Explain the debate about natural immunity wrt having had Covid-19

The Quarantine Zone
41

New research found that natural immunity offers exponentially more protection than COVID-19 vaccines.

“ … vaccinated individuals were 27 times more likely to get a symptomatic COVID infection than those with natural immunity from COVID.”

“Vaccine passports are morally dubious for many reasons, not the least of which is that freedom of movement is a basic human right. However, vaccine passports become even more senseless in light of the new findings out of Israel and revelations from the CDC, some say.”

42

The article is nonsense. From the Science article linked from your crappy article:

The researchers also found that people who had SARS-CoV-2 previously and received one dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine were more highly protected against reinfection than those who once had the virus and were still unvaccinated.
…
No one in the study who got a new SARS-CoV-2 infection died—which prevented a comparison of death rates but is a clear sign that vaccines still offer a formidable shield against serious disease, even if not as good as natural immunity. Moreover, natural immunity is far from perfect. Although reinfections with SARS-CoV-2 are rare, and often asymptomatic or mild, they can be severe.

Nothing about the study backs your assertions that vaccine passports are unethical.

43

The problem with going with natural immunity is all the people who die along the way. And, if you’ve already had it and survived (Good for you! You’re not one of the, holy shit, 726,000 people who died from it), you know what gives you better protection? Getting the vaccine.

44

To be fair, those people have an even lower chance of reinfection than the people who recovered.

726000 is just the US number. Worldwide it is 5-million-ish. Getting COVID for immunity is just like a super-effective vaccine with a 1%-ish fatality rate (and a higher serious injury rate).

45

Good point!

This is an excellent way of putting this, although it omits the fun of potentially infecting and killing your friends and family. There aren’t many vaccines with that side “benefit”.

46

While your source sucks ass unless you are a white male militant libertarian, in which case you’ll be right at home, the study itself is just a study and does come to the conclusion that natural immunity offers greater protection than the double dose of a Pfizer vaccine, although nowhere does it use the word “exponentially”. Hell, I stated the natural immunity works well in post 3, so it’s not really news. As noted in the study:

This study demonstrated that natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity.

The study also came to another conclusion which puts a big ol’ damper on your point and which I also stated in post #3.

Individuals who were both previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta variant.

And that’s just a single dose. Imagine how much better it would be if we mandated a double dose mRNA vaccine for all, including those with natural immunity. Hell, they might never sneeze again. I’m on board. You?

47

Since I stated the the source sucks ass (it does), I’m sure someone’s going to call me out for that without giving a reason. I’ll just note that Harvard Epidemiologist mentioned is actually none other than Martin Kulldorff, co-author of “The Great Barrington Declaration”, along with Jay “Dr. Fauci is the #1 anti-vaxxer in the country” Bhattacharya and SayTwo’s favorite person, Sunetra “the IFR is pretty close to 0.01%” Gupta.

The Great Barrington Declaration is that manifesto that basically said we should jab all of the old fuckers and let everyone who wants to live life as normal to do so. Some would die, but the rest would get us to herd immunity. If you are completely uncaring and shitty at risk calculation, it’s right down your alley.

The head of the NIH called it:

…a fringe component of epidemiology. This is not mainstream science. It’s dangerous. It fits into the political views of certain parts of our confused political establishment. I’m sure it will be an idea that someone can wrap themselves in as a justification for skipping wearing masks or social distancing and just doing whatever they damn well please.

Ouchy Fauci himself chimed in:

So this idea that we have the power to protect the vulnerable is total nonsense because history has shown that that’s not the case. And, and if you talk to anybody who has any experience in epidemiology and infectious diseases, they will tell you that that is risky, and you’ll wind up with many more infections of vulnerable people, which will lead to hospitalizations and deaths. So I think that we just got to look that square in the eye and say it’s nonsense.

You know who loved the Declaration? Scott Atlas and the Cheeto in Chief.

While I’ve already debunked the shit out of Gupta in past threads, I’ll just note that to arrive at a 0.01% infection fatality rate, the current almost 5 million dead (and let’s be fair, this is likely a drastic undercount) would require a global population of 50 billion people, 100% of who have been infected. Nice math, lady!

Did I mention that the source sucks ass?

48

Mods, my apologies for tossing out the term libertarian. I realize too late that that comment might be a bit political. Feel free to delete my first sentence up to “…right at home” in post #46.

49

@DMC “While your source sucks ass unless you are a white male militant libertarian, in which case you’ll be right at home, …”

I see that you apologized for saying ‘libertarian’ (I am not a libertarian; I am totally apolitical). How about your attack on whites and males? How does your post “Attack the post, not the poster?”

Here are some more links to the recent findings about natural immunity vs vaccination. I have not checked the political affiliation of any of these posters but I have read much of the science referenced in their posts.

This one is NOT a science paper but leads to a lot of links to the current subject:
https://notrickszone.com/2021/08/26/vaccinated-27x-more-likely-to-be-symptomatically-infected-than-unvaccinated-whove-had-covid/

50

Israel has a vaccine passport which is granted to those who have recently recovered from covid, as well. I feel like the question “is a vaccine passport helpful?” should be separated from “does recovery from covid count as some form of vaccination for purposes of this passport?”

They are both good questions.

Personally, i think we should have a vaccine passport, and we should count a case of covid as a single dose of vaccine.

