Worth noting that plenty of studies demonstrate the exact opposite: Natural Immunity is superior and durable. Vaccine effectiveness largely wanes after 4-5 months. Even the CDC has acknowledged this.
All this study has shown is that lots of very specific antibodies are produced via vaccination. We already know those antibodies aren't very robust (targeting just a few epitopes on the spike protein). Naturally produced antibodies, however, are robust and target epitopes across multiple proteins including the spike protein.
Additionally, this study isn't looking at any other aspect of our immune system, only antibody levels. We already know antibodies aren't the end-all-be-all of immunity. It also isn't differentiating between IgG, IgM, or IgA antibodies. If you want to prevent infection, you'll need IgA antibodies and the mRNA vaccines are incapable of producing any of those.
> Vaccine effectiveness largely wanes after 4-5 months.
The article merely says Thus, our data indicates that mRNA vaccination may generate more neutralizing RBD antibodies than natural immunity.
It makes no mention of how long it lasts. So, it is entirely possible that mRNA vaccine produce more antibodies but they diminish pretty quickly. While, an infection produces fewer antibodies, relatively speaking of course, but they last longer. Yes?
Which makes the lockdown/mandates even more damning to me. Back when the vaccines were available, California removed the mask mandate and then quickly put it back in place. It seems quite obvious (even at the time) that they should've fully opened and allowed people to take advantage of the strong immunity vaccination provided heading into a summer of mild transmission. People would've received both benefits: strong short term immunity and a natural boost from casual transmission.
None of them say that the lockdown will be lifted once a vaccine is available.
They say that the lockdowns will remain in place until a vaccine is available.
Those are not the same thing.
Both of us seem pretty dug in: you that goalposts were set and then moved; me that there was always a wait-and-see attitude. I need to move on with my day so I’m going to bow out now.
One of the issues is that we conflate "antibodies" with "immunity". Antibodies are something we can measure so that's why there's been so much emphasis on them. But they do naturally diminish over time.
Long term and durable disease immunity comes from B-cells and T-cells. They create antibodies when they run into an infection they've seen or even not seen before. Unfortunately those are difficult to measure.
Good recent podcast from Dr. Peter Attia discusses this (How B cells and T cells work together to defend against viruses [22:00])
> While, an infection produces fewer antibodies, relatively speaking of course, but they last longer. Yes?
Antibodies are antibodies. They're all subject to the same fundamental breakdown and clearance mechanisms in the body, and don't really "last longer" based on origin. There's a dosing effect (i.e. a big spike lingers longer than a small one), but the dynamics of the process don't change, so far as we know.
As an aside, all of these arguments based on antibody levels/neutralizing titer are extremely reductionist, and we have plenty of clinical data now that is better and more to the point. The immune system is more than antibodies. This debate is pretty facile.
It's perhaps interesting to talk about neutralizing ability of antibodies "natural" vs. "vaccine" if you're interested in making a better vaccine, but even then, there are so many versions of "natural" immunity that any general discussion is pointless. Everyone has a different antibody response, and moreover, antibodies are targeted to whatever variant(s) you've seen in the past. Meanwhile, there's exactly one vaccine variant. Broad comparisons are almost impossible.
This study is also pretty old, despite being "published" now. It was originally submitted in June of 2021, and discusses the N501Y (presumably V1, given the timing) variant, which is no longer relevant.
Worse, the vaccinated samples were all gathered by mid-March 2021, and except for three people, all were gathered within 40 days of vaccination. But the median time from symptoms for those who were previously infected was over two hundred days.
This difference alone hopelessly confounds any stated conclusion, yet they've buried this essential information in the supplemental materials (ST1 & 2). This paper is bad.
Yea, if this is like the many other similar studies, they are restricting the antibodies counted to the ones specifically made to match the spike protein.
Natural immunity makes less for the spike, but more overall, both in breadth of type and total number.
Artificially limiting the count to one type of antibody is like claiming to be richer than Warren Buffet because you have more cash in your wallet than him in line at McDonalds, and ignoring the fact that your wallet contains your total net wealth.
The antibodies may be more effective, but they're less enduring.
"Hence, the data suggests that the antibody levels of convalescent sera did not decline significantly for 8 months post infections, whereas the ultrahigh RBD antibody levels achieved with mRNA vaccines could be subject to a more rapid decline."
