Current Events > mRNA vaccines are more effective at stopping covid than natural immunity

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-06629-2

Nice to see

Yeah but *insert something stupid*

Bump - this was only published yesterday

Hope there still aren't people here who think "natural immunity" is better

But mah natural immunity!

Bah, going back to horse paste now. Gotta get those worms out.

Yeah but what my retired crane operator uncle said about vitamin D on Facebook!

Good thing I have both lol

My criticisms would be:

1. The sample size is small, and the authors dont give any sort of demographic data about the subjects used in the experiments, so we cant say for certain that there werent any biases created by the selection process.
2. Although the study does show a clear (imo) difference between anti-RBA antibody concentration in infected vs vaccinated, it only shows this difference in the antibodies with the N501Y mutation. The study only examined one other mutation (WT) which was potent in its ACE2 binding capability, and doesnt compare any other mutations. Which brings me to my biggest issue:
3. This article was received on June 25, 2021, which means all of the antibody research was done before the Delta surge. We already know for a fact that there was a rise in breakthrough cases with the Delta variant, and research that Ive seen has indicates that Delta (and Omicron) use different RBA mutations to bind to ACE2 receptor.

Basically this study confirms what we already knew: the vaccine worked against the old strains of Covid, quite well. It unfortunately doesnt give us any information concerning the newest variants, or really any variants that dont rely on the N501Y mutation as a binder.

Bump

MrToothHasYou posted...

My criticisms would be:

1. The sample size is small, and the authors dont give any sort of demographic data about the subjects used in the experiments, so we cant say for certain that there werent any biases created by the selection process.
2. Although the study does show a clear (imo) difference between anti-RBA antibody concentration in infected vs vaccinated, it only shows this difference in the antibodies with the N501Y mutation. The study only examined one other mutation (WT) which was potent in its ACE2 binding capability, and doesnt compare any other mutations. Which brings me to my biggest issue:
3. This article was received on June 25, 2021, which means all of the antibody research was done before the Delta surge. We already know for a fact that there was a rise in breakthrough cases with the Delta variant, and research that Ive seen has indicates that Delta (and Omicron) use different RBA mutations to bind to ACE2 receptor.
Basically this study confirms what we already knew: the vaccine worked against the old strains of Covid, quite well. It unfortunately doesnt give us any information concerning the newest variants, or really any variants that dont rely on the N501Y mutation as a binder.

When performing a study. Its good to study each variant separately. To help make factors more clear in the result.

I thought we knew that already. Guess we gotta keep checking.

The first time this information came out, it didn't take me long to come up with a theory. If you contract COVID, maybe you had a small exposure, and there's a good chance only part of your body was affected. So some people are going to have slightly better defenses, but eh. With the vaccine, you're always under maximum "attack" because a big dose does straight to your blood and every part of your body. So there's more of a chance your body will mount a strong defense.

Of course if the results were in the other direction one could have a theory about that, too.

MrToothHasYou posted...

The sample size is small

This is my biggest pet peeve. Sample size was small in comparison to what? Why do you think the sample size was too small?

It always amazes me when people think their immune system can handle literally anything

Like fuck, do you think your immune system will help you shit out mercury?

Getting covid so you don't get covid is a pretty dumb solution regardless.

pinky0926 posted...

It always amazes me when people think their immune system can handle literally anything

More than half the time it's somebody morbidly obese or old too.

But they are probably the same people who thought Trump was physically fit too.

Collat posted...

Getting covid so you don't get covid is a pretty dumb solution regardless.

Yup. That's why I never understood the argument for natural immunity.

there was an article a few months back that said almost the exact opposite, got waved around by chuds as "proof" that the vaccine was pointless...

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1

the trick with studies like this is to remember that the field is a constantly evolving field and you shouldn't try to set policy or make decisions based off of a single paper. use common sense, get vaccinated because its better then not.

COVxy posted...

This is my biggest pet peeve. Sample size was small in comparison to what? Why do you think the sample size was too small?

