way2roll
Wilmington NC
Senior Member
Joined: 10/05/2018
View Profile
 Offline
|
BCSnob wrote:How do you propose science would identify if new mutations developed in vs were acquired by a vaccinated or unvaccinated person when sequencing the virus in a patient sample?
Consider this complexity
Dynamics of a Dual SARS-CoV-2 Lineage Co-Infection on a Prolonged Viral Shedding COVID-19 Case: Insights into Clinical Severity and Disease Duration
Microorganisms 2021, 9(2), 300
Not sure I understand your question - I am no scientist. But couldn't you have controlled populations of patients of vaccinated vs non and incorporate the timing of antibodies? And why does it have to be new mutations? If the efficacy of antibodies either by vaccine or organically wanes, couldn't be re-infection?
My question still stands - although deleted (not sure why, it was a valid question with no slant) ; but I'll re-phrase. Is there some comparative analysis done to show the efficacy of antibodies from the vaccine vs organic contraction? If we know that vaccine efficacy wanes and requires a booster, are antibodies from unvaccinated contraction better? I am certainly not advocating for contracting covid and for not vaxxing. What I am asking is, is there any point to getting vaccinated if you have contracted covid without being vaccinated and developed natural antibodies?
2023 FR Sunseeker 2400B MBS
|
Moderator
Tennessee
Moderator
Joined: 01/19/2004
View Profile
|
Quote:COVID-19 infection gives some immunity, but virus can still be spread, study finds
By Kate Kelland
4 MIN READ
LONDON (Reuters) - People who have had COVID-19 are highly likely to have immunity to it for at least five months, but there is evidence that those with antibodies may still be able to carry and spread the virus, a study of British healthcare workers has found.
|
way2roll
Wilmington NC
Senior Member
Joined: 10/05/2018
View Profile
Offline
|
Moderator wrote:Quote:COVID-19 infection gives some immunity, but virus can still be spread, study finds
By Kate Kelland
4 MIN READ
LONDON (Reuters) - People who have had COVID-19 are highly likely to have immunity to it for at least five months, but there is evidence that those with antibodies may still be able to carry and spread the virus, a study of British healthcare workers has found.
I had read another article that stated 8 months but I would guess it's case by case. The ability to still carry and transmit is present with or without the vaccine.
|
dturm
Lake County, IN
Moderator
Joined: 01/29/2001
View Profile
Good Sam RV Club Member
Offline
|
Getting the disease rather than the vaccine to acquire immunity is a really bad idea, even if immunity duration is the same.
The chances of serious illness and long term consequences of disease are way more probable than any side effects from vaccination. We also do not know what long term effects recovered COVID patients may have. Preliminary studies from Stanford and Oxford have shown that some patients have changes in gray matter in the brain similar to Alzheimer's. One study was in people who died but the other included some who were mostly asymptomatic.
Consider the costs of having the disease in terms of health care costs, costs for loss productivity versus getting a vaccine.
The stress to our health care system may have an effect longer than the pandemic. Already nurses and doctors are suffering from burnout and extreme shortages exist many places in the country. Taking care of more sick people will just make this situation worse.
If you have ever seen a person struggling to breathe, fighting just to say a word, you wouldn't consider getting COVID as a valid option.
Doug & Sandy
Kaylee (16-year-old Terrier of some sort)
Winnie 4 1/2 year old golden
Sasha and many others at the Rainbow Bridge
2008 Southwind
2009 Honda CRV
Check out blog.rv.net
|
BCSnob
Middletown, MD
Senior Member
Joined: 02/23/2002
View Profile
|
way2roll wrote:Not sure I understand your question - I am no scientist. But couldn't you have controlled populations of patients of vaccinated vs non and incorporate the timing of antibodies? And why does it have to be new mutations? If the efficacy of antibodies either by vaccine or organically wanes, couldn't be re-infection?
My understanding of Mex’s question was not about antibodies produced by infection vs vaccination but was about the likelihood mutations/variants of the virus being produced in an unvaccinated person vs in a breakthrough infection of a vaccinated person.
