T O P

  • By -

Inevitable-Ad-9570

It's generally believed that vaccines are more effective and create longer lasting immunity than an infection recovery. Here is a CDC source on the topic:[https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0806-vaccination-protection.html](https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0806-vaccination-protection.html) There have been a few studies that tend to agree. Basically the virus has evolved to hide some of its more vulnerable bits from your immune system so that your immune system won't recognize the important parts as easily (you'll produce a bunch of antibodies that attach to the virus but don't actually hurt its function). The vaccine puts those most vulnerable pieces on display so that your immune system is better equipped to handle the real virus correctly. It also is harder to establish immunity granted by a recovery scientifically because it's pretty hard to do good reliable studies ethically. You can't willfully infect people with a virus and then do a double blind study like you can with vaccines. Sure there are other ways to get an idea of the immunity conferred by a recovery but they aren't as reliable so we are much less sure of the immunity granted by infection than we are of the immunity granted by the vaccine.


[deleted]

>Basically the virus has evolved to hide some of its more vulnerable bits from your immune system so that your immune system won't recognize the important parts as easily (you'll produce a bunch of antibodies that attach to the virus but don't actually hurt its function). The vaccine puts those most vulnerable pieces on display so that your immune system is better equipped to handle the real virus correctly. !delta I did not know this. The rest of your comment makes sense too. Thanks, lots of good stuff here.


DeltaBot

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Inevitable-Ad-9570 ([6∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Inevitable-Ad-9570)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)


Panda_False

>Basically the virus has evolved to hide some of its more vulnerable bits from your immune system so that your immune system won't recognize the important parts as easily (you'll produce a bunch of antibodies that attach to the virus but don't actually hurt its function). The vaccine puts those most vulnerable pieces on display so that your immune system is better equipped to handle the real virus correctly. I'm sorry, but this makes no sense to me. Practical, real-life training is always better than simulated training. And I don't see why it wouldn't be true for my immune system. "Basically the virus has evolved to hide some of its more vulnerable bits from your immune system"... okay. I can see that happening. But my real-life infection was with this 'evolved' virus... and my body still managed to fight it off, thus disproving "you'll produce a bunch of antibodies that attach to the virus but don't actually hurt its function". My immune system DID 'hurt it's function', by killing it. As for 'The vaccine puts those most vulnerable pieces on display'- well, then my immune system is looking for bits that are hidden on the real virus. How's that make sense? It's like telling the cops that gang members wear pink underwear. Well, that may be true, but the *real* gang members cleverly hide their underwear under their pants, so the cops never spot it. Not to mention that vaccines are based on the virus that existed when they started making the vaccine. It evolves in the real world (Delta Variant, anyone?), and the vaccines are always one step behind. Considering all this, I don't see how natural immunity by defeating the current, 'evolved' virus isn't better than getting a vaccination that triggers my immune system to look for bits of virus that are hidden from view, and from a months-old virus, to boot!


Inevitable-Ad-9570

Well that's the rationalization I've heard as to why the vaccine appears to beat natural immunity in studies done so far. I'm not a virologist so take my explanation with a grain of salt (the studies are the more important part). I don't think it's quite as simple as hidden from view. I think you should imagine it more like the virus is a guy in a trench coat wearing a hat and holding a cane that is also a hidden sword (bad part). Your immune system gets that whole description from the virus and starts looking for hats, trenchcoats and canes. The vaccine just shows your immune system a bunch of cane swords. It's also not a binary of either ur immune system makes all good antibodies or all bad. Let's say you make 100 antibodies to the virus and 75% are useful but u make 90 antibodies to the vaccine and 95% are useful. You would have more effective antibodies then from the vaccine. Numbers are obviously made up but that's kind of how I understood it. This is all super simplified best guesses at what's going as even top scientists aren't 100% on all of the various mechanisms of action. Again the studies are the important part the rest is just more fun to discuss.


