Fauci Doesn’t Have An Answer To Why Those Who Recovered From Covid Are Required To Take Vaccine

Authors: JORDAN LANCASTER REPORTER September 10, 20214:03 PM E

Dr. Anthony Fauci said Thursday night on CNN that he didn’t have a “firm answer” as to why those who have been previously infected with Covid and have natural immunity are being required to take the vaccine.

Dr. Sanjay Gupta, CNN’s Chief Medical Correspondent, pointed out a recent study from Israel that found people with natural immunity from Covid due to a previous infection were much less likely to become infected, be hospitalized, or die from Covid than their counterparts who had never been infected but had received both doses of the Pfizer vaccine. The scientists also found that previously infected people were more protected if they had one dose of the Pfizer vaccine.

Gupta asked if previously infected people should also get the vaccine, and if so, how Fauci plans to make the case for those people to get it.

“You know, that’s a really good point, Sanjay. I don’t have a really firm answer for you on that,” Fauci said. “That’s something that we’re going to have to discuss regarding the durability of the response.”

Fauci also said that the study didn’t discuss how long the immunity lasts. (RELATED: Natural Immunity To COVID-19 May Last More Than A Year After Infection, New Studies Show)

“The one thing the paper from Israel didn’t tell you is whether or not as high as the protection is with natural infection – what’s the durability compared to the durability of a vaccine? So it is conceivable that you got infected, you’re protected, but you may not be protected for an indefinite period of time,” he added. “So I think that is something that we need to sit down and discuss seriously, because you very appropriately pointed out it is an issue, and there could be an argument for saying what you said.”

Pfizer Board Member Warns Policymakers: “Natural Immunity” Needs to Be Included In COVID Mandate Plans

Authored by: Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times, MONDAY, AUG 30, 2021 – 10:20 PM

Former Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, who is a Pfizer board member, noted that “natural immunity” gained from a prior COVID-19 infection needs to be included in discussions about policies and mandates.

“The balance of the evidence demonstrates that natural immunity confers a durable protection,” Gottlieb said during a Monday morning TV interview, referring to a landmark new preprint Israeli study that found prior COVID-19 infection confers much more protection against the virus than any vaccine.

“It’s fair to conclude that,” he said.

Although Gottlieb said he would “be careful” about concluding whether natural immunity provides better protection against transmitting the virus, officials “should start assimilating that into our policy discussions.”

“Natural infection confers robust and durable immunity,” he said, citing the Israeli study and others.

However, whether natural immunity or vaccines are better than one another “isn’t that material” when it comes to policy discussions, Gottlieb added.

Last week, researchers from Maccabi Healthcare and Tel Aviv University said that individuals who recovered from COVID-19 had superior protection against the Delta variant of the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus than those who received the Pfizer mRNA vaccine, the most commonly used shot in Israel.

“This analysis demonstrated that natural immunity affords longer-lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease, and hospitalization due to the Delta variant,” the study concluded, noting their findings came from the “largest real-world observational study” in the world. Their study, which hasn’t yet been peer-reviewed, noted outcomes for a period between June 1 and Aug. 14 of this year.

When researchers compared cases of prior infection that occurred between March 2020 and February 2021 with vaccinations between January and February 2021, they found that the vaccinated cohort was 5.96 times more likely to contract the Delta variant and 7.13 times more at risk for symptomatic disease compared to those previously infected.

The results suggest that natural immunity gained from having survived a previous infection of COVID-19 may wane over time against the Delta variant, the authors wrote.

Those vaccinated were at a greater risk of COVID-19-related hospitalizations compared to those who were previously infected, the authors noted. They said that being 60 years of age or older increased the risk of infection and hospitalization.

The authors of the research paper said they only observed protection against the Delta variant and not other strains. Meanwhile, they only observed the Pfizer vaccine and didn’t look at other vaccines or the effects of a booster shot.

