Study: Previous Covid infection offers very little protection against reinfection

[Johnny2X2X]

https://www.woodtv.com/health/coronavirus/covid-19-reinfection-likely-for-the-unvaccinated/

“Previous infection alone can offer very little long-term protection against subsequent infections.”

Get vaccinated!

And this is compounded by a ton of people thinking because they had a bad cold in early 2020 it must have been Covid and they are protected.

I realize that there are some conflicting studies out there. But all of them say vaccinations help a lot.

Covid has been an absolute nightmare.

[littlemissmartypants]

1. Well, there goes the herd immunity notion down the bowl. nt

[BeckyDem]

2. Incredible, isn't it? I never would have thought we would have this kind of

struggle to fight off a pandemic. If someone years ago had made the prediction we would have this problem, I would not have believed it.

Mandated vaccines is what I support.

[lagomorph777]

18. It's a replay of 1918-1919.

Look at some of the old newspaper stories. Shockingly similar, right down to the right-wing anti-maskers.

[BeckyDem]

35. That's interesting, I hope we can change despite that. ugh

Not very encouraging.

[Walleye]

3. It makes sense. The common cold is a coronavirus, we've all had more than one of those

[IbogaProject]

6. Not all colds are Corna virus

Not all colds are Coronavirus.

Colds come from 4 virus two are corona and two are Rhinovirus.

Just Fyi, we have all likely had corona before. One of the four may have been a pandemic late 19th century and it weakened after it became endemic.

[Walleye]

7. Interesting. And way too complicated for uneducated people to have such strong opinions

[Midnight Writer]

4. Quick! Somebody tell FOX News. They seem to have this completely wrong.

I'm sure they will want to make a correction to protect the health of their viewers.

[KentuckyWoman]

5. Well, it does and it doesn't. What my doctor told me ....

He said the Covid vaccine works on a different level and that is why it is working against the mutations. All of the variants are still working off the same basic process that the vaccine is made to interupt, but that may change in the future.

The body's immune system only builds some immunity against the exact variant when you get sick. So the next variant, you have no protection.

[SYFROYH]

8. Can someone explain why the antibodies from the VAX are so much better than the viral antibodies

Or is my biology-fu so weak that my question doesn't make sense?

[Johnny2X2X]

10. Well you can get Covid and produce no antibodies for 1 thing

Last edited Mon Oct 11, 2021, 03:43 PM - Edit history (1)

You can have Covid and fight it off with inflammation and produce no antibodies. That person would have no immunity.

As far as antibodies go, I think the vaxxes get the body to produce antibodies that maybe are more "generic" than ones in response to a specific variant of Covid.

And so many people think they have Covid who didn't. I know we've all heard people say they must of had it in early 2020 when they really probably had a cold.

[SYFROYH]

17. Ok, a generic antibody response make sense.

Thank you.

[Zeitghost]

21. They aren't

The best combination is having both, although that involves getting infected so it's not ideal.

Natural immunity is better than vaccinated. Which is why the reinfection rate is far lower than the breakthrough infection rate.

[LisaL]

22. With covid getting infected could be deadly.

It also appears to be somewhat unpredictable in that even young healthy people could die from it.

[Zeitghost]

31. Correct

Which is why you should get vaccinated and not take your chances on natural immunity.

[Thtwudbeme]

23. Wrong- please don't spread that misinformation

https://www.nebraskamed.com/COVID/covid-19-studies-natural-immunity-versus-vaccination

[Zeitghost]

25. It's not wrong at all

A study of reinfection rates vs breakthrough rates makes it quite clear. Your link appears to be comparing the vaccinated vs unvaccinated among those who had been infected.
"The study of hundreds of Kentucky residents with previous infections through June 2021 found that those who were unvaccinated had 2.34 times the odds of reinfection compared with those who were fully vaccinated. The findings suggest that among people who have had COVID-19 previously, getting fully vaccinated provides additional protection against reinfection."

[Thtwudbeme]

26. Cite your sources please

Thank you

[Zeitghost]

27. Read your own link it doesn't say what you think it does

"The study of hundreds of Kentucky residents with previous infections through June 2021 found that those who were unvaccinated had 2.34 times the odds of reinfection compared with those who were fully vaccinated. The findings suggest that among people who have had COVID-19 previously, getting fully vaccinated provides additional protection against reinfection."

[Zeitghost]

30. Here is one

https://www.science.org/content/article/having-sars-cov-2-once-confers-much-greater-immunity-vaccine-vaccination-remains-vital

[mainer]

9. From CDC's MMR: more information

In today’s MMWR, a study of COVID-19 infections in Kentucky among people who were previously infected with SAR-CoV-2 shows that unvaccinated individuals are more than twice as likely to be reinfected with COVID-19 than those who were fully vaccinated after initially contracting the virus. These data further indicate that COVID-19 vaccines offer better protection than natural immunity alone and that vaccines, even after prior infection, help prevent reinfections.

https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0806-vaccination-protection.html

[LisaL]

12. That doesn't mean natural immunity offers no protection.

One can increase that protection even more by getting vaccinated after infection.