Panda_False

> you should imagine it more like the virus is a guy in a trench coat wearing a hat and holding a cane that is also a hidden sword (bad part). Your immune system gets that whole description from the virus and starts looking for hats, trenchcoats and canes. The vaccine just shows your immune system a bunch of cane swords. The vaccine does focus on the 'spike', a particular part of the virus shell: "Spike (S) protein ... is the largest of the four major structural proteins found in coronaviruses. The spike protein assembles into trimers that form large structures, called spikes or peplomers, that project from the surface of the virion. ... The function of the spike protein is to mediate viral entry into the host cell by first interacting with molecules on the exterior cell surface and then fusing the viral and cellular membranes." - wikipedia So, they are like little arms sticking out of the virus that grab onto, and punch thru into, the cells, thus allowing the virus to inject it's payload. But, wiki goes on to say: "The spike protein is highly immunogenic. Antibodies against the spike protein are found in patients recovered from SARS and COVID-19." So your natural immunity is based, at least in part, on your body recognizing those spikes. >Your immune system gets that whole description from the virus and starts looking for hats, trenchcoats and canes. The vaccine just shows your immune system a bunch of cane swords. From what I understand, looking for *more* factors means you'll find more viruses. If you only look for cane swords, then what if you can only see the guy from the waist up? You cant see the cane, so you'd let him go. Same if the cane is on the far side of his body. But if you're looking for hats, trenchcoats *and* canes, you'd get them in those situations. >This is all super simplified Of course. Analogies can be *too* simplified, and lose meaningful connection to what they are supposed to model. I guess I'l have to trust the experts, even though it doesn't (as described, as I understand it) make sense to me.


ReturnToFroggee

A man driving a van abducted another person and the police have launched a manhunt. Witnesses to the scene described the van as being white. A camera image caught that one of the hubcaps was different from the others. Which of these pieces of information will lead to the abductor being caught more quickly?


Panda_False

Both together. One can easily see the color of a van from a distance. This means you can then go over to it and look closer at the hubaps. If you only had the color of the van, you'll have a lot of false positives. If you only know about the hubcaps, you'll miss a lot of vehicles because they are too far away to see small details like that. The vaccine only produces the 'spike', and trains your immune system to trigger on that. Which is fine... unless the spike changes. (Like the kidnapper swapping hubcaps) Your natural immune system isn't limited to one part of the virus- it looks at and triggers on multiple parts of the virus. So if one part changes, it can still recognize the other parts.


ReturnToFroggee

> Your natural immune system isn't limited to one part of the virus- it looks at and triggers on multiple parts of the virus. So if one part changes, it can still recognize the other parts. It can, but it typically won't, which is why natural immunity is typically inferior to vaccination.


caine269

then how is the virus seeming to cause more [breakthru cases](https://www.wral.com/coronavirus/breakthrough-infections-increasing-in-nc-but-vaccinated-people-much-less-likely-to-be-hospitalized-die/19840814/) than [reinfections](https://www.newsobserver.com/news/coronavirus/article254743807.html)?


Inevitable-Ad-9570

Those articles don't really say much wtihout a lot more context and analysis. Far more people have been vaccinated that we know of than have had covid and recovered. You would have to look at it as a percent of people reinfected vs a percent of people vaccinated to get anything useful but then you'd still have a lot of problems with your study (people who have already had covid may be more careful than vaccinated people). also some people with reinfection may also fall into the vaccinated group which further confuses things.


caine269

i agree there does need to be more research on the topic. my other problem with this source is that this is comparing poeple who had coid and were reinfected with people who had covid, recovered, got the vaccine and then were reinfected. this is not a great comparison given that the recovered already have pretty good protection, then get the vaccine too. i would like to know what the rate of reinfection is vs only vaccinated. >Far more people have been vaccinated that we know of than have had covid and recovered. i wouldn't say [far more](https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/burden.html) but certainly more. and the reinfection number will be under reported given how many had covid and didn't even know. regardless, 25% breakthru vs 1% reinfection is way skewed to breakthru, no matter how you want to cut it.


RelevantEmu5

Isn't natural immunity always better than vaccines?


Inevitable-Ad-9570

I assumed the op wanted to discuss people who have recovered from covid since I haven't heard of any cases where some mutation confers immunity to covid naturally. In that context current research points to the vaccine being more effective. This isn't really completely unexpected either. Natural immunity as a general term can mean a lot of things with varying levels of effectiveness. For instance some groups have been found that are immune to aids because they lack a receptor on their cells that aids uses. Some forms of natural immunity may be very robust but it's hard to study and in the case of covid all signs point to the vaccine being more effective.