51

Is it your claim that natural immunity is better than natural immunity plus vaccination? Because if that’s not your claim, I have no idea what you’re on about – no one is disagreeing that natural immunity is good. We’re saying, get vaccinated anyway. And, natural immunity is not as well tracked as vaccination, so vaccine passports (in my opinion) should look at your vaccination status, rather than relying on self-reporting of a COVID case or even a positive COVID diagnosis. There are false positives, after all, but there’s no false vaccination. (There are fraudulent vaccine cards, but that’s another issue)

So, what is your actual point about natural immunity?

Maybe it’s that we should fuck the immunocompromised, the elderly, and the unvaccinated, and go with natural immunity instead of vaccination? Are you ignoring all the deaths that come with getting immunity that way?

52

I’d like @Turble to respond to this as well. It’s been brought up more than once and I’ve seen no answer.

  1. If vaccination + natural immunity is better than natural alone, do you support getting vaccinated?

  2. How are we to require a natural immunity passport? Who has access to people’s positive test results?

53

Not to mention fucking anyone who needs non-COVID medical care, since the “natural immunity” plan would inevitably result in hospitals being swamped by COVID patients.

Having spent two weeks in hospital recently with a non-COVID problem, I’m of the opinion that this plan sucks. I literally could have died had the hospitals not had room for me. Other people have actually died due to this in other places. This is not theoretical, this is what you’re choosing if you go with the natural immunity plan.

54

There are separate questions that seem to get mixed together:

  1. Does having had COVID-19 provide strong, lasting immunity?

Based on my understanding, the best answer to that question at this point in time is “yes.” It appears to be as strong or slightly stronger than immunity gained through full vaccination. Recovering from COVID-19 together with vaccination seems to be the strongest.

  1. How should natural immunity affect policy decisions?

This is a question without a scientific answer. There have been various approaches adopted by different countries around the world.

What is frustrating to me is that answering question 1 in the affirmative seems to lead people to jump to the conclusion that the person is somehow anti-vaccine. It seems the framing is Team Vaccine vs. Team Natural Immunity - which is just stupid.

55

I was attacking the source, not the post or the poster and I think that was pretty clear, but feel free to report it and let the mods decide. The source sucks. I retracted libertarian as that is definitely political and doesn’t belong in this forum. I don’t believe that “white” and “male” are actual political parties, so I’ll let them stand as that’s who the organization that you sourced has traditionally represented. If you really want to discuss the target audience of your source, open a thread elsewhere and I’ll happily oblige.

Again, so what? No one that I’m aware of is arguing that there is no protective benefit to natural immunity. There is. We’re simply saying that natural immunity PLUS the vaccine is even better, so having had COVID is not an excuse to avoid vaccination. Period.

56

Is it? I’m seeing the opposite; people who seem to think an affirmative answer to question 1 is an endorsement of their anti-vax views on question 2. I gave multiple reasons for my views on 2 besides my thoughts on 1. Several posters have agreed that natural immunity may be as good or better but have given reasons in favor of vaccinating anyway. No one has accused them of being anti-vax. If you have an example of someone being unfairly accused of such, please provide it.

57

Some thoughts on the study Turble cited:

Some quotes:

" It was posted Aug. 25 to the medRxiv preprint server, which means it has not been peer-reviewed and “has not yet been accepted or endorsed in any way by the scientific or medical community.”"

“Importantly, though, the researchers also found that previously infected people benefited from vaccination, as those who received a single dose of the vaccine were about half as likely (0.53 fold) to be reinfected as those who did not get the shot. The single dose vaccinees also had fewer recorded cases of symptomatic disease (16) than their unvaccinated counterparts (23).”

“It’s worth noting that two other studies have come to different conclusions about the relative potency of natural versus vaccine-induced immunity, although each is also subject to its own limitations and is not definitive.”

More here.

58

I wouldn’t say the jury is entirely in on that. There are also studies that find infection-acquired immunity waning with time without vaccination. That being said, I’m sure that we will have enough experimental data to say one way or another soon. We should certainly be used to the “best available answer at this point in time” changing from time to time by now.

There are two separate policy decisions:

  • Should people eschew vaccination and try to get a Covid 19 infection to acquire the “better” immunity to future infections?

The answer to this, under any reasonable principles, a solid no. Even accepting the most generous estimates of the immunity granted by previous infection, the risk of serious reaction to a real infection is much, much higher than the risk of an adverse reaction to any of the available vaccines. The immunity provided by real infection would have to be much, much better than vaccine-mediated protection to be worth that additional risk.

  • Should people who have had a past Covid 19 infection and recovered from it be treated the same as a vaccinated person as far as travel/activity restrictions are concerned?

That is something that is a lot more data dependent, and I expect will vary from time to time as data comes in. And certainly I would expect more than just someone’s say-so that they previously had it to be required.

59

I’m not talking about posters in this thread - more the general public discourse and treatment in the media.

In my offline life, I have avoided the topic mostly as I didn’t want to be mistaken for an anti-vaxxer based on my general acceptance of natural immunity. Believing in natural immunity was something believed by the “wrong team.” Maybe that’s a misjudgment by me.

60

If believing in natural immunity meant avoid vaccines and going to COVID parties, then that’s definitely anti-science. I would be surprised if people actually had the position that natural immunity was a bad thing – surviving COVID is good! Avoiding it to begin with by getting vaccinated and taking precautions is better!