> The presentation highlights the daunting task the CDC faces. It must continue to emphasize the proven efficacy of the vaccines at preventing severe illness and death while acknowledging milder breakthrough infections may not be so rare after all, and that vaccinated individuals are transmitting the virus. The agency must move the goal posts of success in full public view.
"Vaccinated people infected with delta have measurable viral loads similar to those who are unvaccinated and infected with the variant."
I am interested in learning how people who had natural infections, and now the real antibodies, are faring. Particularly in the young who enjoy high recovery rates, maybe natural infection can reduce the spread of the new variant.
I found the explanation of natural infection rather interesting in this piece however unfortunately I have not been able to find the original source:
“Natural infection exposes us to all the proteins of the virus – not just one like the vaccine – leading to a wider response by the immune system. Even someone who has a low level of antibodies will be protected by T-lymphocytes, a cellular protection – and given this response directed at more viral proteins, new variants will have more difficulty entering the organism” (1).
The quoted immunologist is on twitter and is relatively conventional (2).
I have attempted to research this specific line some but because there is so much skewing with searches right now I haven't had too much luck. Suppose partially why I share it in comment form is I never felt it was of quality for a post submission eg.. it's not the original source. I do think if that quote is accurate then the issue of testing for t cells et al to determine whether someone has been infected prior to vaccination might be a good way to go especially if the concluding remarks by Camara et al hold true in that "the second BNT162b2 vaccine dose results in a reduction of cellular immunity in COVID-19 recovered individuals" (3).
Both my brother and I have uc. My brother got the vaccination and developed a pretty bad flare up. My uc condition has always been a bit more severe than his. I know I have had the virus and even volunteered to help out months later when sister and her husband got sick and nothing developed on my end. Considering Akinosoglou et al hypothesis, "that, even though, COVID-19 vaccination does not provoke de novo immune mediated adverse events, it is possible that, the immunologic response triggers pre- existing underlying dysregulated pathways" (4), I have been wary of taking the vaccine with the additional knowledge that I had the natural infection. Luckily in that I am self employed and work from home, most of my shopping is done online even prior to the pandemic so I feel at least I'm well positioned to wait it out a bit longer until research down the road with less upfront bias emerges.
Just a few days ago there was a Twitter trending item insisting that people who have recovered from infection should still get vaccinated. My brother-in-law's doctors told him he was actually at higher risk because of his prior infection and vaccination was even more important for him. I'm disgusted by the level of disinformation that's being used to push these shots.
Here's a question: If subsequent vaccine doses reduce humoral and cellular immunity, which are the primary source of long-term protection in the Covid recovered, AND if the vaccines don't actually prevent infection, then are people who get boosters for each new variant just going to be tanking their own long-term immunity regardless of how many times they get infected and recover?
That is an excellent question, I hope someone studies this in the future. The best I can offer is this study on flu vaccines that seem to show that annual repeated uptake undermine CD4 cell response;"We find a striking disparity in their responses, with previously vaccinated subjects exhibiting significantly blunted CD4 T-cell responses and diminished antibody responses." (1) I know they are different viruses etc, but it is something to consider in light of the previous mentioned study and also all what seems to be going on with CDC.
"Neither primed CD4+ nor CD8+ T cells appeared critical for immunoglobulin class switching, the development of immunological memory, or protection from a second infection." this seems reasonable, it never made sense to me that one can not get reinfected. for depletion, it would seem then a counter to the second dose argument, yet again I revert back to my statement above that to me I'm positioned in that I can wait for the fog to clear a bit. A lot of this seems very early days in the Iraq war when the media and admin were in the same boat for the purpose of the invasion etc.
second dose is to boost antibody levels (tcell also rise, but their effectiveness is... ) . but over the time they go down. third dose helps to boosts it way up
14 comments
[ 4.2 ms ] story [ 65.2 ms ] threadSo there is no real reason to force people to vaccinate now, if they don't want to? Leave them to their chosen fate.
I am interested in learning how people who had natural infections, and now the real antibodies, are faring. Particularly in the young who enjoy high recovery rates, maybe natural infection can reduce the spread of the new variant.
I had it and recovered, so this applies to me.
“Natural infection exposes us to all the proteins of the virus – not just one like the vaccine – leading to a wider response by the immune system. Even someone who has a low level of antibodies will be protected by T-lymphocytes, a cellular protection – and given this response directed at more viral proteins, new variants will have more difficulty entering the organism” (1).
The quoted immunologist is on twitter and is relatively conventional (2).
I have attempted to research this specific line some but because there is so much skewing with searches right now I haven't had too much luck. Suppose partially why I share it in comment form is I never felt it was of quality for a post submission eg.. it's not the original source. I do think if that quote is accurate then the issue of testing for t cells et al to determine whether someone has been infected prior to vaccination might be a good way to go especially if the concluding remarks by Camara et al hold true in that "the second BNT162b2 vaccine dose results in a reduction of cellular immunity in COVID-19 recovered individuals" (3).
Both my brother and I have uc. My brother got the vaccination and developed a pretty bad flare up. My uc condition has always been a bit more severe than his. I know I have had the virus and even volunteered to help out months later when sister and her husband got sick and nothing developed on my end. Considering Akinosoglou et al hypothesis, "that, even though, COVID-19 vaccination does not provoke de novo immune mediated adverse events, it is possible that, the immunologic response triggers pre- existing underlying dysregulated pathways" (4), I have been wary of taking the vaccine with the additional knowledge that I had the natural infection. Luckily in that I am self employed and work from home, most of my shopping is done online even prior to the pandemic so I feel at least I'm well positioned to wait it out a bit longer until research down the road with less upfront bias emerges.
1. https://www.portugalresident.com/new-data-shows-natural-covi... 2. https://twitter.com/lgraca 3. https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.03.22.436441 4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clim.2021.108721
Here's a question: If subsequent vaccine doses reduce humoral and cellular immunity, which are the primary source of long-term protection in the Covid recovered, AND if the vaccines don't actually prevent infection, then are people who get boosters for each new variant just going to be tanking their own long-term immunity regardless of how many times they get infected and recover?
1. https://doi.org/10.1093/infdis/jiz433
https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/mBio.01503-21
https://i.ibb.co/2YJYSRK/226206675-10219822648699699-6602884...