Almost a year after the virus started, it became clear that, after up to a third of the people in this country have already contracted it, according to some estimates, there is nothing we can do to prevent it through non-pharmaceutical interventions. However, while the government and the media continue to promote the vaccine (and the masks, of course) with religious fervor, they act as if the natural infection itself has conferred little or no immunity. In reality, as with any virus, it probably confers more immunity than a vaccine.
A new study published in the New England Journal of Medicine by UK scientists tracked the antibody levels of 12,541 health workers in Oxford University hospitals for six months. A total of 1,265 tested positive for antibodies at some point during the study period, of which 68% remember having symptoms associated with SARS-CoV-2. They specifically looked at the period of the second wave of infection to see if health care workers, who are disproportionately exposed to the virus compared to other people, would be reinfected.
The result? Not a single symptomatic reinfection and only two people who had previously tested positive for antibodies ended up giving a positive result through the PCR test for a supposed asymptomatic reinfection.
The important thing to remember is that immunity does not necessarily mean that the virus cannot be detected in your body afterwards. What it usually means is that anyone who is infected, especially if they have at least one mild case, will not suffer significant or severe symptoms of reinfection. This is probably true for most viruses – whether immunity was transmitted through infection or a vaccine – but we do not test 1 million people a day for other viruses. If we did that, we would probably discover rare but measurable cases of asymptomatic “reinfection”.
Earlier this week, Texas Congresswoman Kay Granger tested positive for the virus, despite receiving the first round of the Pfizer vaccine. She had no symptoms. It is true that she had not yet taken the second injection, however, just as such findings should not be alarming in relation to a vaccine, they should not be alarming in relation to natural immunity. In fact, this study shows a higher rate of immunity transmitted to people with natural infection than has been proven so far with the vaccine. But the government refuses to even consider the idea of natural immunity from what has become an almost inevitable transmission of the virus anyway.
These results coincide with another recent British study by researchers at Newcastle University, published last week in the Journal of Infection. They detected 1,038 confirmed infections (through a combination of antibody tests and CRP) among a group of 11,103 health workers during the first wave of the virus, from March 10 to July 6.
During the second wave in the fall, they retested 128 of the health workers who had previously confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and 2,115 who had not. Although the sample size for this study is smaller, they found no new infections among those previously infected. At the same time, they observed an infection rate of 13.7% among the group of people who were not previously infected.
None of the 1,038 health workers who confirmed previous infections experienced symptoms during the second wave. In those previously infected, there was a median of 173 days from the date of the first confirmed positive result to the end of the analysis period confirmed with a negative test, which again would show about six months of immunity and counting.
Obviously, it will take more time to study the issue of immunity in the long term, especially for those who only got the virus asymptomatically or who got it again asymptomatic, but the notion that someone could get a serious case twice is unfounded at this point and it is very unlikely.
So far, the assumption is that, since antibodies appear to decrease after three months and are not there for other infected people, there is no immunity. However, there is strong evidence that the body produces memory T cells that transmit long-term immunity long after antibodies decrease. Yes, it will take longer to definitively prove that fact, but why do our political leaders continue to make negative assumptions that always seem to challenge known precedents in immunobiology while promoting draconian and devastating policies based on these unproven and increasingly unlikely assumptions?
“Oh, asymptomatic individuals are driving the spread, although they usually never do, so we must assume that everyone is sick and quarantine the world.”
“Oh, this virus does not transmit immunity, so we must do this forever.”
“Oh, the masks prevent the spread of respiratory viruses, despite the universal belief that they did not and even though 9 months were unable to prevent the spread.”
Why is it that the onus is on us to conclude with certainty that these premises are wrong, instead of having to prove that their premises are correct? What happened to the innocent until guilt is proven? They are relying on social conditioning that ensures that a repeated lie often becomes true, regardless of science.