Prior COVID infection more protective than vaccination

A fortnight ago, I questioned why Novak Djokovic was required to be vaccinated to enter Australia to play in The Australian Open given he had already been infected twice with COVID, arguing “Djokovic likely has better natural protection than somebody that is vaccinated but has not had the virus”.

Today, data has been released in the United States showing that prior infection gives better COVID protection than vaccination alone:

People who had previously been infected with COVID-19 were better protected against the Delta variant than those who were vaccinated alone, suggesting that natural immunity was a more potent shield than vaccines against that variant, California and New York health officials reported on Wednesday…

For the study, health officials in California and New York gathered data from May through November, which included the period when the Delta variant was dominant.

It showed that people who survived a previous infection had lower rates of COVID-19 than people who were vaccinated alone.

All of which raises the question: why are governments requiring booster shots in people that have already been infected with Omicron?

There have been 1.7 million COVID cases recorded in Australia over the past month. These people (and those infected before them) should automatically be excluded from further vaccine requirements.

Otherwise, we are not basing policy on science, but politics.

Unconventional Economist
Latest posts by Unconventional Economist (see all)

Comments

  1. Good that UK saw the light and just dropped all this insanity. Even Pfizer CEO is saying vaxes do not offer much protection with Omicron. I am not going for a booster for sure,

      • yesterday NSW :”Chief health officer Kerry Chant confirmed 33 had been vaccinated and three were not.”

        • if you divide the vaccinated in ICU against the population that has been vaccinated it will be a lower % then dividing the unvaccinated in ICU into the unvaccinated population.

          You fail at basic comprehension and context.

          • It’s not as simple as that, a lot of the unvaccinated in hospital are not unvaccinated by choice, they have serious conditions that do not allow them to be vaccinated, coupled with them actually catching Covid in hospital. It’s not as straight forward as you’d like to make out.

          • Actually, no it wouldn’t. We are currently around 75% of the total population fully vaccinated.
            33/36 is 91% of icu cases fully vaxxed

          • In what way am I not applying the correct context?
            And since you made the claim, back it up with some numbers for us. OR would you like me to run it for you with a sample population of a 1000 and show that IS how it works..
            1000 people 75% vaxed means 750 vaxxed. 250 not vaxxed.
            33/750 * 100 = 4.4 % of vax population in hospital.
            3/250 * 100 = 1.2 % of unvaxxed population in hospital.
            Do it for 10,0000 people and the percentage just drops by a factor of 10 for both.
            Multiply it up to the actual population and it will move the percentage down but both will still be in the same ratio with vaxxed almost 4x more highly represented on a % basis.

          • Lets look at NSW population edging to 95% vaxed rate

            Total population @16yr = 6.5M
            6,500,000 * .95 = 6,175,000 (vaccinated)
            6,500,000 * 0.05 = 325,000 (non vaccinated)

            I am going to run 50/50 split between vaccinated and non vaccinated in ICU. Total 212.

            vaccinated icu 106 / 6,175,000 * 100 vaccinated population = 0.0017%
            unvaccinated icu 106/ 325,000 * 100 unvaccinated population = 0.0326%
            0.0326 / 0.0017 = 19.17
            An unvaccinated is 19 times more to be admitted to ICU.

            Don’t go listening to Joe Rogan now.

          • “Total population @16yr ”
            That is not total population.
            And total poulation is not 96% vaxxed.

            So you still haven’t confirmed your initial statement.

          • ‘I am going to run 50/50 split between vaccinated and non vaccinated in ICU. Total 212.”

            Dud you just make that number up?
            hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

          • “New South Wales Premier Dominic Perrottet told reporters on Sunday around half of those in the state’s intensive care units (ICUs) were vaccinated.”

            Isn’t this the same government that said “most” people dying were unvaccinated which turns out to be 3/36.
            Presumably around half is less than most.
            I wonder why the actual numbers are not published in the nsw health data?

          • Joe Green, I am going to presume you haven’t passed yr 10 high school because you went on to do a trade.

            I am really sorry for you, but cherry picking a single day does not back up your claims. A single day does not represent a trend. There is no conspiracy here. I know the media has lied to you in the past, so you are naturally don’t trust them, but there’s nothing sinister here.