Denmark To Scrap All Covid-19 Restrictions

Authors: BY TYLER DURDENFRIDAY, AUG 27, 2021 – 01:34 PM

Denmark will on September 10th stop classifying Covid-19 as an “illness which is a critical threat to society”, meaning all remaining special pandemic restrictions will expire, The Local reported. In a press release issued on Friday morning, the country’s health minister Magnus Heunicke said that the high level of vaccination in Denmark, particularly among the vulnerable, had radically altered the risks posed by the virus.

“The epidemic is under control, we have record high vaccination rates,” he said in a statement. “As a result, on September 10th, we can drop some of the special rules we have had to introduce in the fight against Covid-19.”

September 10th marks the expiry date for that the executive order classifying Covid-19 as a “socially critical illness”, which was passed by the Danish parliament’s Epidemic Committee on March 10th last year. 

The parties in the centre-right blue bloc, led by the Liberal Party, have already said that they believe that Covid-19 should no longer be classed as a serious threat to society, and the health ministry’s announcement came less than an hour before the ruling Social Democrats were due to discuss the issue with the other parties in the Epidemic Committee. 

“When it sinks in for the Social Democrat government that they are in a minority, they then come up with better ideas just 45 minutes before the meeting in the Epidemic Committee is starting,” said Sophie Løhde, a member of the committee for the Liberal Party. 

A number of restrictions are set to lapse on September 1st, notably the requirement to show a valid coronapas to sit in restaurants and bars, and the ban on discos and nightclubs.  

Friday’s announcement means that just ten days after nightclubs reopen on September 1st, visitors will no longer have to show a coronapas, and it also means that from September 10th, those going to watch a Superliga football match or attend an outdoor event with more than 2,000 people, will no longer need a coronapas. 

The change in the classification of Covid-19 will not, however, affect rules on travel into Denmark, which are governed by a separate inter-party agreement which is due to expire in October, a spokesperson for the health ministry said. 

The Bizarre Refusal to Apply Cost-Benefit Analysis to COVID Debates

Are those who oppose a ban on cars or a radical reduction in speed limits sociopaths, given the huge number of people they are knowingly consigning to death or maiming?

Authors: Glenn Greenwald 5 hr ago 285536

In virtually every realm of public policy, Americans embrace policies which they know will kill people, sometimes large numbers of people. They do so not because they are psychopaths but because they are rational: they assess that those deaths that will inevitably result from the policies they support are worth it in exchange for the benefits those policies provide. This rational cost-benefit analysis, even when not expressed in such explicit or crude terms, is foundational to public policy debates — except when it comes to COVID, where it has been bizarrely declared off-limits.

The quickest and most guaranteed way to save hundreds of thousands of lives with policy changes would be to ban the use of automobiles, or severely restrict their usage to those authorized by the state on the ground of essential need (e.g., ambulances or food-delivery vehicles), or at least lower the nationwide speed limit to 25 mph. Any of those policies would immediately prevent huge numbers of human beings from dying. Each year, according to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), “1.35 million people are killed on roadways around the world,” while “crashes are a leading cause of death in the United States for people aged 1–54.” Even with seat belts and airbags, a tragic number of life-years are lost given how many young people die or are left permanently and severely disabled by car accidents. Studies over the course of decades have demonstrated that even small reductions in speed limits save many lives, while radical reductions — supported by almost nobody — would eliminate most if not all deaths from car crashes.

Center for Disease Control, 2020

Given how many deaths and serious injuries would be prevented, why is nobody clamoring for a ban on cars, or at least severe restrictions on who can drive (essential purposes only) or how fast (25 mph)? Is it because most people are just sociopaths who do not care about the huge number of lives lost by the driving policies they support, and are perfectly happy to watch people die or be permanently maimed as long as their convenience is not impeded? Is it because they do not assign value to the lives of other people, and therefore knowingly support policies — allowing anyone above 15 years old to drive, at high speeds — that will kill many children along with adults?

