Some discussion of "natural immunity." Not terrible news, but not what we have hoped.
Summary: (The longer reasoning is at the link.)
Ashish K. Jha, MD, MPH @ashishkjha.
So let's be clear about a few things
Is infection-induced immunity real?
Does it help prevent future infections/hospitalizations? Probably...for a while
For first 90 days or so? Almost surely. Beyond that? probably not that much.
Infection-induced immunity is helpful but really doesn't seem to last that long And as virus becomes endemic you are looking at constant reinfections.
Or you could just get vaccinated and avoid all the heartache and misery of having to get infected over and over again.
Among our friends who inform themselves, we have been hearing that vaccination immunity starts to slowly wane at about six months, which is twice as long, and also (probably) goes down more slowly. So somewhere between 2-4 times better, without having to risk the consequences of having the disease. But I defer to better information if you have got it.
Didn't see any links to data at the twitter thread.
As I've noted before, I dislike the term 'natural immunity'. The term 'acquired immunity', which is what I'd always previously heard to describe the immunity that comes from actually getting a disease, seems much clearer.
David Foster: The term 'acquired immunity', which is what I'd always previously heard to describe the immunity that comes from actually getting a disease, seems much clearer.
By definition, acquired immunity includes vaccination, as opposed to innate (or non-specific) immunity, which doesn't require previous exposure. Natural immunity is a bit ambiguous, but can refer to innate immunity or naturally-acquired immunity.
Assistant Village Idiot: Infection-induced immunity is helpful but really doesn't seem to last that long
Infection-induced immunity depends on viral load, and on how well the body responds while under viral attack. Vaccine-induced immunity causes a measured and significant response in most everyone with a normal immune system. Antibodies to the virus appear to be short-lived. In the long run, B-cell and T-cell response is what will protect the human population over the long run.
Z...yeah, I know. No reason to use the broader term when the more-specific one is a better fit. I see people who have never had the disease who think they have natural immunity because they are generally healthy and eat right, etc.
@ David Foster - Scientologists, general anti-vaxxers, and Organic Acolytes do take that tack, yes.
I wrote about how this all descends from German Paganism by various streams just about a decade ago. I think it is still worth reading. https://assistantvillageidiot.blogspot.com/2012/09/german-pagan-all-natural-origins.html Plus links.
It is especially frustrating to me as so many evangelical parents (my children went to private Christian schools and we still have some downstream connections with this) are bought in to this idea that "God has given us everything we need in the natural environment. Natural is just obviously better because the world would be a better place if we all followed God in that way." Well, yes. It would be better if Adam and Eve had never fallen, yes. But the point is they did, and we live in a different world now, and we don't get back to God in any mechanistic way like that now."
Post a Comment