Post-infection immunity is similar or even superior to the protection bestowed by COVID-19 vaccines, according to a new study published by The Lancet.
In the study, post-infection protection—known widely as natural immunity—was strong and remained significant over time, researchers found. Against the Wuhan, Alpha, and Delta variants, the protection against reinfection was 85 percent at four weeks, 78 percent at 40 weeks, and 55.5 percent at 80 weeks.
That protection dropped more quickly against the Omicron BA.1 subvariant, declining to 36 percent by 40 weeks, and protection against symptomatic disease also waned to below 50 percent.
But shielding against severe disease was strong against all strains, including the BA.1 subvariant, researchers found. The naturally immune enjoyed 88.9 percent protection against BA.1 at 40 weeks, which was actually higher than against earlier strains.
“Our analysis found significantly reduced protection against re-infection from the omicron BA.1 variant but that levels of protection against severe disease remained high,” the authors, led by Dr. Stephen Lim of the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington’s School of Medicine, wrote in the study.
Dr. Brett Giroir, a former Trump administration health official whose post on natural immunity was censored by Twitter on behalf of Pfizer board member Dr. Scott Gottlieb, said the study “demonstrates [the] robustness of natural immunity.”
Dr. Vinay Prasad, an epidemiologist at the University of California–San Francisco, said that the paper made a “compelling case that we can effectively stop boosting average risk individuals (most adults) who have had COVID.”
“Vaccine policy should have been different in people with prior illness,” he said.
Public health officials have repeatedly said that vaccination is better than natural immunity, or that the naturally immune should still get vaccinated despite the protection they have. Some other countries have acknowledged natural immunity by lowering the number of recommended doses for the population.
Comparison to Vaccination
The paper’s researchers performed a review and meta-analysis by looking for studies on natural immunity conducted through Sept. 31, 2022. Studies were included if a group of naturally immune, unvaccinated people were compared with unvaccinated people who had not been infected. Studies that also included vaccinated people were included if the research also included unvaccinated and naturally immune people. Studies that only had results for natural immunity in combination with vaccination, or hybrid immunity, were excluded.
Researchers performed a modeling technique called Bayesian meta-regression to reach pooled estimates of protection by time since infection.
In total, 65 studies were included in the meta-analysis from 19 different countries. Just 30, though, included information on time since infection, and a subset of those included information on one or more of the outcomes—reinfection, symptomatic disease, and severe disease—during the BA.1 era.
One of the researchers’ main conclusions was that the study showed that natural immunity “is at least equivalent if not greater than [immunity] provided by two-dose mRNA vaccines,” or the Pfizer and Moderna messenger RNA vaccines.
That conclusion was supported by references to just two studies—one unpublished paper and one published paper from Qatar that found natural immunity was more protective than the mRNA vaccines. A graph in the study also showed natural immunity conferring better protection against infection, symptomatic disease, and severe disease than three vaccine doses or a primary series and a booster.
While the researchers emphasized that COVID-19 can cause problems including death, they did not mention that the side effects of vaccination may also cause long-term issues, including death.
The low number of studies that were analyzed and the reliance on observational studies were limitations of the study published by The Lancet. Researchers received funding from several sources, including the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Bill Gates, the founder of Microsoft, has repeatedly promoted vaccination during the pandemic.
Previous Research
Previous studies primarily found that natural immunity is superior to vaccination, including a study published in January. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported in 2022 that natural immunity was better against Delta. Research has also shown that previous infection doesn’t protect as well against infection over time since Omicron displaced Delta but remains strong against severe disease.
Protection from vaccines drops sharply within months against Omicron and doesn’t even start very high, according to studies from the CDC and others, and the shielding against severe disease also wanes considerably over time. That has prompted authorities to recommend multiple booster shots, in a bid to restore the protection, but the protection from boosters also doesn’t last long. Boosters provided little added protection for the naturally immune against BA.1, one study showed.
Updated shots have been introduced in the United States and other countries, but no clinical data for the new vaccines are available, and observational data are mixed. Federal authorities are trying to move toward a system in which a shot is an annual occurrence, but antibody data indicate that may not be enough for everybody.
Researchers in the Lancet study wrote that policymakers should take into account the protection from prior infection, saying it “supports the idea that those with a documented infection should be treated similarly to those who have been fully vaccinated with high-quality vaccine.”
The United States has never acknowledged natural immunity in its recommendations on vaccination, though top health officials did consider doing so, in a closed-door meeting held in October 2021. Attendees at the meeting, which The Epoch Times independently confirmed took place, included White House adviser Dr. Anthony Fauci, U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy, and CDC head Dr. Rochelle Walensky.
The Lancet study’s researchers were not able to provide protection estimates against newer strains, like the BA.5 subvariant, because of a limited number of studies. They wrote that further assessments of natural immunity should be conducted in the future.
