In case you hadn't heard, the Cleveland Clinic--consistently regarded as one of the top hospital systems in the United States and in the world--recently shared a study of 52,238 patients showing zero incremental benefit from the jab to the previously infected, recommending that "people who’ve had COVID-19 don’t need to get vaccinated."[2]
[1]https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01442-9
[2]https://www.healthline.com/health-news/new-study-determines-...
This study ended May 15, 2021, and it notes that:
>Lastly, it is necessary to emphasize that these findings are based on the prevailing assortment of virus variants in the community during the study. It is not known how well these results will hold if or when some of the newer variants of concern become prominent.
Another study found that, for people already seropositive for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies from a previous infection, getting the first dose of an mRNA vaccine increased antibody titers by two orders of magnitude on average [1] but that the 2nd dose had no effect on antibody titers.
[1] Florian Krammer, et al. "Antibody responses in seropositive persons after a single dose of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine." New England Journal of Medicine (2021). https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2101667
That's not what this says -- you're extrapolating that the vaccine somehow changed the immune response, when this letter is only providing data that people who already had Covid had a clear, ~immediate antibody response to vaccination. That's exactly what you expect to happen when immune people see an antigen for a second time.
In other words, the previously infected recipients already had a well-primed immune response. The vaccination isn't necessarily doing anything to increase the response -- it's just the expected reaction of an already-primed immune system, when it a bolus of antigens it already knows about is injected into the body:
> The antibody titers of vaccinees with preexisting immunity were 10 to 45 times as high as those of vaccinees without preexisting immunity at the same time points after the first vaccine dose (e.g., 25 times as high at 13 to 16 days) and also exceeded the median antibody titers measured in participants without preexisting immunity after the second vaccine dose by more than a factor of 6.
If anything, this letter (not a paper) provides further evidence that vaccination for the previously infected is not necessary.
"Individuals who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection are unlikely to benefit from COVID-19 vaccination, and vaccines can be safely prioritized to those who have not been infected before."
And from the body of the article:
"Experts say that more research is needed to determine how long immunity lasts after a case of COVID-19. Until we have that data, some infectious disease specialists are recommending that people who’ve had COVID-19 still get one dose."
And:
"Given the limited availability of the vaccines in certain countries, the findings add to the growing belief that the vaccines should be prioritized for those who haven’t previously had COVID-19."
Is 12 to 15 weeks (3-4 months) really "long lasting" antibody mediated immunity? I'm glad the antibodies still neutralize even gamma that long but 3-4 months is the timespan people were previously calling "short". Yes, T cell responses (the cells that kill infected cells) to sars-cov-2 epitopes last longer (not covered in this article) but this just seems to confirm the short coverage of b cell mediated antibodies.
It's perfectly normal for an antibody response to decay over time. We don't keep making antibodies in perpetuity for every antigen we've ever seen, or our blood would turn into peanut butter.
The B-cell and T-cell mediated responses to previous infection are also proving to be robust, and the B-cell response, in particular, primes the immune system for a rapid increase in antibody levels if the virus is encountered again.
Reinfection studies from a few months ago demonstrated that natural immunity is roughly 50% effective for people aged 65 or over. And that's the age group most likely to experience negative outcomes from covid-19, it's seems prudent to go ahead and recommend vaccinations for this age group, regardless of previous infection.
Then there's the elephant in the room: so few people have been tested that it really difficult to know who has had it. Anyone who has had a cold in the past 18 months is going to claim they had covid, regardless of whether they tested positive or not. It would be easier to vaccinate this group than it would be to perform a test for covid antibodies.
If covid hadn't become a political shit-show, I'd agree with you. But at this point, I think it's a little irresponsible to society to give anyone an out on getting vaccinated.
We have evidence that vaccination continue to provide broad-spectrum immunity while those naturally immune are e.g. still vulnerable to the Delta variant [1].
[1] https://directorsblog.nih.gov/2021/06/22/how-immunity-genera...
Also, generally speaking, people who caught COVID were contagious for a while, while vaccinated people aren't. So there's the social responsibility factor - if you have a lifestyle where you at all likely to be among people while contagious, getting vaccinated reduces risk for others.
Really, "naturally immune" would imply a pre-existing immunity to the infection.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-57640550
> “people who’ve had COVID-19 don’t need to get vaccinated.”
Having had Covid twice myself (different variants?), I don’t agree!
Resistance to SARS-CoV1 has lasted more than a decade. Coronaviruses mutates far less dramatically than influenza does.
Especially among young adults teenagers and children since they have yet to be vaccinated at scale.
Edit to add: 70% effective vs. 95%+ is a significant reduction.
Does the delta variant and others pose the same risks? Are we over responding to a virus family group?
> My understanding is variants of highly dangerous viruses rarely keep the high level of risk as the progenitors.
Even if that's a general trend that doesn't mean it's a rule. And the rationale "a dead host isn't as useful at spreading the virus" doesn't really apply to covid since only a small percentage gets hospitalized or dies, most infectees remain fit enough to spread it further.
The US has moved past isolation, its just not going to happen again, there is no political will for it. I fully support vaccination, I just don't support a police state asking to check our papers.
Seems clear we can, and do, forbid individuals from physically and financially harming the community by their ‘personal’ choices. It is their body and their right to do as they wish — perhaps only as long as it harms no others who have the right to be unharmed.
What problem does a domestic vaccine passport solve?