            The vaccine is not 100% effective, no one has ever said that taking the vaccine is going to stop you from dying of covid. Stop moving the goal posts.

          • “if you divide the vaccinated in ICU against the population that has been vaccinated it will be a lower % then dividing the unvaccinated in ICU into the unvaccinated population.”

            Aren;t these the goalposts you set up and then immediately moved?

  2. Not mandatory, but recommended.
    But I agree on principal. Could we test for antibody titer values instead? This would make more sense than guessing your immunity and would cover those who have natural immunity too.
    Perhaps it’s less practical.

      • working class hamMEMBER

        Does the booster mandate only cover people who have had 2 shots 6 months ago, with effectiveness waning? With someone previously unvaxxed, still getting 5-6 months of vaxxed status out of the original 2 shot dose.
        Or is the new metric, not considered vaxxed until you get both the 2 shot initial, with the booster?

      • Starting to make sense UE. Glad the vaccine didn’t kill your common sense, as it seems to have kill others

    • “Your comment makes no sense.

      The vaccine works.”
      That’s why there have been 2 shots plus a booster(s) so far…and you can still get Covid … because the vaccine works, I would hate to see a vaccine that doesn’t work based on this “success” so far LOL.

      • omicron = mouse covid! The antigenic nature of the spike protein has completely diverged from the original strain and thus antibodies produced do not prevent infection. However the T-cell epitopes are conserved, and thus protection from disease is still high, unless your old and your T-cells have gone bye bye. Vaccination is only as good as your immune system. https://youtu.be/aH1u1GIPU2A

  3. A very good argument for why health decisions should be governed by individual choice and individual medical advice, rather than sweeping mandates that interfere with bodily autonomy and human rights. At least without a high bar that a mandate is to avoid a horrific ebola like plague that covid never was or was going to be.

  4. ”All of which raises the question: why are governments requiring booster shots in people that have already been infected with Omicron?”
    The answer to this question is actually in the second article you have linked.
    ”Protection against Delta was highest, however, among people who were both vaccinated and had survived a previous COVID infection, and lowest among those who had never been infected or vaccinated, the study found…….
    ….But acquiring immunity through natural infection carries significant risks.”

    Furthermore,
    ”One important limitation to the study was that it ended before administration of vaccine booster doses was widespread.
    Dr. Erica Pan, state epidemiologist for the California Department of Public Health, said in an email that the study “clearly shows” that vaccines provide the safest protection against COVID-19 and they offer added protection for those with prior infections.
    “Outside of this study, recent data on the highly contagious Omicron variant shows that getting a booster provides significant additional protection against infection, hospitalisation and death,” Pan said.”

    • That’s not an argument. By definition, a booster shot requires you to already be double vaxed. So if you’ve been double vaxed and already infected with Omicron, requiring a booster is utter madness.

      • It is an argument when you consider the signal it sends. What is the vaccination rate in Serbia again? Remember, it’s not just about the individual when you’re making decisions about public health and the capacity of the health system.

          • I know people that are only vaccinated because of the mandates. Make exceptions for some and well, you know what comes next….

          • ..and as you well know we are now due for boosters.
            I fully understand there are some politics at play here with ND as his situation wasn’t handled well. The farcical way the matter was handled certainly needs to be condemned.

          • Why the hell would anyone listen to the WHO on this issue at the expense of other expert opinion given their track record on C19? Are memories that short?

            Just finished an exchange online with a very worried sister. My 5yo nephew is running a temp of 39 degrees currently. He’s very unwell and there’s not a RAT to be found in Qld at the moment. So yeah, there’s a lot of obvious reasons why the LNP government want to “distract” at the moment and it’s no accident it has grabbed media attention at the expense of other far more worthy concerns. Where’s our bloody RATs Scumo?

            We owe Novax Djokovic sweet FA. If some citizens of this country want to ignore the advice of the vast majority of the peak medical advisory groups, then they can do so and wear the consequences. If someone with no PR or citizenship wants to ignore it though, why the hell should we care if he can’t come here?

      • I bet most Victorians wake up up and thank god LVO hasn’t been in charge of responding to the Pandemic! Always keen to take a shot at the science or the cautious approach.

        • The cautious approach doesn’t mandate boosters without first employing a double blind trial to determine clinical efficacy.
          It’s a hail mary that’s failed.
          It takes 8000 boosters to prevent 1 Under 30YO hospitalisation. Meanwhile vaccine myocarditis rates are as high as 1:1500 rate for male teenagers, for some second shots, with booster estimate (again with no data) as at least 50% as bad.
          So boosting Under 30 males will likely cause more hospitalisation than covid.
          The only good thing about boosters is that it will help wipe out Delta,

          • The only good thing about boosters is that it will help wipe out Delta,

            In the same way the oversubscription of antibiotics in Asia has wiped out… ohh

        • Why do you find it so hard to contemplate that your bodies natural immunity is better than some unproven vaccine? If these vaccines are remotely effective when compared to your own bodies natural immunity why is it necessary to have 3 of them? How many boosters etc do you consider to be excessive?

    • It’s expected that multiple exposures to the virus or an effective vaccine would increase immunity. Don’t forget Djokovic has had covid twice so he is likely comparably immune compared to someone who has been vaccinated & had covid once. And they also make no allowance for age/health of people, he is young & healthy, maybe why he was fine when he got it a second time (though I have my doubts her really did)

      • He didn’t get it a second time, that’s partly why his visa was rejected, there were massive holes in his story and the dates. The science already established natural immunity has extremely high resistance to further reinfection. He’s an inconvenient truth for these mandates.

    • Thirty per cent protected against Omicron, with two jabs. Seventy to seventy five per cent protected, with three. That information was good enough for me.

  5. Agree, to not recognise the protective effects of prior vaccine is unscientific & makes me question the governments motives for vaccinations. The crazy great reset types also claim the government has signed contracts with big pharma & everyone must get vaccinated according to contract! Not following the science might make some people believe the antivaxers!

    Thouge wasn’t he finally kicked out on the basis Djokovic’s presence in Australia might risk “civil unrest” as he is a “talisman of anti-vaccination sentiment”. Despite him not actively promoting anything like this when he’s at a tournament & the fact the LNP has granted visas to several people who’s sole mission is to create social unrest over issues such as race, freedom, religion etc Which all makes me think it was political in the hope of giving ScoMo a poll boost, which hasn’t worked. 😂

  6. Read an article today (might have been SMH) from a medico wherein they stated (perhaps quoted from an OS study I think v Omicron) the protection from prior infection vs Omicron is *not as good* as a 3 dose course of vaccination.

      • I didn’t read the article you mentioned but it seemed to refer to Delta.

        Again, a medico – I think SMH or Age – pointed to a study which indicated vax protection > prior infection for Omicron.

        Edit> what dennis said below

      • UE, how many different scenarios are meant to be covered. This argument is like the first shutdowns when people were complaining that “I’m only wanting to x,y or z so I’m not a problem”, except there’s a thousand permutations on that. If prior infection gives better protection, what level of infection is that based on, does a really minor infection that registers +ve give the same level of a full-blown infection? And on the questions could go.

      • It’s actually correct,
        AZ and Moderna, Zero protection from Infection
        2 Shot Pfizer 22% protection from infection
        Prior infection 50% protection from infection
        3 Shot Pfizer, 75% protection from infection, reducing to 50% after 10 weeks.

        However disease protection is another mater. AZ seems to be performing better than the RNA as the viral vector likely produces better T-cell immunity in the elderly. Prior infection give the highest protection to disease.
        Of course omicron infection provides 98% protection to omicron reinfection as the antibodies will match.

  7. “Today, data has been released in the United States showing that prior infection gives better COVID protection than vaccination alone:” Really? From the same article:

    “The results do not apply to the Omicron variant of the virus, which now accounts for 99.5 per cent of COVID-19 cases in the United States.”

    I was also reading the other day (from the QLD CHO, I think) that vaxx also provides longer protection than infection.

    • Jumping jack flash

      Pretty sure our CHOs are a couple of steps behind the pace and have been since the onset.

      • Okay, so the latest data is published by the media and our state & Fed health officials aren’t aware of it? Yeah sure, I’ll swallow that!

      • So your work experience on vaccines over the last few yrs tells you that? No offence, but I’ll accept that when the health people come out and say it and those who say “I told you so” will be right by chance, no knowledge. I’d say the same to them if they came here and started contradicting you on economics.

