|
| I don't think any pharma has come out and said it, but I thought it was already generally understood that the vaccine was not as effective as naturally produced anti-bodies against a particular strain of the virus. At the very least I know this has come up on AgTalk before. It's right in what one of them said, "When you actually get the virus, you’re going to start producing antibodies against multiple pieces of the virus…So, your antibodies are probably better at that point than the [COVID] vaccination."
The vaccine only targets the spike proteins so think of it as generating antibodies are are better suited to Covid-19 in general. Versus naturally produced antibodies which would be targeting more than just the spike proteins and may be a better match to a specific strain of Covid-19 (whichever strain infected you). However, those naturally produced antibodies may not be as effective as the vaccine produced antibodies at targeting another strain of the virus. So which is better? Having less effective antibodies that can target any of the (current) strains of Covid-19 or more effective antibodies that may target only one? I think the answer to that really depends on the individual, but in general I think the vaccine would be the way to go in light of virus mutations.
This whole topic props up an opinion I've had for over a year now: Our government has done a crap job at trying to educate the masses about the vaccines (how they came to be, how they work, etc). | |
|
Someday maybe Pfizer will come forth with the truth on vax versus natural immunity
