Toh, disease immunity is more effective than tris of vaccines

Public one of the comments that the scientist Norman Noah, Emeritus at the historic London School of HGI Giene and Tropical Medicine, has been periodically writing about the pandemic for more than 2 years now.

Noah, who runs the magazine “Epidemiolog INF”, he is 85 years old and has been dealing with infections and infectious diseases for more than 50 years.

Every week, sometimes even more often, the professor sends the articles to his subscribers, creating a kind of community of scholars eager to reflect  about what happened. Today’s text was released last week and is accompanied by  study. I thank professor Stefano Petti that he sent it to me.

One speaks of natural immunity from Covid. Those who have contracted the infection, even in 2020, are much more protected against the virus and its variants than those who have been vaccinated, even for a few months. The difference in percentages is abysmal. Those who have contracted the disease show almost total protection (1 or 2% who readmale do so in light form), especially because, the antibodies of the immune system, qualitatively different from those induced by vaccine, respond very well to new inputs of the virus and its variants. The studies also analyze who contracted the disease in early 2020.

Noah’s position reflects a summary of the international scientific literature of the past two years.

I report the full translation, even if it is long, because, in addition to being a well-argued and documented text, it does not exist published and can be useful in the coming months.

President Dragon just two days ago, in announcing the easing of Covid containment measures, he reiterated that “the measures announced could change only on the basis of scientific data” and, therefore, not as a result of political decisions.

There is another important point. Studies are showing that it can be dangerous to vaccinate those who have already contracted the disease, the famous booster that should lengthen the pass (of the Italians only, by now) is likely to compromise (for how much?) the immune system.

COVID-19: Why do we ignore immunity acquired from infections?

Antibodies derived from natural infection with COVID-19 are more abundant and at least 10 times more potent than immunity generated by vaccination alone, according to a study by the Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU) in Portland, Us, published on January 25.

Three days later, i Centers for Disease Control (CDC) U.S. researchers reported that before Delta became the predominant variant in June 2021, case rates were higher in people who survived a previous infection than those vaccinated alone. However, in early October, those who had previously been infected had lower case rates than those who had been vaccinated on their own. Click here.

These studies focus renewed attention on the debate about the importance of acquired immunity and the extent to which it should be taken into account in public health policy. Although many authorities accept documented recovery from COVID-19 as a temporary pass to “get out of jail without jail”, the permission granted is generally short-lived and those who have been infected are still advised to get vaccinated.

However, although the OHSU study was used to conclude that combining the vaccine with a natural infection (hybrid immunity) induces a kind of “superimmunity”, regardless of whether the infection or vaccination comes first, we there is growing evidence that immunity derived from COVID-19 infection offers powerful protection on its own. Natural immunity has been shown to be highly protective and long-lasting and to safeguard both reinfection and serious diseases. For example, a study conducted in Geneva in people infected in the first wave showed an infection rate of 15.5% in seronegative individuals compared to only 1% in seropositive, providing an overall infection-attributable protection of 94%, comparable to that of the original Pfizer vaccine trial . Click here.

Another study from India showed that seropositiveness protected against both infection and severe disease and suggested “strong plausibility that the development of antibodies as a result of a natural infection not only does it protect to a large extent from reinfection by the virus, but also protect against progression to severe COVID -19 disease“. Click here.

Natural infection also protects from different variants that have arisen progressively since the beginning of the pandemic. A study of nearly 22,000 people in Qatar showed that the effectiveness of previous infection was “robust” – about 90% – in preventing reinfection with the Alpha, Beta and Delta variants of SARS-CoV-2 and 60% “but still considerable ” against Omicron. None of the re-infections progressed to critical or fatal outcomes, and efficacy against severe, critical or fatal COVID-19 was estimated at 69.4% against Alpha, 88.0% against Beta, 100% against Delta, and 87.8% against Omicron variants. Click here.

Long-lasting protection

Protection from natural immunity also seems to be lasting. People infected with SARS-CoV-2 in 2020 and early 2021 had 72% to 86% protection , approximately, against reinfection with the virus for at least 6 months, according to a study of Us employees of space.

A multicentre and prospective cohort of NHS workers showed an 84% lower risk after a natural infection lasting at least 7 months. A Dublin report reviewed 11 large cohort studies and found that natural immunity lasted at least 10 months. “Reinfection was a rare occurrence (absolute rate from 0% to 1.1%), with no study reporting an increased risk of reinfection over time“, said the authors. Click here. E here.

