10

Vincent Racaniello (Professor in the Department of Microbiology and Immunology at Columbia University's College of Physicians and Surgeons) wrote a blog in which he states “It’s highly unlikely that vaccination will prevent infection with SARS-CoV-2.“ on virology.ws

For some context the specific claim is that it does not prevent infection long term (i.e. one year after receiving) as antibodies rapidly deplete. Not that it doesn’t prevent infection at all. Here's the quote in larger context for reference, emphasis mine:

It’s highly unlikely that vaccination will prevent infection with SARS-CoV-2. Antibody levels rapidly decline after infection or vaccination, especially in the respiratory mucosa. When a virus enters the nasopharynx of an immune individual, it will encounter little antibody opposition and will initiate an infection. However memory B and T cells will spring into action and within a few days produce virus-specific antibodies and T cells. The antibodies will limit infection while the T cells will clear the virus-infected cells. The result is a mild or asymptomatic infection that likely is not transmitted to others.

The recent observations that vaccination appears to prevent asymptomatic infections is a red herring. These studies are being done soon after vaccination when antibody levels in serum and mucosa are high. If these studies were done a year after immunization, the results would be quite different.

Notable claim as the author is Vincent Racaniello, to take directly from Wikipedia: Vincent R. Racaniello is a Higgins Professor in the Department of Microbiology and Immunology at Columbia University's College of Physicians and Surgeons. He is a co-author of a textbook on virology, Principles of Virology.

Related: Part two of blog post question stems from (In general, a good blog to read, if I may say so without it considered promotion - no affiliation)

