Dr. Michael Mosley in the Daily Mail has written a piece criticising those like Novak Djokovic who say they regard themselves as in no need of vaccination as they have protection from a previous Covid infection. In the article Dr. Mosley – who is medically qualified but no longer a registered doctor and has worked as a BBC journalist for the past 37 years – makes a series of claims about the vaccines and natural immunity that don’t withstand scrutiny.
The first is that previous infection provides much less protection against Omicron infection than does vaccination.
Just because you have antibodies against a previous strain of Covid, that does not mean you are protected against catching, or spreading it to more vulnerable people such as patients with cancer or pregnant women. A study published in December, by researchers from Imperial College London, concluded that the protection against Omicron, if you have had a prior Covid infection “may be as low as 19%”. A course of vaccines – the double dose plus the booster – on the other hand, offers something like 75% protection.
What Dr. Mosley doesn’t mention is that the December study from Imperial was a preliminary study that also found no evidence of Omicron “having lower severity than Delta”. Omicron is now known to be considerably less severe than Delta, suggesting the study should not be taken as the final word on Omicron and natural immunity. A more recent study puts the protection provided by natural immunity against Omicron infection at 56%. This is higher than the level of protection reported for the boosters by the UKHSA, which finds just 40-50% protection at 10 weeks. The protection provided by previous infection is also more resilient.
Dr. Mosley’s explanation of why the protection from vaccines is supposedly superior to that from previous infection also makes no sense. He writes:
Why the difference? It appears that our immune systems are very good at learning from experience. The more often your immune system is challenged by a virus (or a vaccine, which is mimicking that virus), the better it gets at defending itself against it.
The first time your immune system encounters a virus it isn’t quite sure how to react and it takes time to start building an effective response. While that is happening, the virus is busy replicating, spreading and doing damage.
If you’re lucky, your immune system will spring into action and you will recover after a trivial illness. If you are unlucky, you end up in hospital, perhaps in intensive care. The idea of a vaccine is that your immune system gets the nudge to start working long before you are exposed to the real thing.
The reason for a second, and even third jab, is this amplifies and refines your immune response to protect you, and others, in the future.
This of course fails to explain why encountering the virus should provide less effective immune protection than a vaccine. Just because while your body is working out how to counter the virus the virus can make you unwell tells you nothing about how strong your subsequent immunity to re-infection will be. It is true that a vaccine mimics a virus to prime your immune system, and the idea of multiple shots is to improve that response. However, there is plenty of evidence that the vaccines are weaker and less resilient against infection than natural immunity. For example, see the chart below from a large Danish study, where the orange line for the previously infected (but not vaccinated) is higher and stays much higher than the green line for the vaccinated (but not previously infected).
It’s been suggested that the reason vaccine protection against infection (contra Dr. Mosley) is relatively weak and declines fast is because the vaccines, being based only on part of the virus and injected into muscle, do not produce the full immune response that encountering the full virus does. For example, encountering the virus produces mucosal (IgA) antibodies in the respiratory tract that are important in mounting an early response to infection; however, these are absent following vaccination.
Dr. Mosley then implies that vaccination is superior for protecting against new variants like Omicron and therefore better for preventing transmission and protecting the vulnerable.
Multiple exposures seems to be particularly effective at educating your T-cells, immune cells responsible for seeking out and killing dangerous viruses, and which are vital for conferring long-term immunity. T-cells also seem to be much better than antibodies at detecting and destroying new variants of Covid.
And this matters because one of the main reasons for getting vaccinated, as far as I’m concerned, is that by doing so you’re protecting others — particularly the vulnerable who cannot have a jab.
We know that people who are vaccinated carry a lower load of virus, and clear it faster from their bodies, so there is a much lower chance they will pass it on. Vaccines, of course, can have side-effects and are not 100% effective. One of the criticisms of Covid vaccines is that, despite being triple jabbed, you can still get infected and become ill.
As noted above, though, the evidence is that natural immunity is superior to vaccine immunity for protecting against infection, particularly over time and against new variants, so this argument fails. It’s also noteworthy that UKHSA data shows the vaccinated having significantly higher infection rates than the unvaccinated since the autumn, as does Public Health Scotland data, implying it is not true that the vaccinated spread the virus less than the unvaccinated.
