Tiny - from your quoted article -
- The body of evidence for infection-induced immunity is more limited than that for vaccine-induced immunity in terms of the quality of evidence (e.g., probable bias towards symptomatic or medically-attended infections) and types of studies (e.g., observational cohort studies, mostly retrospective versus a mix of randomized controlled trials, case-control studies, and cohort studies for vaccine-induced immunity). There are insufficient data to extend the findings related to infection-induced immunity at this time to persons with very mild or asymptomatic infection or children.
- Substantial immunologic evidence and a growing body of epidemiologic evidence indicate that vaccination after infection significantly enhances protection and further reduces risk of reinfection, which lays the foundation for CDC recommendations.
Thank you for teh contribution
Information to add to my decision process.
Originally Posted by oeb11
Oeb, I had thought that natural infection was superior to the vaccines, in providing immunity. That was based on what we've been reading about Israel. But after reading the CDC advice I'm not so sure. I wonder if your level of immunity from infection may depend on how severe the disease was? For example, would people who had mild COVID or an asymptomatic infection have less protection? I really have no idea. But my doctor told me he'd gotten, in his words, "100 micrograms of mRNA" (Moderna) in each of his COVID injections, and he was sick for a couple of days afterwards each time. He said that was good, it meant the vaccine was working and stimulating immune response. So maybe the same principle works for infections -- if you get more than a mild case, maybe you're better protected.
He said "100 micrograms of mRNA" with a lot of gusto, the way I'd say "350 cubic inches of pure power" about the engine in a car I had years ago.