Let's just say it was "on par" with a vaccine for the sake of argument, even if it is suggested it might be better/work more broadly. Is there a scientific reason, as opposed to political, why this would not exempt one from a mandated vaccine?
Equating antibody presence to be the same as having been vaccinated would give health officials a much more accurate view of the pandemic and where resources need to be allocated instead of this odd ideologically driven need to demand conformity from everyone even if they already have immunity that appears to be an order of magnitude more durable than the jab. It makes clear that this is almost entirely about a pathological need to round off all the corners in the world and almost nothing at all about fighting the pandemic itself. But what a wonderful opportunity this pandemic has been for the authoritarian types. For them, this truly is the golden age and should be extended for as long as possible.
There have been over 45 million laboratory-confirmed COVID cases in the US. Basically all of these people can easily prove that they were infected and recovered by showing a copy of their positive result.
For those who believe they had a past infection that wasn't lab-confirmed, antibody testing costs around $50[1].
I'm sure some people will say "but lab results can easily be faked!", which is true. But the CDC cards for the vaccines aren't exactly forgery-proof either.
> AFAIK it's more of an issue of ensuring public safety...
To protect the vaccinated from the unvaccinated? And how? Vaccinated individuals can get breakthrough infections and spread the virus to others too. And you could make the argument that some vaccinated individuals, overconfident in the protection they have, will engage in riskier behavior (having close contact with others, not wearing masks, visiting poorly-ventilated indoor spaces, etc.).
[1] https://www.labcorp.com/coronavirus-disease-covid-19/individ...
However, for people who see the world through a lens that paints all public health policy with the brush of partisan politics, the distinction may be difficult to grasp.
I think you are missing the largest discriminator.
The US Vaccines[1], and the related vaccines, are highly limited resistance specific to a spike protein only, perhaps with boosters, to a number of spikes seen. Total = 1, perhaps 2 if it includes a delta variant spike booster also.
Natural immunity confers with it resistance to a number of different covid-19 viral proteins, not just the spike. We know Covid-19 has 29 proteins
Now, we know that researchers saw these antibodies, as they were the ones that said, "all these antibodies could be the target of future vaccines", and the idea is there. However, we don't know the exactly count of antibodies to all these viral proteins, we just know of their existence from research. [2]
But, to compare the strength of natural immunity to a vaccine is to fail at elementary math.
However, I am not saying that people at a high risk from age, comorbidities, or both, should not take the vaccine. That is their own decision. On the other hand, the vast majority of the research indicates that natural immunity actually provides superior immunity from a breadth perspective, since a legacy vaccine protection is comparatively challenged against a mutated spike.
[1] This is not true for all vaccines, merely "spike" vaccines. So, it wouldn't apply to an attenuated viral vaccine. However, attenuated vaccines do not prompt as strong an immune response.
This is a non-sequitur.
These vaccines are leaky & non-sterilizing; these are not remotely comparable to the vaccines we have had throughout most of our normal lives that grant something like 99.99999% protection with minimal side effects. I'm saying that as someone as who has had a number of vaccines during my life - I am not an antivaxx.
However, these vaccines are not comparable.
If you want to talk about how much better natural immunity is than vaccines, there are plenty of subthreads in these comments where your contributions--while possibly controversial--would not be completely irrelevant. But this is not one of those subthreads. I have not expressed an opinion on that matter and I have no intention of doing so in this particular context.
"Antivaxx" in today's context has nothing to do with whether you've ever accepted a vaccine in your life, and everything to do with whether you reject COVID vaccines. In fact, that's as much the meaning as anything: that people who were previously OK with vaccines (including the regimen of sometimes experimental vaccines required by the military) are somehow now vociferously opposed to COVID vaccines.
And, on that measure, even a cursory glance at your recent comment history reveals that you are unequivocally antivaxx.
My vaccine record says otherwise.
"You are, apparently, not even making a token effort to understand my comments"
That is actually an insult. Please refrain from insulting me.
I am not antivaxx. I am pro-vaccine, and as a veteran I am actually quite immunized. Heavily immunized in fact. Far more so than most of the civilian population.
However, this is a question of an unlike comparison.
I am vaccine hesistant in this case.
Thanks for prompting this clarification.
Nope. You voluntarily made the claim that you were "not antivaxx". I merely clarified for you that your previous acceptance of other vaccines has nothing to do with the definition of "antivaxx" in today's COVID context.
You are clearly anti-COVID vaccines, as indicated by a number of your comments here. That makes your assertion that you are "not antivaxx" untrue in any contemporary discussion.
Relentlessly searching for ways to discredit COVID vaccines and spreading FUD are not mere "hesitance".
If you find the plain identification of your own behavior "insulting", then I would offer that you consider not engaging in that behavior.
> Relentlessly searching for ways to discredit COVID vaccines and spreading FUD are not mere "hesitance".
Critical skepticism is an important element of science.
Do No Harm is a key part of the Hippocratic Oath
Just like Informed Consent with Medical Ethics.