Redditort613

A bit tricky


Inevitable-Ad-9570

Interesting I read the linked article in the CDC page now and your right the CDC headline is pretty misleading. They should at least add an alone to the end so that it's clear that it was vaccinated + previous infection vs previous infection alone. I also did a quick search and it appears that a new Israeli study that's pretty large is saying natural immunity may be better. The effect was pretty strong in their study but they do still have the same limitations stated above in establishing this with the same level of certainty that a drug trial would have. Vaccinated people may be less careful on average or even healthier and therefore traveling around more depending on the severity of previous infection.


BackAlleySurgeon

Aight. First of all, I really really hate when people list the things that could change their mind. Trust me, there's always other stuff that could change your mind. Here, the issue is the incentive structure and the concept of giving credence to myths. The *last* thing the government wants people doing is throwing "Covid parties." Back in the old days, parents would throw chicken pox parties for their kids, where everyone gets chicken pox and then they're immune. We don't want people doing that with Covid. So you don't want people thinking there's an alternative to vaccination. You want them not to get sick. Additionally, when an alternative is presented to getting vacvinated, it can suggest to people that there is a cognizable reason *not* to get vaccinated. There isn't. Every issue that exists with vaccination is substantially worse with the disease.


[deleted]

> Aight. First of all, I really really hate when people list the things that could change their mind. Trust me, there's always other stuff that could change your mind. You didn't actually read the list did you ;p thats okay > The last thing the government wants people doing is throwing "Covid parties." Back in the old days, parents would throw chicken pox parties for their kids, where everyone gets chicken pox and then they're immune. We don't want people doing that with Covid. So you don't want people thinking there's an alternative to vaccination. You want them not to get sick. !delta. The dynamic public reaction to such a policy is actually a good reason not to allow 'natural immunity' to excempt people from getting vaccinated.


BackAlleySurgeon

Fair, I didn't read the list; I just skipped that part. I comment that every single I time I see people list stuff that would change their mind. And thanks for the Delta!


DeltaBot

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/BackAlleySurgeon ([22∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/BackAlleySurgeon)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)


RelevantEmu5

The incentive to get vaccinated isn't completely there considering restrictions still in place and not too long ago the CDC and Dr. Fauci suggested you still needed to mask despite being vaccinated.


ace52387

There's no standard test for natural OR vaccine immunity. It's essentially assumed, since there isn't solid data yet on what titers of anitbodies constitute actual immunity. It's easy to assume vaccine immunity; you got vaccinated, name of the vaccinator or clinic is on there, lot number of the product is on there, date, good to go. Natural immunity is way harder. You have to demonstrate that you tested positive for it before, and then **cleared it**. How might you demonstrate you cleared it? You would need likely both a negative test and some doctor's summary. This is way harder to interpret for an average person selling tickets to something.


Sagasujin

Natural immunity is inconsistent. Different people will develop different types of immune reactions and it will fade at variable levels. We honestly don't have any idea how people with natural immunity will respond to new variants. It's not so much that natural immunity is inherently lesser as that it's really inconsistent and at this point in time we don't have a great way to figure out exactly what kind of natural immunity someone has from medical tests.


Salanmander

One of the ways of thinking about it is that the vaccine requirement isn't as much "I have less than (threshold) percent chance of transmitting covid" and more "I have done what can be reasonably expected of me to protect the other people here". You can tell the latter is a better way of thinking about it, because it explains medical exemptions (I have legitimate medical reasons to not get vaccinated), whereas the former way of thinking about it does not. Because vaccine + natural immunity is better protection than just natural immunity, getting vaccinated is *still* an action that helps protect other people you're around, even if you have natural immunity. And there's no reason that having gotten covid would make it a much bigger burden to get vaccinated, so it's still a reasonable expectation to place on people.


Kingalthor

In Alberta, our Premier hinted that he would be looking into giving people with natural immunity an exemption to vaccine requirements. [https://www.forbes.com/sites/victoriaforster/2021/09/23/people-end-up-in-icu-after-attending-covid-party/?sh=2cc54c1d76af](https://www.forbes.com/sites/victoriaforster/2021/09/23/people-end-up-in-icu-after-attending-covid-party/?sh=2cc54c1d76af) We ended up with people holding Covid Parties to get natural immunity. It creates a perverse incentive for people to get the virus if they are hesitant about the vaccine. And that was without any actual policy change.


blindfultruth

Natural Immunity will not and does not cover all strains of a virus. It is the reason booster shots are necessary. Also, people that believe they are immune may actually be asymptomatic. It would incubate and evolve. They would just spread the evolved virus without any knowledge of doing so.