The claim that people who are vaccinated carry a “lower load of virus” is also not supported by evidence. For instance, a study in the Lancet found no difference in household secondary attack rate depending on whether the index case was vaccinated, and correspondingly no difference in viral load. A study by the U.S. CDC also found no difference in infectiousness and concluded: “Clinicians and public health practitioners should consider vaccinated persons who become infected with SARS-CoV-2 to be no less infectious than unvaccinated persons.” UKHSA and others have also found viral load no lower in the vaccinated. These studies are all pre-Omicron, which is likely to be even more able to evade vaccines.
Dr. Mosley points out that protection from vaccination plus previous infection is superior to that from previous infection alone. This appears correct; however, as can be seen in the chart above, the difference is relatively small and almost all the protection comes from the previous infection rather than the vaccine. The difference will also likely diminish over time without frequent boosters.
Dr. Mosley disputes that antibodies from previous infection should be used as an indicator of protection.
Some people who are against mandatory vaccinations for NHS staff suggest we could test people for antibodies to COVID-19, and if they have them that would mean they are safe to work. But just because you have antibodies doesn’t mean you can’t infect others or get infected. That’s why regulators, such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, have recommended that antibody tests should not currently be used to evaluate a person’s level of immunity or protection from a Covid infection.
However, this argument applies with at least as much force to vaccination, as it’s evident that the vaccinated can and do frequently contract and transmit the virus, seemingly more than the previously infected. So on that argument, why should vaccination status not equally be deemed inadmissible as evidence of being ‘safe’?
Dr. Mosley’s article is a classic example of only presenting the findings and data that back up one’s point of view, rather than looking at all the evidence in the round. Perhaps the Mail will now allow a better informed (and even registered and practising) medic to write a more accurate piece so as to avoid its readers remaining misinformed?
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Regarding risk aversion the problem is one of balance with regard to imposing that aversion on everyone else. It seems to me that we had fairly well established boundaries, more recently those boundaries have been trampled on.
Indeed. And it is something that both genders (or should I say these days, ALL genders) are guilty of.
‘How else to explain the emergence of ‘safety’ as a sacred value in all areas of public policy?’
Another great article.
I think ‘safety’ as a sacred value also derives from ‘The Precautionary Principle’, itself a product of German, then EU, environmentalism.
Feminisation itself is now under threat from the monster of progressivism; no idea how that one ends.
But nut zero, a product of the replacement of scientific method by radical, expedient, venal zealotry, seems to me now to be the greater threat to the Humanist Democratic Capitalist way of life.
P.S. Mr Young, if you really are intending to take statins, why not set up a debate regarding their merits on here first?
‘….these drugs sometimes may cause neuromuscular side effects that represent about two-third of all adverse events. Muscle-related adverse events include cramps, myalgia, weakness, immune-mediated necrotizing myopathy and, more rarely, rhabdomyolysis. Moreover, they may lead to peripheral neuropathy and induce or unmask a preexisting neuromuscular junction dysfunction.’
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9369175/ dated 28 July 2022
Another possible explanation is that socialism as it was having suffered a resounding defeat, people who love to force other people to live their lives in a certain way needed to find new pretexts for doing so.
Aseem Malhotra is not keen on statins!
Very impertinent of me to bring up the matter of statins but, from observation of a relative, I am a bit suspicious of them:
‘There is no evidence that high levels of total cholesterol or of “bad” cholesterol cause heart disease, according to a new paper by 17 international physicians based on a review of patient data of almost 1.3 million people.
The authors also say their review shows the use of statins – cholesterol lowering drugs – is “of doubtful benefit” when used as primary prevention of cardiovascular disease.’
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17512433.2018.1519391
And statins do seem to have unpleasant side effects.
Indeed there is limited evidence linking statin use to cognitive impairment or dementia.
I would say not impertinent at all-
of all places people of sincerity should speak freely here.
It wouldn’t be the only time that the medical industry has oversold and under tested a product.
