A new Qatar study reports prior infection with any SARS-Cov-2 variant provides those newly infected with high levels of natural immunity from both pre-Omicron and post-Omicron variants..SARS-Cov-2 — and its mutations — is the virus responsible for COVID-19 disease..The study out of the Middle Eastern country also showed many people who had prior infection with SARS-Cov-2 were completely protected from reinfection by their natural immune system defences..“Effectiveness of primary infection against severe, critical, or fatal COVID-19 reinfection was 97.3% … irrespective of the variant of primary infection or reinfection, and with no evidence for waning," Dr. Laith Abu-Raddad, of Weill Cornell Medicine–Qatar, and peers reported after studying long-term natural immunity in unvaccinated people.."Similar results were found in sub-group analyses for those less than 50 years of age.” .The confidence interval (CI) for that data point was 95% (94.9–98.6%)..The Western Standard consulted Calgary epidemiologist Dr. David Vickers to comment on the study..Dr. David Vickers has 16 years of experience in infectious disease epidemiology. He has a PhD from the University of Saskatchewan and spent 13 years in academia at the University of Saskatchewan, Imperial College London, and the University of Calgary. He also worked in the public sector as an epidemiologist for Alberta Health Services. A significant period of Vickers' consultancy work during the first 18 months of the pandemic was with a federally funded group of inter-provincial researchers..Vickers was asked what he made of the study's conclusion about natural immunity.."It's a bit of a no-brainer, really. It's something that I would expect" said Vickers. ."It doesn't matter which SARS-Cov-2 variant you had in the past, when you got re-exposed and infected, there was very little occurrence of severe disease. That's exactly what immunity is supposed to do. So, for me, that result is not surprising, at all.".The study — conducted by 24 highly qualified epidemiologists and statisticians — acknowledged the experimental mRNA vaccines helped mitigate serious clinical disease outcomes in the early part of the pandemic, but said the vaccines' future role was limited given their comparable efficacy versus natural immunity.."While current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines had a critical role in reducing COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths, their rapidly waning immune protection, particularly against the Omicron (B.1.1.529) variant, limits their role in shaping the future of SARS-CoV-2 epidemiology," the study said..With regard to the study's claim the novel vaccines had a "critical role" in mitigating clinical disease in the early part of the pandemic, articles were cited in the study referencing other studies comparing unvaccinated versus vaccinated individuals and their clinical outcomes.."We know that when it comes to being reinfected, the COVID-19 vaccines ... even if they started off really strong, the variants changed, but the vaccines didn't, and so people are getting reinfected. You know, certainly, they don't measure up to natural immunity," Vickers said..When asked what the future of the COVID-19 vaccines looked like, in the light of the study's findings, Vickers said the vaccines need to evolve.."I would imagine COVID-19 [will] remain on the radar of our provincial and federal governments. And the future of vaccination? I think COVID-19 is probably going to take on more of a flu-like model where there will be modification [of] the vaccine itself," he said. "I would be speculating ... but I would imagine whatever form the vaccine takes — as in traditional form — [it would use] bits of the virus, or some dead version of the virus, versus an mRNA 'vaccine.'".Vickers said the SARS-Cov-2 virus has now undergone so many mutations of the surface spike protein that it was now getting under the radar of the immune system and consequently causing re-infection — known in epidemiology as 'viral immune evasion.'.Three national, matched, retrospective cohort studies analyzed patient data across the country and included infection data and the vaccine status data of approximately 2.6 million Qatar residents. It investigated duration of protection afforded by natural infection, the effect of viral immune evasion on duration of protection, and protection against severe reinfection assessing data between Feb. 28, 2020 and June 5, 2022..The study reported "effectiveness of pre-Omicron primary infection against pre-Omicron reinfection was 85.5% (95% CI: 84.8–86.2%). Effectiveness peaked at 90.5% (95% CI: 88.4–92.3%) in the seventh month after the primary infection, but waned to ~70% by the 16th month.".Protection against infection waned over time and allowed for reinfection, although reinfection was without severe outcomes.."Extrapolating this waning trend ... suggested an effectiveness of 50% in the 22nd month and <10% by the 32nd month. Effectiveness of pre-Omicron primary infection against Omicron reinfection was 38.1% (95% CI: 36.3-39.8%) and declined with time since primary infection. A Gompertz curve suggested an effectiveness of <10% by the 15th month," the study said..Vickers offered some reassurance about waning immunity and reinfection.."There might still be this pre-existing fear in the population where people are scared that if they get [re]infected, then, all of a sudden, that means they're going to get sick and die. And so, even natural immunity, [wanes] you know, over time, right? We know that from other coronaviruses that circulate normally every year, immunity to them wanes," Vickers said.."The immunity to them wanes within about about two years-ish, because there's certainly variability. But it doesn't mean if you get infected, that there's going to be this emergence of disease. So, ... do most of [those reinfected] get sick and die? There's a whole lot of, you know, genetic predispositions [to clinical disease]. But as a simple rule — those who are young and healthy, if they get