Efficacy of Vaccination.

[ServiceSoon]

"Vaccines have other advantages over natural infections. For one, they can be designed to focus the immune system against specific antigens that elicit better responses.

"For instance, the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine elicits a stronger immune response than infection by the virus itself. One reason for this is that the vaccine contains high concentrations of a viral coat protein, more than what would occur in a natural infection. This triggers strongly neutralising antibodies, making the vaccine very effective at preventing infection." The Conversation.

Fascinating. Does anybody know if COVID vaccines elicit a stronger immune response than natural infection? If they do, how is that determination made (which aspect/marker of an immune response is utilized)?

Is there any validity supported by empirical evidence in the theory that a natural COVID infection provides better protection against future COVID infection because a natural immune response includes all aspects of the adaptive immune system? These aspects are identification of a harmful pathogen by means of its membrane, envelope, nucleotide, and spike protein. Whereas the current vaccines available for COVID only include an immune response to the spike protein.

 

[Capsid]

Fascinating. Does anybody know if COVID vaccines elicit a stronger immune response than natural infection? If they do, how is that determination made (which aspect/marker of an immune response is utilized)?

Is there any validity supported by empirical evidence in the theory that a natural COVID infection provides better protection against future COVID infection because a natural immune response includes all aspects of the adaptive immune system? These aspects are identification of a harmful pathogen by means of its membrane, envelope, nucleotide, and spike protein. Whereas the current vaccines available for COVID only include an immune response to the spike protein.

Yes, they do as measured by higher antibody titres. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.07.21259499v1.full-text
However, it's not known if higher titres correlate with protection but is considered likely given that titre correlates with vaccine efficacy https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34210573/

 

[ServiceSoon]

Yes, they do as measured by higher antibody titres. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.07.21259499v1.full-text
However, it's not known if higher titres correlate with protection but is considered likely given that titre correlates with vaccine efficacy https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34210573/

Your first link explicitly and only discussed neutralizing antibodies that target the spike protein. It doesn’t mention the other 3 mechanisms that the adaptive immune systems utilize to identify pathogens. Based on this study, I’m not even convinced that vaccinated individuals elicit stronger or longer lasting immunity targeted only at the spike protein because (unless I missed something) the date and time of the vaccinated cohort was known, whereas the week or month of the naturally infected cohort was not know. You cannot compare antibody titers between these cohorts since the titers decline as time progresses.

The second link uses the generic term antibody. It doesn’t mention how that antibody recognizes the pathogen. I’m highly confident that it exclusively targets the spike protein because every vaccine that has been developed and is currently in use targets the spike protein.

My question is still unanswered.

 

[ServiceSoon]

I did a more in-depth reading of your first source

It is accurate that the antibody test are predicated exclusively on the receptor binding domain (RBD) of the spike (S) protein of SARS-CoV-2.
More reading about the antibody test.

The first study you cited had this to say about the immune systems antibody robustness for vaccinated vs. natural infection (With the known caveat that natural infection is much more risky than a vaccine)

In agreement with previous studies, levels of IgG serum antibodies elicited by the mRNA vaccine were significantly higher than those of convalescent individuals11,15,16 and inversely correlated with age17 (Fig 3).

The immune system as measured by antibody tests does react stronger to vaccines than symptomatic or asymptomatic natural infection, but if you read further.

They developed a vaccine that ONLY targets the spike protein. Then they devised an antibody test that ONLY measures seropositivity for a response to the spike protein and compared this antibody test to the immune systems response which includes 3 other mechanisms of identifying pathogens.

It makes sense that the immune system would react stronger to a pathogen containing only the spike protein (vaccine) than the virus which has the spike protein and also the other mechanisms (membrane, envelope, nucleotide). To make a fair comparison of vaccines to natural infection, they would need to develop an antibody test that measures the other three indicators of the immune systems response. It is already known that the vaccine would test no titers for these three additional tests.

The first study you presented even acknowledges this about the antibody tests being used to draw the conclusion that vaccines are better than natural infection:

The serum anti-RBD IgG antibodies that were assayed are highly accurate markers of infection10 and strongly correlate with neutralizing activity11 and disease severity7, but can not be used as sole predictors of anti-SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing ability12.