The “statin shuffle” walk. Also, statins deplete C0Q10 which is needed for mitochondrial function. Bet they are not good for the brain either.
I wasn’t aware that Toby was contemplating taking statins. If Toby reads these comments, please do as Monro suggests. My brother-in-law was put on them some years ago but went downhill in various areas so my sister got him to agree to come off them and they used mineral and vitamin supplements instead. He died last year, aged 96, on no medication, with no pain, in his own home, with good care and those he lived beside him. The pharmaceutical industry gains from as many people as possible being on such drugs, which should make us think carefully before taking them. Has that industry proved trustworthy?
Very well said, and much appreciated.
Mr Young mentioned it in last week’s Spectator.
Research gives very mixed signals, but ‘brain fog’ does appear to be quite common on commencing statin treatment, not, one would say, a ringing endorsement of that treatment but maybe it is balanced out by the benefits?
I agree with you. Exercise and diet are so important. The zeal with which statins are pressed upon the unwary also makes a convinced sceptic even more so!
I am with your last sentence 100%!!
Toby I wish you would stop using the ‘cisgendered’ bollocks. We’ve got perfectly good word for that, it’s ‘man’. You were at it on this week’s pod cast as well.
Thanks for pointing that out and seconded. We must not use the language of the enemy because it is deliberately designed to confuse and corrupt.
Before this nonsense I was aware of the term cis from Cisalpine Gauls, Gauls who lived this side of the Alps from Rome’s point of view compared to Transalpine Gauls who lived on the other side.
Is gender something you’re therefore either on the near side or the far side of, from which perspective, and what does the word gender in this context actually mean?
Your comment is stirring long lost memories of Latin O Level studies!
Absolutely. We must not fall for the language of the oppressors.
Men who believe they have been physically misgendered by evil, supernatural forces are also men. The best one can do with this inane pseudo-theologic terminology is to avoid it.
I’m not saying there isn’t a kind of female privilege BUT we’ve had years or decades of policy wrong-turns by men as well – QE by Ben Bernanke, liberalisation of the banks by Bill Clinton, Iraq war courtesy Bush, Blair etc. Maybe these were all “reckless” male policies as opposed to the “safety-oriented” policies ascribed to women.
I don’t think TY or any of us are saying that men don’t make bad decisions or that all “male” type decisions are good, just that certain shifts over the decades could be ascribed to increased “female” type thinking influencing decisions.
I see what you mean. Fair point.
Fairly based, for Toby.
I’m concerned that without James as a counterfoil, and no disrespect to Nick (surely the greatest podcast host of all time), he will retract into cuckery.
The relish with which he disavows the “conspiracy theory” that the US 2020 election was stolen annoys me every week. Specifically, it is the relish that annoys me.
“Fairly based, for Toby.”
And “based” means what exactly?
Talk about ceding the language.
From what I have gathered it means “talking sense”, but I may be wrong…
“It’s very recent internet slang, used as a compliment. Someone is “based” when they are courageously stating an opinion or otherwise being themselves without worrying that they might be unpopular. A “based” person doesn’t care what other people think. It was used a lot on 4chan and is sometimes associated with that crowd.”
This is one definition offered on Reddit.
Thanks, sounds about right. I’m not against it as it seems like a neutral term rather than a nonsense one designed to deceive, confuse and corrupt.
Just sounds like yet another made up American slang word that’s been exported over here to Europe and insidiously becomes mainstream before you know it. Well, in a certain age group anyway. Kiddo keeps saying ”slay”, like WTF is slay? I keep telling her it means to kill something, although probably more in a ‘George and the dragon’ dramatic type of way than merely swatting a housefly. I blame TikTok.
Historically “base” was a term for the lowest of the low of society. It may be construed that being based means your have reached the lowest level of todays’ society. In King Lear, there is a reference to being base bast**d base and another ref from where I cannot remember other than being a base footballer. I would suspect, that not unlike the Shakespeare reference towards the gutter, the modern one could be construed as from the gutter.
It was originally coined as the opposite of “debased”, I think.
The election actually was not stolen though. No more “stolen” than any other election, at least.
On average, women don’t make policy decisions and hence, claiming that certain policy decisions would be due to women being on average more risk averse makes no sense.
