Robust Immunity Through Infection

I ROFL'd. I read this in an article where someone was asking for advice for those who had received "Robust Immunity Through Infection".

There are a few problems with this statement; it is largely dependent upon potentially false premises, there is little indication that natural infection provides anything one might call "robust", and there is little indication that immunity via infection is even very effective in the first place.

While this is the first time I've heard this specific term, I have heard of something similar. In a relative who is vaccine hesitant who was trying to justify their lack of desire to get the vaccine. And the statement was basically "I'm pretty sure I've already caught COVID-19, so I basically have immunity anyway".

The problem with the statement is that literally everyone I've talked too, vaccine hesitant or not, has expressed a belief that they had already contracted COVID-19 in the past. And based on infection rates... we know that simply isn't possible. The cumulative case count here in Ontario was, not long ago, hovering around 500k. In a population well in excess of 16M people, even if you throw some in fudge factor that means that significantly less than 10% of the population have been infected. If everyone I've talked to "suspects" they've contracted COVID in the past (and I'm among that group)... a GREAT MANY of those people (likely including myself again) ... are wrong.

Foregoing vaccination on a premise which is likely wrong is dumb. Allowing such people to consider themselves protected and bestowing the same benefits upon them as those actually vaccinated is GROSSLY negligent. So, I wouldn't expect any health professionals to cede anything any time soon on this particular topic.

As for being robust... well, generally speaking there is no evidence that natural immunity is robust in any way with COVID-19. Unless. You had severe symptoms. That is a high price to pay. And I don't imagine that these people are the ones dodging vaccination. Because the data we do have suggests that even this immunity is only about 80% effective and tapers off after about 8 months. Put another way, it is less effective than most vaccines and based on current data, it is also less permanent than a full vaccination series. I doubt someone who spent weeks or month in an ICU cares much for those odds when they can easily get better ones with a free vaccine. 

If you had mild COVID, and a first dose, then there is some evidence to back up the notion that MAYBE you don't need a second dose. But, as the article notes, this is far from conclusive. The metrics taken to arrive at this are just a few data points and don't represent the full picture or tell how long that protection lasts. The doctors in the article are clear; if you have a CONFIRMED past infection and had a first dose, then your GOVERNMENT should probably be prioritizing second doses for others first. Even with this data they are NOT advising people to avoid getting a second dose. 

Also, in Canada, we're no longer in a position where we need to ration doses. So, even the government shouldn't be wasting time considering whether or not you've had a past infection. 

This is also CLEARLY not the group referenced in the original question, though I figured it was worth putting out there. If they had status as partially vaccinated it is unreasonable to assume they would have omitted such a crucial aspect of their identity on this topic. 

That last article also highlights another problem. Whether you can prove a past infection or not, you CANNOT prove the effectiveness of your immune system (without subjecting yourself to the infection). Checking anti-bodies or T-Cell counts alone does not paint the full picture. If it did, the doctors in that last article would be telling everyone to stop wasting second doses on those who don't need them.

So, WHY?!?>!?!?!?! Why should any concessions be made if you have been infected with COVID-19 assuming you have also declined vaccination (IE -  you're not ineligible for some other reason)? I can't think of any.

Furthermore... why (aside from lack of being informed) would you want to remain at increased risk? A few of the scary things about COVID-19 are that a prior infection does not appear to reduce odds of a severe infection on consequent reinfections. And that was true with the original strain of the virus and is MUCH more true with new variants emerging. And then there is "long COVID" and the sheer, mind-bogglingly long list of internal organs and systems of the bodies it has been seen to infect and cause long term damage in.

You know what? I take it back. I get it; Brain damage! To a degree this has been diagnosed in younger sufferers. Perhaps those with prior infections have also received significant brain damage and can no longer properly evaluate risk.

Prove me wrong. Get vaccinated and stop worrying about what rights should be conferred to those with a "speculative immunity through infection" (see, I fixed that for you, your welcome).