That may explain the motivation scheme for a few people, but in general, the reason is much simpler and less sinister. It is because we employ a rational framework of cost-benefit analysis, whereby, when making public policy choices, we do not examine only one side of the ledger (number of people who will die if cars are permitted) but also consider the immense costs generated by policies that would prevent those deaths (massive limits on our ability to travel, vastly increased times to get from one place to another, restrictions on what we can experience in our lives, enormous financial costs from returning to the pre-automobile days). So foundational is the use of this cost-benefit analysis that it is embraced and touted by everyone from right-wing economists to the left-wing European environmental policy group CIVITAS, which defines it this way:

Social Cost Benefit Analysis [is] a decision support tool that measures and weighs various impacts of a project or policy. It compares project costs (capital and operating expenses) with a broad range of (social) impacts, e.g. travel time savings, travel costs, impacts on other modes, climate, safety, and the environment.

This framework, above all else, precludes an absolutist approach to rational policy-making. We never opt for a society-altering policy on the ground that “any lives saved make it imperative to embrace” precisely because such a primitive mindset ignores all the countervailing costs which this life-saving policy would generate (including, oftentimes, loss of life as well: banning planes, for instance, would save lives by preventing deaths from airplane crashes, but would also create its own new deaths by causing more people to drive cars).

While arguments are common about how this framework should be applied and which specific policies are ideal, the use of cost-benefit analysis as the primary formula we use is uncontroversial — at least it was until the COVID pandemic began. It is now extremely common in Western democracies for large factions of citizens to demand that any measures undertaken to prevent COVID deaths are vital, regardless of the costs imposed by those policies. Thus, this mentality insists, we must keep schools closed to avoid the contracting by children of COVID regardless of the horrific costs which eighteen months or two years of school closures impose on all children.

It is impossible to overstate the costs imposed on children of all ages from the sustained, enduring and severe disruptions to their lives justified in the name of COVID. Entire books could be written, and almost certainly will be, on the multiple levels of damage children are sustaining, some of which — particularly the longer-term ones — are unknowable (long-term harms from virtually every aspect of COVID policies — including COVID itself, the vaccines, and isolation measures, are, by definition, unknown). But what we know for certain is that the harms to children from anti-COVID measures are severe and multi-pronged. One of the best mainstream news accounts documenting those costs was a January, 2021 BBC article headlined “Covid: The devastating toll of the pandemic on children.”

The “devastating toll” referenced by the article is not the death count from COVID for children, which, even in the world of the Delta variant, remains vanishingly small. The latest CDC data reveals that the grand total of children under 18 who have died in the U.S. from COVID since the start of the pandemic sixteen months ago is 361 — in a country of 330 million people, including 74.2 million people under 18. Instead, the “devastating toll” refers to multi-layered harm to children from the various lockdowns, isolation measures, stay-at-home orders, school closures, economic suffering and various other harms that have come from policies enacted to prevent the spread of the virus:

From increasing rates of mental health problems to concerns about rising levels of abuse and neglect and the potential harm being done to the development of babies, the pandemic is threatening to have a devastating legacy on the nation’s young. . . .

The closure of schools is, of course, damaging to children’s education. But schools are not just a place for learning. They are places where kids socialize, develop emotionally and, for some, a refuge from troubled family life.

Prof Russell Viner, president of the Royal College of Pediatrics and Child Health, perhaps put it most clearly when he told MPs on the Education Select Committee earlier this month: “When we close schools we close their lives.”

For More Information: https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-bizarre-refusal-to-apply-cost

Lockdowns Biggest Mistake in Public Health History

Authors: Jay Bhattacharya, UnHerd

Professor Jay Bhattacharya is one of the famous voices to have emerged out of the pandemic. A vocal critic of lockdowns, his name became synonymous with the controversial Great Barrington Declaration, which called for an “alternative approach to the pandemic” that would entail no lockdowns. Along with co-signatories Sunetra Gupta and Martin Kulldforff (who featured on UnHerd last year), the trio argued that public health strategies should instead centre on the ‘focused protection’ of at-risk groups while keeping society as open as possible so the healthy parts of the population could build herd immunity.

