Photo: iStockphoto/Getty Images
Today’s entry: You have stated, "There are two sides to the story and ONE side to the facts..." I need facts...
- Is the natural Immunity better, worse or same...(logic says better)?
- What is the SCIENCE behind the insistence of getting the vax even though one may have had COVID already??
- Where is the Research supporting this demand?
- Where are the studies examining natural antigen's degradation over time?
Bottom Line: Let’s dive in. The crux of your questions is based on how the vaccines compare to natural immunity from one having contracted COVID-19. While data is limited and the situation is fluid, accredited information is available. In June, a study sponsored by the National Institutes of Health and carried out by the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center was published in the journal Science Translational Medicine. At the root of the study is the comparison of natural immunity to the available vaccines in the United States.
It’s important to note that the study was concluded right about the time the variants started to take off. The summation of the study was provided by the NIH’s Dr. Francis Collins and provided several compelling notes. Quoting his summary: A key issue as we move closer to ending the pandemic is determining more precisely how long people exposed to SARS-CoV-2, the COVID-19 virus, will make neutralizing antibodies against this dangerous coronavirus. Finding the answer is also potentially complicated with new SARS-CoV-2 “variants of concern” appearing around the world that could find ways to evade acquired immunity, increasing the chances of new outbreaks.
That might sound like a bit of medical jargon but here’s what that means. Two of the three available vaccines in the United States, the Moderna and Pfizer, are mRNA vaccines. The implication is that those vaccines specifically cast a “wider net” to potentially work more effectively against COVID-19 variants than the non-mRNA vaccines and even natural immunity.
On the surface it might seem odd that any vaccine might have greater efficacy against any strain of COVID-19 than natural immunity, however, in practical application it’s logical. When scientists are cooking up vaccines, they’re often not just attempting to target the existing contagion, often they’re casting as wide of a net as possible to account for mutations. This is especially true of annual flu vaccines. This stands in contrast to natural immunity in which your body develops antibodies to specifically target the contagion it’s attempting to combat. Where natural immunity was/is most effective in combating COVID-19 is against the original strain of the coronavirus.
In June, a study conducted by the University of Missouri School of Medicine found natural immunity for prevention of infection against the original strain of COVID-19 was greater than 99% after 3.5 months. That’s more effective than the two most effective vaccines available. Based on the NIH-sponsored study, the vaccines may prove to be more effective than natural immunity from the original COVID-19 strain is against the variants including Delta.
It stands to reason that once one has contracted the Delta variant, natural immunity would be the most effective against it going forward, however, with the same potential limitations against future variants. The conclusion of this research illustrates the likely benefit for those who’ve had COVID-19 getting vaccinated and specifically with a Moderna or Pfizer vaccine.
Each day I feature a listener question sent by one of these methods.
Email: brianmudd@iheartmedia.com
Parler & Twitter: @brianmuddradio