Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Please share some scientific citations showing natural immunity gives better protection than vaccines. This runs counter to what I'm hearing from my virologist sources.



There is no scientific consensus that naturally acquired immunity gives better protection than vaccines.

Two facts that are trending toward consensus in the scientific literature:

A) Naturally infected individuals who recover will acquire robust and durable immunity [1][2]

B) Natural infection induces an immune response that is mostly similar but slightly different than the immune response induced by vaccination. The primary differences can be summarized as: naturally infected individuals have nucleocapsid protein antibodies whereas vaccinated individuals do not, and vaccinated individuals have an immune response highly targeted toward the spike protein RBD. [3][4][5]

In summary many people hypothesize that natural infection is better because it induces a broader and more balance antibody response, but the literature has not established consensus that this is necessarily "better" in terms of health outcomes for individuals.

[1] SARS-CoV-2 infection induces long-lived bone marrow plasma cells in humans https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03647-4.pdf

[2] Longitudinal analysis shows durable and broad immune memory after SARS-CoV-2 infection with persisting antibody responses and memory B and T cells https://www.cell.com/cell-reports-medicine/fulltext/S2666-37...

[3] Rapid induction of antigen-specific CD4+ T cells is associated with coordinated humoral and cellular immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination https://www.cell.com/immunity/fulltext/S1074-7613(21)00308-3

[4] Distinct SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Responses Elicited by Natural Infection and mRNA Vaccination https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.15.440089v4

[5] Antibodies elicited by mRNA-1273 vaccination bind more broadly to the receptor binding domain than do those from SARS-CoV-2 infection https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34103407/


> In summary many people hypothesize that natural infection is better because it induces a broader and more balance antibody response, but the literature has not established consensus that this is necessarily "better" in terms of health outcomes for individuals.

Great summary - I have seen no evidence that natural immunity is better. The opposite could be true. A nucelocapsid-specific immune response cannot be used to kill live virus (the nucleocapsid is not accessible for binding on the surface of a live virus). This means natural immunity will result in an intense off-target immune response (in addition to an intense on-target one for the spike). That off-target response elevates the chances of collateral tissue damage (cytokine storm).


Here are a couple of preprint studies that show naturally acquired immunity provides protection.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33948610/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33907755/

Meanwhile the CDC published this study showing the opposite:

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm?s_cid=mm...

I can understand why people are confused.

There appears to be two camps, one that believes that science can defeat this disease, and in the other camp people that believe we need to learn to adjust to our new reality.

I don't understand how a man made vaccine can provide better protection to the virus better than my body after recovering, but I'm not specialist.

Aren't the pharmaceutical companies financially incentivized to provide minimal protection, and annual booster shots? Why would they make something better?

As long as fear navigates our course, we won't see an end to this.


It really depends on the virus. For some viruses, the vaccines are far more effective and less risky and have helped eliminate or mostly eliminate the virus entirely. For other viruses, vaccines are far less effective.

The Israel data is clearly showing natural immunity doing better for COVID, and every other peer-reviewed study I have seen shows natural immunity doing "at least" as well as vaccinated immunity.


>There appears to be two camps, one that believes that science can defeat this disease, and in the other camp people that believe we need to learn to adjust to our new reality.

Vaccines are part of our adjustment. There's one camp which tries to adjust, and another which places hands in their ears.

>I don't understand how a man made vaccine can provide better protection to the virus better than my body after recovering, but I'm not specialist.

The same way an antibiotic could cure certain diseases much better than your own body. Besides, you're much more likely to survive the vaccine than the disease.

>Aren't the pharmaceutical companies financially incentivized to provide minimal protection, and annual booster shots? Why would they make something better?

Efficiency isn't something pharmaceutical companies could just decide in advance. If they try to make something inefficient, there's a good chance it won't be effective at all, and they'll lose all the money invested in R&D.

And ultimately, less effective vaccines will be crowded out of the market, we already see this in some countries with AZ and J&J.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: