began with the 'herd immunity' argument where it was heresy to imply that people could gain immunity from having a disease, despite decades on knowledge that this was true.

I'd much rather my children have natural immunity. That will most likely last in some form for life.

How on earth can you possibly know that 'natural' immunity against a potentially human modified in a lab (therefore very unnatural) virus lasts for life?

Unlike SARS-CoV-2, the vaccines have been thoroughly tested and trialled.

Vaccines give immunity in a safer manner. Rare side effects, yes, as with any medication including paracetamol, but significantly lower risk of death or disability than from the actual virus.

'Natural' herd immunity is heresy? You'd hope so wouldn't you. Given it involves a policy akin to eugenics. Many many avoidable deaths. And a sizeable minority of the population left longterm ill.

'Natural' herd immunity/eugenics also means huge numbers of non Covid deaths and disabilities - due to no treatment, because hospitals are full of Covid patients (with many HCP dead or long term sick).

@ollyollyoxenfree happy to read any papers you want to link to :) Iirc there was another paper published recently that had similar findings to the one I linked to above.

@Russianmax

This is not purely about natural immunity. But I thought it was interesting as this article puts natural immunity on an equal footing with vaccine immunity.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-59378849

Also it is just interesting that natural immunity has been acknowledged at all.

Not sure what I'm trying to say. Perhaps just that if we could understand that both forms of immunity are important, and this could be discussed in the media more often, there may be less divide between the unvaxxed and vaxxed - and hostility between people in general.

On the OP, I think that the two key things here are that you can only get natural immunity via infection (which carries risks), and that the immune response to infection is variable.

Back in the early days of the pandemic, herd immunity via infection was very quickly realised to be a bad idea (see the GBD and it's criticisms). Encouraging infection by including it in any kind of vaccine/COVID status passport was also a bad idea, as it would increase people actively trying to get coronavirus.

Now we have a great proportion of the population who have subsequently been infected with COVID, should it be considered "equal" to vaccine induced immunity. Personally, I think it's not really a comparison that can be made - as I said, infection induced immunity is variable. We know from studies that people who are subsequently vaccinated have boosted immunity and are less likely to be reinfected.

So some people who have had coronavirus may have immunity that is equal/greater than someone doubly vaccinated, true. But until we're at a point when this can be identified, there's going to a one-size fits all approach in terms of recommendations as there isn't really an alternative.

@ollyollyoxenfree ok, so you’re allowed to dismiss papers irt immunity after infection because they are ‘pre-delta’ (even though recent studies still show low reinfection rates so it appears to be holding up well) but I’m not allowed to point out that the Kentucky study is pre-delta. Sure

[quote bumbleymummy]@ollyollyoxenfree happy to read any papers you want to link to :) Iirc there was another paper published recently that had similar findings to the one I linked to above.[/quote]
So the CDC paper linked by another poster and then mentioned by myself?

[quote bumbleymummy]@ollyollyoxenfree ok, so you’re allowed to dismiss papers irt immunity after infection because they are ‘pre-delta’ (even though recent studies still show low reinfection rates so it appears to be holding up well) but I’m not allowed to point out that the Kentucky study is pre-delta. Sure [/quote]
eh? where have I done that?

I don't think I've ever dismissed a paper based on this, as described above I don't think it's a reason to negate findings.. I don't see how it would cause substantial bias when considered vaccinated versus unvaccinated.

@ollyollyoxenfree

Did you see the recent Lancet paper? etc etc

@bumbleymummy as has been said before, there are studies with better design which do show reduced viral load and a reduced duration of being infectious in those vaccinated compared to unvaccinated. Has definitely been discussed with you before, not just from me.

I don't get why the need to cherry pick to such an extent when it comes to this.

As I said on another thread, so that study, and others, are based on a positive test result. You're going to be biasing your analyses towards to the null by doing this, as you're artifically changing who is selected into your sample.

There will be a large number of people walking around unware they have coronavirus. These people will on average have a lower viral load. Numbers are not equal between vaccinated and unvaccinated - vaccianted cohorts tend to have higher rates of asymtomatic or low level symptoms that are missed.

When you randomly sample the general population, like in REACT-2, you are getting a more reliable estimate of what is actually happening, minimising this bias, and these studies have demonstrated lower viral load and reduced duration of being infectious.

tis my reponse to the lancet paper

not a mention of delta in sight

And you keep banging the whole ‘you’re trying to dismiss vaccination’ drug but it’s a load of nonsense - I’ve said several times that the vaccine reduces the risk of serious illness and I think we did a great job prioritising those who were most at risk - but that doesn’t mean that natural immunity is somehow inferior and should be completely disregarded. Why are you so against any study that shows lasting immunity/broad immunity after infection? It doesn’t have to be one vs the other you know.

