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.
I always knew the Stones were superior to the Beatles.
That is known as damning with (very) faint praise!
Spot on Mick.
The only deadly variant is next one out of Downing Street.
It’s great.
Legend.
Mick Jagger just rocketed in my esteem so fast, Warp 10 isn’t in it.
I’m strutting around my kitchen in loon pants now. Yeah yeah.
Good lad!
I can’t get no vaccination
Good fun but the lyrics are typically ambiguous. Indeed, the BBC has already given this song a positive review. Jagger has always known how to appear radical without actually committing himself to anything. That way he sells more records.
My thoughts exactly. I fail to see how this can’t just be interpreted as chronicling the “effects of the virus” and general stupidity. Hardly coming out as a sceptic.
The journalism on here is going down the pan.
Have to agree. I thought, great, Jagger’s a sceptic, too. Then I listened to the song. Not convinced in the slightest.
Yeah but he’s trying
Don’t knock the lad (grandad).
The original rebels finally speaking out. We need a modern day protest movement with millions out on the streets showing their defiance.
Rocking 80 year old putting younger generation to shame. How refreshing it would be to see this generation emulating him and show some anger and revolt through song.
with pleasure my friend!
I’m not sure the support of these degenerate cretins is needed. We need more like Fuellmich,Yeadon,Cahill and Sucharit Bhakdi.
Remember Dylan?
We need protest songs to connect with people, something I was only thinking yesterday; shame it’s an old fart from yesterday that’s first to step up to the plate.
If this was the late 1970s the “Yuf” would be in uprising!
Still, a good effort backed up by Dave Grohl no less (guitar & drums).
Oh the power of rock ‘n’ roll.
We need another Them Crooked Vultures album, certainly …
It’s not bad, but distinctly old skool rawk…
Can they sing?
Hear hear!
Yeah, but it’s nice to have some tunes as well..
Would have been a little more credible and useful if he’d done it a year ago.
I’m not sure Bill Gates and Mind Control are fake! Certainly, the fear being propogated, the social conditioning all look like mind control to me. The fact Bill Gates is the major funding source for the WHO and large contributions to BBC health dept and Imperial College. Many, many other pharmas and media – all smells bad to me.
Gillian McKeith has a great twitter page to show to reality deniers lol
https://twitter.com/GillianMcKeith
Well that was a bit of a mind-bender.
Oh dear oh dear… you guys managed to totally miss the target on this one. Mick is saying exactly the opposite of what you think he’s saying. In fact, he’s taking the piss out of you all!
And if you lack the ability to detect the sarcasm in his new song, just go a read the Rolling Stone magazine interview with him where he spells out the meaning of it for you. He is NOT on your side!
Agree. Mick Jagger Talks New Song With Dave Grohl, Pandemic, Vaccines – Rolling Stone
Good to see someone else noticed this. I wonder how many people read that last section of the article (picked apart in my comment below). It becomes more obvious by the day that the authors of this website are controlled opposition.
Oh dear oh dear… you guys managed to totally miss the target on this one. Mick is saying exactly the opposite of what you think he’s saying. In fact, he’s taking the pi$$ out of you all!
And if you lack the ability to detect the sarcasm in his new song, just go a read the Rolling Stone magazine interview with him where he spells out the meaning of it for you. He is NOT on your side!
Jagger for PM!
Fully vaccinated Sir Mick Jagger considers anyone questioning the vaccination program here as an anti-vaxxer. For those waiting to see the longer term effects or what happens when the trials end in 2023 no discernment just straight into the anti-vax camp.
Bad enough that we fawn over celebrities even worse when they are openly ill-disposed to our views.
Toby Young
Here we go again with the whole ‘conspiracy theorist’ malarkey. Let’s have a look at the lyrics in that last verse:
Shooting the vaccine
Bill Gates is in my blood stream
Is Jagger (and Toby) denying Bill Gates has involvement in this sordid affair?
It’s mind control
Yes, yes it is. And no, I’m not talking about the unknown substance being pumped into people’s veins. I’m talking about the universal message reading out from every orifice of public life that there is a deadly virus and we all need to behave like we have it. Are you now denying this has been happening Toby? I’m sure Jagger is doing his bit right here with these lyrics…
The earth is flat and cold
It’s never warming up
The Arctic’s turned to slush
The second’s coming late
And there’s aliens in the deep state
Congratulations, Mick, you did a fine job conflating real, seriously important issues with turgid shit. Toby is applauding your efforts.
I’ll now go and sit in the naughty corner with my tin foil hat. Thank you.
Who gives a fuck what he, Doily Parton Elton John, McCartney think about sweet F. A. Oh, and that erbert from… Showadywaddy, it’s great to get inspiration from geriatric teddyboys.
Miles Mathis put Jagger down as another deep state asset, a while ago. His ideas usually seem too far out, when I read them, but then I later see some corroborating evidence.
Michael Caine’s been the one to upset me most, so far, in the propaganda campaign.
This is an ad campaign for the upcoming, Gates funded “VaxLive”.
https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/media/vaxlive/
HOSTED BYSELENA GOMEZPERFORMANCES BYJENNIFER LOPEZ EDDIE VEDDER · FOO FIGHTERS J BALVIN · H.E.R.
The list of VaxLive performers advocating global Jab-er-Woke probably meant nothing to most LDS readers. But if they read ATL here they should know ex-Nirvana tub thumper Dave “Eazy Sleazy” Grohl is the Foo Fighters front man & guitarist. Now, square the circle…..
Good on Him…..BRILLIANT