What study?
There’s no difficulty. That’s a fabricated excuse. Lab test + doctor = validation of covid infection. It’s not complicated.
I resent having to periodically put air in my tires, and I’m not interested in being a sheep who’s doing nothing more than lining the pockets of Big Air !
/s
I know that you’re saying that, but:
- Hope makes for pretty weak policy, and
- I’ve noticed that absolutely none of ‘the people who matter’ are endorsing this position.
That’s because the US doesn’t actually have a vaccine passport, and while we have all the infrastructure to track vaccines and related health matters, we have no coordinated way to convey this information.
Also, the CDC is still talking about “full vaccination” rather than “current vaccination”, which I expect to be the right way to view the matter, when the dust settles.
Countries that actually have vaccine mandates, and not patchwork laws here and there, are tracking date since last vaccination, and are mostly including infection information as well as vaccine information. So N months after the infection, your vaccine passport expires, and you need to get a booster shot, just like everyone else.
And – just using the US as a hypothetical – if they don’t/won’t get that booster (again: I’ve seen none of these folks say they will) ?
This is where we are. This is the point I’ve repeatedly made. This is the dead horse I’m now effectively beating.
But it matters.
There are studies that give us some idea, in aggregate, of the rate at which antibody levels decay, both in ‘natural’ and in ‘vaccine-induced’ immunity.
But without either serial quantitative antibody testing or a date certain when a person was infected with COVID, there’s much more of a shotgun approach in a ‘convalescent-immunity only’ person than in a person who gets vaccinated.
It’s compounding errors in a realm where other people’s lives are on the line.
I don’t understand what’s hard about the date of infection. You typically know that to within a couple of days in any verified infection, and a couple is days is irrelevant.
And I’m telling you i know a lot of people who are … vaccine averse, not hard anti-vax, and who would just as soon not get covid, but really don’t want to feel like crap for no reason. And when we wag a finger at them and say, “you bad, bad person, you cought covid, no goodies for you” we aren’t doing the cause any good. It really does look like vaccine rules are about control and not about science.
My basic position has inarguably been about science, not control, and other than you telling me what you hope might happen, there’s no solid response – particularly from those who keep raising the issue of convalescent-only immunity and how it should be viewed as a public policy matter.
What will they actually do when their immunity wanes ?
I know your answer. It would be helpful if somebody bringing this whole topic up would tell us their take on this salient point. Their silence is rather conspicuous by now.
Here’s a peer reviewed study showing once infected you have antibodies for life!
From a lightning-fast review … it’s nowhere near as black-and-white as you say.
Here’s the conclusion from the article you linked:
Ellebedy’s team has observed early signs that Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine should trigger the production of the same cells4. But the persistence of antibody production, whether elicited by vaccination or by infection, does not ensure long-lasting immunity to COVID-19. The ability of some emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants to blunt the protective effects of antibodies means that additional immunizations may be needed to restore levels, says Ellebedy. “My presumption is, we will need a booster.”
So … are you open to getting a booster after some period of time – say, for example, a year ?
Do you know what’s even more effective than naturally-occurring immunity? Naturally occurring immunity plus a full vaccination! Since you always follow the science, I assume you’ll be getting vaccinated and encourage others to do so, even if they have had COVID. And, you’ll see how the proposal in this thread doesn’t make sense, since, from a public health perspective, a COVID case plus vaccination is better than either alone.
Do you realize that we’ve only studied covid for about 2 years, and the human lifespan can be much longer than that?
No need to be concerned about the exact date you got infected. We know from past SARS viruses that you will have immunity for a long time:
"… individuals who recovered from infection with the related coronavirus SARS “neutralizing antibodies were still detected 17 years after infection.”
I’ll skip to the punchline (again):
The virus – like most viruses – mutates. Innate immune memory to one variant doesn’t necessarily confer immunity to another variant.
It’s the same principle as somebody getting the seasonal flu two years in a row – this year’s flu is different from last year’s flu.
ETA: from the article …
The ability of coronavirus Spike proteins to tolerate mutations is arguably the biggest challenge for the humoral immune system to keep up with viral evolution and immune escape variants {…}
It’s a moving target.
By the way …
If you don’t understand the text of these articles that you’re offering, you should endeavor to do so.
This one, in particular, is touting how much better vaccines appear to be in providing durable COVID protection, including against likely variants, than convalescent immunity.
IOW: these articles do not support your position.
But they’re definitely interesting 
I guess I see the world as broken into 3 groups:
-
There are hard-core anti-vaxxers. They aren’t going to get jabbed unless forced. And while some governments did break into homes and physically restrain the residents to get vaccinated for smallpox, I don’t think that’s an appropriate policy response to covid. I hope most of them caught omicron, and won’t be vectors in the next wave.
-
There are people who want to do whatever they can to avoid covid. We lined up to get vaxxed as soon as humanly possible, and are anxiously awaiting the omicron booster. We will keep up with whatever is recommended (or allowed) regardless of public policy.
-
Those in the middle, many of whom got one or two shots, many of whom had an unpleasant reaction and don’t want to do it more often than they need to, many of whom have kids in school who brought home omicrom and so have recently recovered from that.
It’s group 3 who are most affected by public policy, imho. And I think public policy should respect the science, and respect their time and energy. Right now, it doesn’t look like more doses of vaccine do a lot for people who have both some vaccine and have recovered from covid. And it also looks like those are the people most likely to feel like crap after getting vaccinated.
And by the time you develop a new vaccine for that variant it’s already too late. There’s yet another new variant.
Again: you’re fundamentally misunderstanding the studies that you are offering.
The vaccines are not entirely variant specific. They appear to be doing a better job – according to the studies – of inducing ‘immunoplasticity’ than is convalescent immunity which seems to be seeing more immune evasion by new variants.
For how long will that hold ? At what point will X number of vaccinations in an individual create truly robust, durable, and adaptable immunity ? It isn’t known.
But the studies do not support your premise. They don’t actually even say what you’re alleging they say.
That matters.
I know. It’s been said over and over and over and over…