Posted on Oct 24, 2021
Could Natural COVID Immunity be better than Vaccinated Immunity?
1.02K
9
8
3
3
0
Dr. Moran: "Join me to review a recent observational study from Israel comparing people with natural COVID immunity to people who were fully vaccinated during the Delta outbreak in Israel. COVID immunity is important to prevent severe COVID 19 illness. While I am speaking about COVID immunity developed through natural infection, I do not recommend getting immunity that way. Vaccinations are the best way to develop immunity in those who are not immune and qualify."
Now, not so recent, but still very informational. No politics in this YT video.
Now, not so recent, but still very informational. No politics in this YT video.
Posted in these groups: 
Coronavirus COVID19
Coronavirus COVID19
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 2
2
2
0
From John Hopkins University: "...individuals who were previously infected who received one dose of the Pfizer vaccine were even more protected from breakthrough infection than the naturally infected group..."
https://ncrc.jhsph.edu/research/comparing-sars-cov-2-natural-immunity-to-vaccine-induced-immunity-reinfections-versus-breakthrough-infections/
https://ncrc.jhsph.edu/research/comparing-sars-cov-2-natural-immunity-to-vaccine-induced-immunity-reinfections-versus-breakthrough-infections/
Comparing SARS-CoV-2 Natural Immunity to Vaccine-Induced Immunity: Reinfections versus...
This study from Israel, available as a preprint and thus not yet peer reviewed, found that the rates of SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections in vaccinated individuals, while very low (highest rate = 1.5%), were significantly higher than the rates of reinfection and hospitalization in previously infected individuals. In addition, individuals who were previously infected who received one dose of the Pfizer vaccine were even more protected from...
(2)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
Would be nice if you actually reviewed the video sir, before pulling the trigger on your response. The study, which is older the the JH article, concluded that there *may* be a benefit of having 1 Pfizer shot after having Cov2 but that it did not have enough statistical difference to say for sure.
I am not sure if you are refuting something, adding to the video something that was missed, or agreeing. Would you mind clarifying?
I am not sure if you are refuting something, adding to the video something that was missed, or agreeing. Would you mind clarifying?
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
What this video means by "natural immunity" is the immunity achieve by getting and surviving COVID 19. That is to say that (at least in the short term as this study measured), if you have COVID your natural immunity will be ?almost as good/as good? (there was a trend but not statistically significant) as getting vaccinated.
With the vaccines a booster is needed. Now the real question is in the long run will natural immunity need a booster event as well. I believe subsequent research has shown this to be true, but I'd have to do some research to make sure.
Now for the unvaccinated who have not had COVID, this does not apply. We want those people to definitely get vaccinated so as not to be an obvious vector.
I know the study isn't peer reviewed but I don't find anything (at least in what I heard) that is unexpected. People who get an survive a communicable disease usually have an enhanced immune system that is more ready to fight re-infection.
With the vaccines a booster is needed. Now the real question is in the long run will natural immunity need a booster event as well. I believe subsequent research has shown this to be true, but I'd have to do some research to make sure.
Now for the unvaccinated who have not had COVID, this does not apply. We want those people to definitely get vaccinated so as not to be an obvious vector.
I know the study isn't peer reviewed but I don't find anything (at least in what I heard) that is unexpected. People who get an survive a communicable disease usually have an enhanced immune system that is more ready to fight re-infection.
(1)
(0)
SPC Kevin Ford
SFC Casey O'Mally - Got it. Having said that, the big problem with natural immunity is you have to get and survive the disease in the first place. It's like the booby prize.
That's a huge dose of survivorship bias in that study. That is to say only the people we know for a fact already had the ability to fight off the disease and survive it were in the natural immunity group while the vaccinated group contains (all things being equal) people who would never have survived to make it into the natural immunity group. The numbers of breakthroughs were so low on both sides where that would easily account for the difference (or the real story is how effective the study found the vaccine to be with out needing to risk getting the disease). The people who would have died still got it with the vaccine but didn't die.