        • Do you mean the health people like Fauci who said those who were double vaxxed have a remote chance of infection or the WHO who said said the virus was not transmissable human to human?

          • Tockers, no disrespect intended to UE, but of if choice is Fauci or UE on knowledge of covid, I’m going with Fauci, it’s not even a contest, same as if the choice was between Fauci & UE on ecumenic etc, I’d pay not attention to Fauci whatsoever.

            Btw, it’s rather a poor form of argument to cherry pick comments like that; how old are they and what has happened in the meantime or are you saying you’re more onto this than Fauci?

        • if choice is Fauci or UE on knowledge of covid, I’m going with Fauci

          Fauci knows a lot about Covid. The trouble is that the bastard won’t reveal what he knows, and he tells us lies instead.
          His knowledge isn’t the question. His motivation is.

    • “The results do not apply to the Omicron variant of the virus,”
      I’m pretty sure that’s because the data they used for the study pre-dated omicron. They have no idea if it does or does not hold true for that.

      • Exactly, so would you base your approach based on what you don’t know?

        Edit: And I’m sure if they thought it was highly likely it would hold true, they’d have said so.

        • Peer reviewed science doesn’t get published full of guess work.
          that is the realm of politicians.

          • Not quite correct, you frequently see comments on what they see as promising in their studies and they’ll note that it requires further work to prove it up.

          • Peer reviewed science doesn’t get published full of guess work.

            “Sokal squared scandal”

            Oh yes it does.

    • And omicron is all that matters now, so these results are mostly irrelevant now. But don’t let these facts get in the way of LVO’s agenda. He’s made some shocking calls all the way back to Vic 2nd wave 2020.

      Like someone said above, although not perfect pretty glad we had Sutton instead of all these amateur internet scientists!

  8. Ronin8317MEMBER

    The policy used to be that someone infected should not get a vaccine or booster for 6 months. The science has not changed, but politics has. It started when the government shortened the time between the two vaccines in order to hit a ‘milestone’, so 3rd booster shot has now become another ‘milestone’ to be reached. Shortening the time from 5 months, to 4 months, and now 3 months for the booster has no scientific basis at all.

    • Jumping jack flash

      The science is clear regarding boosters – protection quickly drops to 50% after 4 weeks and then around 40% by week 10. This was proved through some study somewhere shortly after boosters were recommended for omicron. Pfizer CEO’s comments seem to support this.

      https://www.webmd.com/vaccines/covid-19-vaccine/news/20211227/covid-booster-protection-wanes-new-data

      “3 months for the booster has no scientific basis at all.”

      Based on current science we would actually need monthly boosters for the vaccine to provide adequate protection, but the reasons why that isn’t suggested is probably because of logistical constraints and vaccine stocks.

      This article above also seems to confirm the theory that after your immune systems sees 3 doses of the same vaccine it becomes very good at combating it faster and then the antibodies that were created during that process also vanish faster. Israel’s experience with their 4th booster also seems to confirm this but I haven’t seen any data regarding timeframes.

  9. I guess that’s why “this is the heath advice” is uttered so infrequently today?

    like many other important (and no so important) topics, it quickly transcends the science, moves straight to pure politics and if left unchecked, settles as religious ideology (with all the fun traits that entails).

  10. You seem to have missed the FAR MORE OBVIOUS point.
    Since the vaccine has been acknowledged to not prevent infection at all, but only hospitalisation why should it matter at all whether people entering the country are vaccinated or not? Ether way they are just as likely to be infected, probably more so if vaccinated and it reduces symptoms.

    • Acknowledged by whom?

      “Fact check:COVID-19 vaccine protects both the person vaccinated and those around them

      “This is false information,” Akiko Iwasaki, a professor of immunobiology and molecular, cellular and developmental biology at Yale University, said in an email. “Vaccines provide significant protection from ‘getting it’ – infection – and ‘spreading it’ – transmission – even against the delta variant.”

      USA TODAY reached out to The Lion’s Roar for comment.

      Vaccines decrease chances of infection, transmission

      All three COVID-19 vaccines authorized in the U.S. were designed to prevent severe infection, hospitalization and death. But experts and public health officials say the shots also protect people from contracting and spreading the virus.”

