>While vaccines remain very good at protecting against becoming severely ill with Covid, the protection they give against catching it and passing it on wanes more quickly.
>
>Dr James was referring to a study that found those with Covid were just 2% less likely than an unvaccinated person to pass it on, 12 weeks after a second Oxford-AstraZeneca jab – he acknowledges his reference to “eight weeks” was an error.
>
>But the study also found this was 25% with the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, which NHS staff are likely to have had.
>
>The vaccines also reduce people’s risk to others by stopping them catching the virus in the first place.
>
>One study found those vaccinated with Pfizer 85% less likely than the unvaccinated to be infected with Covid after two weeks and 75% less likely after 12 weeks.
>
>Other research also found the vaccinated cleared the virus faster and had less of it in their system – reducing their chances of passing it on.
>
>These studies all looked at the Delta variant, first identified in India.
>
>Two vaccine doses appear to be less effective against catching and passing on Omicron infections – although, they are still good at preventing severe illness – but much of the benefit is restored with a third booster jab.
# What else did the doctor say?
>The second part of Dr James’s argument was he had probably had Covid, providing him with some protection without a vaccine.
>
>”I’ve got antibodies,” he said.
>
>”I’ve been working on the Covid [intensive-care unit] since the beginning.”
>
>So-called natural immunity – having immune cells such as antibodies and T-cells in your system that recognise and fight off the virus from an infection rather than a vaccine – can offer effective protection, although it comes with the risk of becoming very ill or developing “long Covid”.
>
>***But this protection also wanes and may be ineffective against infection with a different variant.***
>
>An Imperial College London study suggests the protection from having had Covid against infection by the Omicron variant, first identified in South Africa, “may be as low as 19%”.
>
>***The best protection against Covid comes from having an infection and being vaccinated too, several pieces of research have found.***
​
>Dominic Wilkinson, a professor of medical ethics, at the University of Oxford, says doctors have a clear ethical duty to be vaccinated but sacking someone who is not but can show they have had a recent infection that may provide similar protection may be unjustifiable.
>
>If the vaccines completely blocked transmission, it would be a much simpler ethical question, he says.
>
>But since they are less effective against new variants, it is “no longer as clear”.
This is the most cogent argument I’ve heard potentially against mandatory vaccination, though still points out that ethically, medical staff who refuse to have it are out of order.
# What was the reaction online?
>Dr James says he is not against all Covid vaccination but feels he was framed as such online, after opposing compulsory jabs.
>
>”I am most definitely pro-choice and pro-vaccine, which is a position some find too complex to support,” he says.
>
>But another NHS hospital doctor, Dr Meenal Viz, who spends a lot of her time online correcting misinformation, told BBC News she feared the clip of Dr James would be seized on by those who wanted to suggest the science for the vaccine in general was not strong enough – despite the huge weight of evidence from hundreds of independent institutions and millions of people that it prevented disease and death.
>
>This fits into a pattern Dr Viz regularly sees online, where short clips, single statistics or lines from a scientific study taken out of context can “completely blow up” and cause more confusion than straightforward falsehoods.
>
>”On the internet, when things go viral, people tend to cherry-pick what they want,” she said.
>
>And her fears were not misplaced.
>
>Dr James’s comments were eagerly seized on by those against vaccination, including some promoting false theories such as the virus is a hoax.
>
>BBC News also found it referenced in more extreme encrypted chat groups, including one used to organise removals of sick patients from hospital against doctors’ advice and coordinate the serving of bogus legal writs accusing doctors and teachers of crimes against humanity.
>
>***But Dr James stands by his comments: “If people wish to polarise, they will do that,” he says.***
Or in other words, “I have no moral responsibility to get jabbed or ensure that my words don’t lead to worse outcomes for people. What a piece of shit.
Wait, we are supposed to trust a journalist over a doctor now?
The BMJ seem to have a few things to say about “fact checkers” too.
For someone whose job is to make and keep people healthy and avoid causing harm, 2% for the level of risk involved seems more than worth it.
It’s probable that the combination of infection and vaccination (in either order) gives higher immunity than either alone … but duration isn’t well understood as far as I know…
The one thing that we are sure of, though … is that infection immunity is much less consistent and predictable than vaccination immunity (as you’d expect … the vaccine is given with exactly the same amount each time … while the amount of antigen in an infection probably ranges over a million-fold or more, just randomly)… Mild infections, and especially asymptomatic infections … often give very weak immunity … up to a third of asymptomatically infected people end up with no detectable antibody…
Based on antibody titers, infection alone tends to give weaker immunity than vaccination … but again it’s highly variable … a minority of people end up with higher titers than vaccinated people… These tend to be the more severe infections, again as you’d expect … so the obvious safety advantage of vaccines is even more important here…
Because of that, any time you hear the sweeping claim that infection gives “better” immunity than vaccination, with no nuance … you have to conclude that the speaker doesn’t know what the fuck they’re talking about…
5 comments
# What does the science say?
>While vaccines remain very good at protecting against becoming severely ill with Covid, the protection they give against catching it and passing it on wanes more quickly.
