At least, for vaccinated people, they have better outcomes the first time they come into contact with the virus. After that contact, they'll also have naturally-derived immunity. So the vaccine is a way for people to acquire their natural immunity more safely.
Well, but how's the immunity derived from first being vaccinated and then infected? Do you simple acquire the better immunity with 93% lower risk of death during the infection?
It is probably also worth noting that while this sort of defense in depth provides the strongest protection, the risk involved with the first infection probably means that you are better off in trusting the vaccine. Infection prior to vaccination may provide a stronger immune response, but only if you survive the infection.
Natural immunity is better than the vaccine. There is a risk of adverse reactions to the vaccine. You are arguing that people who already have superior immunity take additional risk. This is as unethical as demanding the vaccinated get infected with COVID.
I wonder if after being vaccinated it might be beneficial to intentionally get infected with the actual virus?
The downside is of course the risk of severe illness and having to quarantine until the virus is cleared, but the upside is that the resulting natural immunity might be effective against a possible future vaccine escaping variant.
What are you talking about? I've seen studies that suggest vaccination in addition to natural immunity can result in higher levels of antibodies, but I've seen nothing to suggest that vaccination results in "much better outcomes" as compared to natural immunity.
People with natural immunity aren't even getting infected in any meaningful numbers, while fully vaccinated individuals are getting infected left and right.
Actually it is good to be vaccinated even if you have already had a disease. This confers greater immunity than the infection or just the vaccine.
Whether or not the vaccine or natural immunity is better protection isn't as clear as suggested either, generally the vaccines will give more reliable resistance.
"Natural immunity can be spotty. Some people can react vigorously and get a great antibody response. Other people don't get such a great response," says infectious diseases expert Mark Rupp, MD. "Clearly, vaccine-induced immunity is more standardized and can be longer-lasting."
But first you would need to get infected to acquire such immunity. Pretty much defeats the purpose when it could cause severe outcomes which you wanted to avoid in the first place. But rather, even though you may get the infected after vaccination, it will lower the chance of severe outcome by nearly as much.
I’d rather acquire natural immunity via the vaccine route.
It seems like it may be the opposite of what you're saying, though. Vaccinated are just as likely to be infected, but are infected for a shorter time and do tend to get less sick. Natural immunity from a previous infection still reigns supreme, though.
I’m not sure this is clear. Yes, this is what has been stated in the media, but I have yet to see data to back the claim.
And in particular it has been shown that natural immunity produces a much broader set of antibodies that may allow the immune system to cope with variants better.
I’m not advocating natural immunity btw. I completely agree people should get the vaccine.
I would think that's the default position, right? Vaccines are simply a trigger to try to replicate what happens during normal disease exposure. A vaccine that's as effective as natural immunity is a great success.
the point of the vaccine for healthy people is to limit the spread of the virus. a virus turns your cells into virus making factories. immunized people have a lower risk of infection by the virus, so are less likely to become virus factories, and so are less likely to spread it.
reply