https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v...
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7107e2.htm?s_cid=mm...
Natural immunity makes less for the spike, but more overall, both in breadth of type and total number.
Artificially limiting the count to one type of antibody is like claiming to be richer than Warren Buffet because you have more cash in your wallet than him in line at McDonalds, and ignoring the fact that your wallet contains your total net wealth.
Worse, the vaccinated samples were all gathered by mid-March 2021, and except for three people, all were gathered within 40 days of vaccination. But the median time from symptoms for those who were previously infected was over two hundred days.
This difference alone hopelessly confounds any stated conclusion, yet they've buried this essential information in the supplemental materials (ST1 & 2). This paper is bad.
The article merely says Thus, our data indicates that mRNA vaccination may generate more neutralizing RBD antibodies than natural immunity.
It makes no mention of how long it lasts. So, it is entirely possible that mRNA vaccine produce more antibodies but they diminish pretty quickly. While, an infection produces fewer antibodies, relatively speaking of course, but they last longer. Yes?
The EUA was approved because vaccine efficacy had been clearly demonstrated.
Could you point me to that?
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/health/uk-will-stay-in-lockd...
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-lockdo...
https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/coronavirus-lockdown-part-of...
https://www.fox35orlando.com/news/orange-county-residents-co...
And then the goalposts began to move: https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/joe-biden-now-says-ame...
None of them say that the lockdown will be lifted once a vaccine is available.
They say that the lockdowns will remain in place until a vaccine is available.
Those are not the same thing.
Both of us seem pretty dug in: you that goalposts were set and then moved; me that there was always a wait-and-see attitude. I need to move on with my day so I’m going to bow out now.
And now I’m really out. :)
(Like all communication…)
Also, see this comment [1] about the data. Horrendous paper, very manipulative.
Long term and durable disease immunity comes from B-cells and T-cells. They create antibodies when they run into an infection they've seen or even not seen before. Unfortunately those are difficult to measure.
Good recent podcast from Dr. Peter Attia discusses this (How B cells and T cells work together to defend against viruses [22:00])
Antibodies are antibodies. They're all subject to the same fundamental breakdown and clearance mechanisms in the body, and don't really "last longer" based on origin. There's a dosing effect (i.e. a big spike lingers longer than a small one), but the dynamics of the process don't change, so far as we know.
As an aside, all of these arguments based on antibody levels/neutralizing titer are extremely reductionist, and we have plenty of clinical data now that is better and more to the point. The immune system is more than antibodies. This debate is pretty facile.
It's perhaps interesting to talk about neutralizing ability of antibodies "natural" vs. "vaccine" if you're interested in making a better vaccine, but even then, there are so many versions of "natural" immunity that any general discussion is pointless. Everyone has a different antibody response, and moreover, antibodies are targeted to whatever variant(s) you've seen in the past. Meanwhile, there's exactly one vaccine variant. Broad comparisons are almost impossible.
You can't even say simply that one vaccine is better or worse or than another because now you have to say better or worse at what exactly.
Additionally, this study isn't looking at any other aspect of our immune system, only antibody levels. We already know antibodies aren't the end-all-be-all of immunity. It also isn't differentiating between IgG, IgM, or IgA antibodies. If you want to prevent infection, you'll need IgA antibodies and the mRNA vaccines are incapable of producing any of those.