>
>Dr James was referring to a study that found those with Covid were just 2% less likely than an unvaccinated person to pass it on, 12 weeks after a second Oxford-AstraZeneca jab – he acknowledges his reference to “eight weeks” was an error.
>
>But the study also found this was 25% with the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, which NHS staff are likely to have had.
>
>The vaccines also reduce people’s risk to others by stopping them catching the virus in the first place.
>
>One study found those vaccinated with Pfizer 85% less likely than the unvaccinated to be infected with Covid after two weeks and 75% less likely after 12 weeks.
>
>Other research also found the vaccinated cleared the virus faster and had less of it in their system – reducing their chances of passing it on.
>
>These studies all looked at the Delta variant, first identified in India.
>
>Two vaccine doses appear to be less effective against catching and passing on Omicron infections – although, they are still good at preventing severe illness – but much of the benefit is restored with a third booster jab.
# What else did the doctor say?
>The second part of Dr James’s argument was he had probably had Covid, providing him with some protection without a vaccine.
>
>”I’ve got antibodies,” he said.
>
>”I’ve been working on the Covid [intensive-care unit] since the beginning.”
>
>So-called natural immunity – having immune cells such as antibodies and T-cells in your system that recognise and fight off the virus from an infection rather than a vaccine – can offer effective protection, although it comes with the risk of becoming very ill or developing “long Covid”.
>
>***But this protection also wanes and may be ineffective against infection with a different variant.***
>
>An Imperial College London study suggests the protection from having had Covid against infection by the Omicron variant, first identified in South Africa, “may be as low as 19%”.
>
>***The best protection against Covid comes from having an infection and being vaccinated too, several pieces of research have found.***
​
>Dominic Wilkinson, a professor of medical ethics, at the University of Oxford, says doctors have a clear ethical duty to be vaccinated but sacking someone who is not but can show they have had a recent infection that may provide similar protection may be unjustifiable.
>
>If the vaccines completely blocked transmission, it would be a much simpler ethical question, he says.
>
>But since they are less effective against new variants, it is “no longer as clear”.
This is the most cogent argument I’ve heard potentially against mandatory vaccination, though still points out that ethically, medical staff who refuse to have it are out of order.
# What was the reaction online?
>Dr James says he is not against all Covid vaccination but feels he was framed as such online, after opposing compulsory jabs.
>
>”I am most definitely pro-choice and pro-vaccine, which is a position some find too complex to support,” he says.
>
>But another NHS hospital doctor, Dr Meenal Viz, who spends a lot of her time online correcting misinformation, told BBC News she feared the clip of Dr James would be seized on by those who wanted to suggest the science for the vaccine in general was not strong enough – despite the huge weight of evidence from hundreds of independent institutions and millions of people that it prevented disease and death.
>
>This fits into a pattern Dr Viz regularly sees online, where short clips, single statistics or lines from a scientific study taken out of context can “completely blow up” and cause more confusion than straightforward falsehoods.
>
>”On the internet, when things go viral, people tend to cherry-pick what they want,” she said.
>
>And her fears were not misplaced.
>
>Dr James’s comments were eagerly seized on by those against vaccination, including some promoting false theories such as the virus is a hoax.
>
>BBC News also found it referenced in more extreme encrypted chat groups, including one used to organise removals of sick patients from hospital against doctors’ advice and coordinate the serving of bogus legal writs accusing doctors and teachers of crimes against humanity.
>
>***But Dr James stands by his comments: “If people wish to polarise, they will do that,” he says.***
Or in other words, “I have no moral responsibility to get jabbed or ensure that my words don’t lead to worse outcomes for people. What a piece of shit.
Wait, we are supposed to trust a journalist over a doctor now?
The BMJ seem to have a few things to say about “fact checkers” too.
https://www.bmj.com/company/newsroom/facebook-urged-to-act-over-incompetent-fact-check-of-bmj-investigation/
For someone whose job is to make and keep people healthy and avoid causing harm, 2% for the level of risk involved seems more than worth it.
It’s probable that the combination of infection and vaccination (in either order) gives higher immunity than either alone … but duration isn’t well understood as far as I know…
The one thing that we are sure of, though … is that infection immunity is much less consistent and predictable than vaccination immunity (as you’d expect … the vaccine is given with exactly the same amount each time … while the amount of antigen in an infection probably ranges over a million-fold or more, just randomly)… Mild infections, and especially asymptomatic infections … often give very weak immunity … up to a third of asymptomatically infected people end up with no detectable antibody…
Based on antibody titers, infection alone tends to give weaker immunity than vaccination … but again it’s highly variable … a minority of people end up with higher titers than vaccinated people… These tend to be the more severe infections, again as you’d expect … so the obvious safety advantage of vaccines is even more important here…
Because of that, any time you hear the sweeping claim that infection gives “better” immunity than vaccination, with no nuance … you have to conclude that the speaker doesn’t know what the fuck they’re talking about…