SARS-Cov-2, they are far better [with natural immunity] than being vaccinated.".Vickers was asked what he made of the almost complete absence of any debate or discussion amongst medical professionals surrounding the long-accepted merits of natural immunity versus the risks and benefits of a novel, experimental gene-based vaccine — within the public realm, or elsewhere..He said that Alberta Health Services had been inclined to invoke the precautionary principle by mandating the vaccine for everyone 'just in case' instead of only for those who have pre-existing comorbidities, and who are immune-compromised..He suggested health authority policymakers didn't yet have an in-depth understanding of the epidemiological dynamics of the COVID-19 pandemic.."That's a tough question," he said. "I think they were basically trying to save people from ... [ending up] in hospital. ... They claimed they were trying to prevent healthcare from being overloaded. It seems to suggest they don't really understand the basics of epidemiology of this type of infection ... 99% of cases — that's cases, not infections — are basically going to recover with no complication. So, if I follow their messaging, they seemed to flip-flop back-and-forth between [the vaccine] 'preventing transmission', but we know the vaccines don't do that, then they flop back to 'saving healthcare,' and it's, it's really too bad that's their statement, because for decades critical care in Canada has been, frequently overwhelmed. The state of health care is in trouble."."It's largely because we have an aging population. ... It comes back to that sub-population of people who I call chronically, critically ill. Basically, hospital capacity and the resources around it, just kind of teeters the on the brink. And add a novel respiratory pathogen like SARS-Cov-2, that kind of chronic problem now becomes acute."."And so I think they were pushing the vaccine because they were trying to avoid healthcare from being overloaded, but that's a bit of an erroneous [position] statement because healthcare has been overloaded since at least 1990.".Vickers said he found it "very interesting that there seems to have been absolutely no discussion whatsoever of natural immunity.".On the mandating of the vaccine, Vickers said, "Talking about things like natural immunity, and things like that, [adopting the vaccine as the go-to protocol] really came down to safety arguments. Vickers said medical authorities just wanted 'to be safe, just to be sure.'"."Well, they 'just want to be safe, just to be sure', to me, kind of negates the point of having evidence-based medicine.".The study is yet to be peer-reviewed and only pertains to the Qatar population whose demographic has a higher proportion of younger people, and whose results cannot be assumed would be replicated in a comparable Canada-wide study..The study was published on the website medRxiv. Vickers added he foresaw no reason why the paper would not pass the peer-review process and see publication in a medical journal.
A new Qatar study reports prior infection with any SARS-Cov-2 variant provides those newly infected with high levels of natural immunity from both pre-Omicron and post-Omicron variants..SARS-Cov-2 — and its mutations — is the virus responsible for COVID-19 disease..The study out of the Middle Eastern country also showed many people who had prior infection with SARS-Cov-2 were completely protected from reinfection by their natural immune system defences..“Effectiveness of primary infection against severe, critical, or fatal COVID-19 reinfection was 97.3% … irrespective of the variant of primary infection or reinfection, and with no evidence for waning," Dr. Laith Abu-Raddad, of Weill Cornell Medicine–Qatar, and peers reported after studying long-term natural immunity in unvaccinated people.."Similar results were found in sub-group analyses for those less than 50 years of age.” .The confidence interval (CI) for that data point was 95% (94.9–98.6%)..The Western Standard consulted Calgary epidemiologist Dr. David Vickers to comment on the study..Dr. David Vickers has 16 years of experience in infectious disease epidemiology. He has a PhD from the University of Saskatchewan and spent 13 years in academia at the University of Saskatchewan, Imperial College London, and the University of Calgary. He also worked in the public sector as an epidemiologist for Alberta Health Services. A significant period of Vickers' consultancy work during the first 18 months of the pandemic was with a federally funded group of inter-provincial researchers..Vickers was asked what he made of the study's conclusion about natural immunity.."It's a bit of a no-brainer, really. It's something that I would expect" said Vickers. ."It doesn't matter which SARS-Cov-2 variant you had in the past, when you got re-exposed and infected, there was very little occurrence of severe disease. That's exactly what immunity is supposed to do. So, for me, that result is not surprising, at all.".The study — conducted by 24 highly qualified epidemiologists and statisticians — acknowledged the experimental mRNA vaccines helped mitigate serious clinical disease outcomes in the early part of the pandemic, but said the vaccines' future role was limited given their comparable efficacy versus natural immunity.."While current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines had a critical role in reducing COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths, their rapidly waning immune protection, particularly against the Omicron (B.1.1.529) variant, limits their role in shaping the future of SARS-CoV-2 epidemiology," the study said..With regard to the study's claim the novel vaccines had a "critical role" in mitigating clinical disease in the early part of the pandemic, articles were cited in the study referencing other studies comparing unvaccinated versus vaccinated individuals and their clinical outcomes.."We know that when it comes to being reinfected, the COVID-19 vaccines ... even if they started off really strong, the