Hello, Locals!

I've been away for a bit - to meet various deadlines before annual leave, to meet family I haven't seen in a year, and to disconnect from ongoing craziness.

That said, I am back with few interesting stories to discuss.

Unfortunately, the first post will have to be about Covid19: a big part of me was hopeful pandemic-obsession would go away by now, but by the looks of it, we are to deal with it well into 2022 or until some "trigger-happy" politician loses elections over Covid19 fear mongering.

That said - below I've posted a graphic showing "Natural vs Vaccine Immunity".

One of the strangest things occurring throughout the last 18 months is stealth attack on natural immunity (hopefully, I get to write more about this in future posts). The posted graphic is just one example of the attempt to diminish natural immunity when compared to vaccine-induced immunity. 

For example, let us look at the "what it means for you" line in the graphic. Up to date, we have sufficient evidence showing that two sentences "potential to develop long-term complications" and "can spread virus to others" are true for both people with natural and vaccine-induced immunity. Of course, we can always discuss risks, but those two statements are equally applicable to both columns. We currently know - as per previous posts - that immune response against SARS-Cov-2, whether it occurs naturally or through medical intervention, can lead to thrombocytopenia - ergo, long term complications. We also know - using Iceland and Israel data - that vaccinated people can spread virus to others. Israel has over 78% of the fully-vaccinated over-age 12 population (both doses); yet, at the moment, Israel also has the highest infection rate ever. In Iceland, 85.3% of people over 16 years old are now fully vaccinated against COVID-19 and 4.9% are partially vaccinated. Yet, infection rates are still surging. 

This does not mean that vaccines do not play an important role in reducing the rate of hospitalization and severe disease; they do. This is what experimental design of clinical trials focused on to begin with. A potential to prevent infection was considered a bonus, but it was not the aim to begin with. 

And if we apply the same approach, as above, to other sections of this graphic (ex. "varies hugely" vs "varies but"; "variable, not fully known", "reduces over time" "immune system may not be able to recognize" ), we can observe the use of the double if not triple standard when comparing the two immunities - where the negatives are emphasised for natural but not vaccine-induced immunity. And it looks even worse considering the latest news that describes the average natural immunity as 13x higher than Pfizer shots.

To summarise, in the light of emerging evidence, I expect a lot of future stealth edits, at various websites, bringing back natural immunity to their herd immunity definitions. The goal of this post is not to prioritize one immunity over another. In my humble opinion (since day 1), each individual should make the best, well-informed decision while consulting a doctor familiar with their history of disease and general health. However, we should call out biased, misleading posts - such as the posted graphic. Such misleading information can have a far-reaching impact, especially considering political attempts to introduce highly discriminatory vaccine passports. 

References available in the comment section.