EVNow
Well-Known Member
I'll take it before we travel in summer....
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Coronavirus
- Thread starter Wenche
- Start date
Tiger
Active Member
You might want to boost with natural immunity now (while the previous booster gives you protection) just in case the next strain is tougher.
This is horrible advice, do NOT take it.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
That's not what the linked article says.
EVNow
Well-Known Member
LOL. I'm not sure "natural immunity" is better than long covid.
BTW, I don't think you even read that news article. It gives info from multiple studies that show differing results. And it ends with the following.
Most importantly - why would I actively get infected, so that I won't get infected in the future ? I might as well get infected in the future, right ? Whats the difference ?
It is the stupidest thing I've ever read - get infected now so you won't get infected later. Its like committing suicide now to reduce probability of dying in a traffic accident later.
Last edited:
This is a very interesting new paper about the UK volunteers who were deliberately infected with the early pre-alpha wild-type virus.
EVNow
Well-Known Member
Half the people don't develop Covid even after being injected with virus. So, ~ 50% had natural immunity.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
Natural immunity from a booster would be fine, but since that is likely not what you meant, this is ridiculous nonsense. Infection-acquired immunity works, but it is an unnecessary risk. It would be insane to seek out infection.
This doesn’t even make any sense. For this “strategy,” why not get the natural immunity from a second booster and then take chances on infection (while not seeking it out), “while the second booster gives you protection?”
Immune-evasive variants that are more virulent are possible, but there’s no evidence that infection-acquired immunity would be better than vaccine-acquired natural immunity in that case. For example, Omicron infection in those with no vaccination history (even if there was prior infection) led to weaker measured antibody protection against other variants, than infection by Omicron after vaccination did. This is well covered in this thread.
Natural immunity is great - but it is best and most reliably acquired from a low-risk vaccine.
Not eligible for the booster without cheating again, so for now I’ll wait. 7 months out.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
It was intranasal drops. And the dose was deliberately chosen to get an endpoint of 50-70% of the population infected (dose model of infection). It was 10x the TCID50 that people were exposed to that seemed to give this result.
This does not exactly mean “immunity,” at least not in the sense we think about after infection/vaccination. It means that the innate immunity of the human body (non-targeted responses, interferon or whatever) was able to repel this dose in 50% of individuals. It’s quite likely that these people can become infected - they have no targeted (adaptive) immunity. Obviously they checked for antibodies during this trial (two people were excluded because they seroconverted).
Titrating the dose was likely one way they improved the safety of this trial.
Last edited:
One of the ~18 people who didn’t become infected during the trial was “naturally” infected soon after it was over.
I have the impression that the viral dose given to the volunteers was relatively low — far lower than doses of the flu given to people in challenge studies. I suspect you are right that the dose was low enough that 47% of the subjects were simply able to shrug off the virus with typical innate immunity mechanisms.
EVNow
Well-Known Member
I'd call this "natural immunity" - just the way vaccinated people can still get the disease, these people might get the disease at higher doses, but they don't get infected with doses that are 10x what would infect 50% of people.
This would, for eg., explain why some people in a household get infected and not others.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
That’s not what happened. As I understand it, they got 10x TCID50. This infected 50% of people.
Note TCID50 is not defined as the dose that would infect 50% of people.
So the people in this study got a dose that would infect 50% of people. Which was 10 TCID50.
Sure, it’s natural immunity, in a sense. Similar to how every microbe and disease does not infect an individual, many people can neutralize small doses of infectious virus. But put these people in a room with someone who is infectious, exposing them to typical levels of viral particles, and they’re very likely going to be infected.
At least that is my understanding.
Anyway, I definitely would not conclude from this that 50% of these people, with no adaptive immunity to this specific coronavirus, can hang around someone infectious and not get infected. They were simply challenged with small doses of virus in non-aerosolized form, not deep into the lungs, etc.
Last edited:
Doggydogworld
Active Member
Covid hospitalizations are below 12k, lowest since this all started. Hospitalizations were 150k+ in January. I saw another chart which said only 2k were in the ICU now vs. 3.6k at last summer's low point. Deaths have fallen >75% from the peak in late January, but at 582/day are still more than twice last year's low point. The trend is still downward, and based on hospitalization/ICU we might get as low as 150/day.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
New Mutant “XE” Omicron Variant May Be The Most Transmissible Version Of Covid Yet, According To WHO
The CDC announced this week that the BA.2 Omicron variant, which is reportedly 30% more transmissible than the original BA.1 Omicron strain — has become dominant among new cases sequenced in the United States. That’s a startling rise for a variant that was less than 1% of all sequences as...
Daniel in SD
(supervised)
Getting back to zero COVID looking increasingly unlikely...
Tiger
Active Member
You were missing the point. Now you have a weak (omicron) strain which your body can handle (safely) with your existing resistance from previous vaccination. The protection you get from natural infection is then better than getting a new vaccination.
This is currently not the same as in the beginning of the pandemic when the strains were much more severe (and maybe you didn't yet have an underlying vaccination).
Using your "traffic accident analogy" vaccination gives you a ** safety rating in a car (and for a shorter period!) and natural immunity gives you **** (for a longer period) which one you want to drive into the sunset?
Further discussion here:
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
You don't know how your body will handle an infection or what the long term effects will be and suggesting otherwise is completely irresponsible.
If you’re a healthy adult you have a great understanding of how your body will react. But most aren’t healthy
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Nonsense. Sure statistically you're likely to have better outcomes but healthy individuals have still had terrible experiences, long lasting effects, and even death.
Similar threads