It's hard to say, on balance, that the effect of an individual being vaccinated on public health is significantly greater than the effect of an individual previously having COVID-19 and fully recovering.
Perhaps someone with a better understanding of the field could help draw reasonable conclusions?
All this study has shown is that lots of very specific antibodies are produced via vaccination. We already know those antibodies aren't very robust (targeting just a few epitopes on the spike protein). Naturally produced antibodies, however, are robust and target epitopes across multiple proteins including the spike protein.
Additionally, this study isn't looking at any other aspect of our immune system, only antibody levels. We already know antibodies aren't the end-all-be-all of immunity.
Not mentioned in this study is that mRNA vaccination produces zero IgA antibodies. For an airborne respiratory illness, IgA antibodies are your first line of defense. Naturally immune folk get tons of IgA antibodies protecting them from covid. mRNA vaxxers get none. This is why the vaccine offers no protection against infection.
“The data demonstrate COVID-19 mRNA vaccines effectively induce spike antigen specific IgG and IgA and highlight marked differences in their persistence in serum.“
Anecdata: everyone in my circle that had Pfizer or Moderna got Omnicron. Those of us who had J&J (and the two idiots who were never vaccinated and got Delta) did not, despite many hours indoors with the omnis. Some studies suggest that J&J triggers a similar immunity as an infection, and so was more effective against omnicron, but as J&J has become a disavowed vaccines there aren't many studies on it anymore.
Why does this make them idiots? Maybe they reviewed the trial data and observed the increased all-cause mortality in the vaccinated group, looked at the history of rushed vaccines, looked at the list of unknowns regarding mRNA technology, and decided "no thanks".
Indeed, hindsight is proving those "idiots" to be quite the opposite.
The data isn’t in yet. In tone age brackets, myocarditis rates are very High. Accounting for 1% average reporting rates and the possibility for undiagnosed cases, the long term survival rate for unvaccinated young people could be higher.
There are also concerns about the effects of lipid nanoparticles. They spread Throughout the body (pfizer flatly lied about them staying in the muscle tissue) and no long term study about them was done by pfizer or moderna.
Other studies on the topic show them to be extremely harmful and even lethal in animals. It seems like each shot just builds up more in your system too.
Another data point: my dad got J&J, didn't get the booster, got omicron, ended up in the hospital with pneumonia and in the early stages of kidney failure.
Other anecdata: I had Pfizer, my girlfriend had Moderna, we both had Covid back in March 2020. Neither of us got Omnicron despite exposure. A friend who had Covid early on and had J&J did get Omnicron.
A lot of misinformation is circulating about the J&J vaccine.
It works by infecting your body with an adenovirus that allegedly can’t reproduce. When it infects your cells, it forces them to produce spike protein. Your body then creates antibodies against these proteins.
If you have an immunity to a similar adenovirus, most of the vaccine will be killed off. Likewise, after being vaccinated, your body develops an immunity to the vaccine.
The only differences with the mRNA vaccine in antibodies would arise from slightly different spike proteins being generated by the cells. The rest of the antibodies are gained from the rest of the COVID virus, but those don’t exist in the adenovirus, so there’s no way it uses creating them. At most, the antibodies against the adenovirus might have some little incidental effect. If it were a large effect then we’d expect tons of people to have immunity and covid would not be novel.
Finally I’ll add that J&J is hardly “traditional”. Despite the marketing, only two other viral vector vaccines have been created for humans —- they were both emergency Ebola vaccines released in 2016 and 2019 respectively. 3-5 years and two emergency vaccines is hardly what anyone would believe traditional means.
The obsessive focus on neutralizing antibodies in blood samples is beginning to border on irresponsible.
Circulating antibodies are one facet of the layered immune system response. Mucosal membrane antibodies and T-cells (mucosal membranes have their own 'micro-immune system' which injected vaccines do little to help), general T-cells, etc are extremely important in overall immune system response. One could argue that mucosal immune system health and then T-cell response are more important than blood antibody levels.
Also general inflammation in the body, endocrine system health, and immune system modulation are important factors affecting COVID outcomes. I think there has not been near enough attention on these factors.