TCooper
  • 876
  • 4
  • 14
  • You are comparing different thinmgs. The vaccine does provide the protections as the CDC but that is a few weeks after the second dose. The CDC reports etc do not provide any data on how much protection that the vaccine provides a year after the second dose. It has always been suggested that we will need booster shots. Your last sentance does not follow on from anything else you have said – mmmmmm Jul 29 '21 at 14:23
  • 1
    VTC. There's a lot more detail in that blog post that you'd need to include in your question. Also, by my reading the context has more to do with exposure to variants, then length of time after vaccination or previous infection. – LShaver Jul 29 '21 at 14:34
  • 1
    @LShaver the sentence directly after the quote is "Antibody levels rapidly decline after infection or vaccination, especially in the respiratory mucosa. When a virus enters the nasopharynx of an immune individual, it will encounter little antibody opposition and will initiate an infection." - how is that not having to do with time after vaccination? – TCooper Jul 29 '21 at 15:18
  • @mmmmmm I'm simply asking whether or not the vaccine provides long term immunity to covid, or if the long term effects[benefits] (clearly there, and stated) are from other immune system mechanisms such as specific T cells that are typically maintained longer by the body. I believe I have an answer to my question, I've read extensively, including primary sources, but I'm skeptical of my conclusions so wanted to ask here for further input/clarification rather than rely solely on my own deductions. – TCooper Jul 29 '21 at 15:21
  • @LShaver I'm more than open to suggested edits to improve the question regardless of disagreeing with your initial statement re: context - I know this is a hard question to ask effectively given the polarization of the topic. – TCooper Jul 29 '21 at 15:24
  • 3
    Your question says one year later, while the linked blog just says "after." However, the preceding paragraph seems to indicate that the author is talking about exposure to variants. My interpretation is that the author doesn't doubt that the vaccine prevents infection *from the variant the vaccine was developed to protect against*, and the point isn't about how long it may (or may not) provide such protection, but understanding the mechanism by which it may still prevent severe infection from variants. Whether it's unclear on purpose or accident is, well, unclear. – LShaver Jul 29 '21 at 15:25
  • 4
    I may edit later if I get a chance. As it stands, I think your title is click-baity, from a click-baity quote in the article that doesn't really get at the author's point, which seems to be that a side effect of the vaccine is activating a T-cell response, and that future vaccines should focus on this, since it's the mechanism by which the vaccines are already protecting from severe infection by variants. – LShaver Jul 29 '21 at 15:27
  • @LShaver The paragraph following the quote in question: "The recent observations that vaccination appears to prevent asymptomatic infections is a red herring. These studies are being done soon after vaccination when antibody levels in serum and mucosa are high. If these studies were done a year after immunization, the results would be quite different." - says specifically one year. Are you sure you're reading the same thing? – TCooper Jul 29 '21 at 15:27
  • 1
    @LShaver Please edit as you can. Searching for valid, verified, information. Nothing more. (I'm 100% pro vax/medical science as whole) – TCooper Jul 29 '21 at 15:28
  • 1
    I just noticed there's a recent update which may be a better source (haven't read it yet), since the one you linked is from March: [T cells will save us from COVID-19, part two](https://www.virology.ws/2021/05/27/t-cells-will-save-us-from-covid-19-part-two/) – LShaver Jul 29 '21 at 15:31
  • 1
    @LShaver good read, not exactly answering this question, but I'll add it to the question as related. His entire blog is a pretty good read. I began reading from current after this article, but hadn't made it back to May yet. – TCooper Jul 29 '21 at 15:38
  • I agree that the claim to investigate here is all a bit fuzzy. Is your distinction between "immunity" and "protection" actually one that experts would make? And is there really a contradiction between statements about what the vaccines are doing right now and informed predictions about what they might do in a year's time? It's all very interesting, but once you put it in the proper context, I don't really see what to be skeptical about. – IMSoP Jul 29 '21 at 17:14
  • @IMSoP I'll remove some of the counter example sources and try to make the claim more specific - any input is also appreciated. – TCooper Jul 29 '21 at 20:13
  • @Oddthinking I've learned to trust your judgement on these types of questions - any thoughts on how to improve the question? – TCooper Jul 29 '21 at 20:18
  • 2
    There are number of different diseases for which a vaccine is used and where a "booster shot" is needed after some time interval to maintain immunity. Researchers have stated on numerous occasions that they don't know if boosters for COVID are needed, and, if so, at what intervals. This is still a topic of research (and, as such, makes this question an "unresolved current event"). – Daniel R Hicks Jul 29 '21 at 20:31
  • @DanielRHicks Confirmation or rejection of the posed question has nothing to do with whether a booster is needed. It's about the role/efficacy of the vaccine in preventing an initial infection over time, versus its role/efficacy in aiding a fight against future infections. – TCooper Jul 29 '21 at 20:47
  • 1
    @TCooper And how is this different from a flu shot? – Daniel R Hicks Jul 29 '21 at 21:41
  • @DanielRHicks mostly because the flu mutates far more rapidly https://www.livescience.com/coronavirus-mutation-rate.html - I do hope the answer I provided also helps define the question asked (and ideally prompts more answers that are more thoroughly researched, and from more highly educated people than myself) – TCooper Jul 30 '21 at 11:54
  • Important note: the goal of the vaccines is to train your body in how to _stop_ the infection from doing harm as soon as possible. They are like training wheels for your immune system. While they aren't a magic bullet that blocks the virus from entering your body, they help _a lot_ to prevent serious cases of the diseases they are build to protect against. – T. Sar Jul 30 '21 at 12:22
  • @T.Sar spot on for the covid vaccines we’re talking about here, but the measles vaccine, for example, can provide life long immunity to infection in something like 97% of people. It depends a lot on the pathogen from everything I’ve been able to find – TCooper Jul 31 '21 at 14:15
  • @TCooper Being immune to _measles_ (the disease) is different from "keeping the measles virus outside of your body". If you are vaccinated against measles, the virues _does enter your body_, but it is destroyed right away by your immune system. – T. Sar Aug 01 '21 at 23:18
  • @T.Sar https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/569784 - I understand the difference as antibodies wing present, not just other immune cells such as B and T cells. The difference is how long the *antibodies* last. For measles you don’t need memory cells to identify the virus then trigger antibody production, the antibodies are still present – TCooper Aug 02 '21 at 21:02

1 Answers1

16

tl;dr; Yes, but that in no way implies the vaccines are ineffective at one year because there are immune responses besides simple antibody count (which is what prevents initial infection).

Yes, BUT (at least referencing the mRNA) vaccines have been shown to be highly effective in preventing severe illness as a result of infection:

The data, involving nearly 12,000 people who have been followed for at least six months after vaccination, also showed the two-dose shot was 100% efficacious in protecting them from severe disease as defined by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (which means any disease requiring hospitalization, intensive care or a ventilator) and 95% efficacious in protecting against severe disease by the FDA’s broader definition, which includes any respiratory distress or shortness of breath at rest, or oxygen saturation below 93%.