variants changed, but the vaccines didn't, and so people are getting reinfected. You know, certainly, they don't measure up to natural immunity," Vickers said..When asked what the future of the COVID-19 vaccines looked like, in the light of the study's findings, Vickers said the vaccines need to evolve.."I would imagine COVID-19 [will] remain on the radar of our provincial and federal governments. And the future of vaccination? I think COVID-19 is probably going to take on more of a flu-like model where there will be modification [of] the vaccine itself," he said. "I would be speculating ... but I would imagine whatever form the vaccine takes — as in traditional form — [it would use] bits of the virus, or some dead version of the virus, versus an mRNA 'vaccine.'".Vickers said the SARS-Cov-2 virus has now undergone so many mutations of the surface spike protein that it was now getting under the radar of the immune system and consequently causing re-infection — known in epidemiology as 'viral immune evasion.'.Three national, matched, retrospective cohort studies analyzed patient data across the country and included infection data and the vaccine status data of approximately 2.6 million Qatar residents. It investigated duration of protection afforded by natural infection, the effect of viral immune evasion on duration of protection, and protection against severe reinfection assessing data between Feb. 28, 2020 and June 5, 2022..The study reported "effectiveness of pre-Omicron primary infection against pre-Omicron reinfection was 85.5% (95% CI: 84.8–86.2%). Effectiveness peaked at 90.5% (95% CI: 88.4–92.3%) in the seventh month after the primary infection, but waned to ~70% by the 16th month.".Protection against infection waned over time and allowed for reinfection, although reinfection was without severe outcomes.."Extrapolating this waning trend ... suggested an effectiveness of 50% in the 22nd month and <10% by the 32nd month. Effectiveness of pre-Omicron primary infection against Omicron reinfection was 38.1% (95% CI: 36.3-39.8%) and declined with time since primary infection. A Gompertz curve suggested an effectiveness of <10% by the 15th month," the study said..Vickers offered some reassurance about waning immunity and reinfection.."There might still be this pre-existing fear in the population where people are scared that if they get [re]infected, then, all of a sudden, that means they're going to get sick and die. And so, even natural immunity, [wanes] you know, over time, right? We know that from other coronaviruses that circulate normally every year, immunity to them wanes," Vickers said.."The immunity to them wanes within about about two years-ish, because there's certainly variability. But it doesn't mean if you get infected, that there's going to be this emergence of disease. So, ... do most of [those reinfected] get sick and die? There's a whole lot of, you know, genetic predispositions [to clinical disease]. But as a simple rule — those who are young and healthy, if they get SARS-Cov-2, they are far better [with natural immunity] than being vaccinated.".Vickers was asked what he made of the almost complete absence of any debate or discussion amongst medical professionals surrounding the long-accepted merits of natural immunity versus the risks and benefits of a novel, experimental gene-based vaccine — within the public realm, or elsewhere..He said that Alberta Health Services had been inclined to invoke the precautionary principle by mandating the vaccine for everyone 'just in case' instead of only for those who have pre-existing comorbidities, and who are immune-compromised..He suggested health authority policymakers didn't yet have an in-depth understanding of the epidemiological dynamics of the COVID-19 pandemic.."That's a tough question," he said. "I think they were basically trying to save people from ... [ending up] in hospital. ... They claimed they were trying to prevent healthcare from being overloaded. It seems to suggest they don't really understand the basics of epidemiology of this type of infection ... 99% of cases — that's cases, not infections — are basically going to recover with no complication. So, if I follow their messaging, they seemed to flip-flop back-and-forth between [the vaccine] 'preventing transmission', but we know the vaccines don't do that, then they flop back to 'saving healthcare,' and it's, it's really too bad that's their statement, because for decades critical care in Canada has been, frequently overwhelmed. The state of health care is in trouble."."It's largely because we have an aging population. ... It comes back to that sub-population of people who I call chronically, critically ill. Basically, hospital capacity and the resources around it, just kind of teeters the on the brink. And add a novel respiratory pathogen like SARS-Cov-2, that kind of chronic problem now becomes acute."."And so I think they were pushing the vaccine because they were trying to avoid healthcare from being overloaded, but that's a bit of an erroneous [position] statement because healthcare has been overloaded since at least 1990.".Vickers said he found it "very interesting that there seems to have been absolutely no discussion whatsoever of natural immunity.".On the mandating of the vaccine, Vickers said, "Talking about things like natural immunity, and things like that, [adopting the vaccine as the go-to protocol] really came down to safety arguments. Vickers said medical authorities just wanted 'to be safe, just to be sure.'"."Well, they 'just want to be safe, just to be sure', to me, kind of negates the point of having evidence-based medicine.".The study is yet to be peer-reviewed and only pertains to the Qatar population whose demographic has a higher proportion of younger people, and whose results cannot be assumed would be replicated in a comparable Canada-wide study..The study was published on the website medRxiv. Vickers added he foresaw no reason why the paper would not pass the peer-review process and see publication in a medical journal.