The main point, for the people who will die if they get COVID, natural immunity does nothing but good news (at least for a little while) for those that already had it and survived. That's where the survivorship bias in the study comes in. To be fair, the natural immunity group would have had to start as not having the disease, gotten it and the people who died in that group reported as part of the results. Based on what we know of the death rate, if the natural immunity group had started as not having the disease and gotten it, then compared to reinfection, more people would have died in the natural immunity group than the total number of breakthroughs in the vaccination group. That is one of the reasons why I suspect it won't survive peer review.
This is the key difference:
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/israel-covid-unvaccinated-deaths-pfizer-booster-serious-cases-delta-1.10245471
That's a huge dose of survivorship bias in that study. That is to say only the people we know for a fact already had the ability to fight off the disease and survive it were in the natural immunity group while the vaccinated group contains (all things being equal) people who would never have survived to make it into the natural immunity group. The numbers of breakthroughs were so low on both sides where that would easily account for the difference (or the real story is how effective the study found the vaccine to be with out needing to risk getting the disease). The people who would have died still got it with the vaccine but didn't die.
The main point, for the people who will die if they get COVID, natural immunity does nothing but good news (at least for a little while) for those that already had it and survived. That's where the survivorship bias in the study comes in. To be fair, the natural immunity group would have had to start as not having the disease, gotten it and the people who died in that group reported as part of the results. Based on what we know of the death rate, if the natural immunity group had started as not having the disease and gotten it, then compared to reinfection, more people would have died in the natural immunity group than the total number of breakthroughs in the vaccination group. That is one of the reasons why I suspect it won't survive peer review.
This is the key difference:
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/israel-covid-unvaccinated-deaths-pfizer-booster-serious-cases-delta-1.10245471
(0)
(0)
SFC Casey O'Mally
SPC Kevin Ford You miss the point entirely. The point is not to recommend natural immunity as a method of disease prevention. It is to look at what those who HAVE, unfortunately, already survived the disease should do.
In America there is a huge push for vax mandates. These mandates, for the most part, do not accept natural immunity (including, I have read, but have not independently verified, the DoD mandate). These mandates are telling people who are, according to this study, already more protected than fully vaccinated people, that they must get vaccinated against a disease they are already immune to, or face termination.
If this study holds up, that is insane, IMHO.
Way back when in the 70s and 80s, we used to have chicken pox parties. Chicken pox for a toddler or elementary student is a couple days of being miserable. Chicken pox for an adult can be deadly. Parents would intentionally expose their kids to chicken pox so that they were protected against it as an adult. When the chicken pox vaccine came out, all of us who had had it as a child did NOT line up for a jab - we had natural immunity.
I NOT recommending COVID parties for 5 year olds - for too many reasons to list. But politicians who are following the science want to ignore natural immunity like it doesn't exist.
THAT is the point of this study. Proving that natural immunity - a thing which all doctors know about and acknowledge - exists in relation to this disease. And providing science for head-in-the-sand politicians to follow.
In America there is a huge push for vax mandates. These mandates, for the most part, do not accept natural immunity (including, I have read, but have not independently verified, the DoD mandate). These mandates are telling people who are, according to this study, already more protected than fully vaccinated people, that they must get vaccinated against a disease they are already immune to, or face termination.
If this study holds up, that is insane, IMHO.
Way back when in the 70s and 80s, we used to have chicken pox parties. Chicken pox for a toddler or elementary student is a couple days of being miserable. Chicken pox for an adult can be deadly. Parents would intentionally expose their kids to chicken pox so that they were protected against it as an adult. When the chicken pox vaccine came out, all of us who had had it as a child did NOT line up for a jab - we had natural immunity.
I NOT recommending COVID parties for 5 year olds - for too many reasons to list. But politicians who are following the science want to ignore natural immunity like it doesn't exist.
