- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Not Enough Research of the Protection Levels of Natural Immunity of Infection
Posted on 8/16/21 at 1:22 pm to tigeraddict
Posted on 8/16/21 at 1:22 pm to tigeraddict
quote:
Also go look at the axle and Clinic study. Said natural immunity was slightly higher (within margin of error) the vaccine immunity
Having a hard time with the google machine finding this. Any help would be appreciated.
0
Posted on 8/16/21 at 1:50 pm to STEVED00
This is not exactly what you're looking for, but the CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report recently reported a study out of Kentucky addressing whether getting vaccinated after having had covid provides extra protection from a second infection. They found:
See https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/pdfs/mm7032e1-H.pdf. You can download a PDF of the study from that page.
quote:
Although laboratory evidence suggests that antibody responses following COVID-19 vaccination provide better neutralization of some circulating variants than does natural infection (1,2), few real-world epidemiologic studies exist to support the benefit of vaccination for previously infected persons. This report details the findings of a case-control evaluation of the association between vaccination and SARS-CoV-2 reinfection in Kentucky during May–June 2021 among persons previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 in 2020. Kentucky residents who were not vaccinated had 2.34 times the odds of reinfection compared with those who were fully vaccinated (odds ratio [OR] = 2.34; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.58–3.47). These findings suggest that among persons with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, full vaccination provides additional protection against reinfection.
See https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/pdfs/mm7032e1-H.pdf. You can download a PDF of the study from that page.
Posted on 8/16/21 at 1:58 pm to STEVED00
quote:
The medical community can give an efficacy value for each type of vaccine for both preventing serious illness and preventing infection of varies strains
In fairness, this is an experiment they can “control,” whereas the natural immunity thing is not/would be far more difficult.
Posted on 8/16/21 at 2:06 pm to TU Rob
quote:
And now that Delta and other variants are affecting kids
But are they? Check out the huge summer spike of RSV, it was as larger/larger than the winter breakout, then tell me about kids in the hospital with CoviD.
Also, the CDC was estimating months back that somewhere in the neighborhood of 40% of school-aged children had already been infected. Guess those precautions did well...
This post was edited on 8/16/21 at 2:07 pm
Posted on 8/16/21 at 3:07 pm to STEVED00
Has this already been posted? No point vaccinating those who’ve had COVID-19: Cleveland Clinic study suggests
Posted on 8/16/21 at 3:12 pm to STEVED00
Corruption is the simple answer. The smart ones know what natural immunity exists, but they are paid off to ignore it.
Posted on 8/16/21 at 4:29 pm to STEVED00
I read a study last week about the effectiveness of vaccines vs the Delta variant, they included natural immunity. Their conclusions: 1 shot = no real efficacy, 2 shots give around equal resistance as natural immunity.
Of course this all means jack squat as the real issue (at least to me) is long-term impacts. We can't know about issues which may arise in 5-7 years because the vaccines haven't even existed for 2 years yet (although they are in well over 100M people in the US alone).
Of course this all means jack squat as the real issue (at least to me) is long-term impacts. We can't know about issues which may arise in 5-7 years because the vaccines haven't even existed for 2 years yet (although they are in well over 100M people in the US alone).
Posted on 8/16/21 at 5:10 pm to Bard
Lafayette general posted a psa from one of their doctors saying that the problem with natural infection is that everyone receives a different amount of antibodies based on the severity of the infection. If you had a very minor infection over a year ago, chances are that your immunity isn’t that great. I had a cousin who had Covid about 13 months ago and it was super mild (just lost taste and smell and a very low fever) she got an antibody test before going back to college last August and don’t have any antibodies. However, I bet someone who had a pretty rough go of it with Covid probably had antibodies that lasted a lot longer.
Posted on 8/16/21 at 5:12 pm to STEVED00
Awesome! Another Covid thread in the OT!
Posted on 8/16/21 at 5:16 pm to PentagonTiger
quote:
Lafayette general posted a psa from one of their doctors saying that the problem with natural infection is that everyone receives a different amount of antibodies based on the severity of the infection. If you had a very minor infection over a year ago, chances are that your immunity isn’t that great. I had a cousin who had Covid about 13 months ago and it was super mild (just lost taste and smell and a very low fever) she got an antibody test before going back to college last August and don’t have any antibodies. However, I bet someone who had a pretty rough go of it with Covid probably had antibodies that lasted a lot longer.
Are antibodies the end all be all? I hear people talking about something called T Cells. What I that all about?
Posted on 8/16/21 at 6:29 pm to STEVED00
An MD's sister in law self treated with HCQ and zinc well in 5 days. 65+, very obese, DIABETES, hypertension. T Cell assay shows she has plenty of B & T cells to make enough antibodies for covid. Yes it is scientifically known about natural immunity being as good if not better
Anyone who thinks just an antibody assay is good enough well, they will be gone in 6 months or so.
Anyone who thinks just an antibody assay is good enough well, they will be gone in 6 months or so.
Posted on 8/16/21 at 7:12 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
Frankly, for this sort of virus, robust and long standing resistance for future infections is sort of presumed until data suggests otherwise.
I want to say that's the harmless answer as to why no research, but the realist in me knows it is because there is literally no money in such research.
