Infection with coronavirus may give strong immunity but should not be intentionally infected

'Comparing the innate immunity obtained by infection with the new coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) and the immunity obtained by vaccination, the innate immunity is less likely to infect the delta strain,' said an Israeli researcher. In response to the response to the paper, Charlotte Sorin, an immunology researcher at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, cautions that 'it is possible, but it should not be infected on purpose.'

COVID infections may give more potent immunity than vaccines – but that doesn't mean you should try to catch it

The papers that Sorin points out are by 10 people, including Sivan Gazit of McCavi Healthcare Services in Tel Aviv. Israel is the first country in the world to promote vaccination against Coronavirus disease (COVID-19), and although it is undoubtedly valuable data, it is an unpeer-reviewed preprinted paper. , The posted medRxiv has a note that 'it should not be used as a guideline for clinical practice'.

Comparing SARS-CoV-2 natural immunity to vaccine-induced immunity: reinfections versus breakthrough infections | medRxiv

The content of the paper is that 'people infected with the virus are less likely to be re-infected with the Delta strain than those who have been vaccinated.' According to Mr. Sorin, some people took this as 'it is better to get a virus than to get a vaccine.'

Sorin first admits, 'It's not unlikely that a person infected with the virus will have a longer lasting immunity than vaccination.' This is because the immune response of a vaccine is highly directional and restricted due to the use of a single antigen, whereas infection with a virus exposes the immune system to multiple viral proteins, resulting in immunity over time. Because it has been reported to be stronger.

However, apart from the risk of drawing conclusions from preprinted papers, Sorin points out that it is important to put the data in the right context. The article focuses on the efficacy of naturally acquired immunity, but does not consider the risks associated with achieving innate immunity. It also does not include those who have vaccinated subjects uninfected with the virus, and the benefits of vaccination itself have not been addressed in the study. In addition, of the 16,000 vaccinated subjects, eight were hospitalized, which is considered to be significantly lower than those who were not vaccinated, and the research team also analyzed this point. He said he didn't do it.

On the other hand, Sorin evaluates this treatise as a new understanding of 'hybrid immunity.' Hybrid immunity is a strong immunity that is induced by vaccination of a person infected with the virus. People who have been vaccinated after being infected with the virus and those who have not been vaccinated after the infection By comparison, the risk of re-infection with the virus was found to be halved by vaccination. Another study reported that people infected with the new coronavirus had a stronger immune response when they were vaccinated with the Pfizer or AstraZeneca vaccine once, but when uninfected people were vaccinated twice. It seems that there is a movement to administer the vaccine only once to people infected with the new coronavirus in France and Germany.

However, the risk of infection with the new coronavirus has already revealed long-term health problems such as direct death and serious illness, as well as cardiomyopathy and blood clots as sequelae after recovery. I have. On the other hand, vaccines are said to be ' under the most intensive safety surveillance in history ' in the United States.

Under these circumstances, Mr. Sorin states that 'the option of infecting with the new coronavirus and obtaining innate immunity' is misleading.