[HN Gopher] Should individuals who already had a SARS-CoV-2 infe...
___________________________________________________________________
Should individuals who already had a SARS-CoV-2 infection receive 1
or 2 shots? [pdf]
Author : tosh
Score : 23 points
Date : 2021-02-01 18:59 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.medrxiv.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.medrxiv.org)
| call_me_dana wrote:
| None? Or are we supposed to believe synthetic gene therapy will
| do a better job than, you know, nature.
|
| I suspect we'll never know the actual answer because of a very
| simple reason: a for profit medical system that incentivizes
| medical interventions over outcome will naturally push what makes
| them money whether it works or not. Hence the title of this
| article, notice the lack of "0" or "should they get a shot at
| all?"
|
| For those that are saying "trust the science!", that sounds
| really good on paper but lets be real, medical science was
| compromised a long time ago. Why would a corporation with
| shareholders publish studies that directly conflict with their
| business model? They wouldn't.
|
| And if that's not enough, any Covid-19 study that uses a PCR test
| should include the number of RT cycles used. If that threshold is
| not noted anywhere, the information can't be relied upon as
| accurate and it's as good as useless.
|
| For fun, go pick a few Covid-19 related studies and see if you
| can find where the PCR test threshold is noted. I'll save you the
| trouble, it's not there.
| jhayward wrote:
| The number of anti-science misinformation red flags in this are
| remarkable.
|
| Yes, there is strong evidence that vaccine-derived immunity is
| quite a bit more protective (as evidenced by antibody titers)
| than disease-acquired immunity.
|
| The PCR cycle number misinformation is the current tinfoil
| being used to try to claim that there is no "real" epidemic,
| just false positive testing for some nefarious purpose. It's
| nonsense. The case number (ie, positive tests) strongly
| correlate to hospital admissions, which are strongly correlated
| with deaths, which are not f*cking false positives.
|
| So just stop this nonsense please.
| beagle3 wrote:
| I have verified that indeed case counts by PCR correlate with
| hospitalizations and death. It's a good indicator.
|
| I am, however, puzzled by the refusal of testing facilities
| to actually disclose what cycle count they are using. It
| could be too high, it could be too low, it's likely "just
| right". But "trust me I am doing it right" is the wrong
| answer to someone who hasn't yet made up their mind.
| ynfnehf wrote:
| It is certainly of scientific interest to know these things. But
| I suspect the logistics of finding out who already have been
| infected, and only giving them one/zero doses, is not going to be
| worth it. And even then, only a small portion of the population
| have a confirmed infection.
|
| In the coming months a very large amount of vaccines is going to
| arrive in most (western/rich) countries. It is then no longer
| going to be important to optimize exactly who gets the vaccine,
| but instead to increase the vaccination rate.
| Animats wrote:
| Yes. _" Using quantitative serological assays that measure
| antibodies to the spike protein could be used to screen
| individuals prior to vaccination if the infection history is
| unknown."_ So it's possible, with enough testing, to see if
| someone really needs a second shot of vaccine. Then, of course,
| follow up after a month, and probably again later, to see how
| it worked.
| ynfnehf wrote:
| That is the logistics I'm talking about. Testing was
| incredibly slow to scale up last spring, and scaling up tests
| for antibodies as well seems like unnecessary complication.
| We need fewer moving parts, not more.
| NkVczPkybiXICG wrote:
| 0 shots... obviously?
| zender12 wrote:
| If the previous infection had only mild symptoms then probably
| any vaccine would indeed be a waste. After all, the vaccine
| manufacturers only claim to lower the severity of the disease
| but not the infectiousness.
| vkou wrote:
| Vaccine manufacturers only claim this, because that is the
| only claim that they have the data to make, beyond a
| reasonable doubt.
|
| It's entirely possible that the vaccine also lowers the
| infectiousness. We don't know either way, though, because the
| data from the studies isn't in yet.
| scrollaway wrote:
| There is nothing obvious about anything like that.
| tomp wrote:
| Why not?
|
| Vaccines don't actually protect you against the virus, they
| just activate your immune system (your body's natural
| protection). Guess what else also activates the immune
| system? The actual virus!
|
| At the beginning of the pandemic, there was some talk that
| anti-bodies might not last longer than 3 months, but that was
| obviously just FUD (there was literally no data). I had
| antibodies 6 months after being infected. Two additional
| things I heard (but don't have the source), your body can
| restart production of antibodies (B-cells remember), and
| people had SARS(-CoV-1) antibodies years after infection.
