How was the decision made to ignore immunity from prior infection? | Hacker News Reader

How was the decision made to ignore immunity from prior infection?

twitter.com

7 pointsJPKab6 comments

I've always understood this to have been made on assay grounds that the antibody count post-infection wasn't as usefully high or maintained.

as in this: https://academic.oup.com/cid/article-abstract/73/12/2366/616...

this quote from the abstract is what I think i was told: we recently reported that 61.1% of mild SARS-CoV-2 infected patients became seronegative for IgG anti-N within 6 months after first positive PCR [2]. Anti-spike (S) antibodies, in contrast, remained positive up to 7 months in an estimated 94% of participants.

It just doesn't last long enough to be counted as useful, compared to immunisation. If you think the 6month window has some efficacy at scale I guess you have a basis to disagree, and we'd be in the Linear Optimisation problem space. This is why I have always believed we needed O/R people to help determine why the decisions fall as they do.

That was never a scientifically valid reason. What matters is cellular immunity, not antibody levels.

https://peterattiamd.com/covid-part2/

NIH study from last week: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8824301/

CDC study from a few weeks ago (scroll down to the line graph in the paper, to see how completely misinformed the public has been): https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e1.htm

Additionally, the "antibody count" is completely ridiculous to use as the primary proxy for immunity. Anyone that knows how the immune system actually works can tell you this. Healthy humans have zero circulating antibodies for most of the viruses that they are already immune to. Otherwise the blood would be filled with them. Cells in the bone marrow are where immune memory resides, and the body manufactures circulating antibodies based on these memory cells.

Sorry, but this is just a bunch of bunk. Some of the claims here are verifiably wrong. Take a look at this linked Substack post from that thread [1], which claims "The real world data has shown that the death rate among the vaccinated, if infected with COVID, can be 3 to 5.7 times higher1 than the death rate of the unvaccinated" and provides a source [2] that directly contradicts it (ie Table 5). Many other claims are usual alarmist stuff such as making a huge deal out of side effects.

It is intriguing that a lot of high-level decisions were not made based on solid evidence, but this twitter thread also doesn't provide that.

[1] https://drrollergator.substack.com/p/damned-lies-and-vaccine... [2] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...

Maybe because we don’t get long-term immunity after infection from other coronaviruses.

I think this was studied and the results showed poor post-infection immunity. Not getting the result we’d like is not the same as ignoring.

same way the decision to ignore natural nutrition from organic source was priority of government, and its like minded allies...money!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com