      17.11.21:
      https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/11/17/fact-check-covid-19-vaccines-protect-against-infection-transmission/6403678001/

      • The 1st shot provides 90% of the disease protection, that’s all you need to get a T-cell response in healthy people. 2nd shot boost antibody levels to prevent infection. Booster kick them up again. Omicron avoids antibodies, but not T cells, while generating a cross reactive immune response against other strains. Boosters make sense for old people with poor T-cell responses, The healthy sub 30 Cohort probably only need one shot in the first place (particularly males with high myocarditis risk.)

        • Robert, yes but how do you know how peoples T cells are going without testing, otherwise it’s a guess to assume that only older folk will have an issue.

  11. i can’t see how previous covid infection makes pfizer any money, so there is no reason to seriously consider this.

  12. All of which raises the question: why are governments requiring booster shots in people that have already been infected with Omicron?

    And, why haven’t we been considering controlled infections of Omicron as to obtain this SUPERIOR viral resistance… (or ‘nature’s vaccine, which I have been accurately asserting here for nearly a month in the face of the autists and bootlickers)

    There have been 1.7 million COVID cases recorded in Australia over the past month. These people (and those infected before them) should automatically be excluded from further vaccine requirements.

    Or any type of benign COVID infection really… but that involves 14-21 days in relative isolation and keeping your fluids up… for 99/5% of the population…..rather than the big bux$$$ being paid to pfizer and J&J … but accountability with spending only really comes with people who genuinely earn it

    Otherwise, we are not basing policy on science, but politics.

    So it sits alongside a plethora of other policies…. I think we’ve developed immunity to this.

  13. Lets not forget that the double shot vaccines are effective for about 3 months, then require a booster which is also effective for 3 months, then…whaddya know, requires yet another booster. The Israelis have already gone down the 4th jab road with half a million doses delivered, only to discover that it doesn’t do very much.

    So after the 4th jab proves fairly ineffective…what then? A 5th jab? A 6th?

    • MerkwürdigliebeMEMBER

      well then we will be able to have some of those lockdowns we missed out on when Mad Gladys decided to let it rip

      I really do hope we get the Royal Commission to grill the living bejeesus out of her and ScoMo over who decided what there

    • So given the above article the best thing from the start would have been to do nothing. Most people get a bit crook and some die. Big deal. It is called life.

      Our natural immunity was always the best option but Mr Science knows everything and must be believed. Whole things a PC nanny state joke and scam.
      H @ H predicted 100 000 Australian deaths. I don’t understand how so many supposed bright people fell for this garbage.

      • Yeah. The Great Barrington Declaration explained how to deal with this effectively according to sound medical principles that had been settled for decades. Focussed and nuanced risk mitigation to minimise harm and get throught the ordeal. But no, that poisonous dwarf Fauci and his evil mates derided the authors as “fringe epidemiologists” and delivered the world Nazi fcking police states, toxic drugs, the hammer and the stupid fcking dance, idiotic lockdowns and (surprise surprise) lots of money for their mates.

        I note that once governments assume new powers they never release them. How’s that gonna work out for Victoria do you reckon? An Australian state now famous the world over for its thuggish, brutal police and tyrannical despotic government? I”ll never forget that picture of the old lady knocked to ground, on her back with her dress hiked up and her legs apart as she cops a giant dose of pepper spray in the face from some vile dog in a blue uniform.

        Here we are folks. Welcome to the future. Enjoy.

        • We used to have eminence based medicine – the opinion of the most eminent professor was right.
          Then we had evidence based medicine – which tried to base decisions on the best available evidence.
          I don’t know what we have now. Best I can tell, whoever is deciding what debate is allowed and how social media is to be censored is the person making policy.

          • There a definitely a couple of themes that have been revealed over the last couple of years. The most clearly evident is profit based medicine. I have no doubt that much of the vax push comes from Pfizer et al making a lot of money, and wanting to make more.

            As well as that, there is power based medicine. Fauci is a prime example of a man who is clearly in love with the influence he has. Locally, Andrews, McGowan and Gunner are thrilled to be able to lock people in their homes and generally bark orders at the people they are supposed to serve. All orders are for the good of the people of course, to protect them from themselves if nothing else. These imbeciles have power they would never have dreamed of as state premiers, and they love love love it. The thuggish authoritarian is right there under the skin in most politicians, and it’s now on the surface for everybody to see.