The declaration triggered a huge global debate, with critics arguing that many more lives would have been lost on account of the difficulty of shielding all those who were vulnerable. During this week’s interview, Freddie Sayers challenged Prof Bhattacharya on what would have happened if his strategy was adopted, whether he has changed his mind in retrospect, and how his ‘focused protection’ have would worked with waning immunity and new variants?

Did the early arrival of vaccines change his mind on lockdowns?I did not think that vaccines would arrive in nine months, let alone 12. I was very pleasantly shocked and surprised. If you asked me in March 2020, “can there be a vaccine?” I would have said and I did say that it’s very unlikely. There’s no coronavirus vaccines, it’s been difficult to produce one. I don’t see how it’s possible…But I still would have had the same view of lockdowns… I still would have been in favour of keeping schools open. But I might have been more in favour of more restrictive things for older people. – JAY BHATTACHARYA, UNHERD

On the Great Barrington Declaration:We’ve been vindicated. The lockdowns were the single biggest mistake in public health history. I don’t see how anyone can look at lockdown and say ‘that was successful policy’. We’ve had lockdowns in country after country after country. Would you call lockdown a success in the UK? Would you call the lockdown in Peru a success? The lockdown in India or the United States? I don’t think by any measure you could call them a success. – JAY BHATTACHARYA, UNHERD

On the backlash against the declaration:I was naive, I have spent my career in academia. I’ve not spent my career in politics… I didn’t know that people would then use ad hominem attacks against me. I worked on the Santa Clara study when I was even more naive. There was a furious counter attack on that, again, with this ad hominem overlay that shocked me. I expected more serious engagement by serious people. – JAY BHATTACHARYA, UNHERD

On the harms of lockdowns:One in four young adults experienced depression or anxiety during the lockdown last year. One in four young adults have seriously considered suicide. I told you about the studies in the developing world where you have enormous numbers of people newly thrown into poverty, deep poverty, or newly food insecure, or who were actively starving. Disruptions in medical care that have harmed people with tuberculosis, with HIV, with malaria… The harms of lockdowns are extremely multi-dimensional. A child who skips a year of school will feel those consequences over a lifetime. They’ll be poorer, less healthy, and live less long. We’re just starting to come to terms with that. – JAY BHATTACHARYA, UNHERD

Should young people take the vaccine?They don’t have to. I mean, they can. I’m not against it. It’s an individual thing where you compare the potential harms of the vaccine versus the potential benefits, because it doesn’t stop disease spread. There will be some age where you say below it doesn’t make any sense because it would depend on the side effects. – JAY BHATTACHARYA, UNHERD

The future of Covid: Just like any other danger, we eventually get used to it. You read stories about horrible wars and it becomes like a thing you get used to. I think humans are capable of getting used to so many horrible things. I think we got used to lockdown. As a species we are adaptable that way, but that doesn’t mean we flourish that way. Covid is going to join the 200 other pathogens that afflict humans, and we will learn to live with it. – JAY BHATTACHARYA, UNHERD

Delta variant likely to bring a fall and winter of masks, vaccine mandates, anxiety

Authors: Rong-Gong Lin II, Luke Money Fri, August 20, 2021, 8:00 AM

The rise of the Delta variant has upended previous optimistic projections of herd immunity and a return to normal life, with many health experts believing mask mandates and tougher vaccine requirements will be needed in the coming months to avoid more serious coronavirus surges.

While there are promising signs that California’s fourth COVID-19 surge may be starting to flatten, the fall and winter will bring new challenges as people stay indoors more often and vaccine immunity begins to wane.

The rapid spread of Delta among the unvaccinated — and the still relatively small number of “breakthrough” cases among the vaccinated — shows that significant increases in inoculations will help stop the spread. In fact, officials are now preparing to provide booster shots to those who already got their first series of vaccinations, saying the extra dose is needed to keep people protected.

Still, “the vaccines themselves are not going to likely be sufficient. And during times of increased transmission, we’ll need other tools available to protect all of us — and particularly those who, at this time, can’t be vaccinated, like our children,” said UC San Francisco epidemiologist Dr. Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo.