The answer to your question about duration of neutralizing antibodies from a natural infection vs vaccination it depends. The reports indicate duration of high neutralizing antibodies after a mild infection is shorter than from a severe infection. The amounts from vaccination appear to be intermediate of those from a mild and severe infection. The highest amounts appear to be after an infection and vaccination. The higher amounts appear to lead to the longest duration of measured neutralizing antibodies. Immunity/protection from infection (protection from severe infection) appears to be related to both neutralizing antibodies and the type and amount of memory cells developed (not typically measured in studies).
The more important question you should be asking is the infection from which variant provides the better protection against reinfection from the other circulating variants and where can this infection be obtained? ![[emoticon]](http://www.coastresorts.com/sharedcontent/cfb/images/biggrin.gif "biggrin")
|
|
|
BCSnob
Middletown, MD
Senior Member
Joined: 02/23/2002
View Profile
|
This recent preprint indirectly addressed your question.
Equivalency of Protection from Natural Immunity in COVID-19 Recovered Versus Fully Vaccinated Persons: A Systematic Review and Pooled Analysis
MedRxiv preprint https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.09.12.21263461
Quote:CONCLUSIONS: While vaccinations are highly effective at protecting against infection and severe COVID-19 disease, our review demonstrates that natural immunity in COVID-recovered individuals is, at least, equivalent to the protection afforded by full vaccination of COVID-naive populations. There is a modest and incremental relative benefit to vaccination in COVID-recovered individuals; however, the net benefit is marginal on an absolute basis.
|
dturm
Lake County, IN
Moderator
Joined: 01/29/2001
View Profile
Good Sam RV Club Member
Offline
|
And then you get this opinion:
NIH Director's Blog
From Dr. Collins wrote:The new evidence shows that protective antibodies generated in response to an mRNA vaccine will target a broader range of SARS-CoV-2 variants carrying “single letter” changes in a key portion of their spike protein compared to antibodies acquired from an infection.
I think the bottom line is we still don't know. The safest course of action is to vaccinate those who have recovered from COVID.
|
way2roll
Wilmington NC
Senior Member
Joined: 10/05/2018
View Profile
Offline
|
BCSnob wrote:This recent preprint indirectly addressed your question.
Equivalency of Protection from Natural Immunity in COVID-19 Recovered Versus Fully Vaccinated Persons: A Systematic Review and Pooled Analysis
MedRxiv preprint https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.09.12.21263461
Quote:CONCLUSIONS: While vaccinations are highly effective at protecting against infection and severe COVID-19 disease, our review demonstrates that natural immunity in COVID-recovered individuals is, at least, equivalent to the protection afforded by full vaccination of COVID-naive populations. There is a modest and incremental relative benefit to vaccination in COVID-recovered individuals; however, the net benefit is marginal on an absolute basis.
Interesting. So back to my point, with natural antibodies equivalent to the protection of a vaccination, shouldn't the mandate be - Vaccination OR a recent antibody test? Vaccination and natural recovery are essentially redundant. And both wane in efficacy at some point anyway rendering either almost moot. However subsequent infections for both are much milder symptoms. The news is full of un vaccinated folks who are dying in hospitals. However, isn't it likely the supporting data for that is skewed due to the fact that most of the contractions and subsequent recovery of the unvaccinated go largely un-reported? What's the volume of people walking around who contracted and recovered with antibodies? That number is essentially un obtainable.
|
way2roll
Wilmington NC
Senior Member
Joined: 10/05/2018
View Profile
Offline
|
dturm wrote:And then you get this opinion:
NIH Director's Blog
From Dr. Collins wrote:The new evidence shows that protective antibodies generated in response to an mRNA vaccine will target a broader range of SARS-CoV-2 variants carrying “single letter” changes in a key portion of their spike protein compared to antibodies acquired from an infection.
I think the bottom line is we still don't know. The safest course of action is to vaccinate those who have recovered from COVID.
Why is that the safest course? Reinfections of both vaccinated and unvaccinated still happen, both are still capable of transmission, and reinfections for both typically produce mild symptoms.
|
Moderator
Tennessee
Moderator
Joined: 01/19/2004
View Profile
|
way2roll wrote:So back to my point, with natural antibodies equivalent to the protection of a vaccination, shouldn't the mandate be - Vaccination OR a recent antibody test?
Simple answer is NO! And the current data bears that out. Getting vaccinated is the best route, period.
Let's move on folks. Thanks.
|
|
|
