Natural Immunity and Vaccinations - Half-Full or Half-Empty

The debate rages on about the superiority of natural immunity or vaccines against COVID. At this point, the accumulated evidence suggests natural immunity provides stronger protection, but neither provides complete protection, and the protection wanes over time. Depending on (i) the age of the individual, (ii) the COVID variant, (iii) the time since immunity was developed, and (iv) the immune response based on the specific vaccine or the extent of illness in a previous infection, the immunity glass might be almost empty, almost full, or anywhere in between. But if you listen to the CDC and other purportedly apolitical health organizations, you hear the vaccination glass characterized as nearly full, while the natural immunity glass is typically characterized as half-empty at best.

It’s not a surprise to anyone that COVID-19 “science” is distorted by the media, pundits, and politicians. Yet many people fail to realize the extent of politicization and bias from purportedly apolitical scientists and scientific organizations. The fact that so much of the research and information is politicized erodes credibility and even contributes to vaccine resistance. Those advocating for vaccine mandates ought to think about credibility erosion before cherry-picking data, ignoring inconvenient studies, censoring scientists who voice contrary opinions, and putting a conscious or unconscious spin on everything they do.

I had never heard of the British Society for Immunology until I performed a Google search on natural immunity vs. vaccine immunity, and the BSI website came up high in the results. I have no idea of their politics or membership. It may be a fantastic organization, and the website states that the BSI is “one of the oldest, largest, and most active, immunology societies in the world”.

As of November 10, 2021, and for several months beforehand, the BSI website had an infographic posted on-line (and reproduced below) comparing natural immunity with vaccine-derived immunity. This infographic was apparently developed by BSI in collaboration with the UK Coronavirus Immunology Consortium. Given that the current science seems to indicate that natural immunity is at least as good as vaccine-derived immunity, if not better, I read the infographic with curiosity.

On the issue of durability of protection, it states that for natural immunity, length of protection is “variable and not fully known” and “reduces over time”. Fair enough. Both statements are undeniably true, although they are also true for vaccine-derived immunity.

Does the infographic make an equivalent statement for vaccine-derived immunity? Rather than “variable and not fully known”, the website proclaims “still to be learnt but two doses (of Pfizer, Moderna, or AstraZeneca) produce long-term protection so far”. That is arguably also a true statement (although you might get some arguments depending on how one defines “long-term”, as recent studies have suggested that vaccine effectiveness after six months drops dramatically), but it is also undeniably a far more positive characterization than “variable and not fully known, reduces over time”. Seems a little slanted, doesn’t it? Of course, maybe that’s just an outlier, right?

Among further examples, those with natural immunity “can spread virus to others”, whereas vaccination “reduces chance of spreading virus to others”. Again, both statements are true, but one is distinctly negative, and the other is distinctly positive, an imbalance not justified by the totality of the current science.

Those with natural immunity “may become very unwell with COVID-19”, whereas vaccination “significantly reduces chance of developing COVID-19 and how unwell you become”. Again, both true, but clearly slanted. In arguably the best retrospective cohort study to date comparing vaccine immunity and natural immunity, Gazit et al. found that natural immunity was far more protective than vaccine immunity (from the Pfizer vaccine while the Delta variant was predominant) both for risk of infection and hospitalization.

Against variants, according to the infographic, those with natural immunity have immune systems that “may not be able to recognize a viral variant”. In contrast, for the vaccines, “two doses of some vaccines provide strong protection against many currently identified variants”. Again, both statements are technically true, but laughably biased. Given that the Gazit et al. study suggests that the chance of getting the most common variant worldwide is more than an order of magnitude less if someone was infected with COVID at the beginning of the year vs. getting the Pfizer vaccine, then one might expect (if anything) the comments to be slanted in the other direction. Natural immunity is more likely to “provide strong protection against currently identified variants”, whereas vaccinated individuals are more likely not to “be able to recognize a viral variant”. But that’s not what’s on the BSI website.

Given the available data, I think even the propaganda artists at Pravda (while it served as the official publication of the Soviet Communist Party) would have blushed at these biased proclamations. I don’t know if they reflect conscious or unconscious bias, but they most certainly reflect bias, as well as a clear agenda.

I’m not saying that natural immunity is unequivocally better than the immunity provided by one vaccine or another. The jury is still out, although the accumulated evidence seems to favor natural immunity. The pertinent fact is at this point, there is no compelling evidence that vaccine-derived immunity is definitively better than natural immunity. And if you can’t make a convincing case that vaccine-derived immunity is better than natural immunity, let alone substantially better, then how can you make the case that only people who have been vaccinated should be allowed to fully participate in society, whereas previously infected people somehow constitute too great of a risk? Or that second-graders with natural immunity to COVID must be vaccinated to attend public school, irrespective of the significant side effects and limited health benefit.