California is in a better position than other states because of relatively higher vaccination rates, and there is little appetite for a return to stay-at-home orders. But in settings where more people gather, strategies that can be used to keep COVID-19 controlled include ensuring people are either vaccinated, have a recent negative coronavirus test or both, Bibbins-Domingo said.

“There will be a time when we have our masks off again as transmission goes back down. But I think we’re going to have to be prepared that if we’re in an environment when there’s more virus around, that it is sensible that we have another layer of protection — and that will be masks,” Bibbins-Domingo said. “And I don’t think we’re going to be totally throwing our masks away anytime soon, frankly.”

Policies like mandatory masking and requiring vaccines or regular testing in workplaces “are going to be very important if we are ever going to get over this pandemic,” said Dr. Robert Kim-Farley, a medical epidemiologist and infectious-diseases expert at the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health.

It was once thought that as soon as 70% to 85% of a population was vaccinated, communities would reach a high enough level of herd immunity that the threat of COVID-19 would be mostly behind us. Now, “that’s out the window,” Bibbins-Domingo said, and computer models suggest the coronavirus will be with us for the foreseeable future. “Almost certainly, we’ll be dealing with it this winter.”

How long the pandemic will last depends on any new variants that emerge, the ability to adapt the vaccines to them and temporary measures that may be needed to tamp down surges, Bibbins-Domingo said.

There are several key factors that have altered what we previously understood about COVID-19 and underscore just how far off the end of the pandemic still is.

The first is the emergence of the Delta variant — at least twice as transmissible as the previous dominant variant, Alpha, and capable of producing a viral load up to 1,000 times greater in the upper throat.

“The big challenge with Delta is that it’s so much more transmissible than the original strain. … And really, this is possibly an unprecedented change in terms of the amount of the” shift in the so-called R-naught, or the basic reproductive rate of the coronavirus, Shane Crotty, a vaccine researcher at the La Jolla Institute for Immunology, recently told a forum at UC San Francisco.

Originally, a person infected with the ancestral strain of the coronavirus spread it to 2.5 other people on average. But the Delta variant is estimated to spread to five to eight other people. That means that within 10 cycles of transmission of the virus, in a population with no immunity to the virus, instead of fewer than 10,000 people being infected, more than 60 million will be infected, Dr. Carlos del Rio, an Emory University epidemiologist and infectious-diseases expert, said at the same UC San Francisco forum.

This is why vaccine mandates will become more important, especially at places of employment, del Rio said. “I think the going phrase that we’re hearing over and over is: ‘No jab, no job.’ And I think mandates are going to make a big difference,” he said.

Second, breakthrough infections — in which fully vaccinated people become infected with COVID-19 — are still uncommon but no longer rare. “I think vaccinated persons are much safer than unvaccinated persons, but they’re not completely safe. Breakthrough infections occur often enough with Delta that you will see them,” del Rio said.

While a vaccinated person with a breakthrough infection can transmit the virus to others, he or she is likely to be infectious for a significantly fewer number of days, del Rio said. “And therefore your contribution to transmission is much lower if you’re vaccinated than if you’re not.”

And that’s why wearing masks indoors remains important. Del Rio said many infectious-diseases doctors never stopped masking indoors, even after the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said it wasn’t necessary for fully vaccinated people.

Vaccinated people with breakthrough infections have much more mild illnesses because the body is already equipped to defend itself against the virus and likely can avoid lung illnesses or hospitalization, said Dr. Regina Chinsio-Kwong, a deputy health officer for Orange County. But without prior immunity, the virus can lodge deeper into the body and cause more severe illness, eventually making it very difficult to breathe.

In Los Angeles County in April, fully vaccinated people accounted for 5% of all coronavirus cases; by July, they accounted for 30%. But fully vaccinated people, who now account for 55% of L.A. County residents of all ages, continue to be well-protected against hospitalization.

Unvaccinated older adults — age 50 and above — are 12 times more likely to be hospitalized than their vaccinated counterparts, and unvaccinated younger adults are 25 times more likely to be hospitalized than those who are fully vaccinated in that age group.