            The one leader who has surprised me in Australia has been Andrew Barr in the ACT. I’ve never liked the guy, but credit where it’s due. He’s stayed calm, maintained a low profile and handled the situation in the ACT in a remarkably sensible manner. His lunatic mate in the NT could take some lessons from him.

      • Well if we had an outbreak prior to vaccination then we would have had 0.2% population death rate like warm parts of europe,
        26 million X 0.2% = 52,000 deaths.
        Don’t forget 2% get long covid as well, so anther 500K people debilitated.

        • Likely a bit less due to relatively young population and several other demographic factors. But it could easily have been in the vicinity of 30,000.

  14. This is a hot topic right now.
    https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/vaccines-and-boosters-associated?r=bhyux&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email

    Original antigenic sin may be the explanation. The vaccine primes the immune system to a too narrow target (in the case, the spike of the original strain). This does not confer strong immunity (hence we are seeing breakthrough infections). However, it can also blocks the development of immunity to subsequent variants. Put simply, if you already have immunity to one variant, your body will rely on that rather than developing immunity to a new variant. This could explain what we are seeing – that the vaccinated are more likely to be infected with delta and omicron.

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772613421000068
    https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/mSphere.00056-21
    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28479213/

    Thus far, the vaccine is highly effective at reducing your risk of serious disease. The ICU admission data on that is indisputable.

    But there are a number of POSSIBLE outcomes of this
    1. An individual may have more frequent SARS-CoV-2 infections – albeit mild
    2. An ongoing requirement for boosters to support a suboptimal initial immunity
    3. If there is a a more pathogenic variant in future, then the vaccinated may be more prone to getting infected with this.

    I don’t think omicron will be the last word in this (already parts of Europe are looking at a variant of omicron).

    • Remember 6 weeks after it broke, in early January 2020, when Indian scientists said their research said it was clearly man made, and had a placed strain which looked similar to HIV.

      Today, HIV is now under control, albeit by expensive drugs….

      Imagine if you will, rather than some malign conspiracy…. that big pharma devised a way, where your immune response is compromised for ever and you will live the rest of your life on expensive drugs, each release for each wave…. and when business is slow, you contact your mates in Wuhan to release another strain…..

      All you’d really need to do is bribe some politicians for some mandates …… no need for a conspiracy really…..

      You’d have to be a bad parent to give your kid the vaccine that’s for sure.

      • lolololol “Remember 6 weeks after it broke, in early January 2020, when Indian scientists said their research said it was clearly man made, and had a placed strain which looked similar to HIV.”

        Talk about clutching at straws and it must be a first for you to rate Indian scientists so highly. Anyone else on the planet to support their so far unsubstantiated claims?

        • I have little doubt the virus was man-made.
          1. We have not been able to track it back to nature. China would have been very keen to find that link if it existed
          2. Fauci and Daszak lied, but have now conceded that USA was indeed involved in gain-of-function research in Wuhan
          3. The early desperate campaign to get the natural narrative out there (by none other than Daszak) suggests there was something to hide
          4. China’s behavior the last 2 years is not that of a country apologetic or embarrassed by this. On the contrary, they are ruthlessly exploiting it.
          5. Despite decades of research and millions of research $, China has contributed nothing to the fight against SARS-CoV-2. Perhaps China was researching pandemics rather than therapies,

    • Thanks Steve, nice to have your summary of the concepts for those of us without your background.

      I am curious about OAS potentially biasing towards infection amongst the vaccinated. As OAS is not a vaccine specific mechanism of action, is there a particular reason why natural infection won’t also demonstrate the same effect? i.e. if someone has contracted Delta, won’t the implications of OAS be similar to a vaccinated person, say, in relation to Omicron infection, due to dis-similarities in the epitopes? Is there some skewing of the antigens specific to vaccination, or does natural infection produce a broader antibody response? I can see how OAS might mitigate against re-infection/severity of the same strain; but as we have seen, COVID is a wild bugger.

      Sorry for all the questions; I realise a lot of this topic is still hypothetical. If you have the time, I appreciate any reply.