I mean, they managed to get their hands on 171 samples of pre-Covid blood. Having a larger and broader sample size would have helped illustrate, for example, how the length of time beyond vaccination or infection impacts the presence of the RBD antibody. According to the clinical trial page they reference there were 236 total participants, but for the experiment they only use 28 samples from vaccinated subjects and 41 samples from 33 previously infected subjects. Im curious as to what criteria they used to select these samples. Notably, none of the convalescent samples were from subjects who had experienced Covid symptoms less than 100 days prior to donation, and conversely only 3 of the samples from vaccinated subjects were from patients who had been vaccinated more than 100 days prior to participation. The third cohort of 39 samples didnt come from the same trial and are from patients we dont have any information about at all. There is lots of room for unseen variables because of the sample populations chosen, imo, and having larger and broader sample sizes would provide more useful data than just people vaccinated a median of 35 days ago have significantly more protection against Covid than people who naturally had the virus a median of 201 days ago.

But some guy on the radio says otherwise!

But Joe Rogan said I need to take ivermectin and he's on the radio

Good to see.

Even so, regardless of comparison, the vaccine is the safer method of building that immunity in the first place.

MrToothHasYou posted...

I mean, they managed to get their hands on 171 samples of pre-Covid blood. Having a larger and broader sample size would have helped illustrate, for example, how the length of time beyond vaccination or infection impacts the presence of the RBD antibody. According to the clinical trial page they reference there were 236 total participants, but for the experiment they only use 28 samples from vaccinated subjects and 41 samples from 33 previously infected subjects. Im curious as to what criteria they used to select these samples. Notably, none of the convalescent samples were from subjects who had experienced Covid symptoms less than 100 days prior to donation, and conversely only 3 of the samples from vaccinated subjects were from patients who had been vaccinated more than 100 days prior to participation. The third cohort of 39 samples didnt come from the same trial and are from patients we dont have any information about at all. There is lots of room for unseen variables because of the sample populations chosen, imo, and having larger and broader sample sizes would provide more useful data than just people vaccinated a median of 35 days ago have significantly more protection against Covid than people who naturally had the virus a median of 201 days ago.

So then, it can be effectively summarized that you don't think their sample size is too small for the work they show, just that you think they could do more informative things with a larger sample? The point being, this is not a criticism of the current work, just a wish for future work.

COVxy posted...

So then, it can be effectively summarized that you don't think their sample size is too small for the work they show, just that you think they could do more informative things with a larger sample? The point being, this is not a criticism of the current work, just a wish for future work.

I would say that, given the data, the title of the article is a big stretch. They dont, as far as I can tell, account for the apparent decay of immunity over time that has been broadly observed. Now granted, in April when they were conducting the trials for this research, they wouldnt have had any definitive way to predict that decay of vaccine effectiveness would be an issue. As far as we knew back then once you were vaccinated it was supposed to be the end of it and you could go back to business as usual. But its still an oversight and a weakness in the study.

You are right, though. I should correct myself in saying that rather than the sample size being too small, the cohort groups used were not diverse enough to compare properly to one another, while accounting for variables. A larger sample size in and of itself would not have fixed this.

Considering your immunity wears down over time whether you get it via vaccine or """naturally""", I think this tells you that getting boosted is the better thing to do anyway since they're more effective than getting sick

Collat posted...

Getting covid so you don't get covid is a pretty dumb solution regardless.

Ive got an anti-vax coworker who boasts about her natural immunity after having gotten COVID twice and Im just thinking If you got it twice, doesnt that indicate the natural immunity doesnt work too well?

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/9/7/0/AAKLOFAAC7-y.jpg

LISTEN HERE BRUDDER. I need to SEE WHAT'S INSIDE OF DEM DERE vaccines! You think I am going to understand what is in a LIB-ALIGNED ARTICLE!

Give me a TRUE news source, like NEWSMAX! Now that's a state news organization that tells it like it is!

Vaccination and natural immunity are not mutually exclusive. To the contrary, the whole point of a vaccine is that it trains your natural immunity without having to expose it to actual live, dangerous, virus. People saying "I trust muh immunity" are really just saying "I don't want my immune system to have any preparation for when it encounters this virus, I'd rather it goes in blind".

gee, so you mean the vaccines that were produced for the express exact purpose of protecting you from catching covid works better at protecting you from catching covid than catching covid does?

WHO'D A THUNK

ThyCorndog posted...

Considering your immunity wears down over time whether you get it via vaccine or """naturally""", I think this tells you that getting boosted is the better thing to do anyway since they're more effective than getting sick

Absolutely, unless you have some medical condition that would put you at risk, theres zero reason to not get vaccinated.