Which is to say there is more to know and explore. This study mentions one aspect of these unknowns:

Convalescent individuals recovering from symptomatic COVID-19 typically have low plasma titres of RBD-specific antibodies, however, the antigen-specific memory B cells that facilitate the antibody response, maintain and enhance their potency for years11,13,14.

One the other hand, longevity of protection, If you look at figure 3. The trend of the antibody titers of the vaccinated (which are falling fast) will eventually fall below natural symptomatic infected individuals (which is holding steady). These two lines are most likely to cross-over between 120 to 130 days.

 

[ServiceSoon]

Here is a study which Identifies an advantage that natural immunity has when compared to mRNA vaccines at protecting against covid variants.

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.29.454333v1][/url] We conclude that memory antibodies selected over time by natural infection have greater potency and breadth than antibodies elicited by vaccination. These results suggest that boosting vaccinated individuals with currently available mRNA vaccines would produce a quantitative increase in plasma neutralizing activity but not the qualitative advantage against variants obtained by vaccinating convalescent individuals.

Mutation is a problem for vaccines.

 

[dann]

It seems to be a comparison of what vaccines do for people who were never infected and those who were. It does not encourage people to go get infected ...

 

[Foster Zygote]

Study by the University of Kentucky suggests vaccination is beneficial even for those who have already contracted COVID-19, as it greatly reduces reinfection rate.

 

[lomiller]

Fascinating. Does anybody know if COVID vaccines elicit a stronger immune response than natural infection? If they do, how is that determination made (which aspect/marker of an immune response is utilized)?

Is there any validity supported by empirical evidence in the theory that a natural COVID infection provides better protection against future COVID infection because a natural immune response includes all aspects of the adaptive immune system? These aspects are identification of a harmful pathogen by means of its membrane, envelope, nucleotide, and spike protein. Whereas the current vaccines available for COVID only include an immune response to the spike protein.

In theory mRNA vaccines can produce extraordinarily strong immune responses because they enter the cell directly and tell it to produce the protein you want the immune system to respond to. With killed viruses or vaccines based on non-harmful viruses like adenovirus most of it never triggers any immune response.

I say "in theory" wrt mRNA vaccines because they are so new, but they really are a potential game changer for many diseases.

 

[lomiller]

The second link uses the generic term antibody. It doesn’t mention how that antibody recognizes the pathogen. I’m highly confident that it exclusively targets the spike protein because every vaccine that has been developed and is currently in use targets the spike protein.

My question is still unanswered.

My understanding (which may be very flawed) is that the antibodies neutralize the virus by attaching to it's binding receptor. Once it's bound to the antibody the biding receptor no longer has the right shape to bind to a cell so it just dies on it's own without infecting anything.

 

[ServiceSoon]

Study by the University of Kentucky suggests vaccination is beneficial even for those who have already contracted COVID-19, as it greatly reduces reinfection rate.

That is a fairly robust study! There are some limitations that the authors cite. There may be another limitation present that they did not offer.

I request clarification from somebody that is more versed in statistics than I am; From table 2:
N=463 in the group that previously tested positive from the original COVID strain, whom should have natural immunity.
N=219 in the group that has been fully vaccinated by the mRNA technologies.

Does the population of one group being double the other impact the convergence of the parameter being studied? I cannot remember if it is the law of large numbers or perhaps the Central Limit Theorem which implies that as the sample size is increased, the parameter will converge to its limit (aka shift).

tl;dr, I don't believe that any of the limitations the authors cite, nor what I asked above invalidates the basis claim, which is that the mRNA vaccines are better (2.34 times according to this study) at protecting against re-infection of the B.1.351 (Beta) variant than the cohort whom was previously infected with the original strain of COVID. My proclamation was the recognition that the virus and the immune system evolve by their very nature, whereas vaccines are fixed. I am questioning if the efficacy at reducing the prevalence of infection or re-infection of the mRNA vaccines will eventually wane as time progresses when compared to natural infection.

It would take a similar study of the most prominent strain Delta to answer my question.

 

[ServiceSoon]

In theory mRNA vaccines can produce extraordinarily strong immune responses because they enter the cell directly and tell it to produce the protein you want the immune system to respond to. With killed viruses or vaccines based on non-harmful viruses like adenovirus most of it never triggers any immune response.

