Natural Immunity and Covid–19 Recovery: Twenty-Nine Scientific Studies | Hacker News Reader

Natural Immunity and Covid–19 Recovery: Twenty-Nine Scientific Studies

brownstone.org

14 pointswalterbell18 comments

Non-sterilizing intramuscular vaccines provide protection against serious illness but do not prevent infection (as stated on the CDC site).

Vaccinated people who recover from Covid will gain nasal immunity to supplement their vaccine-provided blood/serum antibodies.

Readers should be aware that the Brownstone group publishes lots of misinformation about COVID, they're really an anti-science front organisation.

Thanks comrade

A high value response. You should build your whole online persona on calling everyone you disagree with a Communist. Or perhaps I've misread your meaning -- you are a Communist, and you're thanking me for my contribution? In which case, pozhaluysta tovarishch.

Not native speaker, sorry for offending you somehow.

Scientific papers can be evaluated by reading the paper. Let's link a few peer-reviewed papers here to eliminate the middleman of Brownstone:

"One-year sustained cellular and humoral immunities of COVID-19 convalescents", Clinical Infectious Diseases, Oct 2021, https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid...

> SARS-CoV-2-specific cellular and humoral immunities are durable at least until one year after disease onset.

"Discrete Immune Response Signature to SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccination Versus Infection", Cell, May 2021, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3838993

> .. our analysis revealed significant qualitative differences between the two types of immune challenges. In COVID-19 patients, immune responses were characterized by a highly augmented interferon response which was largely absent in vaccine recipients. Increased interferon signaling likely contributed to the observed dramatic upregulation of cytotoxic genes in the peripheral T cells and innate-like lymphocytes in patients but not in immunized subjects. Analysis of B and T cell receptor repertoires revealed that while the majority of clonal B and T cells in COVID-19 patients were effector cells, in vaccine recipients clonally expanded cells were primarily circulating memory cells. Importantly, the divergence in immune subsets engaged, the transcriptional differences in key immune populations, and the differences in maturation of adaptive immune cells revealed by our analysis have far-ranging implications for immunity to this novel pathogen.

"SARS-CoV-2 infection induces long-lived bone marrow plasma cells in humans", Nature, May 2021, https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03647-4

> .. our data provide strong evidence that SARS-CoV-2 infection in humans robustly establishes the two arms of humoral immune memory: long-lived BMPCs and memory B cells. These findings provide an immunogenicity benchmark for SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and a foundation for assessing the durability of primary humoral immune responses that are induced in humans after viral infections.

Wow how simplistic, let's ignore the selection bias employed. You're an immunologist and qualified to evaluate the literature? An expert in statistical validation? Please.

Please provide at least one paper to counter the selection bias? There must be many to choose from, if the parent article found twenty-nine papers that supported their viewpoint. If there are no opposing papers, how about challenging one claim from any of the twenty-nine papers?

Sure. Here are some picked from recent TWiV episodes, which probably represents the polar opposite of the Brownstone Institute in terms of approach to science.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7040e1.htm "Implementation of high vaccination coverage coupled with multiple prevention strategies is critical to averting COVID-19 outbreaks in congregate settings, including overnight camps."

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3932953 Efficacy of COVID-19 Vaccination on the Symptoms of Patients With Long COVID: A Target Trial Emulation Using Data From the ComPaRe e-Cohort in France "COVID-19 vaccination lowers the severity and life impact of long COVID at 120 days among patients with persistent symptoms."

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34587491/ Emergency drug use in a pandemic: Harsh lessons from COVID-19 - this paper is not kind to those who have politicized HCQ and IVM.

https://oklahoma.gov/content/dam/ok/en/covid19/documents/wee... Oklahoma reinfection rates - these show quite significant reinfection rates from those who have already had Covid, which is not consistent with the narrative pushed by antivaxxers that the vaccine provides little benefit for those with "natural immunity."

https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-871965/v1 Coronaviruses with a SARS-CoV-2-like receptor-binding domain allowing ACE2-mediated entry into human cells isolated from bats of Indochinese peninsula - this really hurts the "lab leak" case, providing more evidence pointing to zoonotic spillover from bats.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2108891 Effectiveness of Covid-19 Vaccines against the B.1.617.2 (Delta) Variant "Overall, we found high levels of vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic disease with the delta variant after the receipt of two doses."

Thanks for the Oklahoma reinfection report, which is relevant to immunity. UK also reports reinfections. We need more papers that look closely at instances and statistics of reinfection.

The Brownstone paper selections don't comment on lab leaks.

At this point, everyone seems to agree that vaccines reduce symptoms and risk of serious illness.

Thanks raphlinus and walterbell for surfacing the Oklahoma reinfection report. It is the first time I see epi data on this topic from a credible source. A couple of interesting points:

* Sept 2021 reinfection / breakthrough ratio is 1.96

* Sept 2021 / May 2021 breakthrough rate shows almost 15x growth in 5 months. During the same period reinfection rate also grew, but only by 3x. I presume this is related to the raise of Delta.

It's discussed in TWiV [811], skip to 11:58. I'm not going to pretend to be able to interpret it myself, there are a lot of factors.

[811]: https://www.microbe.tv/twiv/twiv-811/

The UK publishes regular reports, https://www.gov.uk/government/news/national-flu-and-covid-19...

e.g. 7th Oct report presents possible reinfection on page 18 as less than one percent of 5.9 million, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...

This comment is low effort defamation. Why don't you link 3 pieces of alleged covid misinformation the Brownstone group published. Should be easy, since apparently there is lots of it and you claim to be in the know.

FWIW, I never heard of Brownstone group before, so I have no opinion.

It's not my job to provide you an essay highlighting the various species of deception you'll encounter in a linked submission. I'm merely reminding other HN readers that a nice web site and pseudo-scientific presentation are sometimes part of the deception. You are welcome to come to you own conclusions.

Readers should be aware that angry_octet publishes lots of misinformation about COVID, they're really an anti-science front user.

And when I publish a web site that hits the front page that will be a meaningful insight from user 650, and users will be critical is assessing what they read.

12 of those articles are preprints - they effectively do not exist currently.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com