> 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.
Note also...
> evidence of waning natural immunity was demonstrated,
they didn't compare against 2 dose vaccinated, presumably because of lack of data.
https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0806-vaccination-pr...
Vaccination induced immunity levels were sufficient, but now that natural immunity levels are higher, that's not good enough?
Since I've been told over and over that the vaccine reduces the severity of breakthrough infections, shouldn't we also demand vaccinated people intentionally catch covid and quarantine, since that will also boost their immunity and prevent public spread?
Where's the study that shows breakthrough cases are any greater of a risk than vaccine side-effects?
And if the risks are comparable, why wouldn't it be reasonable to demand vaccinated individuals intentionally catch the virus to also boost their immunity?
If anything comes from this particular pandemic I'm hoping that one of them is that we need to be honest and transparent about risk/benefit and knowns/unknowns rather that try to brush the long tails under the rug as if they don't exist.
If you have a risk of autoimmune disorders because of genes or other factors you would weight it against other factors.
Maybe you have left the house 4 times in the last year and you have an autoimmune worries perhaps avoiding the vaccine makes sense. Your risk rises wheb even going to the place to get the vaccine.
Everyone wants one piece of advice to fit everyone. Everyone is different.
If you get the vaccine and go out three times to every one time an unvaccinated person goes out you both have the same risk profile. If you go out 4 times you are more likely to catch it.
If you really want to stop this, stay at home unless you must go out. The vaccine adds 3x the protection.. not 10x or 100x
One has to weigh the guaranteed exposure to risks of the vaccine, which currently appear to be extremely low but not zero, versus the less certain exposure to the demonstrably greater short term and long-term risks of a covid infection.
Ultimately that wasn’t my point, my main point is that transparency and humility in communication will likely create less of a backlash than what we are seeing today.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2109072
In breakthrough cases where the individual has a high viral load and typical COVID symptoms (shortness of breath, fatigue, etc.) it's not unreasonable to assume that the person might suffer from the same course of illness as an unvaccinated person. While the vaccines clearly reduce the incidence of hospitalization and death, there are people whose breakthrough cases aren't exactly what the average person would call "mild".
As of 2021, we do not have long term (e.g. five years) data on either vaccines or Covid.
> ... to evaluate the occurrence of myocarditis and pericarditis following administration of COMIRNATY ... substudy to describe the natural history of myocarditis and pericarditis following administration of COMIRNATY ... prospective cohort study with at least 5 years of follow-up for potential long-term sequelae of myocarditis after vaccination
Vaccine injuries are rare but nonzero. A German pathologist has been performing autopsies, https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https...
> The doctor now wants to get to the bottom of rare, serious side effects of the vaccination - such as cerebral vein thrombosis or autoimmune diseases. The problem from his point of view: Vaccinated people usually do not die under clinical observation ... More than 40 people have already been autopsied who died within two weeks of being vaccinated. Schirmacher estimates that 30 to 40 percent of them died from the vaccination. In his opinion, the frequency of fatal consequences of vaccinations is underestimated
Self-reported VAERS lists 5,000+ US deaths after [does not imply causality] Covid vaccination, but such reports are much less informative than tissue samples from an expensive autopsy. Note that if someone develops Covid or dies within two weeks of being vaccinated, CDC statistics categorize that person as unvaccinated. It would be more accurate to create a new U.S. reporting category for those who are partly vaccinated.
> For the purpose of this surveillance, a vaccine breakthrough infection is defined as the detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA or antigen in a respiratory specimen collected from a person ≥14 days after they have completed all recommended doses of a U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-authorized COVID-19 vaccine.
Redline changes were made in April 2021, https://www.cms.gov/files/document/qso-20-38-nh.pdf
> Fully vaccinated” refers to a person who is ≥2 weeks following receipt of the second dose in a 2-dose series, or ≥2 weeks following receipt of one dose of a single-dose vaccine. “Unvaccinated” refers to a person who does not fit the definition of “fully vaccinated,” including people whose vaccination status is not known, for the purposes of this guidance
That might not be an excuse to not get vaccinated, but it's absolutely a reason that individuals with natural immunity should not be treated any worse or differently than vaccinated individuals.
Regardless of whether vaccination improves on extant natural immunity.
And based on what we know about sars-1 and mers, that's not necessarily a safe assumption. For cases of repeated exposure and vaccination over time, the problems with those vaccine attempts were primarily over-stimulating an immune response.
this is not evidence of waning immunity this is evidence of efficiency and conservation of function
the presence of antibodies has been used as an indicator that vaccination produces an immune response, unfortunately far too many people have conflated reduction of this antibody titre over time as a reduction of immunity, when it is a modality of immunity.
antibody titre is a better indicator of prophylactic efficacy than immune status.
unfortunately it is very inconveinient to work with T cells and B cells as a measure of intensity of immune response.
this however can be inferred by observation of changes in antibody titre following infections/challenges subsequent to reduction of post innocual antibody titre
https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/coronavi...
I assume they are tracking how long their test detects T cells in subjects who had confirmed infections and hope they will provide public updates on this more frequently because "up to 5 months" is of limited value to people like me who were interested in knowing if they had the virus back in the earliest days of the pandemic.
this should not be taken casually, and perturberance of memory immunity should it occur would be a variant profile of high concern.
So someone could (in theory) get the vaccine, have tons of antibodies 6 weeks later, then have greatly reduced antibodies and it doesn’t tell us anything about whether or how much immunity that person will have if they’re infected?
This is literally how the Adaptive immune system works.
Initial adaptive response, production of IgM, Vdj recombination, class switching and global proliferation (especially in the face of a repeated antigen insult), followed by a tone down of B cells as the memory effect is preserved and the antibody titre falls back (antibodies have a half life of 3-4 weeks).
Because (at least currently) the antibody response in humans is non-sterilising (talk of boosters to generate IgA abound, along with a more specific Delta variant vaccine may change this) you can’t equate a titre in humans yet with a ‘level’ of immunity
Having lots of antibodies when exposed can maybe prevent infection or lessen severity, so it isn't a complete non-concern that they fade.
the durability of immunity may be inferred by observing the increased response to challenge over points in time.
1. Two-dose vaccinated 2. Previously infected and not vaccinated 3. Previously infected and single-dose vaccinated
Clearly, you want natural immunity if you can get it safely, which is a big question. It still makes sense to get vaccinated for most adults. You can always get your natural immunity through a break-through infection, which you'll ride out more easily having been vaccinated.
There’s got to be a point where we say, it’s “good enough” to not warrant exposure to 50 Billion copies of mRNA.
0. Less exposure to spike proteins the better: in all cases the less one is exposed to novel, man made stimuli into intimate bodily functions (read less than 1000 years of human existence) the better. And a counter point to the benefit of modern medicine… many still die in their sleep, if one is exceedingly lucky and very healthy, then they will have no need for the man made interventions.
1. Inadvertent intravenous injection: lack of properly aspirated needles can potentially send a majority of the mRNA into a vein, producing complications. This is my hypothesis for the wide range in side effects
2. Faulty Fatty Anchors: it is claimed that the lipid anchor keeps the spike protein in a safe state. Potentially this is not true and potentially when your body attacks the vaccine the protein is set free due to incomplete distraction
There are quite a few others, but these I’ve found to be the most compelling.
These and the others I will reserve unless anyone is curios.. these all require much more observation than a few years to complete.