Another study that followed the first wave of infections in Lombardy, Italy, before the emergence of variants, also showed that re-infections were rare and protection from infections lasted at least a year.  Click here. In a further Italian study of 36 patients with covid-19 infection documented in March 2020, followed until September 2021, the 17 individuals who remained unvaccinated demonstrated the persistence of IgG antibodies for at least 18 months, according to a preprint study published last month. Click here. And more recently, a study published online in J Click here.

In general, therefore, natural immunity, so far, seems to last at least for the time of studies evaluating it and offer solid protection both against reinfection and, on the rare occasions when reinfection has occurred, against serious outcomes .

Comparisons with vaccine-induced immunity

In addition, a study of more than 30,000 Cleveland Clinic employees, followed for 4 months since the launch of an mRNA vaccine began in December 2020, found that cumulative infection rates did not differ between previously infected people who were or had not been subsequently vaccinated or those not infected who had received the vaccine. The researchers concluded that previously infected people are unlikely to benefit from COVID-19 vaccination and vaccines may take priority safely over those who have not been infected before.

This is in accordance with the general pre-COVID view that natural infection offers superior and lasting disease protection than vaccination. It is increasingly recognized that while COVID vaccines protect against serious illness, they do not prevent infection per se, and it is now clear that they do not interrupt transmission, as the Prime Minister (Boriso

In addition, vaccine-induced protection wears off fairly quickly, particularly after the advent of deltas and subsequent variants. Click here.

Protection Moderna AstraZeneca from infection within 6 months was reduced to just 29% from two doses of Pfizer and 59% from two doses of Moderna, with no detectable efficacy from AstraZeneca from 4 months on, according to a large national study in Sweden also published this month. Here.

A pre-publication study from Israel to be presented at this year’s European Congress in Lisbon in April, compared previously unvaccinated people with infection with doubly vaccinated individuals never infected. The results showed that, although over time the number of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies decreases in both previously infected and vaccinated patients, the performance of antibodies improves only after the previous infection, and not after vaccination. Here.

“This difference may explain why previously infected patients appear to be better protected against a new infection than those who were only vaccinated, ” the researchers concluded.

Commenting on the study, Dr Ul, clinical virologist at the University of Leicester, said: “in general, natural infection generates a larger and more lasting set of immune responses to all viral antigens, so this is not really surprising. After all our immune system has evolved over several million years to deal with all kinds of pathogens, so I expect natural immunity to outweigh any vaccine-induced immunity in the long run“. Click here.

Beware of boosters

The decrease in protection from what were originally announced as “full courses” of vaccines, resulting in an increase in so-called “Breakthrough” infections even in fully vaccinated subjects, has led to increasing recommendations for booster doses. However, the latest study, published this month by the CDC, showed a decrease in immunity against serious diseases only 4 months after a third dose of an mRNA vaccine, similar to the decline in effectiveness after a second dose. Click here.

Vaccine protection decreased during both Delta and Omicron waves and was overall lower during the Omicron period. Even vaccine manufacturers now admit the likely need for annual vaccinations to maintain protection. However the effectiveness of boosters has been questioned and repeated boosters can pose unexpected dangers (click here e here) : last month, the head of the European Medicines Agency acknowledged the potential risk of overloading the immune system after multiple administrations.

Also, they have been largely ignored there is also evidence that people who have recovered from COVID-19 may experience higher rates of side effects after vaccination, possibly due to existing levels of antibodies interacting with a later vaccine to create deposits of immune complexes. A comparison using app data for ZOE symptoms found that both local and systemic side effects were more common among individuals with a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to those without a known prior infection (systemic side effects 2.9 times more common after the first dose of Pfizer and 1.6 times after the first dose of Astra vaccine). Click here e here. E here.

Public health policies

However, even where authorities allow documented recovery from COVID-19 as a temporary alternative for certification purposes or for exemption from vaccine mandates, the allowance granted is generally short-lived: in Austria and the UK at just 6 months after a positive PCR test, even though the protection has been shown to last much longer. In Germany, the infection is now recognized for only 3 months (down from the previous 6 months), while Switzerland confers the status of “honorary vaccinated” for a full 12 months. In Canada, recovery is not recognized at all.

Similarly in the United States, nationwide, there is no recognition of natural immunity under CDC policy. This is partly due to logistical reasons: it was considered too complicated to test people first:” it is much easier to make a puncture in the arm, ” according to Alfred Sommer, dean emeritus of the Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. The issue has become political. Click here.