Whether or not there is an incentive to study the effectiveness of the immunity granted by actually having the virus, there is a bigger problem on how exactly that would be studied. With the vaccine, the exact dose is known and its efficacy can be determined based upon whether those who receive it test positive and then the viral load can be determined. The control group and test groups are well known including all of the numbers, ages, health status and other demographic data.
With the virus being out in the wild and only having a positive or negative test result that may or may not show current or earlier exposure, dose, or even whether the person testing positive has already been exposed and to which variant etc., not to mention the lack of any control group, trying to figure out how effective natural immunity is just isn't the same animal as studying a vaccine.
Posted on 8/16/21 at 7:18 pm to STEVED00
quote:
The govt can literally print $ to have a study performed.
Actually “printing money” is the exact opposite of “literal”. They don’t expand the money supply by printing money any more.
Posted on 8/16/21 at 7:58 pm to Penrod
Ok man. The govt just passed a trillion dollar Covid bill. If they wanted to throw a few buck at this then they totally could’ve.
Posted on 8/16/21 at 8:05 pm to tigeraddict
quote:
Also go look at the axle and Clinic study
Link?
Posted on 8/16/21 at 8:13 pm to STEVED00
It doesn’t fit the narrative. The only thing that can save you is the government.
One problem, nature knows better. Natural immunity is approximately 7.5 times more effective than vaccines. Isreal took the time and did the study.
Natural immunity is immunity to the whole virus, vaccines only target a piece of the virus.
Anyone that wants you to believe a paper mask can protect you should never be believed.
Listen and pay attention, they are not hiding their lies, they’re just waving a shiny object in the other hand.
One problem, nature knows better. Natural immunity is approximately 7.5 times more effective than vaccines. Isreal took the time and did the study.
Natural immunity is immunity to the whole virus, vaccines only target a piece of the virus.
Anyone that wants you to believe a paper mask can protect you should never be believed.
Listen and pay attention, they are not hiding their lies, they’re just waving a shiny object in the other hand.
Posted on 8/16/21 at 8:46 pm to K E V 8 4
quote:
Has this already been posted? No point vaccinating those who’ve had COVID-19: Cleveland Clinic study suggests
That Cleveland Clinic study was prior to the Delta variant. It seems likely that natural immunity was better than vaccination before Delta. Perhaps it’s not anymore. But I have not seen a study yet that shows it.
Posted on 8/16/21 at 8:58 pm to Penrod
quote:
That Cleveland Clinic study was prior to the Delta variant. It seems likely that natural immunity was better than vaccination before Delta. Perhaps it’s not anymore. But I have not seen a study yet that shows it.
Outside of the Moderna, the other 2 vaccines did not fare all that well in preventing infection. The recent data from Israel implies that natural immunity far surpassed all the vaccines.
Posted on 8/16/21 at 9:10 pm to NOLATiger163
That’s a great study you chose to link.
quote:
The findings in this report are subject to at least five limitations.
First, reinfection was not confirmed through whole genome sequencing, which would be necessary to definitively prove that the reinfection was caused from a distinct virus relative to the first infection. Although in some cases the repeat positive test could be indicative of prolonged viral shedding or failure to clear the initial viral infection (9), given the time between initial and subsequent positive molecular tests among participants in this study, reinfection is the most likely explanation.
Second, persons who have been vaccinated are possibly less likely to get tested. Therefore, the association of reinfection and lack of vaccination might be overestimated.
Third, vaccine doses administered at federal or out-of-state sites are not typically entered in KYIR, so vaccination data are possibly missing for some persons in these analyses. In addition, inconsistencies in name and date of birth between KYIR and NEDSS might limit ability to match the two databases. Because case investigations include questions regarding vaccination, and KYIR might be updated during the case investigation process, vaccination data might be more likely to be missing for controls. Thus, the OR might be even more favorable for vaccination.
Fourth, although case-patients and controls were matched based on age, sex, and date of initial infection, other unknown confounders might be present.
Finally, this is a retrospective study design using data from a single state during a 2-month period; therefore, these findings cannot be used to infer causation. Additional prospective studies with larger populations are warranted to support these findings.
quote:
The findings in this report are subject to at least five limitations.
First, reinfection was not confirmed through whole genome sequencing, which would be necessary to definitively prove that the reinfection was caused from a distinct virus relative to the first infection. Although in some cases the repeat positive test could be indicative of prolonged viral shedding or failure to clear the initial viral infection (9), given the time between initial and subsequent positive molecular tests among participants in this study, reinfection is the most likely explanation.
Second, persons who have been vaccinated are possibly less likely to get tested. Therefore, the association of reinfection and lack of vaccination might be overestimated.
Third, vaccine doses administered at federal or out-of-state sites are not typically entered in KYIR, so vaccination data are possibly missing for some persons in these analyses. In addition, inconsistencies in name and date of birth between KYIR and NEDSS might limit ability to match the two databases. Because case investigations include questions regarding vaccination, and KYIR might be updated during the case investigation process, vaccination data might be more likely to be missing for controls. Thus, the OR might be even more favorable for vaccination.
Fourth, although case-patients and controls were matched based on age, sex, and date of initial infection, other unknown confounders might be present.
Finally, this is a retrospective study design using data from a single state during a 2-month period; therefore, these findings cannot be used to infer causation. Additional prospective studies with larger populations are warranted to support these findings.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News