> Informed consent is the process in which a health care provider educates a patient about the risks, benefits, and alternatives of a given procedure or intervention. The patient must be competent to make a voluntary decision about whether to undergo the procedure or intervention. Informed consent is both an ethical and legal obligation of medical practitioners in the US and originates from the patient's right to direct what happens to their body. Implicit in providing informed consent is an assessment of the patient's understanding, rendering an actual recommendation, and documentation of the process. The Joint Commission requires documentation of all the elements of informed consent "in a form, progress notes or elsewhere in the record." The following are the required elements for documentation of the informed consent discussion: (1) the nature of the procedure, (2) the risks and benefits and the procedure, (3) reasonable alternatives, (4) risks and benefits of alternatives, and (5) assessment of the patient's understanding of elements 1 through 4.
[1]
> It is the obligation of the provider to make it clear that the patient is participating in the decision-making process and avoid making the patient feel forced to agree to with the provider. The provider must make a recommendation and provide their reasoning for said recommendation
[1]
Maybe you're not familiar with the contemporary meaning of the phrase, but it perfectly encapsulates your behavior here and throughout HN.
Antivaxx is a syndrome. Some tell-tale symptoms are:
1) a scattershot litany of objections based on vague pseudo-scientific conclusions, cherry-picked de-contextualized data, and deployment of hypotheticals that, in total, amount to FUD;
2) Antivaxx denialism: that is, retreating to a position of nuanced skepticism when called on their clearly manic anti-vaccine FUD tactics, "hey, I'm just cautious/hesitant/skeptical".
3) an effort to characterize COVID vaccines as somehow nefarious or "illegitimate" versus previous vaccines because they seek primarily to prevent serious disease;
4) a relentless emphasis on natural immunity as superior to vaccines;
5) and the dispositive test that is perhaps the gold standard for an antivaxx diagnosis: deploying a range of pseudo-ethical arguments that seek to paint COVID vaccines or their advocacy as somehow immoral. This is usually deployed via vague rantings that, say, inexplicably invoke the Hippocratic Oath.
There's a continuum here. I guess we might say that at one end is blindly trusting whatever you're told, and at the other end is skepticism to the point of divergent irrationality, e.g. believing the Earth is hollow because you haven't personally been to the North Pole to check for a big hole leading to Inner Earth (where the meat goes on the outside of the sandwich). Of course, satellite imagery is all doctored to cover up the truth.
Interestingly, those extremes seem to curve back toward each other.
Skepticism is important, but it can be taken to harmful extremes, and it's important to examine "skeptical" impulses to make sure that's actually what they are. When you find yourself clinging to a "skeptical" position as evidence to the contrary continues to mount, squeezed into an ever-tinier corner of what-ifs and statistical improbabilities--or just cherry-picking data and presenting it out of context to rationalize your position--you have to know when to throw in the towel.
---
The above is presented as a reply to your comment about critical skepticism being important, because I think that's a line that's often used to defend irrational positions, often to the point of doing real harm when it's deployed in the public discourse. But I am not talking specifically about COVID or anything to do with it, so--again--please don't imagine that I've made any substantive statement wrt. the efficacy and/or risk profile of COVID vaccines, because I haven't.
I am personally closer to the antivax group than the provax group( at least in terms of mandates, because abrogation of bodily autonomy is straight up evil ), but I have to take issue with this statement.
While you are probably correct, we need to worry about biomechanics and effectiveness. If the S protein is the specific means of entry, that's definitely the one we should target. There's no reason to target proteins that don't actually bind to anything.
There are other issues regarding what are the limits to the memory of our circulating B cells. If my immune system has to "swap out" memory of, say, polio, in order to accommodate antibodies to eight different viral proteins, I'd rather it only remember one, if it's just as effective.
This is bogus. A broad spectrum of immune response develops through mutation and maturation of B cells. This is why we see broad neutralizing activity-- even against Delta without a Delta-specific booster-- against all variants from vaccination.
First of all, taking the vaccine is not political. What is political is the contrarian stance against vaccinating against COVID-19. This sad state of affairs was the direct result of an election campaign which was deeply invested in denying that COVID-19 was a public health concern, or even that it existed at all, and thus recognizing the vaccine's importance and effectiveness was deemed a sign of a political defeat and admission of responsibility for countless unnecessary deaths.
Secondly, natural immunity against COVID-19 is not a sure thing, with the risk of reinfection being as high as 17%, and subsequent infections are known to be more severe than the first[1]. In contrast, immunity through vaccination is believed to be not only more effective but also last longer[2].
Consequently, there is absolutely no reason at all, other than political beliefs, to refuse to get the vaccine.
[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-01202-8
[2] https://www.immunology.org/coronavirus/connect-coronavirus-p...
> This sad state of affairs was the direct result of an election campaign which was deeply invested in denying that COVID-19 was a public health concern, or even that it existed at all, and thus recognizing the vaccine's importance and effectiveness was deemed a sign of a political defeat and admission of responsibility for countless unnecessary deaths.
You seem to be implying that the former president, whose administration helped fund the vaccine development, was responsible for all of the anti-vaxxer sentiment. Even as someone who is very happy Trump is gone, I must say this type of dishonesty has no place in a civil discourse about vaccination.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/mar/04/rachel-mad...