The same problem the Yellow Card [1] solves. Right now, I have a New York State electronic passport and a CDC paper proof of vaccination. The former works in New York City. The latter works across the U.S., at least now. (At least, it worked in San Francisco and Atlanta.) If I travel abroad, I may need to get the latter re-certified since it's trivial to forge and not independently verifiable. Having a single, authoritative document fixes all this and makes socializing and commerce more frictionless.
If we don't want to go into another lockdown when the Delta variant hits, we need to be able to isolate the vaccinated from the vulnerable. The former can continue mixing and mingling with reduced (though not zero) risk of causing a flare-up. The latter, I don't know, ideally they'd stay home but we know that won't happen.
What does that mean? Vaccination is not a political position in most other countries - it's just a policy goal at a national level.
The goal would be to give local governments and businesses an approved way to understand who has received the vaccine so they could open up safely.
A centralized database that is used to control individuals is akin to China's social credit system. I've actually started seeing people argue for China style systems, and I find it both frightening and sickening.
When I start to push back at all, I usually get arguments like `Leave the US if you don't like it.`, and sure I'll just pick up and leave the country I was born in, but beyond that where will I be able to go?
If I just want my own individual rights, where in the world will I be able to go if what is basically the last bastion of freedom and individualism is lost to tyrannical majority rule?
+: Let's be honest, driver's licenses are practically required and you attract extra scrutiny if you don't have one.
To be not aware of this on place like HackerNews is... not very believable, we discuss this all the time, every day.
"last bastion of freedom" - there are places like Switzerland which have more of freedom than any place in US. There is no power nor amount of the money in the world that would force me to move from here to police state like US where everybody talks about freedom but only top 0.1% enjoys some of it.
This might be hard to grasp, but it should be generally true also in US - your freedom ends where other's begins (ie transportation, coming to any work/office). With Covid, this is valid 1000x more. Freedom and anarchy are not the same as some hardliners would like to believe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Certificate_of_V...
Moreover, one of the first international certificate issued (1944) targetted Smallpox vaccinations and it's proliferation coincided with the booming air travel in the 1960's and 1970's. It is argued that the certificate was substantial towards preventing Smallpox from spreading in an age where endemic regions became only a few hours of flying away.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Sanitary_Convent... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Sanitary_Convent...
The United States signed and ratified the Convention back in 1945, essentially acknowledging that countries are able to require U.S. citizens to have a vaccine certificate.
While the Convention dates back 75 years, today's Yellow Card is the de facto standard for certifying that you have gotten shots at a border.
COVID-19 poses a challenge as this disease is highly infectious and crippling enough that preventing spread has become a far bigger global priority then other infectious diseases such as Yellow Fever. However, as of yet, a digital, secure, widely adopted solution that goes beyond the WHO's Yellow Card is still in the works. Several airlines and the IATA are working on their own travellers pass, but realistically, a trusted vaccination passport which is globally recognized requires an international treaty between nations governments. The world hasn't arrived at this point yet, and most countries still operate their own systems such as passenger locator forms or national passes issued to their own citizens.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccination_requirements_for_i...
https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/...
(I legitimately don't know and I am curious. I see the article does reference protection against a variant during a study, but it's unclear to me if that means all future variants as well.)
The reason we won't need yearly vaccinations as with the flu shots isn't a property of the mRNA vaccine, it's a property of COVID-19. The watered-down explanation is that this particular sort of virus simply doesn't mutate as much as the flu virus because it has a mechanism that prevents it. We do see variants, but they're actually quite similar so the same vaccine still works (thankfully).
It's also why we're talking about COVID "variants" and flu "strains". In this context, a different "strain" usually signifies different surface proteins, i.e., you need a different vaccine for it. I don't believe that we've seen a second COVID strain yet.
My guess would be that commenter doesn't provide any evidence to support his/her claim. (I didn't downvote it, BTW.)
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/15/pfizer-ceo-says-third-covid-...
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/22/covid-booster-shots-coronavi...
The news of this new study just came out today. Give the guy a break.
Moreover, Pfizer is partner of BioNTech, which developed the vaccine. I don’t understand why OP omits that and solely credits Pfizer.
Pfizer is easier to type than "Pfizer BioNTech" (there's 3 capital letters in that second word, 2 next to each other).
Laziness wins.
Edit: I should say I'm expecting to see that it was not impactful. Would still be nice to see papers on it.
They seem “unreasonably effective” against COVID, basically if you had a genie that you could ask to make a vaccine, it would be hard to do much better, other than the requirement for 2 jabs.
In addition, the mRNA technology has broad applicability to other issues such as other viruses (such as flu) and even cancer!
AFAIK not really. I know just about Sinovac and that was significantly worse efficacy than other vaccines. Note that adonovirusvector based vaccines like AstraZeneca one are not 'traditional vaccines' but also rather new tech.
Just like with mRNA; viral vector vaccines haven't been seen widespread use before COVID either. And the only attempts at an attenuated vaccine have been pretty ineffective as far as I know.
[1]: https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/immunization...
"Follow up earlier post. Here is moderna/pfizer/wild type spike. There is only 2 amino acids different from wild to vaccine. Same for both vaccines. The change forces the protein to look like it would when stuck to the outside of the virus, without needing the rest of the virus"
From Thought Emporium on twitter (cool biohacker with particular focus on genetic engineering, but amazing breadth into physical sciences as well - I highly recommend his youtube channel)
https://twitter.com/EmporiumThought/status/14081777241920675...
[1]: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.22.21257658v...