Spot on.
I think it is more nuanced than that. For lockdowns and such, men were the ones who originally imposed them and were most gung-ho about them, while women were the ones who were more likely to maintain such measures long after the curve was flattened. While men were more likely to intiate the the lockdowns, they were also the ones more likely to want to end them sooner. For men, acute lockdowns were a perversion of the hero instinct, while for women, chronic lockdowns were a perversion of the caregiver instinct.
It is entirely possible for both to be true at the same time, however. There is much nuance to this story that gets glossed over. Patriarchy (or androcracy) still exists in some form, but it is gradually (then suddenly) hollowing out as it inevitably gives way to what comes next.
As for what comes next, the late, great Buckminster Fuller, the Leonardo da Vinci of the 20th century, saw the writing on the wall:
https://fullerfuturefest.com/2013/01/14/why-women-will-rule-the-world-by-buckminster-fuller/
What tragic figures Toby quotes. They make me weep, particularly as our eldest grandson (22) currently makes up part of the prison population.
Women haven’t necessarily benefitted from so-called ‘equality’ (in the workplace, in the home, wherever). When was anyone or anything created equal?
Maybe boys fare worse than girls at school because they’re late developers, which is why 35,000 fewer 18-year-old boys will go to university this month than 18-year-old girls. Perhaps men are more likely to be addicted to drugs and alcohol and account for three-quarters of all suicides because they don’t talk about their feelings as freely. And perhaps men make up 96.2 per cent of Britain’s prison population because they commit more crimes (women are more risk averse, remember?) and are 23 times more likely to die at work than women because they are stronger and oftentimes are the ones performing more physically demanding jobs. The Committee of 300 is mostly made up of men who orchestrate the divide and rule Punch n Judy show that has kept them (and the bankers and aristocrats) in power for so long. So don’t worry, you’re still in charge. And yes, there is going to be a minister for men.
Maybe boys fare worse than girls at school because they’re late developers, which is why 35,000 fewer 18-year-old boys will go to university this month than 18-year-old girls.
Assuming this would be true, the conclusion would be that the educational system is stacked against men who are expected to compete against their physical betters at a time when they still can’t.
I think a word that needs to be introduced here is ‘entitled’. Women are far more entitled than men and always have been. This starts early when little girls are treated far better than little boys who “have to be toughened up”. Then, as puberty arrives, we get the curse that boys fancy 80% of girls, but girls only fancy 5% of men. The result is that young men spend a lot of time sucking up to girls who play them one off against each other. So for the first 15 years, girls get treated like little princesses by the whole of society, then from 15-35 men (except alpha men) treat them as goddesses. This used to do much to ‘equal’ the sexes in society. Women retain this sense of entitlement, as a type of defence, for as long as they can – often for their whole lives.
The feminisation of society now means everyone can have a sense of entitlement and judging by the younger generation they have! However, this does not equal equality as men find entitlement and sitting back expecting things to be handed to them, goes against their genetic hard-wiring.
After 10,000 years of doing things one way, the radical feminist have taken society in an entirely different direction. I can’t say it looks good unless you are one of those globalist who are just trying to bring down white western cultures for the greater good.
‘Women are far more entitled than men and always have been’. Says a man. Men want power to get sex, women use sex to get power. It’s called nature.
Women may still be a minority in the chancelleries of Europe – although for how much longer? – yet because they’re so much more confident and morally forthright than their ‘privileged’ male colleagues, they’ve become the key decision-makers. How else to explain the emergence of ‘safety’ as a sacred value in all areas of public policy?
A truly heroic logical leap. Can Toby really think of no other explanation? He might consider, for example, that we have more to lose these days or that this is an increasing litigious society or ….. there must be hundreds of possible explanations. Here is an idea for seeing if women are the key decision makers – count how many of them are in a position to make key decisions compared to men – I think we all know what the answer will be.
One possible explanation would be that this is simply wrong: While the Corona-policymakers used to bang on about safety without end, the policies they actually implemented where all untried, reckless and very harmful.
Some people get mixed up between the words ‘equal’ and ‘same’.
Women and men are equal but they are not the same.