I say "in theory" wrt mRNA vaccines because they are so new, but they really are a potential game changer for many diseases.

Based on the results that Foster Zygote posted, we have good reason to believe that the theory that mRNA vaccines provide a more robust immune response initially is true when compared with the robustness of our immune system.

 

[ServiceSoon]

My understanding (which may be very flawed) is that the antibodies neutralize the virus by attaching to it's binding receptor. Once it's bound to the antibody the biding receptor no longer has the right shape to bind to a cell so it just dies on it's own without infecting anything.

Sounds plausible. And like you, I am fuzzy on these details.

Based on what I have read from expert resources whose messages have been criticized by the media and suppressed by government and big tech, the binding receptor (spike protein) of COVID will eventually mutate. My question is if natural immunity would be better at providing protection when viewed in this long-term temporal trajectory. My question results in a bifurcates of two possible outcomes that I am interested in (I am not interested if the spike protein never mutates. Then vaccines are superior.);

1) The vaccines are fixed in there ability to elicit antibodies based on a specific spike receptor. If the spike protein of this virus mutates, the vaccines will become less effective. This is good news for the pharmaceutical companies because they would have to develop and sell a new vaccine. Vulnerable populations would no doubt want to continue to take the vaccines due to the risk. If it is found that pharmaceuticals are better at protecting us than natural infection, we should be thankful they exist.

2) The immune system identifies pathogens based on four distinct categories, one of them being the spike protein. If the spike protein of the virus mutates, immunity from natural infection would still be able to theoretically identify the pathogen. In this scenario, I wonder if the efficacy of protecting against infection, re-infection, hospitalization, or death from natural infection will eventually surpass that of the original vaccine?

I think that this entire discussion is based on the concept of any country having finite resources. If we can afford vaccines, which result in less harm than natural infection, and it does NOT require a sacrifice in any other expenditure, why not spend the money?

Personally, I hold the possibility that vaccines impact our biology in ways that we are not aware of therefore contributing to our evolution.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

an analogy to explain how vaccinations work?

In another thread a commenter said words to the effect that a vaccine is not a surface-to-air missile, meaning it cannot prevent a virus from entering your body. I am not sure that this is the ideal thread for my question, but here goes. Suppose you were discussing infections and vaccinations with non-medical, non-scientific people, and you wanted an analogy to explain vaccination. My idea is to liken this to a fire in your home. The vaccine is like the fire department. The firemen cannot go back in time and prevent the start of the fire. They might be able to prevent your home from completely burning down.

The weakness in this analogy is that without the vaccine, one's own immune system may or may not be able to overcome the infection. I am not sure how to incorporate this into my analogy, but I will give it a try. If there is a small house fire, maybe you can put it out with a home fire extinguisher, but maybe not.

 

[Capsid]

For that analogy, the immune response elicited by the vaccine is the sprinkler system that can extinguish the fire before it takes hold.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

sprinkler system

For that analogy, the immune response elicited by the vaccine is the sprinkler system that can extinguish the fire before it takes hold.

That is a good analogy. Thank you.
EDT
At the risk of possibly pushing the analogy too far, one could say that the sprinkler system might not only keep your house from burning down, but it also might keep embers from falling on your neighbors' houses.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I suspect a better analogy than a fire department might be having an army for defence which, even if well funded and up to strength, can be overwhelmed before it can learn a new enemy's tactics and develop its responses. Vaccines are training against a specific enemy.

 

[arthwollipot]

I still like XKCD's analogy.

 

[Myriad]

I still like XKCD's analogy.

Construction Crew B sure got a raw deal, though.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Are long-term side effects a common problem with vaccines

This is an article that I found that discussed the long-term side effects of vaccines, in general.

"“The side effects that we see occur early on, and that’s it,” Goepfert said. “In virtually all cases, vaccine side effects are seen within the first two months after rollout.”" link

Dr. Goepfert is at the University of Alabama. He makes the useful point that vaccines are eliminated; therefore, they are not like medications taken for month or years (which are eliminated but replenished by regular dosing). Eric Topol made the same point in a podcast with Sam Harris.