Infection Plus Vaccination Yields Better Protection Against COVID-19 Variants

[Grim Reaper 6]

Antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein produced by the immune system can help identify and fend off future infections, but not all antibodies are the same. People who either recovered from COVID-19 early in the pandemic or received a current vaccine may not be able to fend off new and emerging variants.But, this week in mBio, an open-access journal of the American Society for Microbiology, researchers report that the combination of the 2 can produce a more potent defense. According to the study, people who’ve had an infection and received a vaccine have high-quality antibodies that act against spike variants—and more effectively than either group alone.“It shows that antibody quality can improve over time, and not just quantity,” said immunologist and physician Otto Yang, M.D., at the David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California Los Angeles. Finding the optimal mix of antibodies could help guide future preventive efforts. “It fits into understanding what the optimal vaccination regimen is,” said Yang, who led the new study.

Infection Plus Vaccination Yields Better Protection Against COVID-19 Variants (scitechdaily.com)

Peer Reviewed Journal -- Previous Infection Combined with Vaccination Produces Neutralizing Antibodies with Potency against SARS-CoV-2 Variants: Previous Infection Combined with Vaccination Produces Neutralizing Antibodies with Potency against SARS-CoV-2 Variants | mBio (asm.org)

 

  

[Only_]

One of the problem is that we don't test antibodies. Not everyone might need a vaccine while others could benefit from it. That is my situation, I had a C-19 infection + 1 shot a year later. It always puzzled me why some people rushed to get their two C-19 shots immediately after a recovery. It doesn't make any sense according to the scientific literature. But then a lot of what people and governments do don't make sense.

Edited December 7, 2021 by Only_

[Dark_Grey]

Hopefully this results in the end of the pandemic. Coronaviruses will always be around but given the highly contagious nature of the omni variant and the inability of the vaxx to defend against it, this variant should rip across the world leaving everyone with robust antibodies. The next variant will mostly effect the elderly bringing us full circle.

[Only_]

21 minutes ago, Dark_Grey said:

[...]and the inability of the vaxx to defend against it[...]

That part is still pretty much under investigation.

The current C-19 vaccines might still offer some sort of protection, even if minimal.

What's good news is that the Omnicron variant seems to cause less severe infections.

Edited December 7, 2021 by Only_

[Grim Reaper 6]

5 hours ago, Only_ said:

One of the problem is that we don't test antibodies. Not everyone might need a vaccine while others could benefit from it. That is my situation, I had a C-19 infection + 1 shot a year later. It always puzzled me why some people rushed to get their two C-19 shots immediately after a recovery. It doesn't make any sense according to the scientific literature. But then a lot of what people and governments do don't make sense.

After a recovery from a SARS-Cov-2 most people have a good antibody response to Covid 19, however just like the immune response from vaccines. Now in reality both responses lose there ability to react to infections approximately 6 months and that why is breakthrough are becoming so  prevalent. However during case studies it has been proven that the antibody and immune response are not only stronger than either alone, it also has a longer efficacy that so far is much longer than either. 

This is why it's important that even though you may have natural immunity by becoming infected, it is still necessary to get the vaccine becuase this will make your immune response that much stronger.

 

[Only_]

1 hour ago, Manwon Lender said:

This is why it's important that even though you may have natural immunity by becoming infected, it is still necessary to get the vaccine becuase this will make your immune response that much stronger.

 

That's where testing antibodies would be useful. If you have high levels of antibodies after a C-19 infection, I don't think need you need a vaccine. You should wait until the natural immunity decline as it  probably will overtime and then consider if getting a shot is necessery.

Edited December 8, 2021 by Only_

[Grim Reaper 6]

25 minutes ago, Only_ said:

That's where testing antibodies would be useful. If you have high levels of antibodies after a C-19 infection, I don't think need you need a vaccine. You should wait until the natural immunity decline as it  probably will overtime and then consider if getting a shot is necessery.

Your certainly welcome to your opinion, but your opinion doesn’t agree with the medical community in anyway. 

[Only_]

2 hours ago, Manwon Lender said:

Your certainly welcome to your opinion, but your opinion doesn’t agree with the medical community in anyway. 

There is a lot that we don’t know about the immune response to C-19. Claiming otherwise is not science.

Edited December 8, 2021 by Only_

[Grim Reaper 6]

37 minutes ago, Only_ said:

There is a lot that we don’t know about the immune response to C-19. Claiming otherwise is not science.

Where do you get your information from, list a few sites?

[Only_]

12 hours ago, Manwon Lender said:

Where do you get your information from, list a few sites?