      • OAS is an irrelevant concept in an era of vaccines that induce T-cell immunity.
        Its T-cell immunity that matters, old protein based vaccines struggled to stimulate T-cell immunity.
        That’s why live attenuated vaccine are so much more effective. RNA is good, the problem seems to be lack of specificity. (Ie if they reach the blood stream they can be taken up by cells that wouldn’t be targeted by the virus, which are subsequently targeted by the immune system for destruction. Problematic if they are heart cells, which is why we are seeing high rates of myocarditis in young males. Strong immune response because they are young, but no hormonal immune suppression for carrying babies like women.

        • “OAS is an irrelevant concept in an era of vaccines that induce T-cell immunity.”

          Except that it is becoming increasingly clear that the vaccinated are getting infected more frequently. Initially this could have been a sampling issue – perhaps those who eschewed vaccines were more likely to eschew testing and diagnosis, or perhaps those most susceptible (like HCW) were first to get vaccinated but still had higher occupational exposure. As time goes on however, it is becoming harder to avoid the elephant in the room.

          “Problematic if they are heart cells, which is why we are seeing high rates of myocarditis in young males. Strong immune response because they are young, but no hormonal immune suppression for carrying babies like women.”

          Except that females generally mount a more potent immune response (the price for this being a higher rate of autoimmune diseases like lupus and rheumatoid arthritis in females). In pregnancy, the immune system is damped to protect the baby. But outside pregnancy, the female system fights harder.
          https://www.nature.com/articles/nri.2016.90
          “Generally, adult females mount stronger innate and adaptive immune responses than males. This results in faster clearance of pathogens and greater vaccine efficacy in females than in males but also contributes to their increased susceptibility to inflammatory and autoimmune diseases.”

      • OAS is a problem when the 2nd antigen is SLIGHTLY different to the original antigen.
        If the 2nd antigen is exactly the same as the initial antigen, the antibodies (plus T cells etc) are of course a perfect match and that is immunity – you quickly neutralise the virus.
        If the 2nd antigen is completely different, your antibodies don’t react – you are not immune, it takes longer to overcome the infection, and your immune system generates a 2nd lot of antibodies specific for that 2nd antigen. .
        But if it is slightly different, you end up with the worst of both worlds – the original antibodies block the 2nd antigen well enough that your immune system won’t bother to create a 2nd lot of antibodies, but they don’t bind perfectly and so they are less effective at neutralising the virus. Your immune system is left sitting on a fence.

        You are correct that natural infection induces a broader antibody response. You are exposed to the whole virus – not just the spike protein. So you have antibodies to parts of the virus other than the spike.

        With SARS-CoV-2, it is largely the spike protein which is mutating. And despite many mutations, it is still relatively close to the original spike. They are slightly different strains of SARS-CoV-2 – not completely different viruses.

        Humans have evolved with an immune system – presumably because it confers a survival advantage. Prior infection protects against future infection. But the immune system is designed to be exposed to the whole pathogen – not an artificial fragment of the pathogen.

        With vaccines, there is usually several years of research to help sort out these issues. Not just long term safety of the vaccine. But also what sort of immunity do you get long term.

        All this longer term research was scrapped for these vaccines for obvious reasons. Hence these issues are being sorted out in the real world.

        To be clear, I am not antivax. I have had 3 shots Pfizer. But the immune system is INCREDIBLY complicated. And short cuts can sometimes come back to bite.

        Although the following could be coincidence, it would seem long odds that
        1. It is the spike which vaccine researchers decided to target, and it is the spike which is changing,
        2. SARS-CoV-2 did not mutate much initially, and only started mutating in late 2020 after we developed vaccines
        3. The AZ vaccine was trialled in UK, S Africa and Brazil. Three near-simultaneous N501Y mutations gave us alpha (UK), beta (S Africa) and gamma (Brazil).

        Maybe the vaccine is putting selective pressure on the virus and inducing spike mutations. Maybe.
        Maybe someone was trying to get around the vaccines.

  15. desmodromicMEMBER

    Well that unleashed a flurry of facts, opinions, attempted analysis, scepticism and loons. The only thing that is certain is that you can’t all be right!

    • Yeah, it’s going to be interesting to see how that goes. I suspect all the bs with RATs etc over east has given him second thoughts about letting it rip. Sister was hoping to see mum in a few weeks but, that’s looking unlikely now. Hoping to read up on the details of the new transition plan soon.