For More Information: https://news.yahoo.com/delta-variant-likely-bring-fall-120056591.html

Biden to require nursing homes get staff vaccinated or lose federal funds

Authors: By Jeremy Diamond, CNN

Updated 2:38 PM ET, Wed August 18, 2021

(CNN)The Biden administration will direct all nursing homes to require their staff be vaccinated against Covid-19 in order to continue receiving Medicare and Medicaid funding, administration officials told CNN. President Joe Biden will announce Wednesday afternoon that he is directing the Department of Health and Human Services to draw up new regulations making employee vaccination a condition for nursing homes to participate in Medicare and Medicaid, the officials said. The move represents a significant escalation in Biden’s campaign to get Americans vaccinated and the tools he is willing to use, marking the first time he has threatened to withhold federal funds in order to get people vaccinated. “As we see the spread of Delta and the threat of Covid cases, it is really especially important that we ensure that those caring for our most vulnerable are vaccinated,” Carole Johnson, a senior official on the White House’s Covid-19 response team, told CNN in an interview. The move comes as the more transmissible Delta variant now accounts for 99% of Covid-19 cases in the United States and as data shows a link between low vaccination rates in certain nursing homes and rising coronavirus cases among residents.

In the seven states in which less than half of nursing home staff is vaccinated, weekly cases were 7.9 times higher in the week ending August 1 than they were in the week ending June 27. Meanwhile, in states that have vaccinated a larger share of staff than average (more than 60%), cases reported in the week ending August 1 were only three times higher than cases reported in the last week of June.

The new regulations could go into effect as early as next month, but Johnson said the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services will work with nursing homes, employees and their unions to ramp up staff vaccinations before the regulations go into effect.About 1.3 million people are employed by the more than 15,000 nursing homes that participate in Medicare and Medicaid. About 40% of those workers are not vaccinated, according to CMS data.

“We have seen tremendous progress with low Covid rates within the nursing home population and I think we’re seeing signs that it is starting to tip the other direction. We don’t want to go backwards,” said Jonathan Blum, CMS’ principal deputy administrator.Blum said CMS officials are “confident we have the legal authority” to implement the new regulation, noting that the law allows CMS to take action as it relates to the health and safety of nursing home residents.Biden began taking an increasingly muscular approach to boosting vaccination rates last month amid a plateau in vaccinations and the rapid spread of the Delta variant, including requiring all federal workers to attest that they have been vaccinated or be regularly tested for the virus. A slew of private companies have also since announced similar requirements for their workers.”We are on a wartime footing here. We are leaning in to making sure we are taking the steps that we can to ensure the health and safety of Americans and we will continue to do so,” Johnson said. “Delta’s not waiting and so we’re not waiting.”

WHO changes definition of herd immunity

In a June 14, 2021 article by Christianity Daily, Dr. Marty Makary of John’s Hopkins School of Medicine is quoted as saying the the US has achieved herd immunity for the Covid virus. About 50% of the US population have had the corona virus and about 132 million Americans have been fully vaccinated. He estimates that between the two groups, about 85% of the population have immunity to the virus. Dr. Makary has given several outspoken interviews on herd immunity and vaccines in the past. He is certainly not an anti-vaccer, but he decries the failure of leadership that characterizes herd immunity as coming from vaccinations alone. The World Health Organization now has declared that only the vaccinated are a part of “The Herd.” And the recent CDC policies on masking, vaccinating, and social distancing suggest that they side with the WHO. Dr. Makary chides the medical community for not speaking up more strongly and encourages people to listen less to the CDC and to start living again. He insists that the science on the issue is clear: people who have had covid have immunity and should not be forced or shamed into being vaccinated.

Listen to interview on Fox News

View article in Christianity Daily

Will this pandemic never end?