|
| Finally, this: https://www.ft.com/content/929ef3cd-8611-49b2-
| 9f23-918dc3470... _Covid infection shown to provide as much
| immunity as vaccines_ - I haven 't checked the source but FT
| isn't really known for fake news.
|
| Are there any credible studies that say that infection _doesn
| 't_ confer immunity?
| unanswered wrote:
| > Are there any credible studies that say that infection
| doesn't confer immunity?
|
| Of course! Economic studies said that vaccine manufacturers
| might not make as much of their investment back if
| infection confers immunity, so we can conclude that
| infection doesn't confer immunity.
| call_me_dana wrote:
| Trying to figure out why a perfectly logical train of
| thought like this is getting downvoted
| scrollaway wrote:
| > _Why not?_
|
| Something can feel instinctively correct and not be
| correct. For example, the sun going around the earth, or
| the earth being flat, for that matter.
|
| I'm not saying it should be 0, 1, 2 or 10 shots; I'm saying
| the answer is absolutely not obvious, even if you
| instinctively want to say zero.
|
| In a world where we're lacking information, the default
| _should_ probably be zero. But given that this is a
| worldwide pandemic, we 're not going to be running out of
| information any time soon, so it's good it's being studied.
| [deleted]
| anonuser123456 wrote:
| The immune response from a vaccine can differ considerably from
| an actual infection.
| postalrat wrote:
| At this point isn't the immune response from an infection
| pretty well known? I'd say more well known than the response
| from a vaccine.
|
| I fail to any disadvantage of "0 shots" other than people not
| getting the vaccine because they think they had covid but
| didn't.
|
| But then again the entire public policy around covid has been
| to treat the entire population as morons that wouldn't make
| the decisions thought to be correct on their own.
| jlokier wrote:
| Not obvious, and probably incorrect.
|
| The immunity induced by the vaccines is said to be potentially
| more effective and/or longer-lasting than the immunity obtained
| from a prior infection.
|
| There is also an open question about whether people who are
| sufficiently immune from prior infection that they won't get
| serious symptoms are still able to pass the virus to others
| during a "fighting it off again successfully" phase.
|
| Immunity is not a simple yes-no boolean. It's not even a single
| variable, because there are different parts of the immune
| system memory.
| tomp wrote:
| _> There is also an open question about whether people who
| are sufficiently immune from prior infection that they won 't
| get serious symptoms are still able to pass the virus to
| others during a "fighting it off again successfully" phase._
|
| Isn't this just as much an open question with vaccines? AFAIK
| the main vaccine trials were only checking for _symptoms_ (so
| you could still be asymptomatic & transmitting the virus).
| lsllc wrote:
| FWIW, US Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA) tested positive on
| Friday for COVID after being exposed to an infected
| staffer. He had received the 2nd vaccine shot prior to the
| inauguration:
|
| https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/30/politics/stephen-lynch-
| tests-...
| worker767424 wrote:
| > FWIW
|
| It's worth basically nothing. We already know it's 95%
| effective; someone has to be the 5%, and there's a
| publication bias towards reporting on those.
| worker767424 wrote:
| Long-term, I agree, vaccines are generally (depends on the
| vaccine) more effective, but when we're dealing with a
| vaccine shortage, deprioritizing people who already have
| antibodies isn't necessarily crazy. I had doubts about
| prioritizing hospital staff who work with covid patients
| because they might have already been exposed (I haven't seen
| any data either way on this), but they also arguably "earned"
| it by being on the front line, so I'm not complaining too
| much, either.
| tosh wrote:
| the gist
|
| > In this short report, we show that the antibody response to the
| first vaccine dose in individuals with pre-existing immunity is
| equal to or even exceeds the titers found in naive individuals
| after the second dose. We also show that the reactogenicity is
| significantly higher in individuals who have been infected with
| SARS-CoV-2 in the past. Changing the policy to give these
| individuals only one dose of vaccine would not negatively impact
| on their antibody titers, spare them from unnecessary pain and
| free up many urgently needed vaccine doses.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| Your body throws the kitchen sink at SARS-CoV-2, it may generate
| spike-based antibodies, but it also might generate core-shell-
| based antibodies, which might mutate more (and therefore bypass
| acquired immunity in the future).
|
| That's one reason why spike-based mRNA vaccines are so
| exciting...
| handoflixue wrote:
| While "zero" obviously isn't the answer long term, I do think
| it's a reasonable one in the short term: The re-infection rate is
| clearly less than 1% given we only have a few anecdotal edge-
| cases there, so "being infected" clearly establishes solid
| protection. The first peak of the pandemic was 9 months ago, and
| we're still not seeing re-infections rise, so there's no reason
| to think this infection-based immunity is short-lived.