The message that even if someone has had COVID-19 it is still better to get vaccinated “it’s not based on data it’s just politics.”, second Monica Gandhi, infectious disease specialist at the University of California San Francisco.

Comparative studies of natural infection and vaccination are also enlightening. A study in Israel showed that protection from reinfection decreased over time compared to previous infection, but was still higher than that conferred by two-dose vaccination at a similar time since the last immunity conferring event. Here

In the United States, the authors of an aggregate analysis of seven clinical studies concluded “ ” individuals cured of COVID should be considered as having at least equal protection to their vaccinated and NA controparti clinical balance and moderation in the decision to vaccinate these individuals on mandate”. Click here

Despite acknowledging some of these studies, the advice has not changed substantially and it is still stated that COVID-19 vaccination is recommended for all eligible people, including those who have previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2.

However, the duration of protection after natural infection has now proven to be highly durable, and longer than that of vaccines after multiple recalls. There is a strong argument that at least the protection afforded by natural infection could be recognized by allowing only one dose of vaccine in the previously infected. “This would also spare people unnecessary pain when receiving the second dose and free up additional vaccine doses,”he said. Click here.

This is the approach adopted in the EU, where the digital COVID certificate can be issued after a single dose of mRNA vaccine to people who have had a positive test result in the previous 6 months, even if the grant is limited in time.

The NHS staff who opposed the obligations

However, such handouts may not affect those health care workers prepared to lose their jobs rather than be vaccinated, an example of the unintended consequences of mandatory vaccination.  Here. After 40,000 health workers were laid off in November for refusing injections, the potential loss of trained staff at a time when staffing shortages have already occurred worries many national bodies. Secretary said, here. (PS. In the UK there are 200,000 health workers who have refused the vaccination obligation, click here).

Despite the current attempts to win back staff who resigned due to the obligation, there are continuing pressures.  AV avid – which had already asked professional regulators to conduct “urgent” reviews of their guidelines on vaccination against occupational diseases, including COVID-immediately moved on to urge the GMC (General Medical Council) to remind doctors of their duty to get vaccinated.  A joint statement in response from the GMC and the Academy of the Medical colleges continued to urge doctors to get vaccinated, but stopped short of threatening disciplinary procedures.  However, senior NHS managers have written to staff telling them it is their “professional responsibility” to be vaccinated and NHS England’s medical director has warned that staff who have not been vaccinated against the coronavirus could use it against them in fitness-to-practice cases.

Many NHS staff worked with COVID patients during the first wave – which put staff who often used inadequate protections at risk-and thus contracted infections in significant numbers.  This supported at least part of the resistance to the mandate.  Steveames, the ICU consultant whose on-camera encounter with Savid Savavid drew wide media attention, told J  obtained from transmission is probably equivalent to someone who has been vaccinated”. Here.

He expressed the same reluctance to get vaccinated even Dr Simon Fo Fo, NHS consultant in infectious diseases, speaking publicly.  “Given that I have had the infection and worked with COVID patients for two years, I can seriously say that I am as immune as anyone else can claim to be,” Dr. FO.told TalkRADIO in late January. Here.

Both doctors, as well as other like-minded health professionals, have had extensive experience in treating the most severe COVID cases. As everyone who works in the health service will have been vaccinated against hepatitis B or other vaccines, they are not ‘anti-vaccinists’.

Ethics and Science

However, the protection afforded by natural immunity is not yet recognised in policy responses and NHS staff who oppose the obligation describe their dismissal as “irrational”.

The theme raises ethical issues in addition to those of obligations and certifications in general. Is it justified to pressure people with immunity acquired from pre-existing infection to get a vaccine they don’t want or need?  How can they provide adequate informed consent, especially when they may also be at higher than average risk of side effects?  Is it OK to administer unnecessary doses when vaccines still need to be shared equally globally?

In addition, the government has repeatedly invoked “science” to strengthen measures against coronavirus.  Uncomfortable scientific evidence is now being put aside?  Mart Mak professor of Health Policy and management at Hopkins University told the BM in an interview last September “ ” public health officials talk about vaccinated and unvaccinated. If we want to be scientific, we should talk about who is immune and who is not.” Here.

So, should we at least recognize the equivalent and possibly superior status of natural immunity by granting those who have been infected an exemption from vaccine requirements?  And if not, why not?

Original source: https://blog.ilgiornale.it/locati/2022/03/19/toh-limmunita-da-malattia-e-piu-efficace-del-tris-di-vaccini/