So, I ask for a third time, clarify what exactly are you advocating as a consequence of your argument if it is not the following:
On the internet, there isn’t a whole lot of room in between disagreeing with someone on multiple key points, and their being an idiot.
However, I am impressed by the lack of rigor in those Rushworth quotes DMC found.
Is there any reason to think vaccinations are more effective than actually surviving covid?
That’s like asking if there is any reason to think a bulletproof vest is more effective than not getting shot.
It’s just a poorly written thread title, but OP is unenthusiastic about asking a mod to change it. When you work out what he means, OP is actually asking a reasonable question - if somebody who has already been infected should still get vaccinated.
Not at all. That’s a really useless simile, actually.
The problem is that people seem to want to add a morality question to everything covid. Whether or how infection or vaccine produced immunity are different is pretty straightforward and relevant question. But everyone seems to want to view it through the lens of righteous people vs deniers/maskholes.
I think their is a related question: is it ethical to accept a vaccination when you’ve had COVID? I know at one person who got vaccinated who had it a few months ago. I wouldn’t judge her for that, but in her place I think I would have declined.
I agree. The probably of reinfection is obvious far lower than for first infection. Unless you are a medical worker or some other very high risk group, if you have already been infected you should certainly be low priority for vaccination.
I’m not exactly advocating anything.
There are various ramifications of assuming either that vaccines add little-to-no protection for someone who has already been infected versus assuming that it adds significant addition protection. FWIW, I mentioned a couple in the OP. You yourself seem to acknowledge the concept (in post #67).
There’s no need to impute anything beyond that.
Then why are you so reluctant to discuss those “various ramifications”, why persist in denying what you are obviously implying?
For somebody who has been infected, we have two courses of action:
(1) Vaccinate. Protection & risk studied in large trials, but some residual uncertainty on long term risk.
(2) Do not vaccinate. Protection from prior infection will probably prevent reinfection, but some uncertainty.
So what could the “ramifications” be other than exactly what I said:
I’ve been discussing this in good faith and you seem to be playing some sort of gotcha game.
It’s unfortunate that vaccinations have become a hot button issue which is triggering to some people and makes rational discussion difficult.
At any rate, I’m done with this exchange with you. Have at it.
Here’s a health scientist from England who is, I guess, downplaying the risk of harm to kids:
Virus ‘may need to circulate among young people’
Dr Mary Ramsay, head of immunisation at Public Health England, said that if the vaccine does not prevent COVID-19 transmission, the virus may need to be allowed to circulate among younger people.
Asked if it was likely the entire population would need to be vaccinated, she told the Science and Technology Committee: "We may need to accept, if the vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission, that we’re going to protect the people who are really vulnerable and going to die and have serious disease, but we allow the disease to circulate in younger people where it’s not causing much harm.
"That may be the situation we go to, like we are with things like flu, that we accept that a lot of people get flu but we protect those who are most vulnerable.
“That may be the outcome, I’m hoping it will be a bit better than that.”
Assuming Phipps is in good faith, besides what you accurately list in your quoted bit I can see a couple more ramifications.
-
Every dose of vaccine spent on an already-immune COVID survivor could be better spent on a not-yet immune person. Every non-wasted dose flattens the curve sooner and preserves multiple lives later.
-
Conversely, we’ll eventually get to a place where proof of immunity will be required for work or travel or … And if not in the USA, certainly in some countries both for residents and visitors. I can see the opportunities for somebody to generate fake “I’ve already had COVID” letters from fake doctors to be easier than fake “I’ve already been vaccinated” certificates.
Just been a report on BBC but it isn’t online yet.
The story is that those who have had Coronavirus have a known six month immunity - that is what is known at present, however the news item went on to say reinfection can occur and these people may become aymptomatic spreaders.
Make of that what you will, perhaps it would be better to treat recovery as just the first stage of the vaccination process and then go on to obtain the second dose - but that is wild assed guess.
Information is still coming in, it has to be evaluated and it all takes time - meanwhile we see new variants and we should expect more.
Here is the BBC link
Just dropped by to note that, at the time of writing, the vaccine had existed ~ 1 year, had been in tests for most of that time, and had solid test statistics a few months ago. Even the people in the earliest human safety tests were vaccinated and observed, and protection has now been observed for most of a year.
COVID has not been around long enough to know whether it has long-term effects, such as those seen in measles.
Two rather frightening effects of measles are a deadly encephalitis that occurs in people who appear to be recovering, or to have recovered. Anywhere from a few days, to six years after a measles infection, a person can develop this signature encephalitis. Granted, the longer time stretches are rarer, but they have been documented.
The other effect is that for several months-- up to 18, IIRC-- after a measles infection, the body’s immune system preferentially is looking out for measles, leaving the person vulnerable to everything else. This doesn’t happen to people who gain immunity through vaccination.
Rubella and Zika, meanwhile, are very minor infections in adults, but wreak havoc on fetuses. The Rubella vaccine is safe for pregnant women, though.
Now, there is no evidence that COVID does any of the above, but it does appear to play hell with the lungs, even in people who don’t seem to have terribly serious cases, and there are no long-term projections for recovery, because it hasn’t been around long enough.
So while I don’t know about vaccines being more effective in preventing infection in the first place, there’s every reason to believe that the vaccine is a better route to immunity than actually having the disease.
This study just came out:
Discrete SARS-CoV-2 antibody titers track withfunctional humoral stability
It tracked 4300 employees of SpaceX. An article on it (the WSJ had a better article, but it’s paywalled):
The study’s findings suggest that people who had only mild COVID-19 symptoms developed fewer antibodies, which might mean they are less likely to have long-term immunity and could therefore get reinfected.
Researchers still working on the study told the Journal they have already observed some instances of reinfection in workers who previously were found to have low numbers of antibodies.
“People can have antibodies, but it doesn’t mean they are going to be immune,” Dr. Galit Alter, one of the study’s co-authors and a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, told the Journal. “The good news is most of the vaccines induce [antibody] levels way higher than these levels,” Dr. Alter added.
In short, it does seem that a vaccination is more effective than an infection, particularly if that infection had mild symptoms.
These studies would be more helpful if they would define “mild”. Is that asymptomatic? Only a slight cough and fever? Miserable but not needing to go to the hospital? What defines “mild”?
The paper does not seem to have a precise definition of mild, but it does distinguish that from asymptomatic, as well as from hospitalized or “convalescent” individuals:
We observed SARS-CoV-2 specific T cells in 83 % (10 of 12) of the individuals in the high titer group against at least one of the tested peptide pools, and only 10% (1 of 10) of the individuals in the low titer group had detectable T cell reactivity against the Sand N pools (Fig.4F, G). Conversely, S- and N-specific T cells were readily detectable in hospitalized SARS-CoV-2 infected individuals or symptomatic convalescent individuals (Supplementary Fig. 3), while only 1 of 14 seronegative and 1 of the 16 pre-pandemic controls also possessed presumably cross-reactive T cells. Finally, while individuals with asymptomatic infection harbored low T cell numbers, a non-significant inverse trend was observed between symptom and T cell numbers, pointing to a potential role for T cells in disease attenuation
The study tracked a dozen symptoms, though as best I can tell does not provide a definition of “mild” in terms of this. However, it notes that most of the 120 “seroconverters” they tracked were asymptomatic. There didn’t appear to be much middle ground between asymptomatic and “bad enough to call it an illness”.