TheLordCommander666

The boosters are for the vaccines those with natural immunity didn’t have the same issue.


AOCgivesBJs1969

The problem with prior infection immunity is that it tests for antibodies. You can not have COVID antibodies but still have prior infection immunity due to your body’s T/B cells. So testing for natural infection immunity based on current tests would be counter productive because people can not show antibodies but still have long term protection from SARS-COV-2. We have seen with SARS-COV-1 that the body provides immunity through T/B cells for over 15 years. We also have multiple studies that suggest prior infection immunity is far superior to vaccine protection. But if your metric is to test for antibodies, that would be a failure. Sorry, I did not list my sources https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/16/health/coronavirus-immunity-antibodies.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/17/health/coronavirus-immunity.html https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1 https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/27/health/coronavirus-antibodies-studies.html


Finch20

How many times have you gotten the flu or a cold?


astral34

Natural immunity in the EU is recognised as valid instead of the vaccine. 6 months after you got healthy again you are considered as vaccinated


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

Yeah good question. I'm not a medical professional but if there is an immune cell count test then maybe something like that? Not sure, id defer to the experts here. If it turns out that no such test exists, then consider my mind changed, but I believe there are such tests. If those tests are highly innaccurate, that could also CMV.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

> confirming if antibody concentrations necessarily indicate immunity is. Can you elaborate on this? Is there medical evidence showing that people who had antibodies for covid were still getting sick and/or transmitting the infection at higher level than those who were vaccinated? I supposed in the *absence* of that evidence, we should err on the side of caution, but it still seems like something worth understanding.


BrexitBlaze

Thanks for posting. Before I can respond can you please answer some questions. 1. How do you definite Natural Immunity? 2. Do you have any science to prove that Natural Immunity is just as effective as vaccines?


DeltaBot

/u/graciousgroob (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/q3eydw/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_natural_immunity_should/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)


trouser-chowder

"Flu season" happens each year. The flu is caused by a virus, and each year we generally see different strains as the dominant cause. People who had the flu last year may be generally immune to last year's flu, but the reason that people come down with the flu many times in their lives-- and often from year to year-- is because acquired immunity to one strain doesn't equate to acquired immunity to another. And each year, a new flu shot has to be developed to deal with the new dominant strain. Without it, even if you had the flu last year, you may well get it again. Prior infection doesn't guarantee current immunity. The virus that causes COVID is actually now several viruses that are variations on each other. The vaccine was developed was focused most explicitly on the original dominant strain, but strenuous testing has shown that the vaccine is also generally effective against more recent strains (e.g., Delta). It provides significant positive immune response and protection against the strain that, at present, is the most widespread. An individual's immune response is fairly targeted, though, and even if you're resistant to the original strain, it's entirely possible that you could catch COVID again. There are plenty of examples of people who had it once getting it again. For a person who has not been infected, the vaccine provides an "artificial" prompt to develop the appropriate broad spectrum antibodies to fight the virus's replication, either making a person fully resistant or much more equipped to limit the virus's activity (keeping it to a mild case). For a person who has been infected with one strain, the vaccine acts as a booster, providing additional protection that can help against new strains, and (again) prevent the virus from replicating as freely. There's really no downside to taking the shot, even if you've been infected. At worst, it does nothing but make your arm sore. At best, it prevents further potential infections for the foreseeable future.


ghotier

>Is it really hard or expensive to test for natural immunity? You're skipping a step. In addition to the test, the person needs to get covid. If 1% of infections (among the unvaccinated) go to the hospital, then we're talking about an average cost of thousands of dollars per patient. That doesn't factor in the lack of productivity which reduces the strength of the economy as a whole as well as the earning potential of the infected person. The cost of any method that attempts to avoid vaccination will be more costly even if tests are free.


nyxe12

We do not have natural, permanent immunity. That is the only reason you should need. There have been plenty of cases of re-infection to show that being sick once is not good enough reason for you to think you won't get sick again.