I use a wide variety of sources. Articles, interviews, scientific journals ect. I don't restrict myself to only mainstream sources.

[Grim Reaper 6]

7 hours ago, Only_ said:

I use a wide variety of sources. Articles, interviews, scientific journals ect. I don't restrict myself to only mainstream sources.

I asked you to name your sources, I will give you another chance to do that. Please name the sources you use?

[+Nuclear Wessel]

On 12/7/2021 at 3:37 PM, Only_ said:

It doesn't make any sense according to the scientific literature.

Cite the specific literature you're referring to, because as per the CDC's website:

Quote

 

Multiple studies in different settings have consistently shown that infection with SARS-CoV-2 and vaccination each result in a low risk of subsequent infection with antigenically similar variants for at least 6 months. Numerous immunologic studies and a growing number of epidemiologic studies have shown that vaccinating previously infected individuals significantly enhances their immune response and effectively reduces the risk of subsequent infection, including in the setting of increased circulation of more infectious variants.

Source: Science Brief: SARS-CoV-2 Infection-induced and Vaccine-induced Immunity | CDC

 

 

[Only_]

59 minutes ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

Cite the specific literature you're referring to, because as per the CDC's website:

From your link:

Quote

''Antibody titers peak within 3-5 weeks following infection and then begin to wane in a manner that varies by individual, target antigen, antibody isotype, and assay used ^{[6, 51]}. Anti-N antibodies appear to wane fastest, followed by anti-RBD, then anti-S antibodies. Although at least 30% of persons may lose detectable anti-N antibodies within 10 months after infection, anti-S and overall SARS-CoV-2-specific IgG remain detectable in approximately 90% of persons who seroconvert up to 10 months to one year post-infection ^{[16, 52]}. Neutralizing antibodies appear to have a biphasic decline with an initial half-life of 2–3 months followed by a slower decline ^{[11, 14, 1''}

^[...]

''In these studies, primary RT-PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection decreased risk of subsequent infection by 80–93% for at least 6–9 months ^[54-58]. Studies specifically assessing persons seropositive with anti-N and anti-S antibodies following infection ^{[16, 45]} found slightly higher protective effects (89–93%). Most studies had a mean or median follow-up period of approximately 7 months; the longest reported follow-up was 12 months post-infection ^[58]. Three studies included sub-analysis to assess if the protection waned over time; none of these found a decline in protection within the follow-up period''

Unless you test antibodies and confirm they are non-existent, why would you rush to get a vaccine if you are protected after a positive C-19 infection? The link you posted points to studies confirming immunity up to 12 months, with a median period of 7 months after infection. It makes absolutely no sense to get two shots immediately if you have just been tested positive for C-19. Again, I'm not an anti-vaxxers in case your are trying to paint me in that corner. I had a positive C-19 diagnosis and waited at least a year until getting one vaccine shot. In retrospect, it appears to be the best decision in terms of optimal immunity. Studies do confirm that.

Edited December 9, 2021 by Only_

[+Nuclear Wessel]

12 hours ago, Only_ said:

From your link:

Unless you test antibodies and confirm they are non-existent, why would you rush to get a vaccine if you are protected after a positive C-19 infection?

I suspect because the immune response generated from infection is not exactly the same as an immune response generated from an mRNA vaccine:

Quote

-  protective antibodies generated in response to an mRNA vaccine will target a broader range of SARS-CoV-2 variants carrying 'single letter' changes in a key portion of their spike protein compared to antibodies acquired from an infection

- antibodies elicited by the mRNA vaccine were more focused to the RBD [Receptor Binding Domain; the part of the spike protein that allows for it to lock itself to receptors on the body's cells] compared to antibodies elicited by an infection, which more often targeted other portions of the spike protein. Importantly, the vaccine-elicited antibodies targeted a broader range of places on the RBD than those elicited by natural infection.

-  it’s possible that mRNA delivery may change the way antigens are presented to the immune system, leading to differences in the antibodies that get produced.

- natural infection only exposes the body to the virus in the respiratory tract (unless the illness is very severe), while the vaccine is delivered to muscle, where the immune system may have an even better chance of seeing it and responding vigorously.

Source: How Immunity Generated from COVID-19 Vaccines Differs from an Infection – NIH Director's Blog
Referenced article: Antibodies elicited by mRNA-1273 vaccination bind more broadly to the receptor binding domain than do those from SARS-CoV-2 infection (nih.gov)

 

13 hours ago, Only_ said:

It makes absolutely no sense to get two shots immediately if you have just been tested positive for C-19.