Delta wasn’t dominant in the US in May/June 21.

Immune response to the vaccine is also variable.

@bumbleymummy

And you keep banging the whole ‘you’re trying to dismiss vaccination’ drug but it’s a load of nonsense - I’ve said several times that the vaccine reduces the risk of serious illness and I think we did a great job prioritising those who were most at risk - but that doesn’t mean that natural immunity is somehow inferior and should be completely disregarded. Why are you so against any study that shows lasting immunity/broad immunity after infection? It doesn’t have to be one vs the other you know.

I think my posts make it clear I don't think natural immunity should be disregarded

The only reason I'll ever be "against" a study is if it's low quality, or if it's being highlighted where there are many others with different conclusions. It doesn't matter what the subject is - if it came to a point where the science was genuinely demonstrating vaccination was uncessary for certain cohorts (or for everyone) I'd say so.

@bumbleymummy

Delta wasn’t dominant in the US in May/June 21.

Immune response to the vaccine is also variable.

This seems like backtracking a tad when you dismissed the study as being "pre-delta"

“I don't understand this very obvious bias against research which demonstrate benefits of vaccination in various scenarios”

^you posted this about me (even though I have previously linked to studies irt benefits of vaccines for certain groups/benefits of extending the time between doses to maximise immune response etc) but tbh this is how I feel when I see you posting on these threads. You always want to jump in to try to discredit any reference to immunity after infection. It’s a bit odd tbh.

What about the recent findings of people getting no antibodies after natural infection , as some people mentioned, @bumbleymummy?

Even if you recovered from covid, if you are not getting any immunity from it, then it won't be the same as vaccinated status?

natural immunity is not measurable in the population - it would not yet be easy to diagnose & is still probably very low incidence
Apparently there are some people immune to AIDs (read the sad story about Paul Michael Glaser wife)

@bumbleymummy

“I don't understand this very obvious bias against research which demonstrate benefits of vaccination in various scenarios”

^you posted this about me (even though I have previously linked to studies irt benefits of vaccines for certain groups/benefits of extending the time between doses to maximise immune response etc) but tbh this is how I feel when I see you posting on these threads. You always want to jump in to try to discredit any reference to immunity after infection. It’s a bit odd tbh.

It's true no? People regularly direct you to studies (i.e, the CDC one or REACT-2) but they are never referenced in your future posts. Sure you have stressed the importance of vaccination for the vulnerable, but I don't think anyone is in disagreement with that. It's vaccinating of the general population where the bias seems to come in.

You always want to jump in to try to discredit any reference to immunity after infection
Please link to any posts where I've tried to discredit references to immunity?

@mumwon

natural immunity is not measurable in the population - it would not yet be easy to diagnose & is still probably very low incidence Apparently there are some people immune to AIDs (read the sad story about Paul Michael Glaser wife)

I think OP is talking about people who have immunity from being infected with SARS-COV-2, rather than innate immunity existing beforehand.

Yes though! And to prion disease.

There's definitely underlying genetics of people who will not get ill from coronavirus, which is fascinating.

@rainrainraincamedowndowndown

What about the recent findings of people getting no antibodies after natural infection , as some people mentioned, *@bumbleymummy*?

Even if you recovered from covid, if you are not getting any immunity from it, then it won't be the same as vaccinated status?

As others posted, waning antibodies don’t mean that you aren’t immune. (T-cells)

And fwiw, there are a large number of studies showing that antibodies do actually persist in the majority of people for over 9 months. Switzerland have recently extended presumptive immunity after infection to 12 months on their COVID pass.

Many, many people clear this infection through t-cells without making antibodies. As an aside to the vaccine versus natural immunity debate I wish people would stop just taking about antibodies like that is the only part of the immune response.

Not talking about waning antibodies, talking about no antibodies gained by natural infection, but you twist it as always.

T-cells are not waning antibodies.

You can get a very good t-cell reaction from either the vaccine or natural infection. And have no detectable antibodies.

I had covid in January and then had the vax innApril but I didnt know then it would require a six monthly booster. I wish I knew more about national immunity with this virus.

I'm.inntwo minds about getting my booster. I would ideally like to think that if I got covid again it would be unlikely to be serious. But I dont know anything. But ideally it would be mild and I would get better immunity if I caught it again.

But there not any data to be found on having covid then double vax then catching it again

www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/coronavirus-party-death-italy-bolzano-b1962661.html

A man has reportedly died and others are in intensive care after attending “coronavirus parties” in a bid to catch the disease.

The 55-year-old man died in Austria last week after becoming infected with Covid-19 during one such event in the city of Bolzano in South Tyrol, northern Italy.

At least three other people, including a child, are said to have been hospitalised in the Alpine region after catching the virus at similar events.