[mainer]

13. Correct. But one way or another, vaccination should happen

There's also a new Lancet article that talks about how quickly natural immunity wanes.

[LisaL]

11. There have been conflicting studies on just how good or not good natural immunity is.

There was at least one study that claimed natural immunity is better than vaccine induced immunity.

[Johnny2X2X]

15. "Better" is not a word I'd use

There have been a number of studies that suggested natural immunity is stronger and longer lasting, but those are being outnumbers by ones that ay the opposite. A propensity of studies now say that vaccine immunity is better.

And regardless, all of the studies agree on one thing, getting vaccinated helps reduce the risk of getting Covid and dramatically helps reduce the risk of it being severe if you do get it.

[LisaL]

20. Pfizer doesn't exactly appear to be long lasting either.

NT

[mainer]

14. "Natural Immunity Fades More Quickly"

Natural immunity fades more quickly than vaccine immunity
Natural immunity can decay within about 90 days. Immunity from COVID-19 vaccines has been shown to last longer. Both Pfizer and Moderna reported strong vaccine protection for at least six months.
Studies are ongoing to evaluate the full duration of protective immunity, including the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.
Real-world studies also indicate natural immunity's short life. For example, 65% of people with a lower baseline antibody from infection to begin with completely lost their COVID-19 antibodies by 60 days.
What about that Israeli study suggesting natural immunity is stronger? Infectious diseases expert James Lawler, MD, MPH, FIDSA, carefully evaluates the study design of the retrospective Maccabi Health System study in his Aug. 31 briefing. In the briefing, he identifies two concerning sources of error that were not corrected for: survivorship bias and selection bias.
Natural immunity alone is weak
One study compared natural immunity alone to natural immunity plus vaccination. They found that, after infection, unvaccinated people are 2.34 times likelier to get COVID-19 again, compared to fully vaccinated people. So vaccinated people (after infection) have half the risk of reinfection than people relying on natural immunity alone.
"Studies show that the vaccine gives a very good booster response if you've had COVID-19 before," says Dr. Rupp.
Furthermore, there is no country on the globe in which natural infection and natural immunity has brought the pandemic under control. In countries like Iran or Brazil very high levels of natural infection have not prevented recurrent waves of infection.

https://www.nebraskamed.com/COVID/covid-19-studies-natural-immunity-versus-vaccination

[totodeinhere]

16. As you mentioned there are conflicting studies.

Lasting immunity found after recovery from COVID-19

https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/lasting-immunity-found-after-recovery-covid-19

(I realize that your study is more recent.)

[LisaL]

19. The current study doesn't even appear to be a study of actual covid.

Rather, an analysis of similar viruses. I don't find that convincing.

[mainer]

24. you might find this interesting

Quite a few COVID patients don't even mount an antibody response. "a seroprevalence study from New York found that 20% of persons with a positive RT-PCR test result did not seroconvert "

In summary, we show that patients with low SARS-CoV-2 viral loads in their respiratory tract are less likely to mount a systemic antibody response. Although we cannot formally exclude false-positive RT-PCR results in some participants, PCR contamination is highly unlikely as an explanation for our findings (Appendix). We also show that clinical illness does not guarantee seroconversion and that laboratories with highly sensitive RT-PCR assays are more likely to detect serologic nonresponders. These results provide an explanation for the puzzling variability of seroconversion in different cohorts.

The fact that a considerable fraction of RT-PCR positive persons fail to seroconvert has practical implications. Such persons remain undetected in seroprevalence studies, including in vaccine studies that assess protection from asymptomatic infection by measuring antibodies to antigens not included in the vaccine. Seroconverters and nonseroconverters will probably also respond differently to vaccination.

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/27/9/21-1042_article

[forthemiddle]

28. Where are the numbers

This study is theoretical, not based on actual case numbers. What will convince people, and me, is the actual numbers of reinfections, vs breakthrough numbers.
I am vaccinated, and I plan to get a booster in the future, but I really want real studies that I can show the skeptics.
I may be missing them, but I can’t find those studies.

[mainer]

29. The only studies seem to be antibody levels

And those fade more quickly after natural infection. Do antibody levels correlate with protection? Maybe.

[Zeitghost]

32. The numbers out of Israel

Seem pretty conclusive. Natural immunity lead to better protection than vaccinated against Delta.
https://www.science.org/content/article/having-sars-cov-2-once-confers-much-greater-immunity-vaccine-vaccination-remains-vital

[mainer]

33. israeli study may be flawed

What about that Israeli study suggesting natural immunity is stronger? Infectious diseases expert James Lawler, MD, MPH, FIDSA, carefully evaluates the study design of the retrospective Maccabi Health System study in his Aug. 31 briefing. In the briefing, he identifies two concerning sources of error that were not corrected for: survivorship bias and selection bias.

(From the Nebraska Med article above)

[forthemiddle]

34. Thanks!

These are what I am looking for.
Previous infection is better than vaccine, but the combination of both is the best.
As you said, that doesn’t mean don’t get vaccinated, but maybe the infection is acting as the booster?

[LisaL]

36. If they got infected first, it's a vaccine that's acting as a booster.

NT