|
| Obviously there might be long-term benefits to still vaccinating
| such people, but right now we're dealing with a very limited
| resource. Giving the vaccine to someone who hasn't been infected
| is a huge gain (say, 0% to 60% protection), while the second shot
| is a smaller gain (say, 60% to 90%), and someone who already has
| natural immunity is probably even smaller yet (say, 90% to 99%)
|
| (Numbers are off-the-top-of-my-head and meant to indicate
| magnitude not an exact value)
| lend000 wrote:
| What is your source for reinfection rate less than 1%? It seems
| much higher based on the recent second wave in Manaus [0].
|
| [0] https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-
| perspective/2021/01/variant-...
| Exmoor wrote:
| Here's a source for the reinfection rate. I've seen a few
| studies that all came to the < 1% conclusion:
|
| https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.01.15.21249731v.
| ..
|
| The Manaus data is _interesting_. The basis for assuming
| there 's reinfection happening seems to be a seroprevalence
| survey done over the summer which estimated 76% of the
| population had antibodies to the virus. The accuracy of that
| survey has been called into question for a variety of
| reasons. The survey was done through blood donors and
| apparently they incentivized blood donation by offering
| people the results of their antibodies test as part of
| donation. Since testing capacity during peak infection was
| limited, this would give people who thought they might have
| had the virus (and likely did) incentive to donate blood and
| made the sample not nearly as random as it was presented to
| be.
| timr wrote:
| > The basis for assuming there's reinfection happening
| seems to be a seroprevalence survey done over the summer
| which estimated 76% of the population had antibodies to the
| virus. The accuracy of that survey has been called into
| question for a variety of reasons.
|
| This is exactly correct. Extrapolating from the Manaus
| seroprevalence paper is scientifically tenuous, at best.
| They say so in the Lancet commentary cited in the CIDRAP
| piece cited by OP:
|
| _" In the Lancet report, experts said four factors may be
| at play, some possibly related. First, scientists might
| have overestimated the attack rate for the first surge, and
| infections might have been below the herd immunity
| threshold"_
|
| > The survey was done through blood donors and apparently
| they incentivized blood donation by offering people the
| results of their antibodies test as part of donation. Since
| testing capacity during peak infection was limited, this
| would give people who thought they might have had the virus
| (and likely did) incentive to donate blood and made the
| sample not nearly as random as it was presented to be.
|
| Not just that, but if you read the paper carefully, you'll
| see that they've applied a number of fairly arbitrary
| "corrections" to the data, which pull the seroprevalence
| from an observed 20% range up to the cited "76%" number
| (Figure 2A in this link):
|
| https://science.sciencemag.org/content/371/6526/288
|
| While any of these adjustments might be individually
| merited, when you see a >300% aggregate "adjustment" to the
| raw data, it should make you _very_ skeptical about any
| claims made with that data. Particularly when the raw data
| is _below_ the likely herd-immunity threshold, and has been
| "corrected" to be _above it_.
|
| More simply: the most likely conclusion is that the
| original paper was wrong.
|
| This is perfect example of bad science being propagated by
| journal title and headline. Whomever wrote that (IMHO,
| terrible, editorialized) CIDRAP piece didn't bother to read
| the original data, and just took the first paper's claim at
| face value. Journalists have been (and continue to be)
| insufficiently skeptical when it comes to Covid science --
| except when it suits the narrative they're trying to
| create. If a paper supports their desired narrative, any
| half-baked, highly implausible claim is treated as worth
| serious consideration. If a paper conflicts with their
| claim, no counterargument is too implausible to be
| considered.
| LeoNatan25 wrote:
| Isn't that an antibody-escaping variant? Existing vaccines
| aren't very efficacious for that variant either.
| LeoNatan25 wrote:
| My comment is being downvoted by an emotional crowd, it
| seems, but read this:
| https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.01.15.426911v1
|
| "Our experiments indicate that these variants, and
| potentially others that carry K417N/T, E484K and N501Y
| mutations, can reduce the neutralization potency of
| vaccinee plasma."
|
| Preprint, not peer-reviewed, but still concerning.
| andred14 wrote:
| Stay away from these untested drugs. The satan1c ped0phile
| eugenicists that made them are trying to kill you.
|
| Please learn about these dangerous new vacc1nes:
|
| https://www.bitchute.com/video/KAzUeDrgijM3/
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-02-01 23:03 UTC)