Maybe not to you, but the opposite of this claim is being strongly recommended by the medical consensus, and evidence is mounting in support of the consensus.

 

13 hours ago, Only_ said:

Again, I'm not an anti-vaxxers in case your are trying to paint me in that corner. I had a positive C-19 diagnosis and waited at least a year until getting one vaccine shot.

Not trying to paint you as such, at all. 

 

13 hours ago, Only_ said:

In retrospect, it appears to be the best decision in terms of optimal immunity. Studies do confirm that.

Personally, I would be interested in seeing the studies that confirm that this is the case. Given what we know about the differences in the immune response to mRNA vaccination v. the response due to infection it would be ideal to have as much protection as you can possibly get, as soon as you can get it.

[aztek]

sounds like a damage control's preemptive strike, to justify forced vaccines, even when data shows it has no effect on infection rates.

Edited December 9, 2021 by aztek

[+Nuclear Wessel]

Just now, aztek said:

even when data shows it has no effect on infection rates.

You've been looking at the wrong data, or no data at all (which I suspect to be the case).

[Only_]

20 minutes ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

Maybe not to you, but the opposite of this claim is being strongly recommended by the medical consensus, and evidence is mounting in support of the consensus.

Vaccinating people who already have immunity from C-19 and children (who are not at risk) is contributing to the situation we are in right now.

New variants emerging in poor nations who don't have access to any vaccines.

“We could have been in a much better situation,” he said. “Countries that vaccinate children and other low-risk groups now do so at the expense of health workers and high-risk groups in other countries. That’s the reality. ... The ongoing vaccine crisis is a scandalous inequity that is perpetuating the pandemic.”

-  Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesusof, Director-General of the WHO.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/world/article-who-criticizes-rich-countries-for-vaccinating-children-against-covid/

Edited December 9, 2021 by Only_

[+Nuclear Wessel]

23 minutes ago, Only_ said:

Vaccinating people who already have immunity from C-19 and children (who are not at risk) is contributing to the situation we are in right now.

New variants emerging in poor nations who don't have access to any vaccines.

This seems more like a logistical problem, however the solution shouldn't be "stop immunizing those with natural immunity"/"low risk" because as I outlined above, natural immunity combined with vaccine-induced immunity creates a very robust defence against COVID (more than just natural immunity alone); the solution should be "have rich countries finance development and distribute vaccines to countries that can't afford it".

[Only_]

31 minutes ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

the solution should be "have rich countries finance development and distribute vaccines to countries that can't afford it".

If the goal was to eradicate C-19, then it should be a global race against the clock. There is only a limited amount of vaccines available which the pharmaceutical giants have sold the vast majority to rich countries. Some people have received vaccine doses that they don't needed and that should have been distributed to poorer nations instead.

Edited December 9, 2021 by Only_

[+Nuclear Wessel]

12 minutes ago, Only_ said:

There is only a limited amount of vaccines available which the pharmaceutical giants have sold the vast majority to rich countries. 

42 minutes ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

have rich countries finance development and distribute vaccines to countries that can't afford it.

Also, some countries have already started (or will be)sharing their doses:

Canada promises 73 million more COVID-19 vaccine doses for the developing world | CBC News

China to donate 600 million COVID-19 vaccine doses to Africa - ABC News (go.com)

Edited December 9, 2021 by Nuclear Wessel

[Only_]

That seems a bit too late, doesn't it?

While people here have received their booster shots and we vaccinate children or people with strong antibodies, new variants (i.e. 'Omnicron') have had time emerge elsewhere.

Edited December 9, 2021 by Only_

[+Nuclear Wessel]

8 minutes ago, Only_ said:

That seems a bit too late, doesn't it?

It does, unfortunately. The U.S. pledged something upwards of one billion doses to be donated to poorer nations, but only a fraction of that has actually been received. 

8 minutes ago, Only_ said:

While people here have received their booster shots and we vaccinate children or people with strong antibodies, new variants (i.e 'Omnicron') have had time emerge elsewhere.

This is true. Hopefully 2022 will paint a much brighter picture, but I, personally, foresee a very grim year ahead, and that has nothing to do with COVID. We have China likely going to take Taiwan in 2022 (I theorize just before the Beijing Olympics), and we have substantial amounts of Russian troops amassing on the Russian border of Ukraine, with a large scale invasion being suspected to happen by the end of January.

The vaccine/COVID is going to be the least of our worries.

Edited December 9, 2021 by Nuclear Wessel

[Scholar4Truth]

I got my Vaccine on Tuesday and doing fine.