. . . curious as to whether there's any data about how long Covid-related antibodies survive vs. vaccine antibodies. Anyone know?
The continuation of Eve's embedded report
- Thread starter cec1
- Start date
. . . curious as to whether there's any data about how long Covid-related antibodies survive vs. vaccine antibodies. Anyone know?
Izzy
Senior Insider
Re: A few observations from embedded reporter
When considering this in the context of your prior question, keep in mind that asymptomatic spread from someone with antibodies can still be a concern.
Development of antibodies after vaccination has been more predictable than after infection.
Nearly 100% seroconversion following vaccination has been shown in studies such as this and this (various conditions lower this likelihood, some markedly).
A recent study that reported that antibodies did not develop in 36% of COVID cases of differing severities and this study that reported seroconversion in nearly all cases of mild and moderate disease indicate the extremes of what has been observed following infection.
Because natural infection produces antibodies to not just the S protein used for vaccines and because there are additional components of the immune system, the question of vaccine vs. natural immunity does not end here.
Advocates of vaccination for those with prior infection cite this recent study showing that those who have had COVID and are not vaccinated are more than twice as likely than those who are fully vaccinated to be reinfected. Conversely this study reports stronger and more durable protection from natural immunity than vaccination (although it also provided support for single dose mRNA vaccination to augment natural immunity).
When considering this in the context of your prior question, keep in mind that asymptomatic spread from someone with antibodies can still be a concern.
Development of antibodies after vaccination has been more predictable than after infection.
Nearly 100% seroconversion following vaccination has been shown in studies such as this and this (various conditions lower this likelihood, some markedly).
A recent study that reported that antibodies did not develop in 36% of COVID cases of differing severities and this study that reported seroconversion in nearly all cases of mild and moderate disease indicate the extremes of what has been observed following infection.
Because natural infection produces antibodies to not just the S protein used for vaccines and because there are additional components of the immune system, the question of vaccine vs. natural immunity does not end here.
Advocates of vaccination for those with prior infection cite this recent study showing that those who have had COVID and are not vaccinated are more than twice as likely than those who are fully vaccinated to be reinfected. Conversely this study reports stronger and more durable protection from natural immunity than vaccination (although it also provided support for single dose mRNA vaccination to augment natural immunity).
debd
Senior Insider
andynap
Senior Insider
Re: A few observations from embedded reporter
Read Izzy above. She can become reinfected easier than having the vaccination.
JEK
Senior Insider
Re: A few observations from embedded reporter
Yes, Izzy knows best. Even some very public figures who were infected went on to receive the vaccine.
Yes, Izzy knows best. Even some very public figures who were infected went on to receive the vaccine.
Happycamper
SBH Insider
Re: A few observations from embedded reporter
These papers say the opposite Andy. The papers say that among people who have all been infected, those who are also vaccinated are half as likely to get re-infected. It is an argument to get vaccinated even if you already had the sickness. Separately, they also say that those who are vaccinated but have never been infected are 5-27 times more likely to get a breakthrough case compared to the likelihood of an unvaccinated person who had been infected are of getting re-infected. The range of a previously infected but unvaccinated person being 5 to 27 times safer than a vaccinated-only person depends on a whole pile of things including how long it was from the vaccination because their effectiveness seems to decay over time, but this paper and other similar ones seem to leave no doubt that having previously caught covid is a much stronger defense than the vaccine by itself.
Studies like these are what are putting pressure on governments to accept a previous infection as a valid equivalency for the vaccine passports, since they are far safer to the general public than a mere vaccinated person.
These papers say the opposite Andy. The papers say that among people who have all been infected, those who are also vaccinated are half as likely to get re-infected. It is an argument to get vaccinated even if you already had the sickness. Separately, they also say that those who are vaccinated but have never been infected are 5-27 times more likely to get a breakthrough case compared to the likelihood of an unvaccinated person who had been infected are of getting re-infected. The range of a previously infected but unvaccinated person being 5 to 27 times safer than a vaccinated-only person depends on a whole pile of things including how long it was from the vaccination because their effectiveness seems to decay over time, but this paper and other similar ones seem to leave no doubt that having previously caught covid is a much stronger defense than the vaccine by itself.
Studies like these are what are putting pressure on governments to accept a previous infection as a valid equivalency for the vaccine passports, since they are far safer to the general public than a mere vaccinated person.
andynap
Senior Insider
Re: A few observations from embedded reporter
Sorry but I disagree. The CDC study in Izzy’s post shows a higher degree of protection for vaccination than one who was infected. The other article has not been peer reviewed and is not considered a scientific study.
Sorry but I disagree. The CDC study in Izzy’s post shows a higher degree of protection for vaccination than one who was infected. The other article has not been peer reviewed and is not considered a scientific study.
JEK
Senior Insider
Re: A few observations from embedded reporter
Do not agree. Based on all this I would demand that maids wear masks when cleaning the villa. Others may want to read all this and make their own decisions, but it is germane to the island.
Do not agree. Based on all this I would demand that maids wear masks when cleaning the villa. Others may want to read all this and make their own decisions, but it is germane to the island.
JEK
Senior Insider
Re: A few observations from embedded reporter
It isn’t about me, it is about full disclosure on a visitor’s options.
It isn’t about me, it is about full disclosure on a visitor’s options.
Re: A few observations from embedded reporter
Interesting bit of info from CNN — l[FONT="]Puerto Rico [/FONT]has become the most vaccinated place in America[FONT="], with about 73% of its 3.3 million residents fully vaccinated against Covid-19.”[/FONT]
Interesting bit of info from CNN — l[FONT="]Puerto Rico [/FONT]has become the most vaccinated place in America[FONT="], with about 73% of its 3.3 million residents fully vaccinated against Covid-19.”[/FONT]
Happycamper
SBH Insider
Re: A few observations from embedded reporter
Hi Andy,
The title of the CDC paper is "Reduced Risk of Reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 After COVID-19 Vaccination," where 'reinfection' of course means someone getting sick with Covid a second time, refers only to how people who have been previously infected and shows how they are better protected if they also get a vaccine. It does not discuss your claim that the vaccine by itself is more protective than a previous infection. The other paper, which I had also read at your suggestion, reports the opposite of your claim. I agree it is being held up through peer review (some feel the delay is for political reasons, others for scientific.) I'm happy to hold off on anointing it as gospel until the negative complaints have been made public (it is frustrating that this paper of significant importance has lingered in review for almost 2 months. Either spike it with a clear flaw, or 'follow the science' as they say.) In the mean time, can you point me to the research you found that shows vaccinated people are better protected from a first infection than Covid survivors are from a reinfection? I looked and couldn't find any.
Hi Andy,
The title of the CDC paper is "Reduced Risk of Reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 After COVID-19 Vaccination," where 'reinfection' of course means someone getting sick with Covid a second time, refers only to how people who have been previously infected and shows how they are better protected if they also get a vaccine. It does not discuss your claim that the vaccine by itself is more protective than a previous infection. The other paper, which I had also read at your suggestion, reports the opposite of your claim. I agree it is being held up through peer review (some feel the delay is for political reasons, others for scientific.) I'm happy to hold off on anointing it as gospel until the negative complaints have been made public (it is frustrating that this paper of significant importance has lingered in review for almost 2 months. Either spike it with a clear flaw, or 'follow the science' as they say.) In the mean time, can you point me to the research you found that shows vaccinated people are better protected from a first infection than Covid survivors are from a reinfection? I looked and couldn't find any.
