This paper further supports the fact that naturally acquired immunity to SARS-CoV-2 is 1) robust and 2) durable.
1) Robust means the immune response recognizes many different parts of the virus.
2) Durable means the immune response remains detectable - and likely effective at protecting the individual - for a long period of time.
t. https://www.cell.com/cell-reports-medicine/fulltext/S2666-3791(21)00203-2
A robust immune response is important because it provides a certain degree of protection against variants of the virus.
This robustness is why some people hypothesize that natural immunity provides better protection than vaccination - however this hypothesis has not been conclusively demonstrated in the literature yet. If you're aware of primary sources that say otherwise please share them.
For now, all available evidence strongly suggests that individuals with naturally acquired immunity are at least equally well protected as individuals who have been vaccinated. Here are a couple more supporting references [1][2].
As a final point - in the literature there is some evidence & concern that the current mRNA vaccines induce an immune response which is highly targeted toward the spike protein [3]. When combined with mass vaccination campaigns, this creates tremendous selective pressure that can further enhance the fitness of the virus, and lead to increasingly infectious or virulent variants [3][4][5][6].
It's clear that vaccination poses little additional risk - but also little benefit - to previously infected individuals, and consequently our vaccination campaigns should be highly targeted toward vulnerable demographics to reap the most benefits and minimize the risks to public health.
I'll try to post links to references but you know how finicky 4chan can be about some links, especially to Nature.
1) Robust means the immune response recognizes many different parts of the virus.
2) Durable means the immune response remains detectable - and likely effective at protecting the individual - for a long period of time.
t. https://www.cell.com/cell-reports-medicine/fulltext/S2666-3791(21)00203-2
A robust immune response is important because it provides a certain degree of protection against variants of the virus.
This robustness is why some people hypothesize that natural immunity provides better protection than vaccination - however this hypothesis has not been conclusively demonstrated in the literature yet. If you're aware of primary sources that say otherwise please share them.
For now, all available evidence strongly suggests that individuals with naturally acquired immunity are at least equally well protected as individuals who have been vaccinated. Here are a couple more supporting references [1][2].
As a final point - in the literature there is some evidence & concern that the current mRNA vaccines induce an immune response which is highly targeted toward the spike protein [3]. When combined with mass vaccination campaigns, this creates tremendous selective pressure that can further enhance the fitness of the virus, and lead to increasingly infectious or virulent variants [3][4][5][6].
It's clear that vaccination poses little additional risk - but also little benefit - to previously infected individuals, and consequently our vaccination campaigns should be highly targeted toward vulnerable demographics to reap the most benefits and minimize the risks to public health.
I'll try to post links to references but you know how finicky 4chan can be about some links, especially to Nature.