> ...and subsequent infections are known to be more severe than the first
You have conveniently misconstrued what your own citation says:
> Reinfections have been reported, and in a few instances, the second infection was more severe than the first, but serological responses suggest that patients never seroconverted after initial infection and ADE is a less likely cause of a more severe second infection
Some people don't seroconvert after vaccination either. Using outliers to make broad claims is not appropriate.
> ...immunity through vaccination is believed to be not only more effective but also last longer.
Linking to an infographic that doesn't provide citations for its statements isn't exactly convincing, especially when there is evidence that what is claimed might not be accurate. For example see, https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v...
Conclusion:
> 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. 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.
Can you point out an example of any country that exempts those who were already infected with COVID from taking the vaccine? As far as I can tell, no European country does anything of the sort, neither does the US and definitely not Canada, and a quick Google search returns no search hit.
This data is pretty easy to find. One tip is to look at the requirements of vaccine certificates in use in Europe. Modern life is all about knowing which keywords to search for.
In the Swiss system, if you have a positive antibody test from a previous infection, you get a certificate for 180 days. Then you need another test. As long as you have antibodies detectable by the PCR test, you will have a certificate for the next 180 days. No vaccine needed. If you have covid, odds are you will have antibodies for the rest of your life[1].
https://www.bag.admin.ch/bag/en/home/krankheiten/ausbrueche-...
The EU covid certificate is given along similar lines as the Swiss. You need either have a vaccine, have a PCR that detects antibodies (180 day validity), or received a negative test (72 hour validity). You can find details here:
https://ec.europa.eu/info/live-work-travel-eu/coronavirus-re...
Actually, it isn't because your claim goes against pretty much all the information made available. Thus, the onus to substantiate your extraordinary claim is on you, specially because the odds that you've misunderstood or misrepresented your assertion are quite high.
> In the Swiss system, if you have a positive antibody test from a previous infection, you get a certificate for 180 days.
And here lies your mistake. Contrary to the original claim, Switzerland absolutely does not classify people who gained immunity from exposure the same as vaccinated. At all. If you take the time to read your own source, you'll notice that a) Switzerland supports both vaccine passports and certificate of prior infection, which are entirely different classifications, b) those who decide to only present a certificate of prior infection are forced to go through additional checks such as mandatory PCR tests prior to travel and after arriving, c) this only limited to international travel.
> The EU covid certificate is given along similar lines as the Swiss.
If you read up on the EU's COVID certificate you'll find out that the EU imposes high requirements for the certificate, such as not accepting PCR tests as proof of a prior COVID infection. Also, the same EU requires that those who were verifiably infected with COVID take at least a single vaccination dose to be deemed fully vaccinated.
Yes, like I pointed out, you need a PCR test every 180 days to get the certificate. But it's the same certificate as if you had a vaccine with the same access rights. That means that no, you don't need to get a vaccine as long as you got the disease (it's extremely unlike no antibodies will be detected if you were truly infected and recovered, but if you were diagnosed with a false positive, then no, a PCR test wont detect antibodies).
And expect to be required to get regular boosters on the vaccine side as well, so everyone will need to go through a process to keep the certificate, it does not last forever.
You should read your own source. Even though the swiss COVID certificate applies to those who "have had a COVID-19 vaccination, have had and recovered from the disease or have tested negative", neither case is treated the same at all. You already admitted that by referring to the additional requirements for those who did not took the vaccine, such as a series of mandatory tests.
[1] https://www.bag.admin.ch/bag/en/home/krankheiten/ausbrueche-...
Honestly there is a lot of bluster and emotion in your responses, and I'm having a hard time extracting signal from noise. Lots of people in the EU who had covid are doing just fine with getting biannual PCR tests and don't need to get a vaccine as they can get the covid certificate and have access to the same things as someone with a vaccine.
Please read your own source, particularly the section on "I am not vaccinated or recently recovered from COVID-19. What should I bear in mind?". They are quite clear in stating the additional requirements for continuous testing, both before and after entering Switzerland.
Fully vaccinated travellers do not have to deal with nothing of the sort.
Don't you agree that imposing entirely different sets of requirements to those who are not vaccinated demonstrates that vaccinated and non-vaccinated but recovered from Covid is a clear indication that both cases are indeed not classified, and treated, the same?
By reading the wrong section, you've come to the wrong conclusion as to how the recovered are treated.
More than 80% of Americans have coronavirus antibodies acquired through infection or vaccination, according to a new study of over 1.4 million blood donations across the U.S. https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article25398704...
And as reported on by Bloomberg and other media, the antibodies from past infection confer protection equal to or greater than Pfizer.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-08-27/previous-...
"Previous Covid Prevents Delta Infection Better Than Pfizer Shot"
And those are slated to last for decades. Source:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01442-9
"Had COVID? You’ll probably make antibodies for a lifetime"
On the exact terms given to us by Fauci and other public servants, there is no more reason for these covid mandates to exist. Not from a scientific point of view based on these links.
Why are some hospital systems still overwhelmed? Where are all these very sick people coming from if almost everyone has been in contact with the virus?