> There was a difference in the antibody levels from samples taken within 2 months and at 6 months post second dose where the 6 months antibody levels were sharply lower
> In contrast, convalescent sera did not exhibit a correlative between time and antibody levels
> Hence, the data suggests that the antibody levels of convalescent sera did not decline significantly for 8 months post infections, whereas the ultrahigh RBD antibody levels achieved with mRNA vaccines could be subject to a more rapid decline.
> there was no trend of decreasing RBD antibodies in those with natural immunity for up to 9 months in our dataset.
> In comparison, while mRNA vaccines resulted in much higher RBD antibody levels than natural infections, this hyper-elevated level appeared to be less stable with samples at 6 months past the second dose. While our work is still very preliminary, there is a recent study observing similar rapid decline in RBD antibody within 6 months of BNT162b2 vaccine
Just legalize natural immunity already, this is ridiculous.
52 comments
[ 4.2 ms ] story [ 121 ms ] threadCovid is the disease and this study does not address disease directly.
I’m still in the window where I can edit the title (though it’s closing rapidly) so I’m interested in your suggestions.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v...
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7107e2.htm?s_cid=mm...
Additionally, this study isn't looking at any other aspect of our immune system, only antibody levels. We already know antibodies aren't the end-all-be-all of immunity. It also isn't differentiating between IgG, IgM, or IgA antibodies. If you want to prevent infection, you'll need IgA antibodies and the mRNA vaccines are incapable of producing any of those.
The article merely says Thus, our data indicates that mRNA vaccination may generate more neutralizing RBD antibodies than natural immunity.
It makes no mention of how long it lasts. So, it is entirely possible that mRNA vaccine produce more antibodies but they diminish pretty quickly. While, an infection produces fewer antibodies, relatively speaking of course, but they last longer. Yes?
The EUA was approved because vaccine efficacy had been clearly demonstrated.
Could you point me to that?
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/health/uk-will-stay-in-lockd...
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-lockdo...
https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/coronavirus-lockdown-part-of...
https://www.fox35orlando.com/news/orange-county-residents-co...
And then the goalposts began to move: https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/joe-biden-now-says-ame...
None of them say that the lockdown will be lifted once a vaccine is available.
They say that the lockdowns will remain in place until a vaccine is available.
Those are not the same thing.
Both of us seem pretty dug in: you that goalposts were set and then moved; me that there was always a wait-and-see attitude. I need to move on with my day so I’m going to bow out now.
And now I’m really out. :)
(Like all communication…)
Also, see this comment [1] about the data. Horrendous paper, very manipulative.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30363571
Long term and durable disease immunity comes from B-cells and T-cells. They create antibodies when they run into an infection they've seen or even not seen before. Unfortunately those are difficult to measure.
Good recent podcast from Dr. Peter Attia discusses this (How B cells and T cells work together to defend against viruses [22:00])
https://peterattiamd.com/covid-part2/
Antibodies are antibodies. They're all subject to the same fundamental breakdown and clearance mechanisms in the body, and don't really "last longer" based on origin. There's a dosing effect (i.e. a big spike lingers longer than a small one), but the dynamics of the process don't change, so far as we know.
As an aside, all of these arguments based on antibody levels/neutralizing titer are extremely reductionist, and we have plenty of clinical data now that is better and more to the point. The immune system is more than antibodies. This debate is pretty facile.
It's perhaps interesting to talk about neutralizing ability of antibodies "natural" vs. "vaccine" if you're interested in making a better vaccine, but even then, there are so many versions of "natural" immunity that any general discussion is pointless. Everyone has a different antibody response, and moreover, antibodies are targeted to whatever variant(s) you've seen in the past. Meanwhile, there's exactly one vaccine variant. Broad comparisons are almost impossible.
Worse, the vaccinated samples were all gathered by mid-March 2021, and except for three people, all were gathered within 40 days of vaccination. But the median time from symptoms for those who were previously infected was over two hundred days.
This difference alone hopelessly confounds any stated conclusion, yet they've buried this essential information in the supplemental materials (ST1 & 2). This paper is bad.
Natural immunity makes less for the spike, but more overall, both in breadth of type and total number.
Artificially limiting the count to one type of antibody is like claiming to be richer than Warren Buffet because you have more cash in your wallet than him in line at McDonalds, and ignoring the fact that your wallet contains your total net wealth.