THAT is the point of this study. Proving that natural immunity - a thing which all doctors know about and acknowledge - exists in relation to this disease. And providing science for head-in-the-sand politicians to follow.
(0)
(0)
SPC Kevin Ford
SFC Casey O'Mally - That's fair as a matter of public policy. The problem is that it gets into questions of how long such immunity lasts and studies available. Currently we have a much better view on that with vaccines than we do with natural immunity.
The other problem is how the public perceives such things. We do not want people having COVID parties with young people trying to get them infected. This is going to happen if the public gets mixed messages and kids can die from COVID. Not in as great of numbers but it can and does happen. If the anti vax group gets it in their head to do COVID parties, people are going to die when they could have just gotten the vaccine and lived. This isn't so much a question of science but of psychology.
BTW, all those kids at chicken pox parties, thanks for the future Shingles mom and dad. Similarly we may be ignoring a long term impact of COVID.
The other problem is how the public perceives such things. We do not want people having COVID parties with young people trying to get them infected. This is going to happen if the public gets mixed messages and kids can die from COVID. Not in as great of numbers but it can and does happen. If the anti vax group gets it in their head to do COVID parties, people are going to die when they could have just gotten the vaccine and lived. This isn't so much a question of science but of psychology.
BTW, all those kids at chicken pox parties, thanks for the future Shingles mom and dad. Similarly we may be ignoring a long term impact of COVID.
(0)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
Take a look at the US statistics for the number of people who have tested positive.
1) This is NOT the full count of everyone that has had Covid. 45,558,326 people. Of course this number also includes those who tested positive more than once but I figure that evens out those who never got tested.
2) The main reason we do not have clarity on how long natural immunization lasts is NO ONE is checking! That is purely a political choice IMHO.
3) The push to make sure every one who is not jabbed gets jabbed 100% ignore the 45 million people who already had, and SURVIVED, Covid. This is the main reason I am against the mandates as they stand. The mandates DO NOT follow the science and will take away the freedoms I enjoy. Having had covid - and SURVIVED - and having been around covid positive people over the last 18 months, for my wife and I the immunity has been effective for at least 18 months. Longer then the jab can claim.
When we had it there were no tests, there were no shots, treatment vectors were poo-pooed and shut down going against the science. All of that was political and had nothing to do with SAVING PEOPLE!
Our son cam home from a trip a month ago showing every symptom of covid. He lives in our house. My wife and I? Not even a sniffle while he got over it. No treatments for any of us.
Yes, there are the stoopid people out there. (misspelling on purpose) I am sure there will be covid parties, and in fact many already have happened. Especially in the younger age groups. But where we see the majority of deaths is not at all in those cohorts.
Some of us protesting the mandates do so from solid scientific evidence and experience.
1) This is NOT the full count of everyone that has had Covid. 45,558,326 people. Of course this number also includes those who tested positive more than once but I figure that evens out those who never got tested.
2) The main reason we do not have clarity on how long natural immunization lasts is NO ONE is checking! That is purely a political choice IMHO.
3) The push to make sure every one who is not jabbed gets jabbed 100% ignore the 45 million people who already had, and SURVIVED, Covid. This is the main reason I am against the mandates as they stand. The mandates DO NOT follow the science and will take away the freedoms I enjoy. Having had covid - and SURVIVED - and having been around covid positive people over the last 18 months, for my wife and I the immunity has been effective for at least 18 months. Longer then the jab can claim.
When we had it there were no tests, there were no shots, treatment vectors were poo-pooed and shut down going against the science. All of that was political and had nothing to do with SAVING PEOPLE!
Our son cam home from a trip a month ago showing every symptom of covid. He lives in our house. My wife and I? Not even a sniffle while he got over it. No treatments for any of us.
Yes, there are the stoopid people out there. (misspelling on purpose) I am sure there will be covid parties, and in fact many already have happened. Especially in the younger age groups. But where we see the majority of deaths is not at all in those cohorts.
Some of us protesting the mandates do so from solid scientific evidence and experience.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google