Truly worth reading is a piece by Donald G. McNeil Jr., “The End IS Near. No, Seriously.” He has written for the NY Times since 1976 and Global health beat since 2002 and gives us a perspective on the covid pandemic based on the history of others like the Spanish Flu of 1918 and the black plague from the mid 1300’s. He argues that the end of the pandemic has as much to do with the psychology of how we react to the threat as with the ongoing statistics of the infection and death rates.

No one talked about the flu for the last 2 years…do you know a single person who actually had it? And yet it was reportedly the 9th leading cause of death in 2019 when Covid deaths ranked third. In a good year about 12,000 Americans die of the flu and in a bad year, 60,000. There is always a vaccine available for the expected mutation. Some years it is highly effective, and some times it misses the mark. In spite of the risk, some of us take the vaccine annually and some don’t bother. There are also ways to treat the flu, so we take our chances. We don’t hide in our houses, quit our jobs, keep our kids home from school, mask up, or social distance. No one expects the flu virus to be completely eradicated. Even the pathogens from leprosy, black plague and Spanish flu are still with us.

Covid will have it’s mutations, it’s spikes and it’s remissions. There will be worse years and better years. While it will wane over time, it will never go away entirely. There are some good treatments for covid emerging as well as new vaccines being formulated. McNeil concludes that it will cease to be a pandemic when we begin to see it as a risk we can live with.

View the article

Why is no one talking about immunity in people who have had corona virus?

The fully vaccinated have finally been given a “get out of jail free card” from the CDC, while those who suffered through the covid infection remain personae non gratae. The National Institutes of Health published a study on June 18, 2020 of the evidence of protective antibodies in those who have been infected with covid. An earlier NIH study had shown that less than 1% of infected individuals had antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2  virus. Another study showed that within a couple of months, antibody levels had dropped off precipitously. There were also anecdotal reports that a small number of individuals had experienced the covid infection twice. This led to the widespread belief that having the infection provided little or no protection against reinfection or spreading infection to others. In spite of new and not so new evidence to the contrary that perception persists today.

The June 18, 2020 study by the NIH determined that those infected with corona virus develop potent antibodies that don’t kill the virus directly , but rather link to the virus’ protein spikes, preventing it from attaching to human cells. If the virus cannot inject it’s genes into a host cell via it’s protein spikes, it cannot reproduce more viruses. This study focused on these so called neutralizing antibodies that bind to a part of the spike proteins called the receptor binding domain (RBD). The study found that the antibodies in the different research subjects were very similar, and fell into three groups that attached to the RBD in different places, and that the antibodies were all very effective in binding to the virus and stopping the infection. These insights from the study heavily influenced the design of the vaccines that are being used today and which are proving to be highly effective at preventing infection, though not without side effects to some people.

View Report NIH Research Matters: “Potent antibodies found in people recovered from COVID-19

Now that more than a year has past since the beginning of the pandemic, researchers have been studying the longevity of the immunity in persons who have been infected with covid. Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, studied 77 people who recovered from mild cases of coronavirus over eleven months. Researchers at WU explain that the early studies showing that people infected with covid had no long term immunity were misinterpreted. The short term decline in antibodies after an acute infection has cleared is normal, as they are no longer needed. The remaining antibodies retreat into the bone marrow and continue to produce low levels of antibodies to prevent reinfection. Blood and bone marrow samples were taken from the study subjects that detected antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2  virus as well as the neutralizing antibodies that bind to the spike proteins, even after eleven months. The study’s senior author, Ali Ellebedy, PhD, concluded that ”These cells will live and produce antibodies for the rest of people’s lives. That’s strong evidence for long-lasting immunity.”

They added that it would be prudent to repeat the study on patients who had a severe case of covid.
Generally, a serious infection causes more antibodies to be produced, but it also triggers inflammation that can interfere with the immune response and might weaken long term immunity. As the program to vaccinate millions of people is still recent, one would assume that studies also need to done to see how long lasting the immunity is from the various vaccines. In the meantime, perhaps the CDC should invite the covid survivors to take off their masks.

View Report: Study Finds.org, “Mild COVID-19 cases can lead to antibody protection for life,”