While this study only provides 6 months of information, longer studies on the immunity gained from natural infection, combined with studies on immune response comparisons between natural infection and vaccination, allow for logical deduction/an extrapolation of data sets around the vaccines efficacy at the one-year post-inoculation time frame. Without empirical data over the exact time frame firm statements are hard to make, but given the evidence suggests long term protection well beyond a year at this point, in tandem with the reasons outlined below, I believe the one year time frame is currently safe to discuss in an evidence-backed manner.

Information from related viruses such as SARS-COV1 (immune memory lasting 17 years after initial infection) and immune responses to other pathogens such as the flu implies that even though the vaccine may not prevent an initial infection for a long term after initial inoculation, the vaccines should provide some lasting protection as they produce "memory b" and "memory t" cells, which have been shown to last years, decades, and even lifetimes. This study confirms natural immune responses are sufficient for up to eight months, and with extrapolation of the data sets, a true long term protection from the virus(well over 1 year, unless cell half life suddenly and drastically decreases in an unprecedented manner). Given the vaccines have been shown to induce b and t cells to at least the same degree as natural infection (see also here), it follows there will be a similar long term protection from severe illness.

While the use of naturally occurring protection from those previously infected is a good baseline to help establish long term vaccine efficacy though comparison of early vaccinated vs. recovered patient data and longer term recovered patient data, it should not detract from the apparent value of the previously infected being vaccinated. The patients protection is increased by vaccination, and more homogenous (in sufficient levels of protection) compared to the resulting protection only from natural infection. Although other studies indicate natural protection is sufficient to prevent severe reoccurrences in well over 90% of study participants, as linked above, there are still potential benefits versus new variants to being vaccinated regardless of prior infection. Vaccine efficacy versus new variant strains is still a hotly debated topic, and the information provided regarding the effectiveness against new covid variants is certainly up for debate more so than the efficacy of the vaccines against the initial covid variant. It's important to note the evidence presented here is strictly related to the initial variant as there isn't sufficient data around the new variants at this time - although all preliminary findings show the vaccines offer at least some protection against currently known variants of concern as defined by the WHO. However, the CDC hasn't published as certain of statements on the matter (see last section).

While the vaccine may not prevent another initial infection, it should, in most cases, provide a level of protection adequate to slow or potentially even stop the larger spread of the virus for at least one year after inoculation, with current data suggesting an even longer time frame.

Sources, 1, 2, 3, besides that linked in first word, confirming new initial infections after vaccination(also stating experts confirm it’s not a concern or a knock on vaccine efficacy). Also note the legitimacy of the information from the initial source that raised the question, both in terms of an inability to prevent new infections, but also summarizing most of the information here far more eloquently.

Thanks to @mmmmmm, and @LangLangC for challenging key points and statements made in haste within the answer. More critique / counter points to improve the answer are warmly welcomed.