You can't even say simply that one vaccine is better or worse or than another because now you have to say better or worse at what exactly.
"Hence, the data suggests that the antibody levels of convalescent sera did not decline significantly for 8 months post infections, whereas the ultrahigh RBD antibody levels achieved with mRNA vaccines could be subject to a more rapid decline."
It's hard to say, on balance, that the effect of an individual being vaccinated on public health is significantly greater than the effect of an individual previously having COVID-19 and fully recovering.
Perhaps someone with a better understanding of the field could help draw reasonable conclusions?
Vaccine give more protection but for a shorter period of time.
Additionally, this study isn't looking at any other aspect of our immune system, only antibody levels. We already know antibodies aren't the end-all-be-all of immunity.
“The data demonstrate COVID-19 mRNA vaccines effectively induce spike antigen specific IgG and IgA and highlight marked differences in their persistence in serum.“
Why does this make them idiots? Maybe they reviewed the trial data and observed the increased all-cause mortality in the vaccinated group, looked at the history of rushed vaccines, looked at the list of unknowns regarding mRNA technology, and decided "no thanks".
Indeed, hindsight is proving those "idiots" to be quite the opposite.
Deaths in the trial were at a rate consistent with the normal mortality rate for people with their background. https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-pfizer-health-c...
There are also concerns about the effects of lipid nanoparticles. They spread Throughout the body (pfizer flatly lied about them staying in the muscle tissue) and no long term study about them was done by pfizer or moderna.
Other studies on the topic show them to be extremely harmful and even lethal in animals. It seems like each shot just builds up more in your system too.
Lipids break down in the body and do not bioaccumulate. https://www.cas.org/resource/blog/understanding-nanotechnolo...
Presumably, your animal study is https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-mice-idUSKBN2A2..., which has nothing to do with the Covid vaccines.
While ignoring the increased all-cause mortality in the "unvaccinated with COVID" group. That's what makes them idiots.
It works by infecting your body with an adenovirus that allegedly can’t reproduce. When it infects your cells, it forces them to produce spike protein. Your body then creates antibodies against these proteins.
If you have an immunity to a similar adenovirus, most of the vaccine will be killed off. Likewise, after being vaccinated, your body develops an immunity to the vaccine.
The only differences with the mRNA vaccine in antibodies would arise from slightly different spike proteins being generated by the cells. The rest of the antibodies are gained from the rest of the COVID virus, but those don’t exist in the adenovirus, so there’s no way it uses creating them. At most, the antibodies against the adenovirus might have some little incidental effect. If it were a large effect then we’d expect tons of people to have immunity and covid would not be novel.
Finally I’ll add that J&J is hardly “traditional”. Despite the marketing, only two other viral vector vaccines have been created for humans —- they were both emergency Ebola vaccines released in 2016 and 2019 respectively. 3-5 years and two emergency vaccines is hardly what anyone would believe traditional means.
Circulating antibodies are one facet of the layered immune system response. Mucosal membrane antibodies and T-cells (mucosal membranes have their own 'micro-immune system' which injected vaccines do little to help), general T-cells, etc are extremely important in overall immune system response. One could argue that mucosal immune system health and then T-cell response are more important than blood antibody levels.
Also general inflammation in the body, endocrine system health, and immune system modulation are important factors affecting COVID outcomes. I think there has not been near enough attention on these factors.
> There was a difference in the antibody levels from samples taken within 2 months and at 6 months post second dose where the 6 months antibody levels were sharply lower
> In contrast, convalescent sera did not exhibit a correlative between time and antibody levels
> Hence, the data suggests that the antibody levels of convalescent sera did not decline significantly for 8 months post infections, whereas the ultrahigh RBD antibody levels achieved with mRNA vaccines could be subject to a more rapid decline.
> there was no trend of decreasing RBD antibodies in those with natural immunity for up to 9 months in our dataset.
> In comparison, while mRNA vaccines resulted in much higher RBD antibody levels than natural infections, this hyper-elevated level appeared to be less stable with samples at 6 months past the second dose. While our work is still very preliminary, there is a recent study observing similar rapid decline in RBD antibody within 6 months of BNT162b2 vaccine
Just legalize natural immunity already, this is ridiculous.