Hacker News Reader

Comment by WoodenChair | Hacker News Reader

> They said immune protection from direct exposure only seems to last 3-6 months

I'm sorry about your experience. Having Covid sucks. But your anecdotal data here is inaccurate at best, especially since it was from pre-Delta variant (you said December 2020 was your time of this happening) and we do have studies from that time showing how robust immunity was for those who had natural infections:

"Available scientific data suggests that in most people immune responses remain robust and protective against reinfection for at least 6-8 months after infection (the longest follow up with strong scientific evidence is currently approximately 8 months)." [0]

No offense, but these kind of anecdotal reports that "someone said" (even a health official), which sound authoritative because of the context, are how misinformation spreads.

0: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/341241/WHO-...

View on HN

While my figure of 3-6 months has been revised upward to 6, 8 or 10 months, the core sentiment of my post remains unchanged: Vaccine immunity is believed to be better. Vaccines are still believed to be good for 2-3 years based on how similar vaccines for other coronaviruses have worked. That is either enough time for the immune system's natural protection to atrophy, or for the virus to change. That still means vaccine immunity is likely to be more robust protection than natural immunity, even though the general sentiment seems to be a shrug for how long protection from the vaccine will actually last. [0]

That's why they still exclusively discuss being fully vaccinated, and discount natural immunity. They believe it's better.

Furthermore, I have seen no-one in the health community that has recommended not getting the vaccine if you've already had the virus. Compare this to, for example, chicken pox, where they only recommend the vaccine if you haven't had it.

In the context of this thread where the comment I was responding to was trying to argue that natural immunity is being short-changed somehow, I think the sentiment I'm expressing is perfectly accurate regardless of how exact timelines have been shifted in the past year. You still need to get fully vaccinated even if you've had the disease. Nothing about that has changed.

[0]: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/joim.13372 -- This study was published this month

Actually we are seeing the opposite to be true. Recent Israel data shows vaccine antibody counts can drop sharply in as early as 2-3 months: https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/coronavirus/1617185858-antibo...

Also, Most of the re-infected in Israel were from the vaccinated population, even after you adjust for vaccinated vs. unvaccinated population sizes: https://www.deseret.com/coronavirus/2021/7/20/22584134/whats...

On the other hand, with natural immunity, even after your antibody count wanes in your bloodstream, you still have your bone marrow and memory B cells to protect you:https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34030176/

It's looking more and more like natural immunity will be more long-lived than vaccine immunity: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01442-9

There is nothing at [0] claiming vaccine protection is longer then natural one. It literary claims that it remains to be seen in future research.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com