Well there is that. But it seems very convenient. Like the studies that show masks work, that came out just in time to combat the charts showing that some masked and unmasked populations seemed to be affected similarly. And then more complete papers came out and data was finalized for charts that showed masks, if they help, is negligible for the illness and pretty bad for society.
Same with asymptomatic spread - "I have no symptoms"... "It doesn't matter you GRANDMA MURDERER, this timely study proves this time it's different!". And then the data came in that showed this illness spread pretty much like any other that didn't have asymptomatic spread which left questions about how the paper was so sure.
So if there is anything this pandemic settled, was that I can't trust a paper without other supporting independent evidence from a different vector. So often convenient papers about masks, or social distancing, or lockdowns actually didn't say what was reported about them. And that just makes things worse.
All that being said, when you find that other paper it will get more complicated quickly. I've been looking for a paper that says natural immunity is better than a vaccine, and I can't find anything related to COVID, so I'm hoping you can find it.
So, I'm starting to think that there is no such study!
I've found the following study that says that people who've had COVID19 don't need to get the vaccine....
Necessity of COVID-19 vaccination in previously infected individuals
Summary: Cumulative incidence of COVID-19 was examined among 52238 employees in an American healthcare system. COVID-19 did not occur in anyone over the five months of the study among 2579 individuals previously infected with COVID-19, including 1359 who did not take the vaccine.
Notice, however, that its talking about people who have had COVID19 recently. The study only lasted five months and so this study, which is the basis for all the news stories for the last several days, doesn't have any bearing on someone who had COVID a year ago. I personally find some of the comments made in the published study to be unfounded and even irresponsible in that they are comments that go well beyond what the study data itself can reasonably support. In short the writers of the study seem to want to suggest that natural immunity lasts forever and that just is not the case. Take the following sentence from the study as an example...
Conclusions. Individuals who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection are unlikely to benefit from COVID-19 vaccination, and vaccines can be safely prioritized to those who have not been infected before.
The
most recent study (that I know of) indicates that natural immunity lasts for up to eight months. I've heard people on the radio and television say ten months but I can't find any study that supports that number, although it may exist. In any case, the study that everyone's been talking about this week simply should not be taken as an excuse to avoid getting the vaccine if they were symptomatic this time last year or even earlier. Therefore, the "Conclusions" statement should be modified to say...
Conclusions. Individuals who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection in the last 6 - 8 months are unlikely to benefit from COVID-19 vaccination, and vaccines can be safely prioritized to those who have not been recently infected.
As for a study that says that natural immunity is superior to that from the vaccine. I can't find it anywhere and the people who published the study discussed above suggest that the immunity gain for both sources are similar in strength and duration although I don't see how the science done in this study could be used to make such an assertion.
What I have found suggests just the opposite!
Substantial Differences in SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Responses Elicited by Natural Infection and mRNA Vaccination
That link is to the actual study. Here's a link to an article that explains what the study found...
Which is better for developing immunity: COVID-19 vaccine or natural infection?
"The mRNA vaccines eclipsed natural infection at one very specific task: recognizing the precise piece of the virus’ spike protein that binds to — and infects — healthy cells. The spike protein is big, Felgner said. And in natural infections, the virus manages to hide this vital receptor so the immune system doesn’t see it. And if the immune system doesn’t see it, it can’t develop antibodies to it.
“When a person gets infected they develop an immune response, but it’s not against this most important part,” Felgner said. “So the virus can evade the immune response that we develop, and that’s really favorable for the virus. It means it can go on out and propagate in the world, mutate itself more, make more variants.” But that doesn’t happen with mRNA vaccines. The mRNA instructs the body to manufacture the piece of the spike protein with this otherwise-hidden receptor — which allows the body to produce antibodies to it.
Since vaccination induces a more robust immune response than natural exposure alone, those who’ve recovered from COVID may benefit from getting vaccinated, the paper found."
Clete