Glorfindel
  • 1,452
  • 1
  • 17
  • 28
TCooper
  • 876
  • 4
  • 14
  • This is the answer I was expecting, as it's my own thoughts on the situation, but I was (and am) hoping others will weigh in to either confirm my research/deductions, or dispute them to make me re-evaluate. – TCooper Jul 29 '21 at 21:39
  • 1
    Yes but you have not shown any sources saying the protection will not prevent infections a year after taking the vaccine. ie it works well now but will anti-bodies rapidly deplete which is what your question asks – mmmmmm Jul 29 '21 at 21:51
  • @mmmmmm I was thinking confirming the source in the question was the source, but good point. I’ll provide sources and details for that as well. Of course happy to hear dissenting opinions as well. Also part of it is an extrapolation from the Times article, in that there were plenty of infections in vaccinated individuals, but no serious illness. - but I’ll be sure to note that along with other sources. – TCooper Jul 29 '21 at 21:57
  • 'Leaky vaccines' do _not_ stop the spread. 'Homogenous' is in fact _a problem:_ natural immunity recognizes >1400 viral epitopes, with Abs against the range, 'vaccines' only those few on S. T/B-cells are better & longer lasting than Abs, but those cells also only ever saw S in vacs, and interferon response is altered in infection as well, not in injection. And that's why re-infection is so rare, breakthroughs so common (especially when VacAbs wane and S mutates, like _seen_ in Israel). Unless you can reconcile this latter empirical finding with the above theories, I conclude the theories lose. – LangLаngС Jul 30 '21 at 07:03
  • Which of those studies says that the antibody levels are high enough to project **a year after taking the vaccine** which is the point of the original answer not that the vaccine works shortly after the jab. – mmmmmm Jul 30 '21 at 07:16
  • @LangLangC I never stated vaccination creates as strong or stronger an immune response as natural infection, only that specific cells are known to be created which can last for a duration. These cells do not prevent infection, they simply make fighting future encounters with the virus easier/faster for your immune system. The less severe the case the less likely there is spread. Also homogeneous isn’t in reference to the variety of virus protection, but to the level. Less severe infections result in far lower antibodies, T and B cells, and therefore less long term protection. – TCooper Jul 30 '21 at 11:22
  • @LangLangC Obviously the best protection stems from being previously infected *and* being vaccinated. As you state they create *different* immune responses. But we don’t want to go around getting people naturally infected for the sake of protection? Little counterintuitive – TCooper Jul 30 '21 at 11:24
  • @mmmmmm I only link the 8 month study that outlines the half life of the different immune cells from natural infection, the same **counts** of which are created post vaccination. There are others going up to 11 months now(I’ll see if I can find one). And as LangLangC has pointed it, it’s unlikely that the vaccines create as efficient/effective of an immune response, but it does imply the presence of immune system memory of the virus, aka a less severe case if exposed, than a non-vaccinated (and previously not infected, the question isn’t which has better protection) individual – TCooper Jul 30 '21 at 11:28
  • @LangLangC this article specifically discusses the breakthrough cases in vaccinated peoples in Israel https://directorsblog.nih.gov/2021/05/04/a-real-world-look-at-covid-19-vaccines-versus-new-variants/ – TCooper Jul 30 '21 at 11:43
  • The bolded "stop […] the spread" is theoretical, and itching here. (Don't see that at all, although we might argue the extent of "most cases"…) // We already see actual infection being a robust generator of largely sterilizing immunity (why boost that w/ vax? Any actual need, or even 'benefit'? Don't see that. Why shoot again if our cells alone kill em all already?). 'Best protection' is lofty. What is that vs adequate/sufficient protection? Perhaps jsut mere contact with real virus without any detectable viral infection, just close contact? https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22036-z – LangLаngС Jul 30 '21 at 12:42
  • I agree stop by itself is certainly theoretical, which is why slow or stop was used, but I’ll edit to try and make the wording less certain. As far as ‘best protection’ I agree it probably is overkill, but also, no harm no foul? We vaccinate for tetanus every 10 years even though studies (and other countries) have shown every 30 is sufficient. There are also different immune responses triggered by the mRNA vaccines that don’t occur from natural infection that, preliminarily, have been shown to be better at protecting against variants than even natural protection (still reading on this myself) – TCooper Jul 30 '21 at 12:55
  • 3
    Pfizer’s original study with 20,000 vaccinations is now about 12 months in the past. I would wonder if these people have been observed in the long term and if any change in their vulnerability would have been noticed. – gnasher729 Aug 02 '21 at 19:31
  • @gnasher729 me too. I haven’t found anything to date, but if I do I’ll post, and if you do, please feel free to edit – TCooper Aug 02 '21 at 21:02
  • I thought a bit more about this… Pfizer vaccinated 20,000 out of 40,000 and the rest were the control group. I assume everyone would have been told who was vaccinated. But the control group would be destroyed by now - they were all willing to be vaccinated, no anti-vaxxers among them, so I assume almost all of the control group would have got themselves vaccinated at the earliest possible time. That makes it hard to measure how virus resistant the original 20,000 vaccinated would be today compared to any control group. – gnasher729 Aug 03 '21 at 22:47
  • @gnashes729 certainly, but studying the level of specific immune cells inside the 20k from one year ago is still valuable empirical evidence. Admittedly, not as good as a comparison vs control, but given the depth of the field in immunology, we’re blessed to be able to draw conclusions from previous evidence – TCooper Aug 04 '21 at 01:00